iminal Appeal No 73 of 1959
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 1620th 1959 of the Bombay High Court in Confirmation case No 25 of 1958 with Criminal Appeal No 1372 of 1958 arising out of
the judgment and order dated October 27 1958 of the Sessions Judge Poona in Sessions Case No 52 of 1958
A section R Chtiri section N Andley J B Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath for the appellant
H N Seervai Advocate General for the State of Bombay Porus A Mehta and R H Dhebar for the respondent
December 14
The Judgment of section K Das and Hidayatullah JJ was delivered by Hidayatullah J Sarkar J delivered a separate Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH J
This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Bombay High Court J C Shah J now of the Supreme Court and V section Desai J by which it maintained the conviction of the appellant Lagu under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and confirmed the sentence of death passed on him by Shri V A Naik now Naik J Sessions Judge Poona
The appellant was tried for the murder of one Laxmibai Karve and the charge held proved against him was that on or about the night between November 12 and 13 1956 either at Poona or in the course of a railway journey between Poona and Bombay he administered to the said Laxmibai Karve some unrecognised poison or drug which would act as a poison 59 462 with the intention of causing her death and which did cause her death
Laxmibai Karve was a resident of Poona where she lived at 93 95 Shukrawar Peth
Before her marriage of she was known as Indumati Indutai or Indu Ponkshe
In the year 1922 she married Anant Ramachandra Karve a widower with a son by name Vishnu
On her marriage as is the custom she was named Laxmibai by the family of her husband and was known as Laxmibai Karve
She was also known as Mai or Mai Karve
From Laxmibai there were born two sons Ramachandra PW 1 and Purshottam alias Arvind who died in 1954
Anant Ramachandra Karve was a moderately rich man who had been successful in business
He died in 1945 of pleurisy
He was attended till his death by the appellant and his brother B C Lagu both of whom are doctors
Anant Ramachandra Karve left a will dated February 28 1944
Prior to the execution of the will he had gifted Rs 30000 to his son Vishnu to set him up in business
By his will he gave the house No 93 95 Shukrawar Peth Poona to Ramachandra with a right of residence in at least three rooms to his widow Laxmibai and a further right to her to receive Rs 50 per month from the rent of the house
He assigned an insurance policy of Rs 5000 in her favour
The business was left to Ramachandra
The cash deposits in Bank Post Office and with other persons together with the right to recover loans from debtors in the Bhor State were given to Purushottam alias Arvind
Certain bequests of lands and debentures were made to Visbnu s children
Laxmibai was also declared owner of all her ornaments of about 60 tolas of gold and nose ring and pearl bangles which were described in the will
In addition to what she inherited from her husband Laxmibai inherited about Rs 25000 invested in shares from her mother Girjabai and another 60 tolas of gold ornaments
In January 1954 Purushottam alias Arvind died at Poona
By Purushottam s death Laxmibai also inherited all the property held by him
463 Thus at the time of her death Laxmibai possessed of about 560 shares in diverse Electric  Companies debentures in South Madras Electric Supply Corporation and Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation a sum of Rs 7882 15 0 at the Bank of Maharashtra a sum of Rs 35000 in deposit with one Vasudeo Sadashiv Joshi gold and pearl ornaments and sundry movables like clothes house hold furniture radio etc
In the year 1946 Ramachandra the elder son started living separately
There were differences between the mother and son
The latter had suffered a loss in the business and had mortgaged the house with one Shinde who filed a suit and obtained a decree but Vishnu filed a suit for partition claiming that his onethird share was not affected
Before this Ramachandra had closed his business in 195 1 and joined the military
He was posted at different places but in spite of their differences mother and son used to correspond with each other
In May 1956 Laxmibai arranged and performed his marriage and he went away in June 1956
Laxmibai had contracted tuberculosis after the birth of Purushottam
That was about twenty years before her death
The lesion however healed and till 1946 her health was not bad
From 1946 she suffered from diabetes
In 1948 she was operated for hysterectomy and before her operation she was getting hysterical fits
On June 15 1950 she was examined by Dr R V Sathe who prescribed some treatment
In July 1950 she was admitted in the Wanless Tuberculosis Sana torium for pulmonary affection and she was treated till November 15 1950
Two stages of thoracoplasty operations were performed but she left though a third stage of operation was advised
In the operations her leftside first rib and portions of 2nd to 6th ribs were removed
Laxmibai was however treated with medicines and the focus it appears was under control
We now come to the events immediately preceding her death
Laxmibai had through the appellant taken an appointment from Dr Sathe of Bombay for 464 a consultation about her health for November 13 1956 at 3 30 p m
It was to attend this appointment that she left Poona in the company of the appellant by Passenger train on the night of November 121956 for Bombay
The train arrived at Victoria Terminus Station at 5 10 a m thirty five minutes late
It is an admitted fact that Laxmibai was then deeply unconcious and was carried on a stretcher by the appellant to a taxi and later to the G T Hospital where she was entered as an in door patient at 5 45 a m She never regained consciousness and died at 11 30 a m
Her body remained it the GT Hospital till the evening of the 14th when it was sent to the J J Hospital morgue for preservation
Later it was to be handed over under the orders of the Coroner to the Grant Medical College for the use of Medical Students
It was noticed there that she had a suspicious ligature mark on the neck and the body was subjected to postmortem examination and the viscera to chemical analysis and then the body was disposed of
Both the autopsy as well as the chemical analysis failed to disclose any poison and the mark on the neck was found to be postmortem
The appellant was the medical attendant and friend of the family
He and his brother also a medical practitioner attended on Anant Ramachandra Karve till his death
The appellant also treated Purshottam alias Arvind for two days prior to his death on January 18 1954
He was also the medical attendant of Laxmibai and generally managed her affairs
In 1955 he started living in the main room of the suite occupied by Laxmibai and if Ramachandra is to be believed the reason for the quarrel between Laxmibai and himself was the influence which the appellant exercised over the mother to the disadvantage of the son
However that be it is quite clear that the son left Poona in June 1956 and did not see his mother alive again
The death of Laxmibai was not known to the relatives or friends
The appellant also did not disclose this fact to any one
On the other hand he kept it a close secret
Soon afterwards people began receiving 465 mysterious letters purporting to be from Laxmibai stating that she had gone on pilgrimage that she did not intend to return and that none should try to find her whereabouts
She advised them to communicate with her through the newspaper  Sakal 
Laxmibai also exhorted all persons to forget her as she had married one Joshi and had settled at Rathodi near Jaipur in Rajasthan
People who went to her rooms at first found them locked but soon the doors were open and the meveable property was found to have been removed
Through these mysterious letters Laxmibai informed all concerned that she had herself removed these articles secretly and that none was to be blamed or suspected
It is the prosecution case that these letters were forgeries and that the appellant misappropriated the properties of Laxmibai including her shares bank deposits etc
The appellant has admitted his entire conduct after the death of Laxmibai by which he managed to get hold of her property
His explanation was that he would have given the proceeds to some charitable institution according to her wishes adding some money of his own to round off the figure
He led no evidence to prove that Laxmibai before she left Poona or at any time gave such instructions to him in the matter
Meanwhile the continued disappearance of Laxmibai was causing uneasiness to her friends and relatives
On December 31 1957 G D Bhave P W 8 addressed a complaint to the Chief Minister Bombay
Similarly  Dr G N Datar P W 5 also addressed a letter to the Chief Minister Bombay on February 16 1958 and in both these petitions doubts were expressed
Ramachandra too made a report and in consequence of a preliminary investigation the appellant was arrested on March 121958
He was subsequently tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge Poona
His appeal was also dismissed and the certificate of fitness having been refused he obtained special leave from this Court and filed this appeal
The appellant s contention in this appeal is that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving that 466 Laxmibai was poisoned at all or that there was any poison administered to her which would evade detection yet cause death in the manner it actually took place
The appellant contends also that his conduct before the death of Laxmibai was bona fide and correct that no inference of guilt can be drawn from all the circumstances of this case and that his subsequent conduct though suggestive of greed was not proof of his guilt on the charge of murder
The conviction of the appellant rests on circumstantial evidence and his guilt has been inferred from medical evidence regarding the death of Laxmibai and his conduct  The two Courts below have held that the total evidence in this case unerringly points to the commission of the crime charged and every reasonable hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the appellant has been successfully repelled
A criminal trial of course is not an enquiry into the conduct of an accused for any purpose other than to determine whether he is guilty of the offence charged
In this connection that piece of conduct can be held to be incriminatory which has no reasonable explanation except on the hypothesis that he is guilty
Conduct which destroys the presumption of innocence can alone be considered as material
The contention of the appellant briefly is that the medical evidence is inconclusive and that his conduct is explainable on hypotheses other than his guilt
Ordinarily it is not the practice of this Court to re examine the findings of fact reached by the High Court particularly in a case where there is concurrence of opinion between the two Courts below
But the case against the appellant is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence that he administered a poison and no poison has in fact been detected by the doctor who performed the postmortem examination or by the Chemical Analyser
The inference of guilt having been drawn on an examination of a mass of evidence during which subsidiary findings were given by the two Courts below we have felt it necessary in view of the extraordinary nature of this case to satisfy ourselves 467 whether each conclusion on the separate  aspects of the case is supported by evidence and is just and proper
Ordinarily this Court is not required to enter into an elaborate examination of the evidence but we have departed from this rule in this particular case in view of the variety of arguments that were addressed to us and the evidence of conduct which the appellant has sought to explain away on hypotheses suggesting innocence
These arguments as we have stated in brief covered both the factual as well as the medical aspects of the case and have necessitated a close examination of the evidence once again so that we may be in a position to say what are the facts found on which our decision is rested
That Laxmibai died within six hours of her admission in the G T Hospital is not questioned
Her body was identified by persons who knew her well from her photograph taken at the J J Hospital on November 19 1956
In view of the contention of the appellant that she died of disease andor wrong treatment we have to determine first what was the state of her health before she went on the ill fated journey
This enquiry takes us to the medical papers maintained at the institutions where she was treated in the past the evidence of some of the doctors who dealt with her case of the observation of witnesses who could depose to her outward state of health immediately before her departure and lastly the case papers maintained by the appellant as a medical adviser
The earliest record of Laxmibai s health is furnished by Dr K C Gharpure P W 17 who treated her in 1948
According to Dr Gharpure she entered his Nursing Home on April 6 1948 and stayed there till April 24 1948
Laxmibai was then suffering from Menorrhagia and Metrorrhagia for about six years
In 1946 there was an operation for dilatation and also curettage
She had Diabetes from 1945 and hysterical fits since 1939
On admission in Dr Gharpure s Nursing Home her blood pressure was found to be 14080 and urine showed sugar    albumin nil
She was kept in the hospital and probably treated and on the 11th when a sub total 468 hysterectomy was performed she had blood pressure 11075 and sugar traces albumin nil before the Laguoperation
According to Dr Gharpure the operation was not for hysterical fits and along with hysterectomy the right ovary was cysticpunctured and the appendix was also removed
A certificate was issued by Dr Gharpure exhibit 121 in which the same history is given
Laxmibai was next examined by Dr Ramachandra Sathe PW25 on June 15 1950
He deposed from the case file which he had maintained about her complaints
A copy of the case papers shows that she was introduced to him by the appellant
At that time her weight was 120 lbs
and her blood pressure 14090
Dr Sathe noticed that diabetes had existed for four years and that she was being given insulin for 8 months prior to his examination
He also noticed hysterectomy scar and that she had a tubercular lesion on the left apex 20 years ago
According to the statement of the patient she had trouble with tuberculosis from May 1949 and her teeth were extracted on account of pyorrhoea
She was getting intermittent temperature from September 1949 and was receiving streptomycin and PAS irregularly
She was then suffering from low temperature slight cough and expectoration
On examination the doctor found that there was infiltration in the left apex but no other septic focus was found
The evidence does not show the treatment which was given and the doctor merely stated that he must have recommended a line of treatment to the patient though he had no record of it
On July 13 1950 Laxmibai entered the Wanlesswadi T B Sanatorium and stayed there till November 15 1950
Her condition is noted in two certificates which were issued by the Sanatorium and proved by Dr Fletcher P W 16 the Medical Superintendent
In describing the previous history of the patient the case papers showed that she had a history of Pott s disease T B of the spine 20 years before
She had diabetes for five years and history of hysterectomy operation two years before
It was also noted that she had 469 T B of the lungs 15 years back but had kept well for 14 years and a new attack began in or about 1949
The certificate describes the treatment given to her in these words  Patient was admitted on 13th July 1950
X Ray on admission showed extensive filtration on the left side with a large cavity in the upper zone the right side was within normal limits
She had diabetes with high blood sugar which was controlled by insulin
Two stages of thoracoplasty operations on the left side were done and there was good clearing of disease but there was a small residual cavity seen and the third stage operation was advised
The patient is leaving at her own request against medical advice
Her sputum is positive
 From the above it appears that Laxmibai s general complaints were menstrual irregularities corrected by hysterectomy tuberculosis of the lungs controlled to a large extent by thoracoplasty and medicines and diabetes for which she was receiving treatment
In the later case papers there is no mention of hysterical fits and it seems that she had overcome that trouble after the performance of hysterectomy and the cysticpuncture of the ovary for there is no evidence of a recurrence after 1948
Diabetes was however present and must have continued till her death
Next we come to the evidence of some witnesses who saw her immediately prior to her departure for Bombay on November 12 1956
The first witness in this connection is Ramachandra PW 1 son of Laxmibai
He has given approximately the same description of her many ailments and the treatment she underwent
He last saw her in June 1956 when his marriage was performed
According to him the general condition of his mother was rather weak but before that her condition had not occasioned him any concern and he had not noticed anything so radically wrong with her as to prompt him to ask her about her ailments
When he last saw his mother in June 1956 lie found her in good health
Dr Madhav Domadhar Bhave PW 9 who knew Laxmibai 470 intimately stated that he saw her last in the month of October 1956 and that the condition of her health was good
No question was asked from him in cross examination at all
His brother G D Bhave PW 8 who is a landlord had gone to Laxmibai s house on November 8 1956 and met her in the presence of the appellant
Laxmibai had then told him that she was going to Bombay with the appellant to consult Dr Sathe in connection with her health
She had also stated that she would be returning in four or five days
According to the witness she was in good health and was moving about and doing her own work
The next witness is Champutai Vinayak Gokhale PW II who met Laxmibai on November 10 or 11 1956
Champutai is a well educated lady
She is a BSc
of the Bombay University and an MA of Columbia USA University
She said that she had gone to Laxmibai s house to invite her for the birthday party of her son which was to take place on November 13 1956
She found Laxmibai in good state of health and Laxmibai promised that though she would be going to Bombay she would return soon enough to join the party
Similarly Viswanath Janardhan Karandikar pleader of Poona met Laxmibai on November 10 or11  1956
Laxmibai had herself gone in the afternoon to him to ask him whether her presence was necessary in Poona in connection with the suit filed by Vishnu to which we have referred earlier
The witness stated that Laxmibai was in good state of health at that time and that he informed her that he did not propose to examine her as a witness
She was again seen by Dattatreya Vishnu Virkar PW 6 on the night of November 12 1956 an hour before she left her house for Bombay
Virkar who is a Graduate in Electrical Mechanics and in Government service was a tenant living in the same house
Laxmibai according to the will of her husband was entitled to Rs 50 out of the rents from tenants
She went to Virkar s Block at 8 pm and told him that she was going to Bombay to consult a doctor in the company of the appellant and needed money
Virkar gave her Rs 50 and 471 Laxmibai went back to her Block saying that she would give a receipt
Later she brought the receipt to Virkar seated at his meals asked him not to get UP and left the receipt in his room
The receipt signed by Laxmibai is exhibit 70 and is dated November 12 1956
Shantabai PW 14 a servant of Laxmibai was deaf and dumb and her evidence was interpreted with the help of Martand Ramachandra Jamdar PW 13 the Principal of a Deaf and Mute School
It appears that Shantabai had studied Marathi and was able to answer questions written on a piece of paper replies to which questions she wrote in her own hand
Some of the questions were not properly answered by Shantabai but she stated by pantomime that on the day on which she left the appellant had given two injections to Laxmibai
The learned Sessions Judge made a note to the following effect In the morning the accused gave Laxmibai one injection and in the evening he gave the second one
The signs were so clear that I myself gathered the meaning and the interpreter was not asked to interpret the signs
 Next Laxmibai was seen by Pramilabai Sapre PW 12 at 8 pm on November 121956
Laxmibai had told the witness that she was going to Bombay to consult a doctor and Laxmibai again  passed her door at 9 15 pm when the witness was at her meals
Though Laxmibai told her not to disturb herself the witness did get up and saw her
The witness stated that Laxmibai did not suffer from T B after the operation but was suffering from diabetes and that she sometimes used to give Laxmibai her injections of insulin but only till 1953
The last witness on the state of Laxmibai s health is K L Patil P W 60 who saw Laxmibai immediately before her departure for the station
He saw her standing at the Par in front of her house with a small bag and a small bedding
