Criminal Appeal No 303 of 1984
From the Judgment dated 1951984 of the Rajasthan High Court in DB Criminal Appeal No 129 of 1983
RK Jain RP Singh and RK Khanna for the Appellants
Sushil Kumar and AruneShwar Gupta for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 824 K JAYACHANDRA REDDY J
There are two appellants
They are father and son respectively and they figured as A 1 and A 2 before the trial court
They were tried for offences punishable  under Sections 302 201 and 120 B IPC for causing murder of Madhu Saxena wife of A 2 and daughter in law of A 1 the deceased in the case
They were acquitted by the trial court
The State preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court convicted them under Section 120 B and Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life
They have preferred this appeal under Section 2a of the Supreme Court Enlargement of General Appellate Jurisdiction Act
The deceased was married to A 2 in the year 1961
Two sons and one daughter were born to them
A 1 father of A 2 was a practising lawyer after retiring from the Government Service
The matrimonial life of the deceased and A 2 was not smooth
There were frequent quarrels
The accused lived in their own house alongwith the deceased
It is in the evidence that the deceased was not healthy both physically and mentally
She was also admitted in mental hospital once
She used to confine herself to her room and she appeared to be somewhat mentally deranged
The daughter of the deceased who was examined as DW 2 aged 13 years was studying in 1Oth Class and she was also living in the same house
On 18382 the dead body of the deceased was found in her room in the house of the accused
At that time admittedly A 2 was not in the house and he was at Suratgarh
On being informed about the death A 1 sent for Dr Madan Lal Arora who exam ined the deceased and declared her to be dead
Thereafter A 1 informed PW 5 Jagmohan Prasad the father of the de ceased
PW 5 went there and enquired
A 1 told PW 5 that the deceased be cremated at 9 AM
The brother of the de ceased told PW 5 that he has seen the dead body lying in the room and that it was giving rotten smell
PW 6 lodged a report before the Police
PW 22 took up the investiga tion held the inquest examined the witnesses and sent the dead body for post mortem
The Doctor PW 2 conducted the postmortem
He found that the body was giving rotten smell and the skin here and there was peeled off nails were loose and the tongue was found in between the teeth
He found an injury on the head
He also found that some of the organs were decomposed and noticed greenishbrown discolouration on the neck
He opined that the death was due to head injury and pressure in the neck region
He however sent the tissues of the trachea though decomposed and a piece of neck skin and also viscera for histopathology and for chemical analysis but the 825 pathologist could not give opinion regarding the piece of skin and the tissues of the trachea
The pathologist noted that the skin was discoloured and that the tissues and the mussle attached to the trachea showed no abnormality
The Doctor PW 2 opined that the head injury was caused by blunt weapon and that death is
result of neck injury
The pressure on the left and front of the neck was apparent
After completion of the investigation the charge sheet was laid
22 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecu tion
The accused dented the offences
A 1 stated that he was away from 143
1982 onwards and was at Jodhpur in his daughter s house
In support of his plea DW 1 Dr Ram Krishna Mehta the neighbour of A 1 s daughter was exam ined
He also examined his grand daughter DW 2 namely the daughter of A 2 and the deceased
A 2 stated that he was at Suratgarh from 1131982 onwards
Both of them denied the allegations of the prosecution
The case registered rests on circumstantial evidence The trial court held that there was no evidence of conspira cy between the A 1 and A 2 for murdering the deceased
It further held that there is no legal proof also that the Circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are hardly sufficient to connect them with the murder
The trial court
however severely criticised about the iII treatment and hard behaviour of A 1 and A 2 towards the deceased
The High Court however took a different view
The High Court mainly relied on the evidence regarding the ill treat ment of the deceased by A 1 and A 2 and held that the ac cused had strong motive
The High Court has also referred to the earlier incidents in some of the letters
The High Court accepted the medical evidence in to and reached the con clusion that the death was homicidal and due to asphyxia due to head injury and pressure on the neck
Finally the High Court relying on the conduct of the accused after coming to know about the death of the deceased reached the conclusion that the two accused conspired and got the deceased mur dered and accordingly convicted them under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and 120 B IPC Shri RKJain the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court has merely acted on prejudice and suspicion and that there is absoluteIy no material to prove the conspiracy and muchless to connect the two accused in any manner with themurder The prosecution examined 22 witnesses
PW 1 an Assistant 826 School teacher in Jaipur and related to the deceased deposed that she attended a dinner in the house of the deceased and A 2 and in the year 1978 when the deceased came to her house she was having some spots  of beating by sticks on her back and the deceased told PW 1 that she was beaten by her hus band
