STATE OF HLMACHAL PRADESH versus RAJIV JASSI

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 468 · Decided: 06-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 468 
STATE OF HlMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
RAJIV JASS! 
(Criminal Appeal No. 771 of2005) 
MAY06,2016 
(V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Conviclion based on circumstantial 
evidence and imposition of life imprisonment ·· Murder of pregnant 
11·ife by adminislering poison - Conviction by trial court. set aside 
by appellate court - SI ale~· appeal against acquillal - Held: Accused 
failed to explain the injuries on the person of the victim-deceased 
including swelling on the ll'omb when admittedly he was in the 
company of the deceased - Injury on the front part of body was 
strong circumstance to show that deceased was subjected to violence 
b~fore she succumbed due to poisoning · There was ovenvhelming 
evidence indicating that the behaviour of the accused IOll'ards the 
deceased was not proper and he used to freque111/y beat her - The 
conduct of accused in not opening !he door when neighbours came 
hearing the shrieks of deceased and in not /liking her to hospital 
also pointed towards guilt of the accused -· Neighbours stated that 
on being asked what had happened. deceased raised the hand 
to111ards the accused ~ Moreove1~ there lVas evidence to sho1v 
purchase of Nivan poison by accused few days before the incide111 
- The conduct of the accused and gesture of the victim at the crucial 
time as projected in the case. medical evidence. evidence as to 
purchase of poison unerringly poinl toll'ards !he guilt of the accused 
- Order of conviction passed by trial courl 11•as based upon proper 
appreciation of evidence, the circumstances found established by 
trial court has been unnecessarily doubted and brushed aside lightly 
by the High Court - Order of conviction restored. 
Sentence/Sentencing: Plea of leniency - Murder of pregnant 
wife - Plea that son aged 17 years old residing with the accused -
Held: That cannot be a ground so as to sho11• any leniency in such 
kind of offence. particularly when the accused had not cared and 
caused death of his wife who was pregnalll, carrying 8 months child 
whose foetus was recovered from her womb 
He had kicked the 
468 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. RAJIV JASS! 
469 
womb also - In the circumstances, accused is not entitled to any 
A 
lenient treatn1ent. 
Allowing the appeal, the Conrt 
HELD: 1. The High Court unnecessarily doubted the post 
mortem report which recorded as many as seven injnries. The 
said nature of the injuries indicated that they could not have been 
caused by convulsions. The High Court unnecessarily doubted 
the deposition of the autopsy surgeon who clearly opined that 
the nature of injuries indicated positively the administration of 
poison forcibly to the victim. Such injnries could be caused while 
administering poison forcibly when victim was trying to .save 
herself from that. In the cross-examination, the doctor PW-2, 
has also stated that it could not be a suicidal case. However, on 
a suggestion being made to PW-2 and PW-3 that it could be a 
case of voluntary consumption of poison by the victim to commit 
suicide, obviously the doctors were not able to deny the said 
suggestion as they were not eye witnesses. Moreover they were 
not .supposed to be an arbiter on this issue whether the victim 
had taken the poison herself. Their objective opinion stood writ 
large that considering the nature of injuries it could be a case of 
forcible poisoning and in the process accused had caused injuries 
while deceased bad struggled. Thus the approach of High Court 
cannot be said to be of objective assessment of evidence. [Para 
14] [480-H; 481-A-E] 
2. 
The accused was admittedly in the company of the 
deceased. It was for him to explain so many injuries fonnd on the 
person of the deceased as to how they were caused including 
swelling in womb. He totally failed to explain them. It was not 
stated by him that the injuries were caused to the deceased dne 
to convulsions. It was not stated by him that she ever fell down 
dnring convulsions, if any. The injnries on her lips, chin, throat 
and neck etc. as held by the trial conrt, were cansed while 
administering the poison forcibly is a strong circumstance against 
the accused which cannot be brushed aside lightly. Injuries were 
on the front part of the body which indicated that the deceased 
was subjected to violence before she succumbed due to poisoning. 
Section 106 of the Evidence Act requires a person having special 
knowledge of the fa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.