He then saw the appellant arriving there and Laxmibai presumably left in a rickshaw or a tonga because there was a stand for these vehicles in the neighbourhood
All this evidence was not questioned except to point out that Dr Datar in his petition to the Chief Minister had stated that Laxmibai was a 472 frank case of tuberculosis of both lungs and an invalidEx 68
But Dr Datar explained that he had so stated there because it was being  circulated  that she had gone on a long pilgrimage alone and that it was most improbable
Indeed Dr Datar said that Laxmibai was well enough to do all her work and even cooked for herself
From this mass of evidence given by persons from different walks of life and most of them well placed it is clear enough that Laxmibai was not in such a state of health that she would have collapsed in the train unless something very unusual took place
She was not in the moribund state in which she undoubtedly was when she reached the hospital
Her general health though not exactly good had not deteriorated so radically as to prevent her from attending to her normal avocations
She appeared to have been quite busy prior to her departure arranging for this matter and that and she did not rely upon other persons  help but personally attended to all that she desired
Right up to 9 15 or so in the night she was sufficiently strong and healthy to go about her affairs and indeed she must have boarded the train also in a fit state of health because there is nothing to show that she was carried to the compartment in a state of collapse or unconsciousness
We have stated earlier that the appellant who was presumably treating her for her ailments had maintained case papers to show what treatment he was giving her from time to time
These case papers are exhibit  305 and commence on February 27 1956
The medicines that have been shown as prescribed in these case papers show treatment for diabetes general debility tuberculosis rheumatism and indigestion
Much reliance cannot however be placed upon this document because these case papers significantly enough stop on November 12 1956 and continue again from February 13 1957 when Laxmibai was no more
There are four entries of treatment given to Laxmibai between February 13 and February 28 1957 when Laxmibai had already died and her body had undergone postmortem examination and been cremated
473 The extent to which her treatment if any went in the period covered by the case papers may or may not be truly described by the appellant in these papers but we are definitely of the opinion that the entries there cannot be read without suspicion in view of the extraordinary fact described by us here
It appears however that the last insulin injection was given to her on September 27 1956 though the appellant stated in his examination as accused in the case that she was put on Nadisan tablets for diabetes
The appellant was questioned by the Sessions Judge as to the State of her health and he stated that Laxmibai on the day she left for Bombay had a temperature of 100 degrees and was suffering from laryngitis pharyngitis and complained of pain in the ear
What relevance this has we shall point out subsequently when we deal with the medical evidence and the conclusions of the doctors about it
The next question which falls for consideration is whether the appellant and Laxmibai travelled in the same compartment on the train
The train left Poona at 10 pm and it is obvious enough that it was a comparatively slow and inconvenient train
We have no evidence in the case as to whether the appellant travelled with Laxmibai in the same compartment but both the Courts below have found from the probabilities of the case that he did
The best person to tell us about this journey is necessarily the appellant and reference may now be made to what he stated in regard to this journey
The appellant had arranged for the examination of Laxmibai by Dr Sathe at Bombay
He was the family physician and also a friend
Laxmibai was an elderly lady and the appellant was for some time previous to this journey living in the main room of her block
There would be nothing to prevent the appellant from travelling in the same compartment with his patient who might need his attention during the journey
The appellant denied in Court that he had travelled in the same compartment but his statements on this part of the events have not been quite consistent
After Laxmibai died and the question arose about the disposal of her body the police at 474 Poona were asked to contact the appellant to get some information about her
On November 16 1956 before any investigation into ail offence of any kind was started the appellant was questioned by the police and he gave a written statement in exhibit 365
He stated there as follows I Anant Chintaman Lagu occupation Medical practitioner age 40 years residing at H No 4315 Shukrawar and dispensary at H No 20 Shukrawar Peth Poona 2 on being questioned state that on the night of 12th November 1956 1 left Poona for Bombay by the train which leaves Poona at 10 pm
I reached Victoria Terminus at 5 15 am on 13th November 1956
In my compartment I bad a talk with a woman as also with other passengers
On getting accomodation in the train almost all of us began to doze and at about 12 pm we slept
As Byculla came we started preparations for getting down
At that time one woman was found fast asleep
From other passengers I came to know that her name was Indumati Panse about 36 years old and she had a brother serving in Calcutta
Other passengers got down at V T
The woman however did not awake
1 therefore looked at her keenly and found that she was senseless
Being myself a doctor I thought it my duty to take her to the hospital
I therefore took her to the GT Hospital in a taxi
I know that that hospital was near
As I had taken the said woman to the hospital the CMO took my address
I have no more information about the woman
She is not my relation and I am not in any way responsible for her
 It will appear from this that he was travelling in the same compartment as Laxmibai though for reason s of his own he did not care to admit that he was taking her to Bombay
Similarly in the hospital when he was questioned about the patient he had brought for admission he stated to Dr Ugale P W 18 Casualty Medical Officer that the lady had suddenly become unconscious in the train
This fact was noted by Dr Ugale in the bed head ticket and Dr Ugale has stated on oath that the information was supplied by 475 the appellant himself
To Dr Miss Aneeja who was the House Physician on the morning of November 13 the appellant also stated the same thing
Dr Miss Aneeja had also made a separate note of this and stated that the information was given by the appellant
In view of these statements made by the appellant at a time when he was not required to face a charge we think that his present statement in Court that he travelled in a separate compartment cannot be accepted
The train halted at various stations en route and evidence was led in the case of the Guard K Shamanna P W 37 who deposed from his memo book exhibit 214
This train made 26 halts en route before it arrived at V T Station
Some of these halts were of as many as 20 minutes
It is difficult to think that the appellant would not have known till he arrived at Victoria Terminus that his patient was unconscious and the fact that he mentioned that she became suddenly unconscious shows that be knew the exact manner of the onset
Without however speculating as to what had actually happened it is quite clear to us that Laxmibai was in the same compartment as the appellant a fact which was not denied by the learned counsel in the arguments before us
If we were to accept what the appellant stated as true then Laxmibai lost her consciousness suddenly
It is however a little difficult to accept as true all that the appellant stated in this behalf because be told a patent lie to the police when he was questioned that he knew nothing about the woman or Who she was but took her to the hospital as an act of humanity when he found her unconscious
There is nothing to show beyond this statement to the police in exhibit 365 that there were other passengers in the compartment but if there had been the attention of these passengers would have been drawn to the condition of Laxmibai and some  one would have advised the calling of the Guard or the railway authorities at one of these stations at which the train halted
The circumstances of the case therefore point to the appellant and Laxmibai being in the compartment together and the preponderance of 476 probabilities is that the compartment was not occupied by any other person
We shall leave out from consideration for the present the circumstances under which Laxmibai was admitted in the G T Hospital and the treatment given to her
We shall now pass on to her death and what happened thereafter and the connection of the appellant with the circumstances resulting in the disposal of the dead body
We have already stated that the appellant was present in the hospital till her death
We next hear of the appellant at Poona
On the afternoon of November 13 1956 Dr  Mouskar P W 40 the Resident Medical Officer of the Hospital sent a telegram exhibit 224 to the appellant and it conveyed to him the following information  Indumati expired
Arrange removal reply immediately
 The telegram was sent at about 2 pm
The appellant in reply did not send a telegram but wrote an inland letter in which he stated that the name of the woman admitted by him in the hospital had been wrongly shown as Paunshe and that there was an extra u in it
He also stated that he had informed her brother at Calcutta about the death and that the brother would call at the hospital for the body of his sister
The name of the brother was shown as Govind Vaman Deshpande
The letter also stated that the appellant was writing in connection with the woman aged 30 to 35 years admitted in the hospital at 6 am on November 13 1955 and who had expired the same day at 11 am
The name of the brother in this letter is fictitious because Laxmibai bad no brother much less a brother in Calcutta and of this name
Thereafter the appellant took no further action in the matter till the police questioned him on the 16th two days after he had sent the letter
It seems that the appel lant did not expect the police to appear so soon and he thought it advisable to deny all knowledge about the lady he had taken to the hospital by telling the police that he did not know her
The inference drawn from these two pieces of conduct by the Courts below is against the appellant and we also agree
We have already stated that from then onwards the 477 appellant did not care to enquire from the hospital authorities as to what had happened to his patient s dead body and whether it had been disposed Of or not
He also did not go to Bombay nor did he inform Dr Sathe about the cancellation of the appointment
In his examination he however stated that he attempted to telephone to Dr Sathe but could not get through as the instrument was engaged on each occasion
One expects however that he would have in the ordinary course written a letter of apology to Dr Sathe because he must have been conscious of the fact that he had kept the Specialist waiting for this appointment but he did not
It is said that the appellant need not have taken this appointment and could have told a lie to Laxmibai but the appointment with Dr Sathe had to be real because if the plan failed Laxmibai would have been most surprised why she was brought to Bombay
With this ends the phase of events resulting in the death of Laxmibai
We shall deal with the events in the hospital later but we pursue the thread of the appellant s conduct
Prior to the fateful journey Laxmibai had passed two documents to the appellant
They are Exs 285 and 286
By the first Laxmibai intimated the Bank of Maharashtra Poona that she was going to withdraw in the following week from her Savings Bank account a sum of money between Rs 1000 and Rs 5000
The other document was a bearer cheque for Rs 5000 also signed by Laxmibai but written by the appellant
The appellant presented the first on November 17 after writing the date November 15 on it and the second on November 20 after writing the date November 19 and received payment
Prior to this on November 12 1956 when Laxmibai was alive and in Poona he had presented to the Bank of Maharashtra a dividend warrant for Rs 2607 6 0 to Laxmibai s account writing her signature himself
This was hardly necessary if he was honest
The signature deceived the Bank and it is obvious that he was a consummate forger even then
Of course he put the money into Laxmibai s account but he had to if he was to draw it out again on the strength of these 61 478 two documents
The question is can we say that he was honest on November 12 1956 The answer is obvious
His dishonest intentions were therefore fully matured even before he left Poona
Thereafter the appellant converted all the property of Laxmibai to his own use
He removed the movables in her rooms including the pots and pans furniture clothes radio share scrips and so on to his own house
He even went to the length of forging her signature on securities transfer deeds letters to banks and companies and even induced a lady magistrate to authenticate the signature of Laxmibai for which he obtained the services of a woman who to say the least personated Laxmibai
So clever were the many ruses and so cunning the forgeries that the banks companies and indeed all persons were completely deceived
It was only once that the bank had occasion to question the signature of Laxmibai but the appellant promptly presented another document purporting to be signed by Laxmibai which the bank accepted with somewhat surprising credulity
The long and short of it is that numerous persons were imposed upon including those who are normally careful and suspicious and the appellant by these means collected a sum of no less than Rs 26000 which he disposed of in various ways the chief among them being the opening of a short term deposit account in the name of his wife and himself and crediting some other amounts to the joint names of his brother BC Lagu and himself
We do not enter into the details of his many stratagems for two reasons
Firstly because all this conduct has been admitted before us by his counsel and next because he has received life imprisonment on charges connected with these frauds
Suffice it to say that if the appellant were to be found guilty of the offence sufficient motive would be found in his dealings with the property of this unfortunate widow after her death
If murder there wasit was to facilitate the action which he took regarding her property
If the finding of his guilt be reached then his subsequent conduct would be a part of a very deepseated plan beginning almost from the time when he 479 began to ingratiate himself into the good opinion of the lady
The fact however remains that all this conduct cannot avail the prosecution unless it proves conclusively some other aspects of the case
We cannot however overlook one or two other circumstances which are part of this conduct
We have already stated briefly that the appellant cause all persons to believe that Laxmibai was alive and living at Rathodi as the happily married wife of one Joshi
Both Joshi and Rathodi were equally fictitious
In this connection the pleader the son the friends and the relations of Laxmibai were receiving for months after her death letters and communications purporting to be signed by her though written at the instance of the appellant by persons who have come and deposed before the Court to this fact
These letters were all posted in R M section vans and the prosecution has successfully proved that they were not posted in any of the regular post offices in a town or village
These letters show a variety of details and intimacies which made them appear genuine except for the handwriting and the signature of Laxmibai
For a time people who received them though suspicious took them for what they were worth and it appears that they did not worry very much about the truth
It has now been successfully proved by the prosecution and admitted by the appellant s counsel before us that these letters were all sent by the appellant with the sole object of keeping the people in the dark about the fact of death so that the appellant might have time to deal with the property at leisure
The appellant asserts that he thought of this only after the death of Laxmibai
It seems somewhat surprising that the appellant should have suddenly gone downhill into dishonesty so to speak at a bound
The maxim is very old that no one becomes dishonest suddenly nema fuit repente turpissimus
What inference can be drawn from his conduct after the death of Laxmibai is a matter to be considered by us
And in this connection we can only say at this stage that if some prior conduct is connected intrinsically with conduct after death then the motive of the appellant would be very clear indeed
480 We now pass on to the evidence of what happened in the hospital and the total medical evidence on the cause of death
This evidence has to be considered from different angles
Much of it relates to the condition of Laxmibai and the treatment given to her but other parts of it relate to the conduct of the appellant and the information supplied by him
There is also further evidence about the disposal of the body and the enquiries made into the cause of death
These must be dealt with separately
For the present we shall confine ourselves to the pure medical aspect of the case of Laxmibai during her short stay in the hospital
When Laxmibai was admitted in the hospital Dr Ugale PW18 the Casualty Medical Officer was in charge
He made a preliminary examination and recorded his impressions before he sent the patient to Ward No 12
He obtained from the appellant the history of the attack and it appears that all that the appellant told him was  Patient suddenly became unconscious in train while coining from up country
History of similar attacks frequently before
It also appears that the appellant told him that the lady was liable to hysterical fits and that was set down by Dr Ugale as a provisional diagnosis
So much of Dr Ugale s evidence regarding the health of Laxmibai as given by the appellant
Now we take up his own examination
According to Dr Ugale there were involuntary movements of the right hand which he noticed only once
Only the right hand was moving
He found corneal reflex absent
Pupils were normal and reacting to light
So far as central nervous system and respiration were concerned he detected nothing abnormal
According to him there was no evidence of a hysterical fit and he stated that he queried that provisional diagnosis which according to him was supplied by the appellant
According to Dr Ugale the name of the patient was given as lndumati Paunshe
The patient was then made over to the care of Dr Miss Aneeja P W 19
Dr Miss Aneeja was then a raw Medical Graduate having passed the MBBS in June 1956
She was working as the House Physician 481 and was in charge of Ward No 12
She was summoned from her quarters to the Ward at 6 15 am and she examined Laxmibai
We leave out of account again the conversation bearing upon the conduct of the appellant which we shall view subsequently
He told her also about the sudden onset of unconsciousness and that there was a history of similar attacks before
We are concerned next with the result of the examination by Dr Miss Aneeja bearing in mind that she was not a very experienced physician
She found pulse 100 temperature 99 5 respiration 20
The skin was found to be smooth and elastic nails conjunctiva and tongue were pink in colour lymphatic glands were not palpable and bones and joints had nothing abnormal in them
The pupils of the eyes were equal but dilated and were not then reacting to light
She found that up to the abdomen and the sphincter the reflexes were absent
The reflexes at knee and ankle were normal but the plantar reflex was Babinsky on one foot and there was slight rigidity of the neck
It appears that Laxmibai was promptly given a dose of a stimulant and oxygen was started
Dr Miss Aneeja also stated that she gave an injection of insulin 40 units immediately
Much dispute has arisen as to whether Dr Miss Aneeja examined the urine for sugar albumin and acetone before starting this treatment
It is clear however from her testimony that no blood test was made to determine the level of sugar in the blood
A lumbar puncture was also made by Dr Miss Aneeja and the cerebro spinal fluid was sent for chemical analysis
That report is available and the fluid was normal
According to Dr Miss Aneeja the Medical Registrar who she says was Dr Saify recommended intravenous injection of 40 units of insulin with 20 CC of glucose which were administered
According to her Laxmibai was also put on glucose intragastric drip
Dr Miss Aneeja stated that the urine was examined by her three times and in the first sample sugar and acetone were present in quantities
The first examination according to her was at 6 30 am the next at 8 30 am and the last at 11 am
She stated that she 482 had used Benedict test for sugar and Rothera s test for acetone
In all the examinations according to her there was no albumin present
Dr Miss Aneeja also claims to have phoned to Dr Variava the Honorary Physician at 6 45 or 7 am and consulted him about the case