On 18382 PW 1 s neighbour told her that there was a telephone message fxom A 1 that the deceasd was about to die
On that PW 1 and others went to the house of the deceased
They opened the room from where bad smell was coming and in that room they saw the dead body of the de ceased which was decomposed
A 1 who was present there told them that they would cremate the dead body that night
On that PW 5 the husband of PW 1 and the brother of the deceased objected to
PW 1 has also mentioned about other incidents of cruel treatment meted out to the deceased
PW 2 is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem and we shaft advert to his evidence later
PW 3 is the eider sister of the deceased
She only stated that she got the information about the death of the deceased
PW 4 is the son of the deceased and A 2
He deposed that on 11th March 1982 his father A 2 came with him to the bus stand to see him off
PW 4 met the deceased before leaving on the evening of 11th March 1982 and talked to her
At that time the condi tion of the deceased was very weak and she was unhealthy
PW 4 also deposed that his father A 2 was to go to Surat garh by the evening of 11382
This witness was treated hostile
In the crossexamination by the defence this witness stated that his sister Gianwati who was examined as DW 2 told him that she went regularly to the room of the deceased to give food from 11382 to 15382 and that on 16382 DW 2 did not meet the deceased due to headache and on 17th and 18th March the deceased did not respond when DW 2 called her
PW 4 further deposed that DW 2 also told the same to her grand mother
PW 5 is the father of the de ceased
He also deposed about the iII treatment of the deceased by the accused and their demand for dowry
He further deposed that the neighbour told them that he re ceived a telephone message from A 1 that the deceased was  about to die
Thereupon PW 5 sent his son PW 6 to A 1 s house
Later he was told by A 1 who came to his house that the deceased died and the Doctor has declared her dead
ThereUpon PW 5 wanted to know the name of the Doctor
Thereupon A 1 told him that the deceased would be cremated
A little later PW 6 also came and told him that the de ceased had died before many days and her dead body was giving rotten smell
PW 6 is brother of the deceased and son of PW 5
He alsodeposed about the ill treatment meted out to the deceased
He further stated that on 18382 on receiving the information about the serious condition of the deceased he went to house of 827 the deceased and he found that the deceased had already died and the A 1 told him that the dead body would be cremated whereupon he informed his father PW 5 and then lodged a report before the police
The police arrived and prepared a panchnama
PW 7 is the neighbour of the accused
He only attested the site plan prepared by the police
PW 8 is a practising Doctor and he deposed that on 18382 A 1 came to him  at about 530
PM and told him that his daughter in law namely the deceased was in serious condition
Thereupon he went to the house and saw the deceased
He examined the deceased and declared her to be dead
PW 9 also was exam ined to speak about the cruelty but he was treated hostile
PW 10 also belongs to the same locality
He only deposed that the body was emitting foul smell and he signed the inventory prepared by the police
PW 11 is a photographer who took the photographs of the room and the dead body
PW 12 is Gurubux Saxena who got the telephonic message from A 1 that the deceased was seriously ill and thereupon he in formed PWs 1 5 and 6
PW 13 is the cousin of the de ceased
He also deposed about the cruelty meted out to the deceased
He further deposed that on 18382 the deceased died and he was asked by PW 5 to go to the house of the deceased
He was informed by A 1 that the body would be cremated
Thereupon he and PW 6 went and gave a report to the police
PWs 14 to 21 are the formal official witnesses
Out of them PWs 17 18 19 and 20 are examined who spoke about the movements of A 2
The sum and substance of their evidence is that A 2 was posted as expert of plant protec tion in Suratgarh and that leave was granted to him on 11382
This evidence may not be very much relevant because it is not the prosecution case that A 2 was present in the house at the time of the death of the deceased
PW 22 is the Sub inspector who investigated the case
He deposed that on receipt of the report he went to the place of occurrence held the inquest and sent the dead body for postmortem
He also speaks the seizure of some letters
In the examination under Section 313 Cr
PC both the accused stated that they are innocent
A 1 s case was that he was away at Jodhpur from 15th March 1982 onwards and was staying in her daughter s house and he  came to Jaipur only on 18th March 1982 and then he was told about the death of the deceased
Thereupon he called the Doctor PW 8 who examined and pronounced the deceased to be dead
He denied about the allegations of iii treatment of the deceased
A 2 stated that he married the deceased in the year 1961 and they were blessed with two sons land one daughter
He also stated that he was a Gazetted Officer in Agriculture Depart ment and he was transferred to various places and he also took the deceased with him
He further 828 stated that the deceased was sick and unhealthy and was staying at Jaipur
He also stated that his daughter used to give food to the deceased
