Holding

The victim's deposition and the chemical examination constitute sufficient direct evidence, warranting conviction under Sections 307, 324 and 498‑A of the IPC.

Summary

The appellant, father of Munki, filed an FIR alleging that his daughter’s husband (respondent No.2) beat her and forced her to ingest a glass of organo‑phosphorous insecticide. Munki testified that the husband held her nose and poured poison into her mouth, and her father corroborated this account. Chemical examination of Munki’s gastric lavage and blood confirmed the presence of the dangerous insecticide. The trial court acquitted the husband on the ground that there was no oral, documentary or circumstantial evidence, a view upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that Munki’s deposition, supported by the forensic report, constituted direct evidence sufficient to prove the offence, and set aside the acquittal, convicting the husband under Sections 307, 324 and 498‑A of the IPC, with sentencing to be determined by the lower court.

Issues considered

Whether the victim's testimony together with forensic evidence constitutes sufficient oral/direct evidence to prove the accused administered poison.
Whether the absence of additional documentary or circumstantial evidence defeats the prosecution's case.
Whether the trial court's acquittal was legally justified.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 323, s. 324, s. 498-A

Subjects

poison administrationattempted murdercruelty by husbanddirect evidenceforensic toxicologyacquittal set asideIPC sections 307 324 498-A

Judgment

A MANGILAL
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

OCTOBER 18, 2001

B [K.T. TJ{OM~S AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.]

Criminal Trial :

Poison-Administering of-Victim deposed that the accused adminis-
tered poison to her-Chemical examination disclosed presence of insecticide
c ·poison in the gastric lavage and blood sample of the victi;,,-However, trial
court acquitted the accused Of! the ground that th11,re was no oral, documentary
or circumstantial evidence-Held: The vietim s deposition is direct evidence
which was supported by presence of insecticide poison in the blood sample of
the victim-Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no oral, direct, documen-
D tary or circumstantial evidence-Acquittal set aside-Penal Code, 1860, Ss.
307, 323, 324 and 498-A.

Respondent No. 2 was tried for offences under Sections 307, 323, 324
and 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 • But the trial court acquitted respond·
ent No. 2 on the ground that there was no oral, documentary or circum-
E stantial evidence to show that respondent No. 2 had administered poison to
his wife. The Criminal Revision Petition r.Jed by the appellant against the
order of acquittal was dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal.

According to the prosecution, the appellant's daughter was married
F to respondent No. 2. The appellant had rd~ a First Information lleport
stating that his daughter had been beaten and administered a glass of
pesticide by respondent No. 2. Chemical examination disclosed that an
insectkide poison namely, organo-phosphorous, which was dangerous to
life was found present in the gastric lavage and blood sample of the
appellant's daughter.
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court

in
HELD : 1. The appellant's daughter deposed clear terms that her
husband i.e. the 2nd respondent had held her nose and poured poison into
H her mouth, forcing her to take two or three sips of the poison. She deposed
392
MANGILAL v. STATE [VARIAVA, J.] 393
that when her father came to see her in the Hospital, she had informed him A
that poison had been administered to her by her husband. 'Ole appellant
also deposed that her daughter Informed him that her husband had ad·
ministered poison to her. This is direct evidence, which was available
before the court. This evidence was supported by the fact that on chemical
examination organo-phosphorous b. an insecticide poison was found. in B
the gastric lavage and blood sample of the appellant's daughter. The
evidence showed that this substance was dangerous to life. Through the
evidence of these two witnesses the prosecution had also conclusively proved
that the 2nd respondent had subjected the appellant's daughter to cruelty.
In view or this direct evidence it could not have been concluded that there
was no oral, direct; documentary or circumstantial evidence. This finding
c
cannot be sustained and haS'to be set ~ide. (395-G-H; 396-C-D]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1064
of 2001.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.2000 of the Rajasthan High
Court in S.B. Crl. R.P. No. 290 of 2000.

Ashok Kumar Sharma and Kamal Pundir for the Appellant.

B.D. Sharma for the Respondent No. 2. E
Ranji Thomas and Javed Mahmud Rao for the Respondent No. 1.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.
F
• Heard parties .

This appeal is· against the judgment dated 5th July, 2000, by which the
High Court has summarily dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Appel-
.. lant herein.
G
Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

The Appellant is the-father of one Munki. The said Munki was married
to the 2nd Respondent. Of the said marriage there is a girl child born to these
. two parties.
H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A On 16th September, 1998, the Appellant filed a First Information Report
with the Mahatma Gandhi Police Chauki, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The complaint
was to the effect that the 2nd Respondent used to beat his wife and har!lSS her
without any reasons. It was complained that even when the 2nd Respondent
had been told not to beat his wife or harass her, he refused to listen to reasons.
B It was further complained that on 15th September, 1998, the Appellant was
informed .that Munki was seriously ill and had been admitted to Jodhpur
Hospital. It was stated that when the Appellant went to the Hospital he found
Munki in Emergency Ward. It was stated that Munki had informed the
Appellant that she had been beaten and administered a glass of pesticide by her
husband i.e. the 2nd Respondent.
c
On the basis of the flR, a complaint under Section 498-A and 3~3 was
registered. Subsequently Sections 307 and 324 were also 'added. The 2nd
Respondent was then tried for the said offences. By an Order dated 27th
March, 2000 the 2nd Respondent was acquitted by the Second Additional
D District & Sessions Judge.