According to her Dr Saify the Registrar of the Unit visited the Ward at 8 30 am and wrote on the case papers that an intravenous injection of 40 units of insulin with 20 CC of glucose should be administered
According to her Dr Variava visited the Ward at 11 am and examined Laxmibai but the patient expired at 11 30 am
We do not at this stage refer to the instructions for postmortem examination left by Dr Variava which were noted on the case papers because that is a matter with regard to the disposal of the dead body and we shall deal with the evidence in that behalf separately
The evidence of Dr Miss Aneeja shows only this much that she was put in charge of this case examined urine three times and finding sugar and acetone present she started a treatment by insulin which was also supplemented by administration of glucose intravenously as well as by intragastric drip
Apart from one dose of stimulant given in the first few minutes no other treatment beyond administration of oxygen was undertaken
She had also noted the observations of the reflexes and the condition of the patient as they appeared to her on examination
There is a considerable amount of contradiction between the evidence of Dr Miss Aneeja and that of Dr Variava as to whether acetone was found by Dr Miss Aneeja before Dr Variava s visit
According to the learned Judges of the Court below the first urine examination deposed to by Dr Miss Aneeja and said to have been made at 6 30 am was never performed
The other two examinations were made as the urine chart exhibit 127 shows
It is however a question whether they were confined only to sugar and albumin but did not include examination for acetone
We shall discuss this point after we have dealt with the evidence of Dr Variava
483 Dr Variava PW 21 was the Honorary Physician and was in charge of this Unit
According to him he went on his rounds at 11 am and examined Laxmibai from 11 am to 11 15 am
He questioned Dr Miss Aneeja about the line of treatment and told her that she could not have made a diagnosis of diabetic coma without examining urine for acetone
Dr Variava deposed that the entry regarding acetone on the case papers was not made when he saw the papers at 11 am
He then asked Dr Miss Aneeja to take by catheter a sample of the urine and to examine it for acetone
Dr Miss Aneeja brought the test tube with urine in it which showed a light green colour and Dr Variava inferred from it that acetone might be present in traces
According to Dr Variava Laxmibai s case was not one of diabetic coma and he gave two reasons for this diagnosis namely that diabetic coma never comes on suddenly and that there are no convulsions in it as were described by Dr Ugale
Dr Variava also denied that the phone call to him was made by Dr Miss Aneeja
Dr Variava stated that before he left the Ward he told Dr Miss Aneeja that he was not satisfied that the woman had died of diabetic coma and instructed her that postmortem examination should be asked for
In connection with the evidence about the examination of the urine we have to see also the evidence of Marina Laurie nurse PW 59 who stated how the entries in the urine chart came to be made
It may be pointed out that the urine chart showed only two examinations for sugar at 8 30 am and 11 am
 and not the one at 6 30 am
The entry about that was made on the case papers under the head  treatment  by Dr Miss Aneeja and it is the last entry I acetone    which Dr Variava stated was not on the papers at the time he saw them
Indeed Dr Variava would not have roundly questioned Dr Miss Aneeja about the examination for acetone if this entry had been there and Dr Miss Aneeja admits a portion of Dr Variava s statement when she says that she examined the urine on Dr Variava s instructions and 484 brought the test tube to him in which the urine was of a light green colour
Now the urine chart does not show an examination of the urine at 6 30 am
According to Dr Miss Aneeja she examined the urine carried the impression of colour in her mind and noted the result on the case papers
She was questioned why she adopted the unusual course but stated that it often happened that the urine chart was not prepared and the result was not taken to the case papers
However it be Dr Variava is quite positive that the entry about acetone did not exist on the case papers and an examination of the original shows differences in ink and pen which would not have been there bad all the three items been written at the same time
It also appears that even at 8 30 am the urine was examined for sugar only because the entry in the urine chart shows brick red colour which is the resulting colour in Benedict test and not in Rothera s test
Similarly at II am the urine chart shows only a test for sugar because the light green colour is not the resulting colour of Rothera s test but also of the Benedict test
Indeed Dr Variava was also shown a test tube containing the urine of slight greenish colour and his own inference was that acetone might be present in traces
There is thus nothing to show that Dr Miss Aneeja embarked upon a treatment for diabetic coma after ascertaining the existence of acetone
All the circumstances point to the other conclusion namely that she did not examine the urine for acetone  and that seems to be the cause of the questions put by Dr Variava to her
We have no hesitation therefore in accepting Dr Variava s evidence on this part of the case which is supported by the evidence of the course the urine chart and the interpolation in the case papers
From all that we have said it is quite clear that the treatment given to her for diabetic coma was based on insufficient data
There was also no Kussmaul breathing Root  White Diabetes Mellitus p 118 her breathing was 20 per minute which was normal
Nor was there any sign of dehydration 485 because the skin was smooth and elastic and the Babinsky sign was a contra indication of diabetic coma
This is borne out by the diagnosis of Dr Variava himself who appears positive that Laxmibai did not suffer from diabetic coma and is further fortified by the reasons given by Dr H Mehta PW 65 to whose evidence we shall have occasion to refer later
Two other doctors from the hospital were examined in connection with Laxmibai s stay
The first was Dr J C Patel who was then the Medical Registrar of Unit No 1
It seems that Dr Saify the permanent Medical Registrar was on leave due to the illness of his father and Dr J C Patel was looking after his Unit
Dr J C Patel went round with Dr Variava at 11 am and in his presence Dr Variava examined Laxmibai
He has no contribution to make because he says he does not remember anything
The only piece of evidence which he has given and which is useful for our enquiry is that in the phone book exhibit 323 in which all calls are entered no call to Dr Variava on the morning of the 13th was shown
The evidence of Dr J C Patel is thus useless except in this little respect
The other doctor Dr Hiralal Shah P W 72 was the Registrar of Unit No 2
After Laxmibai entered the hospital Dr Miss Aneeja sent a call to him and he signed the call book exhibit 322
Dr Hiralal Shah pretended that he did not remember the case
He stated that if he was called he must have gone there and examined the patient but he stated in the witness box that he did not remember anything
All the three doctors Dr Miss Aneeja Dr Patel and Dr Hiralal Shah denied having made the entry  Insulin 40 units 1
V with 20 C C glucose Dr Miss Aneeja says that it was written by Dr Saify who as we shall show presently was not present in Bombay at all on that day
We do not propose to deal with the cause of the death before adverting to the findings of Dr Jhala PW 66 who performed the autopsy and Dr H section Mehta P W 65 to whom all the case papers of Laxmibai were handed over for expert opinion
Dr Jhala performed the postmortem operation on November 23 62 486 and he was helped by his assistants
Though the body was well preserved and had been kept in the air conditioned morgue there is no denying the fact that 10 days had passed between the death and the postmortem examination
The findings of Dr Jhala were that the body and the viscera were not decomposed and that an examination of the vital organs could be made
Dr Jhala found in the stomach 4 oz of a pasty meal and  ozof whitish precipitate in the bladder
He did not find any other substance which could be said to have been introduced into the system
He examined the brain and found it congested
There were no marks of injury on the body the lungs were also congested and in the upper lobe of the left lung there was a tubercular focus which in his opinion was not sufficient to cause death ordinarily
He also found Atheroma of aorta and slight sclerosis of the coronary
He stated that the presence of the last meal in the stomach indicated that there was no vomitting
He found no pathological lesion in the pancreas the kidney the liver and any other internal organ
He gave the opinion after the receipt of the Chemical Analyser s report that death could have occurred due to diabetic coma
It must be remembered that Dr Jhala was not out to discover whether any offence had been committed
He was making a postmortem examination of a body which under the Coroner s order had been handed over to the medical authorities with a certificate from a hospital that death was due to diabetic coma
It was not then a medico legal case the need for postmortem had arisen because the peon had noticed certain marks on the neck which had caused some suspicion
After discovering that the mark on the neck was a postmortem injury all that he had to do was to verify whether the diagnosis made by the GT Hospital that death was due to diabetic coma was admissible
He examined the body found no other cause of death and the Chemical Analyser not having reported the administration of poison he accepted the diagnosis of the G T Hospital as correct
Dr Jhala however stated that there were numerous poisons which could 487 not be detected on chemical analysis even in the case of normal healthy and undecomposed viscera
He admitted that his opinion that death could have occurred due to diabetic coma was an inaccurate way of expressing his opinion
According to him the proper way would have been to have given the opinion death by diabetes with complications
 As we have said all these papers were placed before Dr H section Mehta for his expert opinion
It is to his evidence we now turn to find out what was the cause of death of Laxmibai
In the middle of March 1958 Dr Mehta was consulted about this case and he was handed over copies of all the documents we have referred to in connection with the medical evidence together with the proceedings of the Coroner s inquest at Bombay
According to Dr Mehta opinion was sought from him about the cause of death of Indumati Paunshe  and whether it was from diabetic coma any other disease or the administration of a poison
Dr Mehta was categorical that it was not due to diabetic coma
He was also of the opinion that no natural cause for the death was disclosed by the autopsy and according to him it was probably due to the administration of some unrecognisable poison or a recognisable poison which due to the lapse of time was incapable of being detected by analysis
He gave several reasons for coming to the conclusion that Laxmibai did not suffer from diabetic coma
Each of his reasons is supported by citations from numerous standard medical authorities on the subject but it is unnecessary to cite them once again
According to him the following reasons existed for holding that Laxmibai did not suffer from diabetic coma 1 Convulsion never occur in diabetic coma per se
According to Dr Mehta the involuntary movements described by Dr Ugale must be treated as convulsions or tremors
We are of opinion that Dr Ugale would not have made this note on the case papers if he had not seen the involuntary movements
No doubt these involuntary movements had ceased by the time the patient was carried to Ward No 12 because Dr Miss Aneeja made a note that they were not observed in 488 the Ward
But Dr Ugale was a much more experienced doctor than Dr Miss Aneeja and it is possible that Dr Miss Aneeja did not notice the symptoms as minutely as the Casualty Medical Officer
2 Diabetic coma never occurs all of a sudden and without a warning
There are premonitary signs and symptons of prodromata
In the case there is no evidence to show how Laxmibai became unconscious
We have however the statement of the appellant made both to Dr Ugale and Dr Miss Aneeja that the onset was sudden
Dr Mehta was cross examined with a view to eliciting that a sudden onset of diabetic coma was possible if there was an infection of any kind
A suggestion was put to him that if the patient suffered from Otitis Media then sometimes the un conciousness came on suddenly
It may be pointed out that the appellant in his examination stated that on the day in question Laxmibai had a temperature of 100 degrees laryngitis pharyngitis and complained of pain in the ear
That statement was made to bring his defence in line with this suggestion
Dr Mehta pointed out that Dr Jhala had opened the skull and had examined the interior organs but found no pathological lesion there
According to Dr Mehta Dr Jhala would have detected pus in the middle ear if Otitis Media had existed
The fact that no question suggesting this was put to Dr Jhala shows that the defence is an afterthought to induce the Court to hold that death was due to diabetic coma or in other words to natural causes
We are inclined to accept the evidence of Dr Jhala that he and his assistants did not discover any pathological lesion in the head or the brain
Otitis Media would have caused inflammation of the Eustachian tube and pus would have been present
No such question having been put we must hold that there was no septic focus which might have induced the sudden onset of diabetic coma
It was also suggested to Dr Mehta that there was a tubercular infection and sometimes in the case of tubercular infection diabetic coma suddenly supervened
The tuberculosis in this case was not of such severity as to have caused this
Dr Jhala referred 489 to the septic focus in the apex of the left lung but he stated that it was riot sufficient to have caused the death of Laxmibai
Illustrative cases of sudden diabetic coma as a result of tubercular infection were not shown and the condition of Laxmibai as deposed to by witnesses right up to 9 pm on the night of November 12 1956 does not warrant the inference that she had diabetic coma suddenly as a result of this infection
3 Dr Mehta also stated from the case papers maintained by the appellant from February 15 1956 to November 12 1956 that during that time Laxmibai did not appear to have suffered from any severe type of acidosis
The appellant in his examination in Court stated that Laxmibai was prone to suffer from acidosis and that he had treated her by the administration of Soda Bi carb
In the case papers Soda Bicarb has been administered only in about 8 to 10 doses varying between 15 grains to a dram
It is significant that on most of the occasions it was part of a Carminative mixture
The acidosis if any could not have been so severe as to have been corrected by such a small administration of Soda Bi carb because the acidosis of diabetes is not the acidity of the stomach but the formation of fatty acids in the system
Such a condition as the books show may be treated by the administration of Soda Bi carb but in addition to some other specific treatment
Joslin Root  White Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus p 397
4 A patient in diabetic coma is severely dehydrated
Root  White Diabetes Mellitus p 118
We have already pointed out that there was no dehydration because the skin was soft and elastic and the tongue was pink
The eye balls were also normal and were not soft as is invariably the case in diabetic coma
Dr Mehta has referred to all these points
5 Nausea and vomiting are always present in true diabetic coma
There is nothing to show either from her clothes or from the smell of vomit in the mouth or from any other evidence that Laxmibai had vomitted in the train
Dr Jhala who performed the 490 postmortem examination had stated that Laxmibai could not have vomitted because in her stomach 4 oz of pasty meal was found
The same fact is also emphasised by Dr Mehta
6 In diabetic coma there will befall of blood pressure rapid pulse there will be Kussmaul breathing or air hunger
The respiration of Laxmibai was found by Dr Ugale and Dr Miss Aneeja to be normal
The temperature chart in the case exhibit 129 gives in parallel columns the respiration corresponding to a particular temperature and the temperature of 995 degrees Fahrenheit found by Dr Miss Aneeja corresponds to respiration at 20 times per minute
Dr Variava Dr Ugale or Dr Miss Aneeja also did not say anything about the Kussmaul breathing and the pulse of 100 per minute according to Dr Mehta was justified by the temperature which Laxmibai then had
Indeed according to Dr Mehta in diabetic coma the skin is cold and there was no reason why there should be temperature
According to Dr Mehta there was no evidence of any gastric disturbance because the condition of the tongue was healthy
Dr Mehta also pointed out that the Extensor reflex called the Babinsky sign was not present in diabetic coma while according to Dr Miss Aneeja it was present in this case
Dr Mehta then referred to the examination of the urine for sugar and acetone and stated that the examination for sugar was insufficient to determine the presence of Ketonuria which is another name for the acidosis which results in coma
We have already found that the examination for acetone was not made and there was no mention of acetone breath either by Dr Ugale or by Dr Miss Aneeja which would have been present if the acidosis was so advanced
Root  WhiteDiabetes Mellitus p 118
8 Lastly the examination of cerebro spinal fluid did not show any increase of sugar and no affection in the categories of meningial irritation was disclosed by the chemical analysis of the fluid
Physician s Hand
book 4th Edn pp 115 120
The neck rigidity which was noticed by Dr Miss Aneeja did not have therefore 491 any connection with such irritation and it is a question whether such a slight neck rigidity existed at all
These reasons of Dr Mehta are prefectly valid
They have the support of a large number of medical treatises to which he has referred and of even more
which were referred to us during the arguments all which we find it unnecessary to quote
We accept Dr Mehta s testimony that diabetic coma did not cause the death of Laxmibai
It is significant that the case of the appellant also has changed and he has ceased to insist now that Laxmibai died of diabetic coma
The treatment which was given to Laxmibai would have if diabetic coma had existed at least improved her condition during the 5 hours that she was at the hospital
Far from showing the slightest improvement Laxmibai died within 5 hours of her admission in the hospital and in view of the contra indications catalogued by Dr Mehta and accepted by us on an examination of the medical authorities we are firmly of opinion that death was not due diabetic coma
We now deal with events that took place immediately after Laxmibai expired
We have already shown that at that time Dr Variava was present and was questioning Dr Miss Aneeja about her diagnosis of diabetic coma
Before Dr Variava left the Ward he told Dr Miss Aneeja that he was not satisfied about the diagnosis and that a postmortem examin ation should be asked for
This endorsement was in fact made by Dr Miss Aneeja on the case papers and the final diagnosis was left blank
Dr Miss Aneejia says that she left the Ward at about 11 30 am and was absent on her rounds for an hour then she returned to the Ward from her quarters at about 1 pm and went to the office of Dr  Mouskar the Resident Medical Officer
According to her she met Dr Saify the Registrar at the door and he had the case papers in his hands
Dr Saify told her that the Resident Medical Officer thought that there was no need for a postmortem examination as the patient was treated in the hospital for diabetic coma
Dr Saify ordered Dr Miss Aneeja to cancel the endorserment about 492 postmortem and to write diabetic coma as the cause of death which she did in Dr Saify s presence
This is Dr Miss Aneeja s explanation why the postmortem was not made though ordered by Dr Variava
Dr Mouskar s version is quite different
According to him the case papers arrived in his office at 1 pm
He had seen the endorsement about the postmortem and the fact that the final diagnosis had not been entered in the appropriate column
Dr Mouskar admitted that he did not proceed to make arrangements for the postmortem examination
According to him the permission of the relatives and the Coroner was necessary
He also admitted that he did not enquire from the Honorary Physician about the need for postmortem examination
He was thinking he said of consulting the relatives and the person who had brought Laxmibai to the hospital
Dr Mouskar sent a telegram at 2 pm to the appellant which we have quoted earlier
He explained that he did not mention the postmortem examination because he was waiting for the arrival of some person connected with Laxmibai
He further stated that between 4 and 5 pm he asked the police to remove the body to the J J Hospital morgue and to preserve it and sent a copy of his requisition to the Coroner