On 11382 he left for Suratgarh and later he came to know about the death of the deceased
The accused examined D Ws 1 to 3 on their behalf
D W 1 is a Doctor at Jodhpur
He deposed that he knew A 1 and that he was staying in his daughter s house in Jodhpur from 15th March 1982 to 17th March 1982
DW 2 is the daughter of A 2 and the deceased aged about 13 years
She in general stated that her mother was sick and unhealthy and used to confine herself to the room and she used to give food to her
She also stated that she gave food to the deceased on 15382 and that she could not give food on 16382 due to her own sickness
Then on 17th and 18th March 1982 her mother did not talk to her therefore she returned with the food
She also stated that A 1 went to Jodhpur on the evening of 14th March and returned from Jodhpur on 18th March 1982
On that day they found that the deceased was not talking and two ladies who came to meet the deceased told that there was something wrong
When her grand father A 1 returned from Jodhpur he sent for a Doctor and the Doctor after examining pronounced the deceased to be dead
DW2 further stated that the relations between the deceased namely her mother and grand mother were not good
In the cross examination she affirmed that she fell ill on 16382 after coming from school and therefore could not give food to her mother
She denied the suggestion that the body was decomposed even on 16th and 17th March 1982
DW 3 is the son of A 1 and brother of A 2 residing at Jodhpur
He also deposed that A 1 came to Jodhpur and stayed from 15th on wards upto 17th March 1982
From the above resume of evidence it is clear that the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence
The dead body was found in the house of A 1 and A 2 where admittedly the deceased  was also living but she used to confine her self to that room where the dead body was found She was sick and unhealthy and that she was not even coming out of the room
From the evidence it is also clear that the food was given to her in the room itself and she was not even going out to answer the calls of nature
Some of the wit nesses no doubt have deposed that the accused used to ill treat the deceased
But the main question is whether A 1 and A 2 conspired as held by the High Court and got the murder committed
From the record it is clear and it is also not disputed thatA 2 was not in the house and that A i also left Jaipur and was staying at Jodhpur with his daughter upto 17th March 1982 and came to Jaipur only on 18th March 1982
Therefore he was also not in the house at the time of death
There is no other evidence to 829 show that as to who could have caused the death of the deceased if it is held to be homicidal
The trial court has doubted the prosecution case that the death was homicidal
The High Court after having elaborately examined the medical evidence reached the conclusion that it was homicidal
But even assuming that it was homicidal there is absolute paucity of evidence suggesting even remotely as to who could have caused the death
Though in our view it is not strictly necessary in this case to decide the nature of death because even assuming it to be homicidal the accused A 1 and A 2 cannot be convicted unless there is other material to connect them with the crime either directly or indirectly
However we shall first consider the medical evidence regarding the cause of the death
PW 2 Dr MR Goel examined the dead body on 19382 and found 10 injuries which were ante mortem
Many of them were in the shape of bruises and swellings
He found the dead body as highly decomposed and had reached an advanced stage of putrefaction
In his opinion the death was due to the injury on the head and pressure on the neck due to asphyxia
He was cross examined at length
He admitted that since the brain was decomposed and was in semi liquid condi tion no injury therein could be traced
He also admitted that the swelling of the eye was not due to the injuryon the forehead
Coming to the injury on the neck the Doctor stated that no injury was found on the bones of wind pipe and that portion also was decomposed
In further cross examination he admitted that he did not make the culture of the maggots crawling on the head
He also stated that he could not say definitely whether the death in the circum stances should  have occurred before four days
He however denied the suggestion that he could not form a definite opinion
As far as this medical evidence is concerned the trial court also considered the same at length
The learned Sessions Judge noted the details in the post mortem certifi cate exhibit P 1
There he found against the column cause of death the Doctor has put only a question mark
It is also noted in the postmortem certificate that PW 2 sent a part of the neck and viscera for chemical and histopathological examination
After considering the whole evidence of the Doctor the trial court was of the opinion that it was very difficult to say that the injuries on the head were antemor tem
In nature and at any rate PW 2 s evidence has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the de ceased was due to injuries causing asphyxia and that the death was homicidal
The High Court on the other hand has also noted that the death of the deceased was 4 to 8 days  earlier as shown in the post mortem certificate
The learned Judges observed thus 830 It is to be noticed that Dr MR Goyal who conducted the post mortem examination is not a novice but a senior Medical Jurist of the SMS Hospital
According to him there was  sub dural hammatoma over occipital region
