Case Note & Summary
The case involved a criminal appeal by special leave against a judgment of the Patna High Court which had dismissed the appeal of four convicted accused. The prosecution case was that Indira Devi, the young wife of accused Dasrath Mandal and daughter-in-law of accused Mahabir Mandal, died on the night of September 17, 1963, in the house of Mahabir Mandal at Jamalpur due to poisoning administered by Mahabir Mandal. Mahabir Mandal, a homeopathic doctor, had been unhappy with Indira Devi and had earlier threatened to give her a fatal injection. After her death, the accused persons allegedly removed the dead body in a taxi, tied a cement bag filled with bricks around the waist, and threw the body into the Ganges at Kamarganj Ghat. The body was not recovered immediately, preventing a prompt post mortem examination. The trial court convicted Mahabir Mandal and Dasrath Mandal under sections 302/34, 120B and 201 IPC, and Kasim Ansari and Mahadeo Sah under sections 120B and 201 IPC. The High Court dismissed their appeal. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the death was homicidal by poisoning despite the absence of detected poison and conflicting medical evidence, whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient, and whether statements made by co-accused to police were admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The appellants argued that the medical evidence ruled out asphyxial death by morphine poisoning and no poison was detected; the prosecution contended that the circumstances, including threats, letters, empty ampules found outside the dispensary, and secret removal of the body, clearly established murder by poisoning. The Supreme Court held that when there is no eyewitness, the exact manner of administration of poison need not be proved; poison can be given orally, hypodermically or intravenously. The empty heart at post mortem did not rule out asphyxial death because after rigor mortis the heart may be contracted and empty. Congestion of organs indicated respiratory failure which could be caused by poisoning, and absence of poison in viscera did not weaken the conclusion since some poisons leave no characteristic signs. The conduct of the accused in removing the body immediately and submerging it prevented prompt post mortem. The Court confirmed the conviction of the first appellant Mahabir Mandal for murder. However, as regards two of the appellants, no case was proved and their convictions were set aside because the statements made to police did not result in any discovery of incriminating material as required under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The rule in section 162 CrPC was held not applicable to statements under section 32(1) Evidence Act, but without discovery the statements were inadmissible. The appeal was allowed in part.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder by Poisoning - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - In absence of any eyewitness, exact manner of administration of poison need not be proved; poison can be administered orally, hypodermically or intravenously; conduct of accused in immediately removing dead body and keeping it submerged in water for over 24 hours prevented prompt post mortem examination; court may rely on circumstances to conclude death was caused by poisoning. Held that if circumstantial evidence is decisive, conviction can be rested on it even without direct proof of administration of poison. B) Criminal Law - Medical Evidence - Asphyxial Death and Poison Detection - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Empty heart found at post mortem does not rule out asphyxial death due to rigor mortis; congestion of lungs, kidney, liver and spleen indicated respiratory failure which could be caused by poisoning; absence of poison in viscera does not exclude poisoning because several poisons leave no characteristic signs. Held that medical opinion did not negative poisoning and death was homicidal. C) Criminal Law - Statements to Police - Admissibility under Section 27 Evidence Act - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 27, 32(1); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 162 - Statements falling under section 32(1) Evidence Act are not barred by section 162 CrPC, but to be admissible under section 27 they must result in discovery of incriminating material; mere statements without discovery are inadmissible. Held that statements of two appellants were excluded as no discovery was shown; their convictions were set aside.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death of Indira Devi was homicidal by poisoning despite absence of detected poison and hostile medical opinion; whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the first appellant for murder; whether statements made to police by co-accused were admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act; whether the conviction of two appellants under sections 120B and 201 IPC was sustainable
Final Decision
Appeal allowed in part. Conviction of first appellant Mahabir Mandal for murder under section 302/34 IPC confirmed. Appeals of Kasim Ansari and Mahadeo Sah allowed, their convictions under sections 120B and 201 IPC set aside as no case proved. Dasrath Mandal's appeal disposition not explicitly mentioned in available text.
Law Points
- Poison can be administered orally
- hypodermically or intravenously
- absence of poison in viscera does not exclude poisoning
- empty heart after rigor mortis does not rule out asphyxial death
- circumstantial evidence can prove murder by poisoning
- statements to police admissible under section 27 Evidence Act only upon discovery
- section 162 CrPC does not apply to statements under section 32(1) Evidence Act