According to him on the 15th the Coroner s office asked the hospital for the final diagnosis in the case
He stated that he asked one out of the three Honorary Physician the Registrar or the House Pbysician about the final diagnosis though he could not say which one
He had sent the papers through the call boy for writing the final diagnosis and he received the case papers from the Unit with the two corrections namely the cancellation of the requisition for postmortem examination and the entry of diabetic coma as the final diagnosis
He denied that he had any talk with Dr Saify regarding the postmortem examination
Itwould appear from this that there are vital differences in the versions of Dr Miss Aneeja and Dr Mouskar
The first contradiction is the date on which the case papers were corrected and the second about Dr SaifY s intervention in the matter
Dr SaifY 493 fortunately for him had obtained leave orders and had left Bombay on November 8 1956 for Indore where his father was seriously ill
He was in fact detained at Indore because his father suffered from an attack of coronary thrombosis and he had to extend his leave
All the relevant papers connected with his leave have been produced and it seems that Dr Saify s name was introduced by Dr Miss Aneeja either to avoid taking responsibility for correction on her own of the papers or to shield some other person who had caused her to make the corrections
Here the only other person who could possibly have ordered her was the Resident Medical Officer Dr Mouskar who at 1 pm had received the papers and had seen the endorsement about the postmortem examination
Dr Mouskar s explanation that he sent the telegram to the appellant for the removal of the body without informing him about the postmortem examination is too ingenious to be accepted by any reasonable person
Dr Mouskar could not ordinarily countermand what the Honorary Physician had said without at least consulting him which he admits he did not do
This is more so if it was only a matter of the hospital s reputation
Whether the corrections were made by Dr Miss Aneeja in the wards when the call boy took the papers to her a most unusal course for Dr Mouskar to have adopted or whether they were made by Dr Miss Aneeja in the office of Dr Mouskar to the door of which she admits she had gone the position remains the same
Dr Miss Aneeja no doubt told lies but she did so in her own interest
She could not cancel the requisition about postmortem examination on her own without facing a grave charge in which Dr Mouskar would have played a considerable part
The fact that this correction did not trouble Dr Mouskar and that his dealings with the body were most unusual points clearly to its being made at his instance
Dr Miss Aneeja invented the story about Dr Saify as a last resort knowing that unless she named somebody the responsibility would be hers
The corrections were made at the instance of Dr Mouskar because Dr Mouskar admits that he sent the papers to the 63 494 Ward for final diagnosis in the face of the endorsement for postmortem examination and Dr Miss Aneeja admits making the corrections at the door of Dr Mouskar s office
In our opinion both of them are partly correct
Dr Mouskar made the first move in getting the papers corrected and Dr Miss Aneeja corrected them not at the door of the office because there was no Dr Saify there but in the office though she had not the courage to name Dr Mouskar as the person who had ordered the correction
Dr Mouskar s telegram and his sending the body to another morgue without the postmortem examination show only too clearly that it was he who caused the change to be made
It is also a question whether the correction about acetone   was not also made simultaneously
We do not believe that the corrections were made as late as November 15 because his telegram for the removal of the dead body and its further removal to the J J Hospital would not fit in with the endorsement for postmortem examination on the case papers
Now the question is not whether Dr Mouskar made the correction or Dr Miss Aneeja but whether the appellant had anything to do with it
Dr Miss Aneeja stated that the appellant was present till the visit of Dr Variava was over and this is borne out by the reply of the appellant because in the inland letter he mentioned the time of the death which the telegram did not convey to him and which he could have only known if he was present in the hospital
We believe Dr Miss Aneeja when she says that the appellant was present at the hospital and the circumstances of the case unerringly point to the conclusion that he knew of the demand for a postmortem examination
Though Dr Mouskar and the appellant denied that they met there is reason to believe that the appellant knowing of the postmortem examination would not go away without seeing that the postmortem examination was duly carried out or was given up
Dr Mouskar and the appellant both admitted that they were together in the same class in 1934 in the S P College Poona though both of them denied that 495 they were acquainted with each other
Dr Mouskar stayed in Poona from 1922 to 1926 1931 to 1936 and 1948 to 1951
The appellant was practising at Poona as a doctor and it is improbable that they did not get acquainted during Dr Mouskar s stay belonging as they do to the same profession
Dr Mouskar further tried to support the appellant by saying that at 1 pm when he saw the case papers the entry about acetone was read by him
He forgot that in the examinationin chief he had stated very definitely that he had not read the case papers fully and had only seen the top page
When he was asked for his explanation he could not account for his conduct in the witness box and admitted his mistake
There are two other circumstances connected with Dr Mouskar which excite considerable suspicion
The first is that he mentioned hysterical fits as the illness from which Laxmibai suffered when Dr Ugale had questioned it and postmortem had been asked for to establish the cause of death
The next is that the call book of the hospital for the period was not produced by him as long as he was in office
When he retired the call book was brought in by his successor and it established the very important fact that it was not Dr Saify the Registrar who was summoned but Dr Shah who had also signed the call book in token of having received the call
Dr Mouskar s conduct as the Resident Medical Officer in having the postmortem examination cancelled was a great lapse and it is quite obvious to us that the finding by the two Courts below that this was done at the request of the appellant is the only inference possible in the case
The alternative suggestion in the argument of the appellant s counsel that Dr Mouskar thought that Dr Variava was making  a mountain out of a mole hill  and that  the reputation of the hospital was involved  does not appeal to us because if that had been the motive Dr Mouskar would have talked to Dr Variava and asked him to revise his own opinion
The cancellation of the requisition for postmortem examination came to Dr Variava as a surprise because he stated that he had heard nothing about it
496 From the above analysis of the evidence we accept the following facts The appellant was present in the hospital till the death of Laxmibai and in his presence Dr Variava examined Laxmibai and questioned the diagnosis of Dr Miss Aneeja and gave the instructions for the postmortem examination
Dr Variava s stay was only for 15 minutes and at the end of it Laxmibai expired
The statement of the appellant that he caught the 10 30 train from Bombay to Poona because he was asked by the Matron to leave the female ward and that he was going back to get a female attendant from Poona is entirely false
He took no action about a female attendant either in Bombay or in Poona and he could not have left by the 10 30 train if he was present in the hospital till 11 30 am
We are also satisfied that Dr Miss Aneeja did not cancel the endorsement about the postmortem examination on her own responsibility
She was ordered to do so
We are also satisfied that it was not Dr Saify who had given this order but it must have been Dr Mouskar who did so
We are also satisfied that Dr Mouskar did not induce Dr Miss Aneeja to cancel the postmortem by sending the case papers through the call boy of her Ward but she was summoned to the office to the door of which she admits she had gone
We are therefore in agreement with the two Courts below that Dr Mouskar caused these changes to be made and that Dr Miss Aneeja did not have the courage to name the Resident Medical Officer and lied by introducing the name of Dr Saify
We are also satisfied that Dr Mouskar and the appellant were acquainted with each other not only when they were in College together but they must have known each other when Dr Mouskar was residing at Poona
The cancellation of the postmortem examination was caused by the appellant because Dr Mouskar s explanation on this part of the case is extremely unsatisfactory and his failure to consult Dr Variava if it was only a hospital matter is extremely significant
The appellant s immediate exit from the hospital and the telegram to him at Poona show that Dr Mouskar knew where the appellant was to be 497 found
The telegram conveyed to the appellant that the postmortem was not to be held because it said that the body should be immediately removed
Now the appellant as we have said took no action about Laxmibai s death and kept this information to himself
He did not also arrange for the removal of the body
He sent an inland letter which he knew would take a day or two to reach the hospital
He knew that the body would be lying unclaimed at the hospital and that the hospital could not hold the body for ever without taking some action
The appellant is a doctor
He has studied in medical institutions where bodies are brought for dissection purposes and he must be aware that there is an Anatomy Act under which unclaimed bodies are handed over to Colleges after 48 hours for dissection
He also knew that the cause of death would become more and more difficult to determine as time passed on and it is quite clear that the appellant was banking on these two circumstances for the avoidance of any detection into the cause of death
He had also seen to it that the postmortem examination would not be made and he knew that if the body remained unclaimed then it would be disposed of in accordance with the Anatomy Act
He wrote a letter which he knew would reach the hospital authorities and he named a fictitious brother who he said could not arrive before the 16th from Calcutta
This delay would have gained him three valuable days between the death and any likely examination and if the body remained unclaimed then it was likely to be disposed of in the manner laid down in the Anatomy Act
The anticipations of the appellant were so accurate that the body followed the identical course which he had planned for it and it is an accident that ten days later a postmortem examination was made because an observant peon noticed some mark on the neck which he thought was suspicious
But for this it would have been impossible to trace what happened to Laxmibai because the hospital papers would have been filed the body dissected by medical students and disposed of and the relatives and friends kept in the dark about the whereabouts of Laxmibai by spurious letters
498 This brings us to another piece of conduct which we have to view
When Laxmibai boarded the train she had a bedding and a bag with her which she was seen carrying at the Par by Patil P W 60 on the night she left Poona
There is a mass of evidence that Laxmibai was in affluent circumstances and always wore on her person gold and pearl ornaments
There is also evidence that she had taken Rs 50 from Virkar the night she travelled and presumbly she was carrying some more money with her because she had to consult a specialist in Bombay and money would be required to pay him
When she reached the hospital in the company of the appellant she had no ornaments on her person no money in her possession and her bag and bedding had also disappeared
As a matter of fact there was nothing to identify her or to distinguish her from any other indigent woman in the street
There is no explanation which any reasonable person can accept as to what happened to her belongings
It is possible that the bag and the bedding might have been forgotten in the hurry to take her to the hospital but her gold ornaments on her person could not so disappear
The appellant stated that he noticed for the first time in the taxi that she had no ornaments on her person but there would be no need for him to notice this fact if Laxmibai started without any ornaments whatever
In view of the fact that Laxmibai s entire property soon passed into the hands of the appellant it is reasonable to hold that he would not overlook the valuable gold and pearl ornaments in this context
Further the absence of the ornaments and other things to identify Laxmibai rendered her anonymity complete in so far as the hospital was concerned unless information to that end was furnished by the appellant only
In the event of Laxmibai s death in the hospital no complication would arise if she did not possess any property and the body would be treated as unclaimed if none appeared to claim it
In addition to the stripping of the lady of her belongings the appellant took measures to keep her 499 identity a close secret
No doubt he gave her name as  Indumati  but he added to it her maiden surname in a garbled form
According to Dr Ugale the name given was  Paunshe 
In every one of the other papers the name appears to have been corrected by the addition of some letter resembling Ilk  but not in the case papers
Dr Ugale swore that he had not heard the name  Paunshe  before though his mother tongue is Marathi and he is himself a Maharashtrian
He therefore asked the appellant to spell the name and he was definite that the name was written as spelt by the appellant
There is however other evidence coming from the appellant himself to show that he did not give the correct maiden surname of Laxmibai because in the letter he wrote to the hospital he only stated that there was an extra  u  in the name as entered in the papers but did not mention anything about  k 
His solicitude about the name and its spelling in the case papers clearly shows that his mind even under the stress of these circumstances was upon one fact only that the name should remain either  Paunshe  or  Panshe  and not become  Ponkshe 
Indeed one would expect the appellant to have given the name  Laxmibai Karve  or  Indumati Karve  instead of  Indumati Ponkshe  and much less  Indumati Paunshe 
There must be some reason for the appellant choosing the maiden surname even if he gave the correct maiden name
The reason appears to be this Either he had to say at the hospital that he did not know the name or he had to give some name
If he said that he did not know the name it would have caused some suspicion and the matter would then have been entered in the emergency police case register
This is deposed to by the doctors in the hospital
By giving the name he avoided this contingency
By giving a garbled name he avoided the identity if by chance that name came to the notice of some one who knew Laxmibai
His intention can only be interpreted in the light of his subsequent conduct and the use to which be put this altered name
We have already seen that he did the fact of death from every 500 one and wrote to people that the woman was alive
He had two opportunities of correcting this name which he had noticed very carefully on the case papers
The first was when he wrote the letter to the hospital in which he insisted that  u  should be omitted but did not add  k 
The other was when on the 16th the police questioned him and he stated that he did not know who the woman was
He also gave the age of the woman wrongly and perhaps deliberately  see the correction and overwritings in the inland letter he wrote on November 14 1956
Immediately after the death of Laxmibai he misappropriated a sum of Rs 5000 by presenting two documents Exs 285 and 286 without disclosing to the Bank that the person who had issued the cheque was no more
All this subsequent conduct gets tied to his conduct in giving the name as  Indumati Paunshe  or  Panshe  and it shows a foreknowledge of what was to happen to Indumati at the hospital
It also shows a preparation for keeping the fact of her death hidden from others to facilitate the misappropriation of her property which as we know eventually took place starting from November 15 that is to say two days following her death
No explanation worth considering exists why this name was given and the effort of the counsel for the appellant that he was probably on intimate terms with Laxmibai and chose to call her by her maiden name rather than her married name is belied by the fact that in every document in which the name has been mentioned by the appellant he has adderssed her as Laxmibai Karve and not as Indumati Ponkshe
There is no evidence that this elderly lady was anything more than a foolishly trusting friend of this man who took advantage of her in every way
Then there is the conduct of the appellant in not disclosing to the hospital authorities the entire case history of Laxmibai and the treatment which he had been giving her as her medical attendant
Instead of telling the doctor all the circumstances of her health he told him that the woman was suffering from hysterical fits which fits according to the 501 evidence in the case did not recur after 1948
He also did not give any particulars of the onset of unconsciousness in the train
Even the fact that Laxmibai had suffered from diabetes for some years was not mentioned and this shows that he was intent upon the medical attendants in the hospital treating the case from a scratch and fumbling it if possible
To him it appears to us it was a matter of utter indifference what treatment was given to her an attitude which he continued to observe even after his patient had died
In our opinion therefore the conduct at the hospital appears significantly enough to suggest that he anticipated that Laxmibai was doomed and he was intent upon seeing to it that no one but himself should know of her death and that a quiet disposal of her body should take place
We may mention here one other fact and that is that the GT Hospital is situatted at a distance of 5 or 6 furlongs from the Victoria Terminus Station whereas the St George s Hospital is said to be only 50 feet away from the main entrance
Why an unconscious woman was carried first on a stretcher and then in a taxi to this distant hospital when she could have been carried straight to the hospital on the stretcher itself is not explained
There is of course this significant fact that at the St George s Hospital he would not have been able to pull his weight with the medical authorities which he was able to do with Dr Mouskar because of his acquaintance with him
This choosing of the hospital is of a piece with the choosing of an inconvenient train which would make detection difficult arrival at the hospital when it would be closed except for emergency cases and the patient likely to be waited upon by a raw and inexperienced doctor in the early hours of the morning
We however cannot say this too strongly because it is likely that Laxmibai herself chose to travel by a night train
But the whole of the conduct of the appellant prior to the death of Laxmibai appears to be of a piece with his conduct after her death and we are satisfied that even before her entry into the hospital the appellant had planned this line of conduct
64 502 Our findings thus substantially accord on all the relevant facts with those of the two Courts below though the arrangement and consideration of the relevant evidence on record is somewhat different
It is now necessary to consider the arguments which have been advanced on behalf of the appellant
The first contention is that the essential ingredients required to be proved in all cases of murder by poisoning were not proved by the prosecution in this case
Reference in this connection
is made to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Mst
Gujrani vs Emperor 1 and two unreported decisions of this Court in Chandrakant Nyalchand Seth vs The State of Bombay2 decided on February 19 1958 and Dharambir Singh vs The State of Punjab 3 decided on November 4 1958
In these cases the Court referred to three propositions which the prosecution must establish in a case of poisoning a that death took place by poisoning b that the accused had the poison in his possession  and c that the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased
The case in Dharambir Singh V
The State of Punjab 3 turned upon these three propositions
There the deceased had died as a result of poisoning by potassium cyanide which poison was also found in the autopsy
The High Court had disbelieved the evidence which sought to establish that the accused had obtained potassium cyanide but held nevertheless that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the accused in that case
This Court did not however accept the circumstantial evidence as complete