Bruises were found on the forehead left side  
We have carefully examined the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for holding that the posecution has failed to prove thatit was homicidal death    
In our considered opinion all these injuries wereanti mortem in nature The learned Judges thereafter explained away the dis crepancies between the post mortem and the medical evidence
We may observe that the learned Judges of the High Court have bestowed considerable part of the judgment on the aspect of medical evidence and ultimately held thus In substance we are convinced that it was a case of homicidal death
We cannot accept the finding of the trial court on this aspect of the case and have got no hesitation in revers ing it and holding that the finding is not based on just and proper appreciation of the evidence
 We have also gone through the medical evidence carefully and we may observe that we are unable to hold that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is altogether unreasona ble
However for the purpose of this appeal it may not be necessary for us to go through the details of the medical evidence
Even accepting that the death was homicidal we cannot on that ground alone hold the appellants guilty
The proSecution has to satisfactorily and beyond reasonable doubt establish that the two accused conspired and pursuant to that conspiracy the offence was committed
We have already given a brief resume of the evidence  adduced on behalf Of the prosecution
We have noticed that both the accused were not in the house on the day the occur rence is said to have taken place even assuming that the same took place on 14382
the evidence of DW 2 who is the only inmate of the house that was examined and whose evidence cannot be brushed aside establishes that the occur rence probably took place on 15th or 16th March 1982
It is only on 18382 that the dead body was discovered and it is only on that day the A 1 Came to his house at Jaipur from
Jodhpur and A 2 admittedly was 831 away on official duty The DW 2 also speaks to the same
The High Court however drew some inferences based on the alleged conduct of the accused and held that the two accused conspired to kill the deceased
In the first instance the High Court held that the accused has a strong motive to get rid of the accused
For this reliance is placed on the evidence of some witnesses who spoke about the cruel treat ment meted out to the deceased by the accused
The learned Judges have also relied on some letters written by the deceased
PW 6 the brother of the deceased deposed that the two accused used to be angry with the deceased and they did not allow him and his family members to see the de ceased
Reliance is placed on the evidence of PW 5 who spoke about the demand of money
The learned Judges of the High Court mainly relied on this evidence to infer that the accused had motive to do away with the deceased
The High Court was not prepared to place reliance on the evidence of PW 4 and DW 2 who did not support the theory of cruelty
The High Court after considering the above evidence ob served as under Now the question is whether in these circum stances although there are circumstances of strong motive and of cruelty and of strong desire on the part of accused Bhagwan Swarup and Parmeshwar Swarup to get rid of Madhu there is any further evidence of other circum stances by which it can be said that no other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused is possible in the present case
 Then the learned Judges proceeded to consider the evidence of PW 8 and others
PW 8 is a local Doctor who deposed that A 1 informed him in the evening of 18382 that his daughter in law was serious
He went and examined the de ceased and pronounced her to be dead
PW 8 also deposed that the body was giving bad smell and it was also in a decomposed condition
Then the High Court relied on the evidence of PW 12 who stated that he received a telephonic message from A 1 stating that his daughter in law was at her last breathing and he must inform PW 5 the father
Then the High CoUrt proceeded to consider some other circum stances which took place from 11th March onward namely A 2 leaving on official duty
The High Court suspected that A 2 designedly left Jaipur to Suratgarh and also surmised that A 2 marking his attendance in the register at Suratgarh was with a view to create evidence of alibi
Then there is reference to a letter exhibit P 15 written by A 1 to A 2 on 18382 and according to the learned Judges this letter was an effort to show that the deceased was alive even after 11th March and according to learned
Judges exhibit P 15 a letter of A 1 832 on the alleged death of the deceased written by him to his son is a significant feature
This letter is dated 18th March 1982
In that A 1 has simply informed A 2 that the deceased breathed her last and that Doctor PW 8 pro nounced her dead and that on the next day they are going ahead with cremation
This letter which is on a post card is the most crucial feature according to the High Court and that its contents show that both A 1 and A 2 were guilty conscious
We think we need not refer to the further sur mises made by the High Court
Suffice it to say that in the rest of the entire judgment only such suspicions and sur mises have been mentioned or drawn to reach a conclusion that A 1 and A 2 conspired
