LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus JEET SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH A v. JEET SINGH MARCH 15, 1999 [K.T. THOMAS AND S.S.M. QUADRI, JJ.] B Criminal Law : Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 45-Death-Suicidal or homicidal-Medical evidence suggested C cause of death as smothering--Chemical Examiner's report suggested death due to poisoning also-Injuries on both legs of deceased suggested homicidal smothering-Held, under these circumstances death is homicidal and not suicidal. Section 27-Discovery of f act-lncriminating articles-Recovery D of-From a place, which was "open and accessible to others"-Admissibility of-lt is not whether the place is accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others-/[ it is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed place is accessible to others-Discovery off act is not the object recovered but the knowledge of the accused about it. E Disclosure statement-Not made in the presence or hearing of wit- nesses-Admissibility of-Held, admissible. Sections 25 and 27----lnculpatory statement-Admissibility of-Held, even inculpatory statement given to the police is admissible. F Penal Code, 1860 : Section 302-Death-By poisoning or smothering-Held, in the cir- cumstances of the case, it is more realistic to conclude that death is homicidal either by poisoning alone or by smothering alone or that both causes worked G independently and reached the common result. Criminal Trial : Motive-Deceased-wife had white patches in her body-Accused-hus- band mistook it as a kind of leprosy resulting in his dislike for her-Deceased H 1033 1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R. A was smothered after administe1ing poison-Held, in the circumstances of the case, motive adequately established. Words and Phrases : "Discovery of fact" and "whether it amounts to confession or B 11of'!-Meani11g of-ln the context of S. 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The respondent-accused was convicted by the trial court under Sec- tion 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 for committing murder of his wife. However, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the respon- C dent holding that it was a case of suicide. The High Court held that the incriminating articles recovered at the instance of the respondent under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 were inadmissible in evidence since these were recovered from a place which was "open and accessible to others." The High Court also repelled the circumstances of recovery on the D ground that the witness who was present when the recovery was made said that the accused had not made any disclosure statement. According to the prosecution, respondent's wife suffering from leucoderma and had white patches on her body. This became the cause of dislike for her husband towards her as he mistook it to be a kind of E leprosy. On the fateful night the couple went to bed in the bedroom of their house but on the next morning the wife was found dead. It was the further case of the prosecution that the accused administered some kind of insecticide to the deceased either deceitfully or forcefully and smothered her. F Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The High Court has totally overlooked the features of the victim which are consistent with the consequence of her having been subjected to smothering. The injuries found on both the legs of the dead G body are proof positive that it was homicidal smothering. One can place reliance on the opinions of both sets of doctors that even without seeing the. Chemical Examiner's report the doctors could say that the death of the deceased might be due to smothering, and after seeing the Chemical Examiner's report a doctor could say that poison would also have worked H fatally in the victim. [1041-D-E] ""· STATE v . .TEET SINGH 1035 1.2. It is more realistic to conclude that it was a homicide either by A smothering alone or by poisoning alone or that both causes worked inde- pendently and reached the common result. It is quite possible that the killer after administering poison, would have felt that the victim might expel the poison by vomiting and then he would have smothered her to see that the venom did not get evacuated and in that endeavour the smothering became fatal. [1041-F-G] 2. Court also cannot ignore the large number of external injuries particularly those on the legs. When they are counted in association with the findings regarding the internal organs, they all would cumulatively lead B to th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.