It is to be observed that the three propositions were laid down not as the invariable criteria of proof by direct evidence in a case of murder by poisoning because evidently if after poisonidgthevictim the accused destroyed all traces of the body the first proposition would be incapable of being proved except by circumstantial evidence
Similarly if the accused gave a victim something to eat and the victim died immediately on the ingestion of that food with symptoms of poisoning and 1 AIR 1933 All 394
2 Cr A No 120 Of 1957
3 Cr k No 98 of 1958
503 poison in fact was found in the viscera the requirement of proving that the accused was possessed of the poison would follow from the circumstance that accused gave the victim something to eat and need not be separately proved
There have been cases in which conviction was maintained even though the body of the victim had completely disappeared and it was impossible to say except on circumstantial evidence whether that person was the victim of foul play including poisoning
Recently this Court in Mohan vs State of U P 1 decided on November 5 1959 held that the proof of the fact of possession of the poison was rendered unnecessary because the victim died soon after eating pedas given by the accused in that case and he had not partaken any other food likely to contain poison
In Dr Palmer s case 2  strychnine was not detected and the accused was convicted by the jury after Lord Chief Justice Campbell Cresswell J and Mr Baron Alderson  concurring charged the jury that the discovery of the poison on autopsy was not obligatory if they were satisfied on the evidence of symptoms that death had been caused by the ministration of the strychnine
The conduct of Palmer which was also significant was stressed inasmuch as he had attempted to thwart a successful chemical analysis of the viscera and had done suspicious acts to achieve that end
In Dr Crippen s case 3 the conduct of the accusedafter the death of Mrs Crippen in making the friends and relatives believe that Mrs Crippen was alive was considered an incriminatory circumstance pointing to his guilt
No doubt in Dr Crippen s case 3 the body was found and poison was detected but there was no proof that Dr Crippen had administered the poison to her that being inferred from his subsequent conduct in running away with Miss Le Neve
In the second case of this Court the poison was availiable to the victim and it was possible that she had taken it to end an unhappy life
The cases of this Court which were decided proceeded upon their own facts and though the three 1 Cr A No 108 of 1959
2 Notable Trials Series
3 Notable Trials Series
504 propositions must be kept in mind always the sufficiency of the evidence direct or circumstantial to establish murder by poisoning will depend on the facts of each case
If the evidence in a particular case does of not justify the inference that death is the result of poisoning because of the failure of the prosecution to prove the fact satisfactorily either directly or by circumstantial evidence then the benefit of the doubt will have to be given to the accused person
But if circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct proof of the three elements is so decisive that the Court can unhesitatingly hold that death was a result of administration of poison though not detected and that the poison must have been administered by the accused person then the conviction can be rested on it
In a recent case decided in England in the Court of Criminal Appeal Regina vs Onufrejczyk 1 the body of the victim was not found at all
And indeed there was no evidence that he had died much less was murdered
The accused s conduct in that case which was held decisive was very similar to the conduct of the present appellant
He was in monetary difficulties and the victim was his partner whom he wished to buy out but did not have the money to do so
One fine day the partner disappeared and his body was not found and it was not known what had happened to him
The activities of the accused after the disappearance of his partner were very remarkable
To people who enquired from him about his partner he told all manner of lies as to how a large and dark car had arrived in the night and that three men bad carried off his partner at the point of a revolver
To a sheriff s officer he stated that his partner had gone to see a doctor
He also asked a lady to send him some sham registered letters and forged other documents
Lord Chief Justice Goddard stated the law to be that in a trial for murder the fact of death could be proved by circumstantial evidence alone provided the jury were warned that the evidence must lead to one conclusion only and that even though there was no body or even trace of a body or any direct evidence as to 1 1955 1QB 388
505 the manner of the death of a victim the corpus delicti could be held to be proved by a number of facts which rendered the commission of the crime certain
pertinent to remember that Lord Goddard observer during the course of argument that there was no virtue in the words  direct evidence  and added It would be going a long way especially these days when we know what can be done with acid to say that there cannot be a conviction without some proof of a body
If you are right you have to admit that a successful disposal of the body could prevent a conviction
 It is obvious that Lord Goddard had in mind the case of John George Haigh 1 who as is notorious disposed of bodies by steeping them in acid bath destroying all traces
It is in this context instructive to read a case from Now Zealand to which Lord Goddard also referred where the body of the victim was never found The King vs Horry 2 
The statement of the law as to proof of corpus delicti laid down by GressonJ concurred in by Fair ACJ Stanton J and Hay J was approved by Lord Goddard with one slight change
The statement of the law head note is as follows   At the trial of a person charged with murder the fact of death is provable by circumstantial evidence notwithstanding that neither the body nor any trace of the body has been found and that the accused has made no confession of any participation in the crime
Before he can be convicted the fact of death should be proved by such circumstances as render the commission of the crime morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt the circumstantial evidence should be so cogent and compelling as to convince a jury that upon no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for Lord Goddard did not agree with the words  morally certain  and stated that he would have preferred to say  such circumstances as render the commission of the crime certain 1 Notable Trials Series
2 1952 NZLR 111
506 The same test has been applied by Wills in his Book on Circumstantial Evidence and the author has quoted the case of Donellan 1 where the conduct of Donellan in rinsing out a bottle in spite of the wife of the victim asking him not to touch those bottles was treated as a very significant evidence of guilt
Butler J charged the jury that  if there was a doubt upon the evidence of the physical witnesses they must take into their consideration all the other circumstances either to show that there was poison administered or that there was not and that every part of the prisoner s conduct was material to be considered
 Similarly in Donnall s case 2  Abbot J according to Wills in summing up said to the jury that there were two important questions first did the deceased die of poison and if they should be of opinion that she did then whether they were satisfied from the evidence that the poison was administered by the prisoner or by his means
There were some parts of the evidence which appeared to him equally applicable to both questions and those parts were what related to the conduct of the prisoner during the time of the opening and inspection of the body his recommendation of a shell and the early burial to which might be added the circumstances not much to be relied upon relative to his endeavours to evade his apprehension
His Lordship also said as to the question whether the deceased died by poison I in considering what the medical men have said upon the one side and the other you must take into account the conduct of the prisoner in urging a hasty funeral and his conduct in throwing away the contents of the jug into the chamber utensil  In Rex vs Horry 3 where the entire case law in England was presented for the consideration of the Court it was pointed out by the Court that there was no rule in England that corpus delicti must be proved by direct evidence establishing the death of the person 1 Gurneys Rep 1781 2 3 1952 NZLR 111
507 and further the cause of that death
Reference was made to Evans vs Evans1 where it was ruled that that corpus delicti might be proved by direct evidence or by  irresistible grounds of presumption 
In the same case it has been pointed out that in New Zealand the Court upheld numerous convictions where the body of the victim was never found
The rule of law stated by Sir Matthew Hale in Pleas of the Crown Vol 2 p 290 that  I would never convict any person of murder or manslaughter unless the fact were proved to be done or at least the body found dead  was not accepted in this and other bases
Lord Goddard also rejected the statement as one of universal application in the case to which we have already referred
The case of Mary Ann Nash2 is illustrative of the proposition that even though the cause of death may not appear to be established by direct evidence the circumstances of the case may be sufficient to infer that a murder has been committed
In that case the prisoner had an illegitmate son 5 years old
There was evidence to show that the mother desired to put the child out of her way
One day in June 1907 the mother left the house and returned without the child
She made several statements as to what had happened to the child which were found to be untrue
As late as April 1908 the body of a child was discovered in a well
Decomposition had so far advanced that even the sex of the child could not be determined
There was nothing therefore to show whether death was natural or violent or whether it had occurred before or after the body was put into the well
The case was left to the jury
On appeal it was contended that there being no proof how death took place the judge should not have left the case to the Jury but ought to have withdrawn it
Lord Chief Justice delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal referred to the untrue statements of the prisoner about the wherebouts of the child and observed as follows  All these statements were untrue
She bad an object in getting rid of the child and if it had been 1 161 ER 466 491
2 508 lost or met with an accidental death she had every interest in saying so at once
It is said there is no evidence of violent death but we cannot accept that Mr Goddard cannot have meant that there must be proof from the body itself of a violent death
In view of the facts that the child left home well and was afterwards found dead that the appellant was last seen with it and made untrue statements about it this is not a case which could have been withdrawn from the jury
 There is no difference between a trial with the help of the jury and a trial by a Judge in so far as the appraisement of evidence is concerned
The value of the evidence in each case must necessarily be the same
If the case of Mary Ann Nash 1 could be left to the jury here too the case has been decided by the two Courts below concurrently against the appellant on evidence on which theY could legitimately reach the conclusion whether an offence of murder had been established or not
A case of murder by administration of poison is almost always one of secrecy
The poisoner seldom takes another into his confidence and his preparations to the commission of the offence are also secret
He watches his opportunity and administers the poison in a manner calculated to avoid its detection
The greater his knowledge of poisons the greater the secrecy and consequently the greater the difficulty of proving the case agaisnt him
What assistance a man of science can give he gives but it is too much to say that the guilt of the accused must in all cases be demonstrated by the isolation of the poison though in a case where there is nothing else such a course would be incumbent upon the prosecution
There are various factors which militate against a successsful isolation of the poison and its recognition
The discovery of the poison can only take place either through a postmortem examination of the internal organs or by chemical analysis
Often enough the diagnosis of a poison is aided by the information which may be furnished by relatives and friends as to the symptoms 1 161 E R 466 491 509 found on the victim if the course of poison has taken long and others have had an opportunity of watching its effect
Where however the poision is administered in secrecy and the victim is rendered unconscious effectively there is nothing to show how the deterioration in the condition of the victim took place and if not poison but disease is suspected the diagnosis of poisoning may be rendered difficult
In Chapman s case1 the victim Maud Marsh was sent to Guy s Hospital where the doctors diagnosed her condition to be due to various maladies including cancer umatism and acute dyspepsiaIt is clear that doctors can be deceived by thesymptoms of poison into believing tHat they have a genuine case of sickness on hand
In Dr Palmer s case 2 two medical witnesses for the defence diagnosed the case from the symptoms as being due to Angina Pectoris or epilepsy with tetanic complications
The reason for all this is obvious
Lambert in his book The Medico Legal Post Mortem in India pp 9699100 has stated that the pathologist s part in the diagnosis of poisoning is secondary and has further observed that several poisons particularly of the synthetic hypnotics and vegetable alkaloids groups do not leave any characteristic signs which can be noticed on postmortem examination
See Modi s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 13th Edn pp
450 451 and Taylor s Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence Vol
llp 229
The same is stated by Otto Saphir in his book  Autopsy  at pp
71 and 72
In Dreisbach s Handbook of Poisons
1955 it is stated that pathological findings in deaths from narcotic analgesics are not characteristic
He goes further and says that even the laboratory findings are non contributory
The position of the pathologist who conducts a postmortem examination has been summed up by Modi in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 13th edn
 p 447 as follows  In order to make a probable guess of the poison and to look for its characteristic postmortem appearances it is advisable that a medical officer before 1 Notable Trials Series
2 Notable Trials Series
65 510 commencing a postmortem examination on the body of a suspected case of poisoning should read the police report and endeavour to get as much information as possible from the relatives of the deceased regarding the quality and quantity of the poison administered the character of the symptoms with reference to their onset and the time that elapsed between the taking of the poison and the development of the first symptoms the duration of the illness nature of the treatment adopted and the time of death
He will find that in most cases the account supplied by the police and the relatives is very meagre or incorrect and misleading
His task is therefore very difficult especialy when many of the poisons except corrosives and irritants do not show any characteristic postmortem signs and when bodies are in an advanced state of decomposition  
Similarly Gonzales in Legal Medicine and Toxicology states at p 629  The question of whether or not a negative toxicologic examination is consistent with death by poison can be answered affirmatively as may persons overcome by carbon monoxide die after twenty four hours at which time the gas cannot be determined in the blood by chemical tests
Likewise the organs of individuals who have been poisoned by phosphorus may not contain the toxic substance respons ible for death if they have managed to survive its effects for several days
Many conditions seriously interfere with the toxicologic examination such as postmortem decomposition 
We need not multiply authorities because every book on toxicology begins with a statement of such a fact
Of course there is a chemical test for almost every poison but it is impossible to expect a search for every poison
Even in chemical analysis the chemical analyser may be unsuccessful for various reasons
Taylor in his Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence Vol
11 p 228 gives three possible explanations for negative findings viz 1 the case 511 may have been of disease only 2 the poison may have been eliminated by vomitting or other means or neutralised or metabolised and 3 the analysis may have been faultily performed
Svensson Wendel in Crime Detection has stated at p 281 that  Hypnotics are decomposed and disappear very quickly some even in the time which elapses between the administration and the occurrence of death
Circumstantial evidence in this context means a combination of facts creating a net work through which there is no escape for the accused because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt
To rely upon the findings of the medical man who conducted the postmortem and of the chemical analyser as decisive of the matter is to render the other evidence entirely fruitless
While the circumstances often speak with unerring certainty the autopsy and the chemical analysis taken by themselves may be most misleading
No doubt due weight must be given to the negative findings at such examinations
But bearing in mind the difficult task which the man
of medicine performs and the limitations under which he works his failure should not be taken as the end of the case for on good and probative circumstances an irresistible inference of guilt can be drawn
In the present case the effort of the appellant has been to persuade the Court that the death of Laxmibai was possibly the result of disease rather than by poison
During the course of the case and the appeal various theories have been advanced and conflicting diagnoses have been mooted
The case of the appellant has wavered between death by diabetic coma and by hypoglycemia though relying upon the condition of the arteries and the aorta and the rigidity of the neck  suggestions of coronary complications and renal failure have also been made
We have shown above that this was not a case of diabetic coma because of the absence of the cardinal symptoms of diabetic coma
This also is the opinion of Dr Variava and Dr Mehta though Dr Jliala for reasons which we have indicated accepted it
The appellant argued again the case 512 from the angle of diabetic coma but later veered in favour of hypoglycemia
This change noticeable not only in the arguments before us but also throughout the conduct of the case is merely to confuse the issue and create if possible a doubt which would take the mind away from the surrounding circumstances and focus it only upon the medical aspect of the case
Full advantage has been taken of the findings of Dr Ugale and Dr Miss Aneeja which suggest partly an onset of diabetic coma partly of hypoglycemia and partly of renal failure
There is no true picture of any one disease
The rigidity of the neck was not reflected in the chemical analysis of the cerebro spinal fluid and was negatived in so far as renal failure is concerned by the negative findings about albumin
Diabetic coma stood ruled out by the presence of the Babinsky sign and the suddenness of the onset the negative aspect of acetone breath and the rather remarkable failure of the specific treatment given for it to have worked any change
Driven from these considerations to such doubtful suggestions as coronary complications of which no physical evidence was found by Dr Jhala the appellant put his case on hypoglycemia and relied upon the fact that at the hospital 40 units of insulin intravenously and another 40 units subcutaneously were administered
Medical text books were quoted to show that in the case of hypoglycemic coma the introduction of even a small quantity of insulin sometimes proves fatal
The learned AdvocateGeneral stoutly resisted this move which was at variance with the case as set out before the High Court because it is obvious enough that if one accepted the theory of hypoglycemic coma the only injections of insulin causing such shook would be proved to have been given at the hospital and not by the appellant
Here the position however is not so difficult for the State because Laxmibai was found to have 4 oz of pasty meal in her stomach and with food inside her the possibility of hypoglycemia taking place naturally was extremely remote
If it was hypoglycemic coma due to excessive administration of insulin then it must have been administered prior to its onset and who could have 513 given it but the appellant  Even though coma supervenes suddenly the patient passes through symptoms of discomfort and Laxmibai would have told the appellant about it in the train
The appellant mentioned nothing of this to Dr Ugale
If an excessive dose of insulin was given by the appellant the question of intent would arise and the conduct shows the intention
There were no pronounced symptoms of hypoglycemia either