At one stage the learned Judges observed thus The more and more we read this letter exhibit P 15 dated 18382 more and more we are con vinced that it was a case of pre planned pre determined conspiracy of committing murder of Madhu which was done on 11th March 1982 by both accused who were anxiously waiting the time when they could get rid of her
It is also not Without significance that Suratgath is in Ganganagar District and a far
place from Jaipur and post card would not reach there at least before 24 hours as it reached on 20th March and further even if telephone message is sent one would take at least 12 to 18 hours to reach this place
The fact that cremation was decided for the morning and the information was sent in the night only goes to show that since the death was a result of murder in which both the accused were in volved there was no occasion to wait for son who was husband of the ill fated unfortunate lady Madhu to perform last rite or see her face at least before she is put on fire
The merciless inhuman approach exhibited by this letter is heart beating hair raising and society lacking and consicious shocking and we are convinced that such a conduct would not have been possible but for the fact that the object of conspiracy of Bhagwan Swarup and Parmeshwar Swarup was achieved by putting an end to the life of Madhu which was done on 11th and during all this time all that Par meshwar and Bhagwan Swamp were being Were the unsuccessful effort to conceal the murder of helpless lady and to create a plea of alibi or pretended the natural death
We are there fore convinced that these circumstances if taken as a whole proves beyond all reasonable doubts that Bhagwan Swarup and Parmeshwar Swarup entered into a criminal conspiracy 833 to commit the murder of Madhu and with this abode intention common object to fulfill the object of conspiracy they committed the murder of Madhu in their house on 11th March 1982 by causing 11 injuries on her person after they had made it sure that the son Prakash Swamp leaves for Ajmer in the morning and then Parmeshwar Swarup left for Suratgarh in the evening and Bhagwan Swarup ultimately left for Jodhpur on 14th
These were all preplanned pre determined well calculated steps of the conspiracy to commit the murder and then to avoid its detection by these two accused who had deep rooted patience and hatred towards the unfortunate lady Madhu who was being treated with cruelty which started in the beginning with the demand of dowry but contin ued later on account of various other reasons
 We have extracted the main part of the judgment only to show that how the High Court has acted merely on suspicion
We are unable to say as to on what basis the High Court could reach the conclusion that on 11th March 1982 itself both A 1 and A 2 committed the murder of the deceased and left the dead body
Such a conclusion should be based on acceptable evidence
There is absolutely no material that the deceased was murdered on 11th March 1982 itself
The medical evi dence simply states that the death could have taken place 4 to 8 days prior to post mortem
DW 2 the daughter is categorical that her mother the deceased was alive till 16th March 1982 and that being the nature of the evidence On record we are unable to appreciate the above conclusion of the High Court purely based on suspicion and surmises
Further the learned Judges of the High Court have mentioned in the above passage that both the accused conspired to commit the murder of deceased and having conspired they themselves committed the murder
In our view there is no evidence worth men  tioning to establish these offences
Naturally in a case of this nature the question that arises from a layman s point of view is then who else could have committed the murder in the house itself Perhaps if A 1 and A 2 were present in the house on the day of homicide then the situation would have been different and both of them would have been under an obligation to give an explana tion and the absence of a plausible explanation or giving a false explanation could have been very much incriminating against them
The same coupled with other circumstances would have perhaps brought home the guilt to the accused
But the circumstances 834 are different now
A 1 and A 2 were away from the house
The medical evidence does not at all support that the murder assuming it to be one could have taken place on 11th March itself as conjectured by the High Court
If the murder has taken place some time after 11th March then A 1 and A 2 cannot directly be connected with the murder
That being so unless conspiracy as such is established they cannot be held liable
Then the other inmates in the house are only the mother in law and the children of the deceased
None of them was suspected and at any rate no one of them was charge sheeted or tried
Therefore the question of any one of them being held responsible for the death does not arise
No doubt a grave suspicion does arise namely that some of the inmates of the house must have been responsible and an accusing finger Can be pointed against A 1 and A 2 but from 11th March onward they were not in the house
DW 2 s evidence clinches the issue that the death must have been taken place only after 16th and before 18th March
It is in this situation the High Court surmised on mere suspicion that A 1 and A 2 conspired and also committed the murder on 11382 itself
If the murder has been committed on 11th March itself the body would have been highly decomposed by 18th March 1982 and would have been emitting very bad smell
One cannot imagine that the other remaining inmates of the house would have simply and silently suffered in the house without informing anybody
