JOYDEB PATRA & ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

                        [2013] 4 S.C.R. 192


A                    JOYDEB PATRA & ORS.
                                 v.
                     STATE OF WEST BENGAL
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2007)

                         MARCH 06, 2013
8
                [A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU
                  JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Alleged murder of
C woman by poisoning - By her husband and his relatives -
  Conviction by courts below, solely on the basis of ocular
  testimony of the doctor who had conducted postmortem -
  Courts below placed onus on the accused to prove that the
  deceased did not die on account of homicide - Held: The
o Inquest Report, Postmortem Report and Chemical
  Examiner's Report do not show that death occurred due to
  poisoning - Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable
  doubt that poison was administered to the deceased - Courts
  be/uw wrongly shifted the onus on the accused persons to
E prove that they were not guilty - Burden to prove the guilt is
  on the prosecution and only when this burden is discharged,
  accused are required to prove any fact within their special
  knowledge uls.106 of Evidence Act - Evidence Act, 1872 -
  s.106.
F       Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2001) 4 SCC 375:
    2001 (2) SCR 644; Vikramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006)
    12 sec 306: 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 375 - relied on.

                        Case Law Reference:
G     2001 (2) SCR 644                relied on       Para 8
      2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 375         relied on       Para 8

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
H No. 203 of 2007.
                         192
     JOYDEB PATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST                     193
                   BENGAL
     From the Judgment & Orders dated 28.07.2006 of the               A
 High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1988.

     Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Vivekanand Mishra, Archana
 Pathak Dave, Ajit Kumar Gupta, K.K. Shukla, Ankita
 Chaudhary, Manoj Kumar, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj for the                8
 Appellants.

      Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Avijit Bhattacharjee for Respondent.

      The Order of the Court was delivered by

                             ORDER
                                                                      c
      A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. 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.
                                                                      D
      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          E
 18th Baisak, 1393 B.S. After taking food, Madhabi fell ill and
 her condition 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 fgod by
 the appellants. Accordingly, after investigation, a charge-sheet     F
 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, 1.P.C.
 The accused persons filed Crimfnal Appeal No. 397 of 1988
 before the High Court of Calcutta but by the impugned judgment,      G
 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.                                                         H
    194       SUPREME.COURT REPORTS              [2013) 4 S.C.R.


A      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
B and the High Court have taken a view that as the deceased
  died on account of 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 judgment~ of
  the Trial Court as well as the High Court that the explanation
c 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.
D       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
E 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
F       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 the death of the
  deceased and has instead preferred to await the report of the
G 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,
H
    JOYDEB PATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST                    195
           BENGAL [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
portion of liver, gall bladder, kidneys and spleen said to be of   A
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      B
    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 C
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 D
view, the Trial Court and the High Court should not 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 E
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 F
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        G
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 ht!lve
not done so and this conduct of the appellants has given scope     H
     196      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 4 S.C.R.

A to the prosecution to believe that they were guilty of the offence
  under Section 302/34, l.P.C.           ·

       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
8
  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:
·C
         "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
D        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
E        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
F        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
G        certain exceptions to the said rule, e.g., where burden of
         proof may be imposed upon the accused by reason of a
         statute."
      9. As the prosecution has not been able to discharge its
H burden of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the
    JOYDEB PATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST                      197.
           BENGAL [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
deceased died due to poisoning, in our view, the trial court and      A
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          s'
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.

K.K.T.                                           Appeal allowed.