Laxmibai just passed from unconsciousness to death without the manifestation of any of the signs associated with the syndrome of hypoglycemic death
It is also to be remembered that hypoglycemic coma is generally overcome by the administration of a very small quantity of glucose 5 or10 grams of glucose orally Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus by Joslin Root and White p 350
The 40 units given intravenously were mixed with 20 C C of glucose and carried the palliative with them
Even otherwise Laxmibai was receiving glucose by intragastric drip and during the three and a half hours there should have been an improvement
The surprising part is that the administration of the insulin and glucose brought about no visible symptoms in the patient either for better or for worse
She passed into death and the inference can only be that she did not die of these diseases of which she was either suspected or for which she was treated but of something else which could not answer to the treatment given to her
Dreisbach in his Handbook on Poisons at p 27 has stated that coma also results from the action of several poisons
Depressants sedatives and hypnoties all cause death by coma ibid
p 201
The symptoms according to the author are sleepiness mental confusion unsteadiness rapidly followed by coma with slow shallow respiration flaccid muscles and absent deep reflexes
The difference between coma due to disease and coma as the result of poisons is stated by him in the following words Coma from poisoning presumably results from some interference with brain cell metabolism
In attempting to combat the effects of drugs which induce coma remember that no agents are known 514 which will specifically overcome the metabolic derangements of drug induced coma
The mechanism of action of cerebral stimulant drugs is also unknown but these drugs presumably act by depressing some inhibiting function in the cell
There is no evidence that any stimulants specifically oppose the cellular metabolic depression induced by the depressant drugs such as the barbiturates
 No specific antidote is known for the sedative and hypnotic drugs
Ibid
p 202
The condition of Laxmibai clearly indicated an impairment of the central nervous system
It is no doubt true that in some cases of coronary thrombosis coma supervenes but it is idle to suggest in the present case that Laxmibai was afflicted by this type of coma because Dr Jhala who performed the postmortem examination and opened the coronary arteries found no evidence of thrombosis
According to Otto Saphir a myocardial infarct is easily detected
Autopsy pp
301 302
Coma in Laxmibai s case as we have shown above was not the result either of acidosis hypoglycemia renal failure or meningial irritation
Her liver pancreas and kidney were found to have no pathological lesions and it is significant that no question was even attempted to establish that the opinion of Dr Jhala on this part of the case was incorrect
Learned counsel for the appellant suggested that the examination by Dr Jhala might have been superficial and might not have included a microscopical examination of sections of some of the vital organs normally affected by diabetes
This suggestion in our opinion ought to have been put forward during the cross examination of the witness and it is unfair now to suggest that the opinion that no lesions were found was based on either improper or inadequate examination
We hold that Dr Jhala performed the examination adequately and he was also helped by his assistants
Here we pause to ask a question why the appellant brought up the question of hysterical fits at all
He could have said that Laxmibai was a diabetic and that it was likely she had coma by reason of that 515 disease
The suggested diagnosis given by the appellant was so unlikely that Dr Ugale questioned it then and there
There is nothing in the Wanlesswadi TB Sanatorium papers or in Dr Sathe s evidence to show that Laxmibai had hysterical fits after her hysterectomy operation
No suggestion was made to the doctors in Court that Laxmibai might have had hysterical fits
The condition of the muscles and the absence of deep reflexes clearly show that this was just another piece of deception
It is not possible to hold that the appellant gave the full particulars to Dr Miss Aneeja
No suggestion was made to her or to Dr Ugale that any information other than what was noted in the case papers was furnished
There is no case for holding that Laxmibai had a relapse of hysterical fits
It would therefore appear that Laxmibai s condition was not due to any disease because diseases inducing coma generally leave some trace behind and also respond to medication
No doubt in some cases the pathological findings after death from diabetic coma have been negative but the question is if this was such a case
We have on the one hand the fact that numerous poisons causing coma leave no identifiable trace in the victim after death and on the other that sometimes the autopsy does not disclose any discoverable signs in a patient who dies after an attack of diabetic coma or disease
The appellant can be presumed to have had knowledge of these poisons
The appellant challenged the Advocate General to show from any standard book that the symptoms found by the doctors accorded with any known poison
Here it must also be remembered that a man with knowledge may manipulate not one but more drugs to achieve his purpose and the cardinal signs of poisoning on the victim may as a result be either obliterated or at least significantly modified
We give one example on which a certain amount of knowledge is possessed even by laymen
A poison of which one of the symptoms would be the contracting of the pupils of the eyes may be side tracked by putting into the eyes of the victim a drug like atropine which by its local 516 action dilates the pupils
We give this example because most of us know the action of atropine on the eyes and because the example also shows how easily a person with knowledge may confuse the symptoms by a simple trick
We are not suggesting that this is what has happened in this case but when we have to deal with a case of crime versus natural death we cannot overlook the possibility of some ingenious artifice having been used to screen the action
If Laxmibai died in circumstances which prima facie admit of either disease or homicide by poisoning we must look at the conduct of the appellant who brought her to the hospital and consider to what conclusion that conduct unerringly points
If the appellant as an honest medical man had taken Laxmibai to the hospital and she had died by reason of disease his conduct would have been entirely different
He would not have taken her to the hospital bereft of property with which she started from home he would not have given a wrong or misleading name to cover her identity he would not have given a wrong age and wrong history of her ailments he would not have written a letter suggesting that she had a brother in Calcutta which brother did not exist he would not have abandoned the corpse to be dealt with by the hospital as an unclaimed body he would not have attempted to convince the world that she was alive and happily married he would not have obtained her property by forgeries impersonation and other tricks indulged in both before and after her death but he would have informed her relatives and done everything in his power to see that she was properly treated and stayed on to face whatever inquiry the hospital wished to make into the cause of death and not tried to avoid the postmortem examination and would not have disappeared never to reappear
His prevarications about where  Laxmibai was make a big and much varied list and his forgeries cover scores of documents
In the words of Baron Parke in Towell s case 1 Circumstantial evidence is the only evidence which can in cases of this kind lead to discovery
11854  517 There is no way of investigating them except by the use of circumstantial evidence but it most frequently happens that great crimes committed in secret leave behind them some traces or are accompanied by some circumstances which lead to the discovery and punishment of the offender
Direct evidence of persons who saw the fact if that proof is offered upon the testimony of men whose veracity you have no reason to doubt is the best proof but on the other hand it is equally true with regard to circumstantialevidence that the circumstances may often be so clearly proved so closely connected with it or leading to one result in conclusion that the mind may be as well convinced as if it were proved by eye witnesses
 The appellant in this case took some risk in taking Laxmibai to the hospital arid in giving his name there and these aspects were in fact stressed as arguments in the case
As regards the first part the argument overlooks that what appears to us to be a risk might not have so appeared to the appellant who might have been sure of his own ability to screen himself
To him the death of Laxmibai at the hospital without discovery of poison would be the greatest argument in his favour that he had acted honestly
The second argument is equally unacceptable to us
The appellant could not take the risk of a false name and address if he was intending that the body should be disposed of as unclaimed
By giving his own address he could keep the strings in his own hands
If he gave an address and no reply came from that address the hospital would suspect foul play
If he gave the address of Laxmibai people in Poona would know of this mysterious death and they would remember the death of Purshottam alias Arvind in 1954
At that time also a postmortem examination on the body of Arvind was held see evidence of Ramachandra P W 1 and the explanation of the appellant given in writing on January 22 1954 is set out below in his own words  My name is Anant Chihtaman Lagu age years residing at No 4315 Madiwale Colony Poona on 66 518 being questioned state that I am the family doctor of Karve family in H No 94 95 Shukrawar
The deceased Purshottam Anant Karve belongs to that family
He came from Bombay to Poona on Saturday the 16th January 1954
He had come to me on Sunday the 17th February 1954 for medicine for weakness
I treated him for 2 clays on 17th and 18th
He had neither told me that there was poisoning in his stomach nor did I detect any even when I examined and treated him
He became unconscious 5 hours before his death
He was taken to the Sassoon Hospital at 9 pm on 18th January 1954
He was taken to the Sassoon Hospital because his disease was increased in unconsciousness and also because his mother as also myself and Dr Joshi were of the same opinion
He died there in about 30 to 45 minutes
The fact that there was deliberate poisoning by somebody was neither revealed in my examination nor did Purshottam Karve speak to me anything about it during the time I treated him 2 days before
What exactly was the cause of death could not be revealed during my treatment
I do not know if somebody is on bad terms with him
There are rumours about suicide but there is no reason or any circumstance whatsoever for doing so
 A false address would have started enquiries at the hospital end
Laxmibai s own address would have started speculation in Poona
It was for this reason that the appellant had to choose another place and to trim between fact and fiction so that he might be able to deal with the matter himself Of course Laxmibai did have an address of her own which could have been given and which did not cease to be her address because she had got an attack of coma from which people are known to recover
These arguments however are of no avail in view of the appellsnt s entire conduct now laid bare which conduct has been proved to our satisfaction to have begun not after the death of Laxmibai but much earlier
This conduct is so knit together as to make a net work of circumstances pointing only to his guilt 519 The case is one of extreme cunning and premeditation
The appellant whose duty it was to care for this unfortunate lady as a friend and as her medical adviser deliberately set about first to ingratiate himself in her good opinion and becoming her confidant found out all about her affairs
All this time he was planning to get at her property after taking her life
He did not perpetrate his scheme at Poona where the death might have brought a host of persons to the hospital
He devised a diabolical scheme of unparalleled cunning and committed an almost perfect murder
But murder though it hath no tongue speaks out sometimes
His method was his own undoing because even the long arm of coincidence cannot explain the multitude of circumstances against him and they destroy the presumption of innocence with which law clothed him
In our judgment the two Courts below were perfectly correct in their conclusion that the death of Laxmibai was the result of the administration of some unrecognised poison or drug which would act as a poison and that the appellant was the person who administered it
We accordingly confirm the conviction
As regards the sentence of death passed on the appellant by the Sessions Judge and confirmed by the High Court it is the only sentence that could be imposed for this planned and cold blooded murder for gain and we do not interfere with it
The appeal fails and it will be dismissed
SARKARJ
In my opinion this appeal should be allowed
The appellant was tried by the Sessions Judge Poona on a charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Laxmibai Karve on November 13 1956 by administering poison to her and was convicted and sentenced to death
His appeal to the High Court at Bombay against the conviction and sentence failed
He has now appealed to this Court with special leave
The evidence against the appellant is all circumstantial
The question to be decided in this appeal is 520 whether that evidence is such that the only reasonable conclusion from it is that the appellant was guilty of the charge brought against him
Laxmibai Karve the deceased was the widow of one Anant Karve who was a businessman of Poona
Laxmibai was married in 1922 at the age of eleven to Anant Karve then a widower
Her maiden name was Indumati Ponkshe
After her marriage she was given the name Laxmibai but was also called Indumati or Indutai or Mai Karve or simply Mai
It does not appear that after her marriage she had been known by her father s surname of Ponkshe a fact the significance of which will appear later
Anant Karve had a son named Vishnu by his first wife
By Laxmibai he bad two sons Ramchandra and Purshottam also called Arvind
Anant Karve died in 1945 leaving a will
By his will he gave Laxmibai a right of residence in tree rooms in his dwelling house at No 93 95 Shukrawar Peth Poona and a right to receive Rs 50 per month from the rent of that house which was in part let out and made certain other bequests to her
He devised the rest of his properties to his sons
Besides what she had received from her husband Laxmibai in 1954 inherited the properties of Purshottam who had died interstate and unmarried in that year
She further inherited a large sum of money and gold ornaments of considerable value from her mother Girjabai who had died in 1946 or 1947
She bad also considerable valuable ornaments of her own
Her total assets amounted in 1956 to about Rs 80000
Part of her liquid assets were held in shares and debentures in limited companies
She had also certain moneys in an account in her name in the Bank of Maharashtra
A considerable sum was due to her from one Joshi to whom she had given a loan
After the death of her husband differences cropped up between Laxmibai and her elder SOD Ramchandra
In 1946 Ramchandra started living separately from his mother in the same house and used to take his food in a hotel In October 1952 Ramchandra joined military 521 service as a craftsman and left Poona
Since joining service till the death of Laxmibai he was not residing at Poona but came there now and then
In May 1956 Laxmibai got Ramchandra married
After her husband s death Laxmibai lived in the three rooms in premises No 93 95 Shukrawar Peth Poona in which she had been given a right of residence by her husband s will
Her younger son Purshottam also appears to have gone out of Poona on service in 1953 and he died in January 1954
Since then Laxmibai had been living all by herself
She had however certain relatives in Poona
The appellant is a medical doctor
He and his brother B C Lagu also a doctor had been the family physicians of Anant Karve during his life time and attended him in his last illness
After his death the appellant continued to be Laxmibai s family doctor
It is clear from the evidence that Laxmibai had great trust and confidence in the appellant and depended on him in all matters concerning her moneys and investments
It was he who went to the Bank for withdrawing and depositing moneys for her
In 1955 he actually took on rent a big hall in premises No 93 95 Shukrawar Peth for his personal use and had been in occupation of it since then
Laxmibai did not possess very good health
She had developed a tuberculous lesion some twenty years before her death but it had healed
She was a chronic diabetes patient since 1946 and started having hysterical fits since 1939
She suffered from menorrhagia and metrorrhagia since 1942
On April 11 1948 Dr Ghorpure a surgeon performed an operation on her which is described in these terms Abdomen opened by mid line sub umbilical incision Subtotal hysterectomy done
ovary cysticpunctured Appendicectomy
Abdomen closed after exploring other viscera which were normal
In 1949 she suffered from pyorrhoea and had her teeth taken out
In 1950 the tuberculous affection became active and on June 15 1950 she consulted Dr Sathe a lung specialist who found that there was tuberculous 522 affection of the left lung and he recommended a line of treatment
This treatment was carried out by the appellant but apparently did not achieve much result
On July 13 1950 she got herself admitted into the Wanlesswadi Tuberculosis Sanatorium at Miraj in Bombay for treatment of the tuberculosis
Two thoracoplasty operations were performed on the left lung and she was recommended a third such operation which she was unwilling to undergo and left the hospital at her own desire
In the course of these operations nine of her ribs on the left side were removed
The report given by this hospital on November 17 1950 reads thus Patient was admitted on 13th July 1950
X Ray on admission showed extensive filtration on the left side with a large cavity in the upper zone the right side was within normal limits
She had diabetes with high blood sugar which was controlled by insulin
Two stages of thoracoplasty operation on the left side were done and there was good clearing of disease but there was a small residual cavity seen and the third stage operation was advised
The patient is leaving at her own request against medical advice
Her sputum is positive
There is no evidence that after she left Wanlesswadi Sanatorium she had any relapse of any of her previous illnesses earlier recounted
It appears from the evidence of her relation one Datar a medical man that Laxmibai had been completely invalid being a frank case of tuberculosis of both the lungs but in November 1956 her health was good and she was cooking her food and moving about in the house
The other evidence also shows that she was carrying on her daily avocations of  life in a normal way at that time
After her death her body was found to be well nourished
She had however to have ordinary medical attention constantly and the diabetes had continued though controlled
The appellant treated her all along and the fees paid to him appear debited to Laxmibai s account
I have so far been stating the earlier history of the case and now come to the more immediate events
On November 8 1956 Laxmibai had Rs 5275 09 in her 523 account in the Bank of Maharashtra
On a date between November 8 and 10 she signed two papers the first of which was a notice to the Bank reading I desire to withdraw an amount exceeding Rs 1000 up to about Rs 5000 in the next week from My savings Bank Account and the other was a withdrawal slip or cheque and it read  Pay Bearer the sum of Rupees Five thousand only which please debit to the 2account of Laxmibai Anant Karve
None of these papers bore any date and the bodies of them were in the appellant s handwriting
These papers were made over by Laxmibai to the appellant and he did not present them to the Bank till after her death
On November 12 1956 the appellant paid to the credit of Laxmibai s account in the Bank a dividend warrant dated November 10 1956 for Rs 2607 6 0 drawn in her favour by a company on the Bank of Maharashtra after signing her name on the back of it himself
The appellant had fixed up an engagement with Dr Sathe of Bombay who has been named earlier for November 13 1956 at 3 pm for examining Laxmibai
On November 8 1956 Bhave a relation of Laxmibai called on Laxmibai and found the appellant there
Laxmibai told him that she proposed to go to Bombay with the appellant for consulting Dr Sathe for her health and that she would be returning in four or five days
On November 10 or 11 she saw a lawyer Karandikar also a relation and informed him that she intended to go to Bombay with the appellant for consulting a physician
About the same time Champutai daughter of Bhave mentioned earlier came to Laxmibai s house to invite her to attend the birthday party of her son which had been fixed for November 13