On the other hand DW 2 s evidence is different and she categorically stated that the deceased was alive upto 16th March
That appears to be natural and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the same
As indicated supra we are inclined
to agree with the Sessions Court that the medical evidence does not establish the death to be one of homicidal
At any rate there is a grave doubt in this regard
The evidence on record clearly shows that the deceased was not mentally sound
The fact that she was not coming out of the room and used the same for answering the calls of nature also would snow that there was something abnormal about her and she confined her move ments to the four corners of the room
15th March 1982 was the last day when DW 2 served food to the deceased
There after she did not go inside the room and on 18th March 1982 the dead body was discovered
The evidence of PW 2 the Doctor also shows that no brain injury could be traced and he also did not find any injury on the bones of wind pipe
In view of these and other admissions the trial court right ly felt that there was a reasonable doubt about the cause of death also and accordingly acquitted the accused
From the above discussion the following important points 835 emerge It is an undisputed case that the second accused was not present in the scene house were the occurrence took place from 11th to 20th March 1982 and that the first accused was at Jodhpur in his daughter s houseI from 14382 to 17382 and returned to Jaipur on 18382
There fore they were not present in the house when the deceased died The Medical Officer PW 2 could not say definitely as to whether the death has occurred before four days of his examination and there is absolutely no evidence either circumstantial or direct to hold that the death took place on 11382 itself as found by the High Court
The evidence of DW 2 who is none other than the daughter of the de ceased and was very much in the house throughout ategorical ly stated that her mother was alive on 15th March also
Apart from D W 2 the only other inmate of the house during the crucial period was the mother in law of the deceased who was not even charge sheeted
The letter exhibit P 15 written by the first accused does not in any manner incriminate them and the High Court has grossly erred in holding that A 1 and A 2 entered into conspiracy merely on the basis of conjec tures and surmises drawn from the letter
PWs 4 9 and 10 have not supported the prosecution case and the remaining evidence does not in any manner implicate A 1 and A 2 and the other remaining inmate of the house the mother ln law of the deceased was not even suspected
Therefore having given our anxious and careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the appellants and consequently we are inclined to allow the appeal
The accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 201 and 120 B IPC only and in our view the trial court rightly held that none of these charges were proved against them
The learned counsel for the respondent State of Rajas than however submitted that the accused would atleast be liable of having committed other offences
It may be noted that the question whether they would be liable under Section 498 A or 304 B does not arise for consideration inasmuch as these provisions were not on the statute on the day of occurrence
However A 1 was atleast under an obligation to give information about the death of the deceased since the same was unnatural
Assuming that the prosecution has not positively proved that the death was homicidal yet from the medical evidence it is clear that it was not a natural death and consequently the death should atleast be noted as one of suicide
Even in the case of suicide an offence of abetment punishable under Section 306 is inherent
There 836 fore even in the case of a suicide there is an obligation on the person who knows or has reason to believe that such a suicidal death has occured to give information
In Kali das Achamma vs The State of AP SHO Karimnagar
I Town PS it was observed as under In the case of every suicide abetment is inherent
Whether ultimately it is proved or not it is a different aspect
Abetment of suicide is an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and therefore whenever a case of suicide is there the body cannot be disposed of without informing the Police and further as provided under Section 174 Cr
PC the Police have to hold an inquest Since it is an unnatu ral death   In the instant case A 1 who reached his house on 18382 knowing fully well that the deceased had already died informed PW 8 that the deceased was in a serious condi tion
Likewise he informed PW 12 on telephone without disclosing that the deceased was already dead
However when PW 6 the brother of the deceased came to the house where the dead body was lying A 1 told him that the body would be cremated
To the same effect is the evidence of PW 13
PW 6 the brother of the deceased on his own went and gave a report to the police
It can thus be seen that A 1 intentionally omitted to give the information in respect of the death of the deceased which he was legally bound to give
Section 202 IPC is in the following terms 202
Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform Whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both
 This Section punishes the illegal omission of those who under law are bound to give information in respect of an offence which he is legally bound to give particularly being the head of the family
