RATTNI SATTANJEET Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the High court of Himachal Pradesh. Both the appellants were tried and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Solan and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Both of them preferred. separate appeals and the High court agreeing with the findings of the trial court dismissed the appeals. The prosecution case is as follows.

(2.) One Khlishal Singh. the deceased, both the accused and the material witness belong to village Palli in Solan District. The deceased was the. husband of smt Rattni who is the appellant before us in Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 1981. Smt Rattni along with her minor daughter and a son was living at village Pall; while the. deceased, her husband was employed as Junior Engineer in H. P. P. W. D. and was posted at Hamirpur. Vinod Kumar, Public Witness 2 the major son of Smi Rattni used to visit village Palii occasionally. Smt Rattni is alleged to have developed illicit elation's with Satlanjeet, the other appellant before us in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1981. The deceased came. to know about the. illicit relations and there used to be altercations and quarrels between the husband :in the wife. The deceased Khushal Singh was keen to lake Smt Rattni, his minor daughter and son to Harnirpur where he was posted. He came to the village on September 15, 197s for that purpose. it is. alleged that the' two appellants in view of their illicit relations did not like to separate From each other. Therefore they conspired and wanted to put an end to the life or the deceased. The deceased who reached She village on Sept 15/09/1978 was hale and healthy hut the net day he started vomiting. According to the prosecution Sattanjeet purchased while arsenic and gave it to Smt Rattni who administered the same to her husband by mixing it with kheer. The deceased who became sick is alleged to have told his major son Vinod Kumar that Smt Rattni has administered the poison to him. The deceased ultimately died on 21/09/1978. Public Witness 5 Shankar Singh who was working as a constable at Bilaspur was a brother of the deceased. He was informed by phone by another consolable that his brother was dead. He reached village Pall: and he was told by Vinod Kumar, the major son of the deceased that the deceased took some kheer and started vomiting and was passing motions. Public Witness 5 went to the police station the same night and lodged a report. Public Witness 18 the Head Constable who received the report immediately went to village Palii and found the dead body He prepared the inquest and sent the dead body for post-mortem. The doctor,public Witness 1 conducted the post-mortem. He found bluish grey region in the temporal region and the skin was greenish. On internal examination he found that the walls of abdomen were also greenish. He opined that the body was in a putrefied condition. He could not give any definite opinion as to the cause of death at that stage. He collected the viscera and sent the same for chemical analysis whose report showed that 35.38 milligram per hundred grams (sic) of arsenic was found in the liver, spleen and kidney and on the basis of that report, the doctor opined that the decease died due to arsenic poisoning. Both the accused were arrested and Public Witness 19 Prithi Singh. ASI of Police interrogated Smt Rattni and it is alleged that her instance a packet containing poison was recovered. Thereafter Sattanjeet was interrogated and he is alleged to have stated that he could point out the place and person from whom he purchased the poison According to the prosecution on 30/09/1978 the accused and police went to Ropar and Public Witness 22 and one Ravinder Kumiir also joined them who later figured as panch witnesses. It is alleged that all of thei went to the shop of Bakhtawar Mal and sons who had a licence for selling poisons. Public Witness 11 told the police that on 18/09/1978 Sattanjeet came to his shop and purchased 5 grms of white arsenic and to that effect an entry was made in the sales register which was also signed by Sattanjeet. The Sales Register Ex. P-5 was. seized and the relevant entry marked in the register is Ex. PH. Public Witness 19 ASI also took 10 grams of white arsenic from the shop :and sealed the same. Specimen signatures of Sattanjeet were obtained for the purpose of comparing the signature in Ex. P-5 and both were sent to the expert. He opined that the signature in Ex. P-5 is that of Sattanjeet appellant only. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. When. examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the accused denied the offence and stated that they were falsely implicated. Sananjeet further stated that he was beaten by the police and under threats and coercion his signatures were obtained in the register Ex P-5. He also examined a doctor, DW '1 in support of his plea that he was beaten by the police, who found some injuries on the accused while he was in custody.

(3.) The prosecution mainly relied on the circumstantial evidence particularly the entries in Ex. P-5 spoken to by Public Witness 11 under which the arsenic is said to have been procured by Sattanjeet accused and which he is alleged to have given to Smt Rattni. The trial court accepted the entire prosecution case and convicted the appellants and the High court confirmed the same.