Laxmibai told Champutai that she was going to Bombay and if she was able to come back in time she would attend the party
At about 8 pm on November 12 Laxmibai went to Virkar who was a tenant of the house where she lived and informed him that she was going to Bombay by the night train to consult a doctor and requested him to pay Rs 50 on account of the rent then due for meeting the expenses of the 524 journey to Bombay
The amount was paid by Virkar to her
She told Virkar that she expected to return to Poona after three or four days
About the same time she met Pramilabai another tenant of the house and told her that she was going to Bombay with the appellant by the night train to consult Dr Sathe
A little later she was seen by a third tenant Krishnaji standing in front of the house with a small bag and bedding
Krishnaji also saw the appellant on the road going away from the house
All these people have said that they found Laxmibai in a good state of health and going about performing her normal avocations of life
There was a passenger train leaving Poona for Bombay at 10 pm Laxmibai and the appellant went by this train to Bombay on November 12 1956
Though the appellant denied this the Courts below have found that they travelled in the same compartment
The train reached Victoria Terminus Station Bombay at 5 10 am on November 13
Laxmibai had then gone into a comatose condition
The appellant procured a stretcher and carried her into a taxi with the help of porters and took her to Gokuldas Tejpal Hospital usually called for short GT Hospital which is about six furlongs from the station
They reached the hospital at about 5 45 am Laxmibai was taken to the Outdoor Department where Dr Ugale the Casualty Officer in charge admitted her into the hospital
According to Dr Ugale the appellant told him that the name of the unconscious woman was Indumati Paunshe and her age was forty
The appellant gave as the address of the patient the address of his own dispensary at Poona namely  Co Dr Lagu 20 B Shukrawar Gala No 12 Poona 2 
Dr Ugale said that the appellant at his request spelt the name Paunshe and he took it down as spelt by the appellant
On enquiry about the history of the patient by Dr Ugale the appellant told him that the patient suddenly became unconscious in the train while coming from upcountry and that there was a history of similar attacks frequently before
Dr Ugale also said that the appellant told him that he thought that the case was one of hysterical fit from 525 which she frequently suffered
He did not tell Dr Ugale that the patient suffered from any other disease
He said that he had brought the unconscious woman to Bombay for getting her examined by a specialist and that she was his patient
Dr Ugale entered in the appropriate record of the hospital called the case paper all that the appellant told him and what he himself had noticed
As a result of his own examination Dr Ugale found that the patient was making some involuntary movement the corneal reflex was absent the pupils were normal and reactive
He found nothing abnormal in the cardiovascular system or the respiration
There was a clerk sitting by the side of Dr Ugale when the appellant was speaking to him and he made the necessary entries in another record of the hospital
In that record the name of the patient appears as Indumati Pankshe
Dr Ugale examined the person of Laxmibai and found no ornament or cash on her
Within four or five minutes of the time that she arrived at the Out door Department of the hospital Laxmibai was removed to Ward No 12
Dr Anija a young woman doctor who had passed out the previous June was then the House Physician in attendance at that ward
The appellant accompanied Laxmibai to the ward and introduced himself to Dr Anija as Dr Lagu which is his name
He told her that while travelling in a train from upcountry the patient had got unconscious and therefore he had brought her straight from the station to the hospital and that before the journey the patient was alright
He further said that the patient had similar attacks before
The appellant also told Dr Anija that he was the family physician of the patient and a family friend and spoke of some of the illnesses from which the patient had earlier suffered
Dr Anija made some notes in the case paper of what she heard from the appellant and then examined the patient the result of which she also similarly noted in the case paper
Thereafter according to Dr Anija she tested the patient s urine in a laboratory attached to the ward and recorded the finding on the case paper
She then administered some stimulant and oxygen and also 67 526 gave an injection of 40 units of insulin as she thought  as a result of the urine test that the case was one of diabetic coma
There is some dispute as to whether the urine was examined by Dr Anija at this time and as to when the entries on the case paper of the results of the examination had been made
This will be discussed later
Dr Anija examined the urine of the patient for the second time at about 8 30 am and that also disclosed a certain quantity of Sugar
She said that she then sent a call to the Registrar of the ward who was her immediate superior to come and see the case
The Registrar came and according to Dr Anija directed that the patient be given another 40 units of insulin with 20 cc of glucose by intravenous injection and that she be also given  intra gastric glucose drip  and this was done at about 9 am At about 11 am the HonorarY Visiting Physician Dr Variava came to the hospitals Dr Anija told him that it was a case of diabetic coma
Dr Variava then himself examined the patient and thereafter asked Dr Anija why she thought it to be a case of diabetic coma to which Dr Anija replied that she did so because there was sugar present in the urine
Dr Variava then asked her whether she had examined the urine for acetone to which she replied that she had not
Dr Variava thereupon reprimanded her by saying  How can you diagnose a case of diabetic coma without ascertaining acetone in the urine  Thereafter under the directions of Dr Variava Dr Anija again tested the urine and showed it to Dr Variava who thought that the urine contained a slight trace of acetone
Shortly after this urine test the patient that is Laxmibai expired
It was then about 11 30 am Dr Variava then told Dr Anija that he did not think that the case was one of diabetic coma and that therefore he wanted a postmortem examination of the body of the deceased
Dr Anija then made a note on the case paper stating  Asked for postmortem  and put her signature below the entry
She did not then put down anything in the column there about the final diagnosis
Dr Variava did not wait to see the entry about 527 postmortem being made by Dr Anija but left to attend other cases
It is clear that the appellant was present in the hospital up to the time of the death Of Laxmibai though in his statement in the trial Court he had denied this
There is no evidence as to how long he remained in the hospital after Laxmibai s death but it is clear that he was in Poona on November 14
There was arrangement in the hospital for conducting postmortem examinations
The case papers along with note  Asked for postmortem  had been sent by Dr Anija to the Resident Medical Officer of the hospital Dr Mouskar
It was his duty to arrange for the postmortem examination
The case paper came to Dr Mouskar s office at 1 pm but he did not proceed to make any arrangement for having a postmortem examination held
Instead at about 2 p m he sent an official telegram to the appellant at Poona at the address which he had given to Dr Ugale and which was recorded in the case paper
The telegrams was in these words  Indumati expired arrange removal reply immediately
 On November 14 the appellant wrote from Poona a letter in reply to the telegram
This letter was in these terms  I have already telegraphed to the brother of Shrimati Indumati Panshe at Calcutta earliest he will reach Bombay on the 15th November 1956 Thursday
His name is Govind Vaman Deshpande he will enquire as Indumati Panshe
I have seen the name of the patient entered in the Ward Book as Indumati Pannshe as n  extra
Please correct  it
I am writing all these things in connection of a case woman aged 30 35 years admitted in G T Hospital at 6 am on Tuesday 13th November 1956 and expired the same day at about 11 am Shri Govind Vaman Deshpande will take the body and do the necessary funeral function according to Hindu rites
 Laxmibai had in fact no brother of the name of Govind Vaman Deshpande and in fact the appellant 528 had sent no telegram as he stated in the letter
The statements in the letter were all false
The letter was received in the office of Dr Mouskar in the afternoon of November 15
Not having received any reply from the appellant to his telegram Dr Mouskar on November 14 at about 4 p m sent the following information to the Inspector of Police A Esplanade P section Bombay
Sir I am to state that Smt
Indumati Paunshe Hindu female aged 40 years was admitted in Ward No
Xll for treatment of hysterical fits on 13th November 1956 at 5 45 a m
She died on the same day at 11 30 am
The address given at the time of admission is as follows Co Dr Lagu 20B Shukrawar Gala No 12 Poona 2
A telegram on the above address has already been sent but without any response
It is therefore requested that the body may please be removed and taken to the J J Hospital Morgue for avoiding decomposition
 A copy of this letter was sent to the Coroner for information
The letter was written as in the G T Hospital there was no air conditioned morgue and there was one in the J J Hospital
On receipt of this letter the police immediately wrote to the Coroner for permission to remove the body from the G T Hospital to the J J Hospital
The permission was granted by the Coroner at about 7 50 pm on the same day
The body was thereupon removed from the G T Hospital to the J J Hospital morgue at about 9 pm on November 14
On the same day that is November 14 at about 9 30 p m the police again wrote to the Coroner stating that it had received a report from the Resident Medical Officer G T Hospital of the death of one Indumati Paunshe referring evidently to the letter which Dr Mouskar had earlier on the same day written to the 529 policeand that Indumati appeared to have no relatives in Bombay and further that the cause of death was not certified and requesting in the circumstances that an inquest over the death might be held
What happened about this request will be stated later
On November 15 the Bombay police sent a wireless message to the police at Poona intimating that on November 13 one Indumati Paunshe who had been admitted to the GT Hospital for treatment of hysterical fits had died on the very day in the hospital and her address was  Co Dr Lagu 20B Shukrawar Gala No 12 Poona 2  and asking that enquires might be made at the above address and the relatives might be asked to claim the dead body which was lying unclaimed
Pursuant to this message the Poona police interviewed the appellant at Poona on November 16 when he made the following statement On November 12 he left Poona for Bombay by the 10 pm train and had gone off to sleep
Towards the end of the journey when he started preparing to get down at Bombay he found one woman fast asleep
From other passengers he came to know that her name was Indumati Paunshe about 35 years of age and she had a brother serving in Calcutta
When other passengers got down at Victoria Terminus Station in Bombay the woman did not awake
He thereupon looked at her keenly and found her senseless
Being himself a doctor he thought it his duty to take her to the hospital and so took her to the G T Hospital in a taxi
As he had taken that woman to the hospital the Casualty Medical Officer took his address
He had no more information about the woman
She was not his relation and he was not in any way responsible for her
 The statement so made by the appellant was received by the Bombay police from the Poona police on November 17
I now come back to the events that were happening at Bombay
I have earlier stated that the case paper had not initially given the final diagnosis as to the 530 cause of Laxmibai s death but bore the endorsement Asked for postmortem 
At some stage as to which the evidence is conflicting and which I will have to discuss later the endorsement  Asked for postmortem  was crossed out and the words diabetic coma  were written on the case paper as the caus of the death of the patient
Both of these alterations had been made by Dr Anija who put her signature under the crossed out entry
Dr Mouskar on November 15 sent to the Coroner a certificate of the death of the patient Indumati in the G T Hospital stating therein diabetic coma as the cause of her death
By this time the alteration in the case paper had clearly been made crossing out the direction as to postmortem examination and stating therein diabetic coma as the cause of death
On the same day that is November 15 the police wrote a letter to Dr Mouskar apparently in ignorance of the death certificate issued by him requesting him to send per bearer the cause of the death of  Indumati 
This letter was sent with a copy the idea being that the original would be retained by the Hospital and the copy returned with an acknowledgement of the receipt of the original made on it
Both these were however produced from the police custody without any endorsement by the hospital acknowledging the receipt of either
The copy bore the following remark Diabetic coma Dr N section Variava G T Hospital
 It is clear on the evidence that the endorsement had not been made by Dr Variava
Dr Anija also denied having made it though before the police she admitted that the words  Diabetic coma  had been written by her
Dr Mouskar said that neither the original nor the copy had ever come to him and he thought that the endorsement Diabetic coma might be in Dr Anija s hand writing but he could not say by whom the words Dr NS Variava G T Hospital had been written adding that the words  Dr N section Variava  had not been written by Dr Variava
The question as to who made the endorsement will be discussed later
On receipt of the death certificate from Dr Mouskar the Coroner s office made on the letter of the police 531 dated November 14 asking an inquest to be made which I have earlier mentioned an endorsement directing that no inquest was necessary as the Resident Medical Officer G T Hospital had certified the cause of death and had issued the death certificate
On November 19 the Coroner s office directed that the dead body might be disposed of as unclaimed after taking a photograph of it
A photograph of the dead body was duly taken on the same day
In the mean time the Grant Medical College had written to the Coroner on November 17 for authority to take over certain unclaimed dead bodies lying in the JJ Hospital mortuary for dissection purposes and thereupon the Coroner made an order directing that the dead bodies might be made over to the Grant Medical College
Pursuant to this order the dead bodies which included that of Laxmibai were then made over to the Grant Medical College on November 20 1956
When the dead body of Laxmibai was about to be taken to the dissection hall some scratches on the neck were detected
The Professor of Anatomy of the College did not thereupon allow the body to be dissected and brought the discovery to the notice of the police
The police then wrote to the Coroner that in view of this a postmortem and an inquest might be held
Accordingly under the instructions of the Coroner Dr Jhala Police Surgeon Bombay held a postmortem examination of the body of Laxmibai on November 23
He found no sign of decomposition in the body nor any characteristic smell of any recognisable poison
He also found the scratches on the neck to be postmortem
Dr Jhala sent the viscera to the Government Chemical Examiner who sent the report of his examination on December 19 1956 wherein he stated that he was unable to detect any poison in the viscera
Thereupon Dr Jhala submitted his postmortem report stating that in his opinion death could have occurred on account of diabetic coma
In the meantime after the postmortem examination the body of Laxmibai had been made over to the Hindu Relief Society for cremation on November 24 and the cremation had been duly carried out
532 It is now necessary to go back to Poona and relate what the appellant did after Laxmibai s death
To describe it summarily the appellant did not give any one the information of Laxmibai s death but on the contrary
represented that she was alive and moving about from place to place and in the meantime misappropriated most of her moneys
I will now give some details of his activities in relation to Laxmibai s moneys
It will be remembered that about November 8 the appellant had taken from Laxmibai a notice to the Bank for withdrawal of money and a withdrawal slip none of which bore any date
The appellant inserted on the notice of withdrawal the date November 15 1956 and lodged it in the Bank on the same day or soon thereafter
On the withdrawal slip he inserted the date November 19 1956 and on November 20 presented it to the Bank and drew out a sum of Rs 5000 from Laxmibai s account
He subsequently put in to the credit of her account diverse cheques and by April 1957 bad drawn out by forging her signature practically the whole amount in her credit totalling about Rs 10000 including the sum of Rs 5000 withdrawn on November 20 1956
The appellant also embarked on a systematic course of forgeries of the signature of Laxmibai on various fabricated documents including share transfer deeds as a result of which before the end of 1957 he misappropriated a large part of the liquid assets belonging to Laxmibai s estate
When some of the forged signatures of Laxmibai had been doubted by the authorities to whom they had been presented with the object of being acted upon the appellant even went to the length of getting a woman to falsely impersonate Laxmibai before a Magistrate and thereby procured the latter to certify forged signatures of Laxmibai as genuine signatures
He also clandestinely denuded Laxmibai s flat of its entire contents
None of her ornaments has been recovered after her death
In the meantime he had been falsely representing to various persons including all friends and relatives of Laxmibai that he had met her on several dates after November 13 when she was already 533 dead
He manufactured various letters purported to be written by her from distant places in India and addressed to her relatives in Poona stating that she was going round on a pilgrimage
Eventually he fabricated letters purported to have been written by her to her relatives in which it was stated that she had married one Joshi and bad settled down in a place called Rathodi near Jaipur and did not intend to return to Poona
There is in fact no place of the name of Rathodi
His idea in manufacturing these letters was to create a false impression in the minds of Laxmibai s friends and relatives that she was still alive and this he did with the object of gaining time to misappropriate her properties
It is not necessary to go into the details of this part of the conduct
The substance of it is that he made full use of the situation arising out of Laxmibai s death to misappropriate by all kinds of dishonest means most of her properties and to facilitate the misappropriation assiduously spread the story that she was alive
It may be stated that the appellant was put on his trial on charges of misappropriation and other allied charges and found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life
The long absence of Laxmibai had gradually made her relatives grow suspicious about her fate and they approached the police but no trace of Laxmibai could be found
Several petitions were sent to the higher police officers and also to the Chief Minister of Bombay
In the end the matter was entrusted to Mr Dhonde Deputy Superintendent of Police C I D Poona for enquiry
Mr Dhonde made various investigations and eventually on March 13 1958 interrogated the appellant
The appellant then told him that be had taken Laxmibai to the G T Hospital Bombay and admitted her there and that she died there on November 13 1956
The police made enquiries at the G T Hospital and was able to find the clothes which Laxmibai wore when she died
These were identified by Laxmibai s relations
The photograph of the dead body of Laxmibai also helped to prove her identity
After certain further enquiries the police sent up the 68 534 appellant for trial on a charge of murder of Laxmibai with the result I have earlier mentioned
The prosecution case is that the appellant caused the death of Laxmibai by administering to her a poison which was undetectable
On the evidence in this case it has to be held as the Courts below have done that there are poisons which cause death but are undetectable
I do not wish to be understood as saying that death by poisoning cannot be proved without proof of detection of poison in the deceased person s system after his death
I quite agree that the circumstances may be such that the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that death was an unnatural death
In this view of the matter I do not consider it necessary to discuss the cases cited at the bar and in the judgments of the Courts below