Against the Order of acquittal the Appellant filed Criminal Revision
Petition, which has been dismissed by the impugned Judgment dated 5th July,
2000. Hence this Appeal.

E Even though the State had not filed an Appeal against t:.1e Order of
acquittal dated 27th March, 2000 and has not filed any SLP before this Court,_
Mr. Ranji Thomas, who appears for the State of Rajasthan, informs us that he
is supporting the Appellant.

In support of its case the Prosecution had examined a number of wit-
F
nesses. Among the witnesses that it had examined was one Dr. N.S. Kothari,
who was examined as Prosecution Witness No. 9. He deposed that after Munki •
was admitted to the Hospital, her gastric lavage and blood sample were pre-
served and sent for chemical examination. He deposed that the chemical
examination disclosed that an insecticide poison namely, organo-phosphorous,
G which was dangerous to life, was found present in gastric lavage and blood
sample. He further deposed that if the treatment had not been given in time,
Munki would have died. The report had been marked as Ex.P. 8. The result
of the report read as follows :

H "On chemical examination, portion of blood sample and gastric lavage ·
MANGILALv. STATE[VARIAVA,J.] 395
gave position test for the presence of organo-phosphorous insecticide." A
On the basis of this evidence the Second Additional District & Sessions
Judge concluded that poison dangerous to life was found in the body of Smt.
Munki. Inspite of this finding the 2nd Respondent was ac~uitted. The reason-
ing of the Second Additional District & Sessions Judge, for acquitting the 2nd
B
Respondent, are difficult to follow. Munki was supposed to have been taken
to the Hospital by her Jeth. Munki had also deposed that when poison was
administered to her, her mother-in-law and sister-jn-law were also present.
The Second Additional District and Sessions Judge has concluded that the Jeth
and the mother-in-law and sister-in-law should have been examined by the
prosecution. The Jeth was not an eye witness to the administration of poison. c
We fail to understand what evidence the Jeth could have given except to say
that he took Munki to the Hospital. We also fail to understand how the Second
Additional District & Sessions Judge expected prosecution to lead evidence of
the 2nd Respodent's mother and sister. We fail to understand how non-
examination of these parties was fatal to the prosecution case. The Second D
Additional District & Sessions Judge also held that the tumbler through which
the poison was supposed to have been administered to Munki had not been
produced by the Prosecution and that this was a serious lapse on part of the
prosecution. On such specious reasoning it was held that there was no oral,
documentary or circumstantial evidence to show that the 2nd Respondent had E
administered poison to his wife Munki.

In our view the reasoning of the Second Additional District & Sessions
• Judge is entirely erroneous and cannot be sustained. It could not be said that
there was no oral or direct evidence available in this case. The wife Munki
survived. She has given evidence as PW 6. We have perused her deposition. F
She deposed about being beaten by her husband regularly. She has deposed
that, on one occasion, when she was conceiving with a 7 months old child, she
had been beaten so badly that the child died in the womb and she had remained
ill for 15 days. She deposed in clear terms that her husband i.e. the 2nd
Respondent had held her nose and poured the poison into her mouth, forcing G
her to take two or three sips of poison. She deposed that she remained
conscious and ten minutes thereafter started vomiting. She deposed that her
Jeth took her to the Hospital and that she received treatment over there. She
deposed that when her father came to see her in the Hospital, she had informed
him that poison had been administered to her by her husband. In cross H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A examination her testimony has not been shaken at all even though there has
been a lengthy and detailed cross examinatio11. We find her evidence to be
trustworthy and reliable.

The Appellant, father of Munki, has given evidence as PW 3. He also
corroborates the fact that Munki was regularly beaten by her husband. He
B deposed that on hearing that she had been admitted to the Hospital, he went
to the Hospital. He deposed that she had informed him that her husband had
administered poison to her. His testimony has also not been shaken in cross
examination. This is direct evidence, which was available before the Court.
The Second Additional District & Sessions Judge was wrong to have ignored
c 'this evidence. This evidence was supported by the fact that on chemi9al
examination organo-phOsphorous i.e. an insecticide poison was found in the
gastric lavage and blood sample of Munki. The evidence showed that this
substance was dangerous to life. Through the evidence of these two witnesses ...
the prosecution had also conclusively proved that 2nd Respondent had sub-
D jected Munki to cruelty. In view of this direct eyidence we fail to understand
how it could have been concluded that there was no oral, documentary or
circumstantial evidence. This finding cannot be sustained and has to be set
aside.

Even though the Order of the Second Additional District and Sessions
E Judge was clearly unsustainable, the High Court approached the Revision in
a most perfunctory manner. The High Court summarily dismissed the Criminal
Revision.

In this view of the matter the order of the trial court acquitting the 2nd •
F Respondent cannot be sustained and is set aside. The accused, Respondent No.
2, is held guilty of offences under Sections 307, 324 and 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code. The 2nd Respondent will have to be heard on the question of
sentence to be imposed on him. We, therefore, send the matter back to the
Second Additional District & Sessions Judge for hearing the 2nd Respondent
G on the quantum of sentence and for imposing the necessary sentence in accord-
-~.
ance with law.

The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Needless to state that the.
impugned Order is also set aside. There will be no Order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeal disposed of.