JOYDEB PATRA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Bench: A.K. PATNAIK,SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000203-000203 / 2007
Diary number: 25386 / 2006
Advocates: MRIDULA RAY BHARADWAJ Vs
AVIJIT BHATTACHARJEE
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 203 OF 2007
JOYDEB PATRA & ORS. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL ... RESPONDENT
ORDER
A.K. PATNAIK, J.
This is an appeal against the judgment dated
28.07.2006 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1988.
2. The facts very briefly are that Madhabi Patra @
Khendi got married to Joydeb Patra, the Appellant No. 1
herein. Through the marriage she got a daughter. She
again became pregnant and when she was carrying the
pregnancy for nine months, a ceremonial function called
'Sadh' was arranged on 18th Baisak, 1393 B.S. After
taking food, Madhabi fell ill and her condition
Page 2
2
deteriorated quickly and she died late in the night.
According to the prosecution, Madhabi (the deceased)
had died because poison was administered to her with
the food by the appellants. Accordingly, after
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the
Appellant No. 1 and his father, brother (appellant
No. 2), sister (appellant No. 3) and mother (appellant
No. 4) were tried and convicted under Section 302/34,
I.P.C. The accused persons filed Criminal Appeal
No. 397 of 1988 before the High Court of Calcutta but
by the impugned judgment, the High Court maintained the
conviction of the appellants.
3. We are told that the father of the Appellant No. 1
died when the appeal was pending before the High Court
and appellant No. 3 died during the pendency of the
appeal before this Court.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants
and learned counsel for the State at length and we find
that the conviction of the appellants is solely based
on the evidence of PW 12 who conducted the postmortem
on the body of the deceased that the death was due to
poisoning. The Trial Court and the High Court have
taken a view that as the deceased died on account of
Page 3
3
poisoning, onus was on the appellants to show that the
deceased did not die on account of homicide but
suicide. We also find on a reading of the lengthy
judgments of the Trial Court as well as the High Court
that the explanation given by the accused persons
before the Courts explaining their suspicious conduct
has been rejected by the two Courts as not believable
and it has been ultimately held that the appellants
were guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with
Section 34, IPC.
5. On a perusal of the evidence, however, we find
that in the Inquest Report (Ext. B) prepared on
03.05.1986 (the date on which the deceased died) it is
stated that though the relatives of the deceased stated
that she has taken poison, no froth was seen on the
nostril and mouth of the deceased. The postmortem
report (Ext. P 2) prepared on 4.5.1986 by PW 12 does
not state the cause of death of the deceased. PW 12 has
stated in the postmortem report:
“Opinion as to the cause of death is kept reserved pending to receipt of C.E.'s report on the preserved viscera.”
Thus PW 12 has not been able to reach a conclusion
about the cause of death of the deceased when he
examined the dead body of the deceased one day after
Page 4
4
the death of the deceased and has instead preferred to
await the report of the Chemical Examiner of the
Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of West Bengal.
The report of the Senior Chemical Examiner, Forensic
Science Laboratory, Government of West Bengal finds
place in the record of the Trial Court. This report
states that the glass jar contained a stomach with its
contents, portion of liver, gall bladder, kidneys and
spleen said to be of Madhabi Patra and the test tube
contained some salt solution said to be a sample
preservative used in the above viscera. The report
states the following result of the examination:
“No poison could be detected in the viscera said to be of Khendi @ Madhabi Patra.”
6. After reading the postmortem Report (Ext. P 2) and
the report of the Senior Chemical Examiner, Forensic
Science Laboratory, Government of West Bengal, we are
of the considered opinion that there was no evidence
to show that the death of the deceased was caused by
administering poison. Nonetheless, an effort was made
by the prosecution at the time of examination of PW 12
in Court almost after two years i.e. on 9th June, 1988
to establish that the death of the deceased was caused
on account of administering poison to her. In our
view, the Trial Court and the High Court should not
Page 5
5
have relied on the evidence of PW 12 given in Court
more than two years after the deceased died to hold
that poison was administered to the deceased when
there was nothing in evidence either in the postmortem
report or in the report of the Senior Chemical
Examiner, Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of
West Bengal to show that poison had been administered
to the deceased. Since the prosecution has failed to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that poison was
administered to the deceased, the very foundation of
the case of the prosecution stood demolished.
7. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Bijan Ghosh,
vehemently submitted that since the death took place
in the house of the appellants, burden was on the
appellants to prove as to how the death of the
deceased actually took place. He submitted that the
death of the deceased obviously took place under very
mysterious circumstances and when the medical
facilities were very near to the place of occurrence,
the appellants should have availed the medical
facilities but have not done so and this conduct of
the appellants has given scope to the prosecution to
believe that they were guilty of the offence under
Section 302/34, I.P.C.
Page 6
6
8. We are afraid, we cannot accept this submission of
Mr. Ghosh. This Court has repeatedly held that the
burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt is on the prosecution and it is only
when this burden is discharged that the accused could
prove any fact within his special knowledge under
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish
that he was not guilty. In Sucha Singh Vs. State of
Punjab (2001) 4 SCC 375, this Court held:
“We pointed out that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases where prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference.”
Similarly, in Vikramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab
(2006) 12 SCC 306, this Court reiterated:
“Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same. Of course, there are certain exceptions to the said rule, e.g., where burden of proof may be imposed upon the accused by reason of a statute.”
Page 7
7
9. As the prosecution has not been able to discharge
its burden of establishing beyond reasonable doubt
that the deceased died due to poisoning, in our view,
the trial court and the High Court could not have held
the appellants guilty just because the appellants have
not been able to explain under what circumstances the
deceased died.
10. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the
impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the
judgment of the Trial Court and direct that the bail
bonds of the appellants will stand discharged.
............................J. (A.K. PATNAIK)
............................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI, MARCH 06, 2013