MANGALDEEN DUBEY Vs. NARESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANGALDEEN (P.W. 1) was the father of Dr. Vimla Dubey. She was posted as Woman Assistant Surgeon in Primary Health Centre, Korba since 1976. On 14.5.1977 she died in the house of respondent No.3 Sushil Kumar Saxena. She had gone to the house of said Sushil Kumar Saxena in the company of respondent No. 2 Sudhir Agarwal. Respondent No. 1 Naresh Kumar Jain is the brother -in -law of respondent No. 2. The matter was reported to the police which did not take any action. Then Mangaldeen presented a complaint before the competent Magistrate who after inquiry committed the respondents to the Court of Session, Bilaspur. The were then tried by IInd Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in S.T. No. 54/83 on charges under sections 376, 366, 302, 454, 380 IPC and acquitted vide impugned judgment dated 1.4.1986. This appeal has also been filed by the said complainant.

(2.) RELEVANT facts are that Dr. Vimla Dubey was unmarried at the time of her death. She had golden ornaments and a life policy of Rs. 25,000/ - besides her compulsory savings. The respondents hatched a criminal conspiracy to grab her property. In pursuance of this conspiracy her belonging were shifted to the house of respondent No. 1 where respondent No. 2 used to reside. It was given out that she had married with respondent No. 2. On 14.5.1977 when she was on duty in the hospital, respondent No. 2 came to her and took her alongwith him to the Medical shop of respondent No. 1 Naresh Kumar Jain just in front of the hospital. She was offered tea there. Poison was administered to her in that cup of tea. Thereafter, she was asked to accompany respondent No. 2 to attend the call in the house of respondent No. 3 where some lady was to deliver a child. On the way they met Tilmat, the maid servant (P.W. 6). Dr. Dubey confided to the said maid servant that she was feeling uneasy and in all probability she was administered poison in the medical shop of respondent No. 1 where she was offered tea. After her death in these suspicious circumstances in the house of respondent No. 3 the respondents failed to inform her kith end kins and disposed of the body themselves. Intimation of her death was given to the Korba police by respondent No. 1 vide Ex. P. 9. Since no action was taken by the police the said complaint was filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant argued that the body of Dr. Dubey was subjected to post -mortem examination and Dr. Shyam Sunder Mishra (P.W. 7) who conducted autopsy vide his report Ex. P. 4 found that death was due to severe internal haemorrhage caused by rupture of tubal pregnancy leading to syncope and death. The viscera was preserved by the said doctor. The viscera was chemically examined subsequently and revealed traces of argot poison which is usually taken for terminating pregnancy. All this material was sent to the Director of Medico Legal Institute, Bhopal, Dr. Heeresh Chandra who also confirmed that deceased died as a result of rupture of her tubal pregnancy as a result of argot. The submission is that the evidence shows that the said poison was administered to the deceased by respondents 1 and 2 when she was sitting in the medical shop of respondent No. 1. Tilmati's evidence which could have connected the said respondents with the alleged administration of argot to the deceased was not available to the prosecution as she has turned hostile. In view of her innocuous evidence there remains nothing whatsoever to lead to the inference that the said poison was administered to the deceased by respondents 1 and 2. In view of the prosecution case that the deceased was unmarried it may be that being a doctor she herself took the said poison to terminate her pregnancy and save herself out the difficult situation created by pregnancy of an unmarried person. It is, therefore, difficult to accept that the evidence shows administration of said poison to the deceased by respondents 1 and 2 or any of them. In view of this finding whatever remains is obviously not sufficient to connect the respondents with the alleged offence. There appears to be reason to accept the submission that the respondents were not obliged to have informed the complainant or any of the relations of the deceased as she had strained relations with her parents and was residing as the spouse of respondent No. 2. The police was no doubt informed in time. We thus find that the acquittal was inevitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.