Under this provision it is necessary for the prosecution to prove 1 that the accused had knowl edge or reason to believe that some offence had been commit ted 2 that the accused had intentionally omitted to give information respecting that offence and 3 that the accused was legally bound to give that information
Shri RK Jain however relied 837 on a judgment of this Court in Harishchandrasing Sajjansinh Rathod and AnOther vs State of Gujarat  and contended that the word Whoever occurring in the opening part of the Section refers to a person other then the offender and has no application to the person who is alleged to have committed the principal offence In that case the accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 331 and 304 read with Section 34 IPC in respect of the death of the deceased and were acquitted
On appeal by the State the High Court however convicted them under Section 202 IPC A Bench of this Court while reversing the order of High Court observed thus We have gone through the entire evidence bearing on the aforesaid offence under Section 202 but have not been able to discern anything therein which may go to establish the afore said ingredients of the offence under Section 202 of the Penal Code
The offence in respect of which the appellants were indicted viz having intentionally omitted to give informa tion respecting an offence which he is legally bound to give not having been established the appellants could not have been convicted under Section 202 of the Penal Code
It is well settled that in a prosecution under Section 202 of the Penal Code it is necessary for the prosecution to establish the main offence before making a person  liable under this section
The offence under Section 304 Part II and the one under Section 331 of the Penal Code not having been established on account of several infirmities is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants under Section 202 of the Penal Code
The High Court has also missed to notice that the word whoever  occurring at the opening part of Section 202 of the Penal Code refers to a person other than the offender and has no application to the person who is al leged to have committed the principal offence
This is so because there is no law which casts duty on a criminal to give information which would incriminate himseft
That apart the aforementioned ingredients of the offence under Section 202 of the Penal Code do not appear to have been made out against the prosecution There is not an iota of evidence to show that the appellants knew or had reason to believe that the aforesaid main offences had been committed emphasis supplied From these observations it is clear that there was no evidence to show 838 that the accused therein knew or had reason to believe that the said offences have been committed and on the other hand they were made principal offenders
In such a situation the ingredients of Section 202 can not be said to have been made out
It is in this context that the meaning of the word whoever has been considered
But in the instant case A 1 returned to his house where the dead body was lying on 18382 and the circumstances clearly go to show that he had knowledge that the deceased died of an unnatural death
Therefore he had knowledge or atleast had reason to believe that an offence had been committed even if at that stage he thought that it was only a suicide
Therefore it was his bounden duty particularly as head of the family to inform the authorities
He omitted to do so
On the other hand he went about telling that the deceased was still alive and her condition was serious
But when PW 6 the brother of the deceased came to the house and enquired A 1 told him that the body would be cremated and he intended to do so without informing the authorities
Therefore all the ingredients of Section 202 are made out against him and he clearly commit ted the offence  punishable under this Section at that stage
The fact that he himself was made an accused in other offences subsequently does not absolve him of his complicity in respect of the offence punishable under Section 202 IPC So far A 2 is concerned he came to the house only after the investigation commenced
Therefore his case stands on a different footing
In the result the convictions and sentences awarded against A 1 and A 2 are set aside
A 1 however is convicted under Section 202 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months  RI
The appeal is disposed of ac cordingly


Summary:
Respondents No 3 and 4 who were junior to the appel lants as Inspectors of Police in the State of Haryana were given out of turn promotions as Deputy Superintendents of police earlier than the appellants
The Appellants chal lenged the said promotion order in a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court by a non speaking order
Ag grieved the appellants filed the appeal by special leave to this Court
Disposing of the appeal this Court HELD 1
The order dismissing the writ petition must be a speaking one in order to enable the person affected to know what were the reasons which weighed with the High Court in dismissing it
The High Court should not pass a laconic order
860G 2
In the instant case in the order of promotion there was not a single whisper why the said out of turn promotion was given
860E 3
The order of the High Court is fit to be set aside and the case be sent back on remand to the High Court to hear the writ petition after giving an opportunity to the parties and recording a reasoned speaking order on merits
861A