They are all illustrative of the proposition that a crime can be proved by circumstantial evidence a proposition which I fully accept
In one of them namely Regina vs Onufrejczyk1 guilt was held proved from the circumstances of the case notwithstanding that there was no body or trace of a body or any direct evidence as to the manner of death of a victim
The legal proposition that arises in the present case may be put in the words of Wills in his treatise on Circumstantial Evidence which has been quoted in the judgment of the High Court It would be most unreasonable and lead to the grossest injustice and in some circumstances to impunity for the worst of crimes to require as an imperative rule of law that the fact of poisoning shall be established by any special and exclusive medium of proof when that kind of proof is unattainable and specially if it has been rendered so by the act of the offender himself
No universal and invariable rule therefore can be laid down and every case must depend upon its own particular circumstances and the corpus delicti must like anything else be proved by the best evidence reasonably capable of being adduced and by such an amount and combination of relevant facts whether direct or circumstantial as to establish the factum probandum 1 1955 1 Q B 388
535 to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis
7th Ed p385 
In the present case therefore the circumstances must be such that no other conclusion than that Laxmibai died of poisoning and that the poison was administered by the appellant can reasonably be drawn
The Courts below have found that the circumstances of this case fully establish this
I have come to a different conclusion
In my view the circumstances are not such that from them the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that Laxmibai died of poisoning
If that conclusion cannot be drawn of course no question of the appellant having poisoned her arises
I may also say that if Laxmibai could be said to have died of poisoning I would have no reason to disagree with the view of the Courts below that it was the appellant who had administered the poison
I proceed now to consider the question whether Laxmibai had died of poisoning
I do not suggest that poison had to be found in her system
In my view if it could be established in this case that Laxmibai had died an unnatural death the conclusion would be inevitable that that unnatural death had been brought about by poison no other kind of unnatural death could be possible on the facts of this case
The real question in this case then is whether Laxmibai had died an unnatural death
I think the Courts below also considered that to be the only question in this case
I have earlier said that no poison was detected in the postmortem examination
So far as direct evidence of the cause of death goes which in this case is all opinion evidence we have the evidence of three doctors
All that Dr Variava said was that death was not due to diabetic coma
The Courts below have accepted this evidence and I find no reason to take a different view
Then there is Dr Jhala who conducted the postmortem examination
He had stated in the port mortem examination report that the cause of death was diabetic coma
In his evidence in Court he said that the opinion stated in his report was not based on his pathological findings and that the proper way of describing the cause of 536 death would be by stating  death by diabetes with complications 
He also referred to certain complications such as atheroma of aorta with slight sclerosis of coronary
In the end he was asked by the Court  Would you agree with the view that the proper opinion on the pathological data available before you should have been that the cause of death was not ascertainable or could not be ascertained  His answer was  My answer is that on pathological data I would agree to the answer proposed
We have however to see the clinical data also
 On the clinical data he would have said that death was due to diabetes with complications but he conceded that that opinion was somewhat speculative
These two doctors there fore did not suggest that death was due to any unnatural cause
Dr Variava did not in his evidence say that he had directed the postmortem examination to be done because he suspected any foul play
It would appear that be did not suspect any foul play for he did not require the case to be marked as a medico legal case
The most important direct evidence as to the cause of death and on which the prosecution has greatly relied is the opinion of Dr Mehta who appears to be a medical man of some eminence
All the papers connected with the illnesses of Laxmibai and the postmortem examination report bad been given to him and he had made a thorough study of them
The net result of this study would appear from his evidence the relevant part of which I think it right now to set out
He said  On a careful consideration of the entire material placed before me I am definitely of the opinion that the cause of death of Indumati Paunshe as mentioned in the case record and the Coroner s inquest viz diabetic coma cannot be true
In my opinion the cause of death may probably be due to 1Administration of some unrecognisable poison ie some poison for the detection of which there are no definite chemical tests
2Administration of some recognisable poison for which there are chemical tests but which tests 537 could not be obtained on account of deterioration of the poison remaining in the dead body which was kept in the morgue for considerable time after death without postmortem being performed and which was already undergoing decomposition prior to the actual postmortem examination as is clear from the absence of rigor mortis
Rigor mortis is means stiffening of muscles
The above opinion that the probable cause of death may be due to administration of poison is further fortified by the fact that the postmortem did not reveal any definite pathological lesion to account for the sudden rapid death of the deceased
The question then arises whether she died a natural death ie due to any other disease or diseased condition
The postmortem notes do not show anything abnormal beyond congestion of organ is and tubercular focus in the left lung
Congestion of organs occurs in majority of the cases after death of the person and particularly more so when so many days have elapsed between death and postmortem examination
Some decomposition is bound to be going on
There is still possibility of death being due to poison in spite of the fact that the poison was not detected in the postmortem examination
Two reasons can be assigned for non detection of poison 1 There are no definite chemical tests for each and every poison
There are some poisons which cannot be detected on chemical analysis
2 There may be a recognisable poison in the sense that there are tests for its detection
But the poison may not be detected on account of deterioration of the poison remaining in the body for a considerable time before the postmortem examination and it has undergone decom
position or oxidation  
The possibility of death being due to poisoning cannot be ruled out
 538 I do not think that the Courts below thought that the evidence of Dr Mehta established that death must have been due to an unnatural cause
If they did I find myself unable to agree with them
The substance of Dr Mehta s evidence is that death may  probably be due to  some poison  the probable cause of death maybe due to administration of some poison the posibility of death being due to poisoning cannot be ruled out
It will have been seen that Dr Mehta posed a question whether Laxmibai had died a natural death
That question he did not answer beyond stating that the postmortem examination did not show anything abnormal beyond congestion of organs and a tubercular focus in the left lung and that such congestion of organs occurs in the majority of cases after death
It is clear that Mr Mehta could not say with conviction that death had been caused by poisoning nor that death could not have been due to natural causes
The net result of the evidence of the medical experts is clearly that it cannot be said with definiteness how death was caused
In this view nothing really turns on the fact that shortly prior to her death Laxmibai was found to have been in good health which of course can only mean as good a health as a confirmed invalid like her could have
It cannot be definitely inferred from the fact that she was in good health that she had not died a natural death
If such an inference was possible the doctors who gave evidence would have given a clear opinion but this they did not
In this state of the evidence the Courts below have founded themselves on various circumstances of the case most of which I have earlier related in coming to the conclusion that Laxmibai bad met with an unnatural death
These circumstances I now proceed to consider
The first thing that I wish to discuss is the fact that after Laxmibai s death the appellant started on a systematic career of misappropriating her assets
I am unable to conclude from this that the appellant had caused her death
It is reasonably possible to think that he made use of the opportunity that came is way on Laxmibai s death to misappropriate her 539 properties and had not caused her death
The fact that the appellant deliberately kept back the information of Laxmibai s death from her relatives and falsely created the impression in their minds that she was alive does not advance the matter
This was clearly done with a view to give him time in which to carry out his scheme of misappropriating her properties
I quite concede however that these circumstances may take on a different colour from other circumstances but I have found no such circumstance
The next circumstance is the conduct of the appellant in obtaining from Laxmibai her signatures on the undated notice of withdrawal to the Bank and the withdrawal slip
The bodies of these documents are in the handwriting of the appellant
The Courts below have thought that the appellant obtained the signatures of Laxmibai on blank papers and filled them in the forms they now stand after the death of Laxmibai and utilised them to misappropriate her moneys
They came to this conclusion from the fact that these documents were admittedly without dates and had been subsequently dishonestly utilised
It has been held from this that the appellant had during her life time a design on her moneys and therefore it becomes likely that he caused her death
I am unable to agree with this conclusion
It would be difficult to hold from the fact that the appellant had a design on Laxmibai s moneys that he had also a design on her life or that her death was an unnatural death
But apart from that there is reason to think that when Laxmibai signed these documents their bodies had already been written up
That reason is this
It will be remembered that on November 12 1956 the appellant had put to the credit of Laxmibai s account in the Bank a dividend warrant in her favour for Rs 2607 6 0
The balance to the credit of her account on November 12 1956 became as a result of this deposit Rs 7882 15
Now it is obvious that if the appellant had filled in the bodies of the notice of withdrawal and the withdrawal slip after the death of Laxmibai he would not have mentioned the amounts therein as Rs 5000 but would have increased it to a 540 figure nearer the balance because he undoubtedly had set about to misappropriate the moneys in that account and in fact he actually withdrew almost the entire balance in that account later by forging Laxmibai s signatures on other appropriate documents
Therefore it seems to me that the bodies of the notice of withdrawal and the withdrawal slip had been written out before Laxmibai put her signatures on them
Furthermore the evidence clearly establishes that even during Laxmibai s life time the appellant used to present to the Bank cheques signed by Laxmibai for withdrawal of moneys and signed on the reverse of such cheques in acknowledgement of receipt of the moneys
He also used to deposit moneys in the Bank to the credit of her account
It is quite possible that the two documents mentioned had come into the appellant s possession in the usual course of managing Laxmibai s banking affairs
The fact that Laxmibai had not put dates on the documents would indicate that it was not intended that they would be presented to the Bank immediately for there is no reason to think that Laxmibai had not noticed that the documents did not bear any date
She seems to have been quite a capable woman managing her own affairs well
The Courts below have thought that there was no need for her to have wanted to withdraw such a large amount
The appellant said that she wanted to invest the money if some fixed deposit which would have yielded a higher return but he actually lent it to a friend whom however he refused to name
The Courts below have disbelieved the appellant s case
Even so it does not seem to me possible to hold that Laxmibai did not want to withdraw any moneys and the appellant had fraudulently got her to put her signatures on blankpapers
I have earlier given my reason for this
It was not necessary for the appellant to have got her to sign blank papers and there is nothing to show that she would have done that even if the appellant had asked her
I may here mention that no adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that the appellant put in the 541 dividend warrant to the credit of Laxmibai s account it proves no guilt
But it is said that the appellant forged the name of Laxmibai on the back of it
The High Court thought that this forgery proves that the appellant had during the lifetime of Laxmibai entertained the intention to misappropriate her property
I am wholly unable to see how that conclusion could be reached from this or how in fact the forgery proves anything against the appellant
By the forgery as it is called the appellant was putting the money into the account to which it lawfully belonged he did not thereby give it a different destination
Furthermore he need not have signed her name himself
In the normal course Laxmibai would have signed it herself if asked to do so and given it to the appellant for being sent to the credit of her account
There is no reason to think that she would not have signed it if the appellant had asked her to do so
The dividend warrant was in Laxmibai s favour and had been drawn on the Bank of Maharashtra
It was being put to her credit in the same Bank
The Bank was therefore not likely to scrutinise with any care the payee s signature on the dividend warrant
That may have been nature reason why it was left to the appellant to sign Laxmibai s name on the dividend warrant for putting it into the Bank
But whatever view is taken I cannot see how it helps at all in solving any question that arises in this case
The trial Court found it a riddle and did not rely on it
Next it is said that the appellant falsely denied that he travelled in the same compartment with Laxmibai on their journey to Bombay
The denial was no doubt false
But it had been made at the hearing
He had admitted to the doctors at the hospital and to the Poona police on November 16 1956 that he and the deceased had travelled in the same compartment
This falsehood therefore does not establish that the death of Laxmibai was an unnatural death a question which I am now investigating
The fact that they travelled in the same compartment may no doubt have given him an opportunity to administer poison to her and to that extent it is of course relevant 542 It is also said that there was a hospital called St George s Hospital within a few yards of the Victoria Terminus Station but the appellant took the unconscious Laxmibai to the more distant G T ofHospital with an ulterior purpose
That purpose it is said was that in the G T Hospital his friend Dr Mouskar was the Resident Medical Officer and the appellant wanted to secure his help if necessary in preventing the discovery of the crime that he had committed
The appellant said that he chose the G T Hospital as he was familiar with it but not with the St George s Hospital
This seems to me to be too insignificant a thing
The St George s Hospital was no doubt very near but the G T Hospital was not very far away either
There is nothing to show that the appellant knew that Dr Mouskar was on duty on the day in question
There is neither any evidence to show how much the two were friendly or how far Dr Mouskar would have gone to help the appellant
Furthermore as the appellant had administered a poison which was undetectable it is not clear what help he anticipated he would require from Dr Mouskar
Again he must have known that as the Resident Medical Officer Dr Mouskar was not in charge of the treatment of patients in the hospital but only performed administrative functions and that the unconscious Laxmibai would have to be treated by other doctors
It cannot be said that if these other doctors found anything wrong Dr Mouskar could have done much to help the appellant
So it seems to me impossible to draw any inference against the appellant from the fact that he had taken the unconscious Laxmibai to the comparatively distant G T Hospital
It is then pointed out that when Laxmibai was admitted to the G T Hospital she had no ornaments on her person and no moneys with her and even her bag and bedding had disappeared
It is suggested that the appellant had removed them and that this again proves that he had conceived the idea of misappropriating her properties even during her life time which supports the theory that he caused her death
Now the bedding and bag can be dismissed at once 543 There is no evidence as to what they contained
They were of small sizes
It is reasonable to think that in the bag Laxmibai had taken a few wearing apparels which she might need for her stay in Bombay which the evidence shows she thought would not be of more than four days
The box and the bedding must therefore have been of very insignificant value
As regards ornaments the evidence is that usually she wore certain ornaments which might be of some value
None of the witnesses however who saw her the day she left Poona has said that they found ornaments on her person
It is not at all unlikely that as she was going to Bombay and was not sure where she would have to put up there she had as a measure of safety taken off the ornaments she usually wore before she left Poona
Then again if the appellant had taken off the ornaments from the person of Laxmibai he must have done it in the train or while taking her to the hospital
Now it is too much to assume that in the compartment in which they were travelling there were no other passengers
The removal of the ornaments would have been noticed by the other passengers or if done later by the stretcher bearers or the taxi driver
None of these persons was called
Neither is there any evidence that any search for them had been made
Therefore it seems to me that on the evidence on record it cannot be said definitely that the appellant removed any ornaments from the person of the unconscious Laxmibai
With regard to the money she must have brought some with her to meet her expenses in Bombay
It is more than likely that she had entrusted the moneys to the appellant for safety which the appellant never returned
There is no evidence that she had more than Rs 50 with her and there is no reason to think that she was carrying a large sum
The disappearance of the money does not prove that the appellant had conceived the design of getting rid of her
Then we find the appellant describing Laxmibai in the Hospital by the name Indumati Paunshe 
It is said he did this to prevent her identity being discovered after her death and that this shows that he had 544 already poisoned her and knew that she was going to die
Now so far as the name Indumati is concerned that was one of her names
The papers that the appellant maintained in connection with Laxmibai s treatment show that he mostly called her by that name and never called her Laxmibai
He said that he was used to calling her by her maiden name of Indumati Ponkshe and gave that name to Dr Ugale by sheer force of habit
Dr Ugale however said that as he did not follow the surname he asked the appellant to spell it and took it down as spelt namely as  Paunshe 
The Appellant denies that he gave the name Paunshe but says he said  Ponkshe 
The appellant s version receives support from the fact that the hospital clerk who also took down the name for another record of the hospital as the appellant was giving it to Dr Ugale took it down as  Indumati Pankshe 
Therefore there is some doubt whether Dr Ugale heard the name correctly
However that may be I doubt if the name Paunshe indicates that the appellant gave it with a view to prevent disclosure of identity
It is said that his plan was to disappear after Laxmibai s death so that her body would become unclaimed and be disposed of as such
If that were Bo then nothing would turn on the name
It is only when people came to know that a woman of the name of Indumati Paunshe had died that the question as to who she was would have risen
In view of the fact that the appellant had given Indumati s address as care of himself at Poona it would be known that she belonged to Poona
I am very doubtful if an enquiry made at Poona for Indumati Paunshe would have kept back the real identity
Indumati or Laxmibai had disappeared mysteriously her maiden name was Ponkshe
People interested in her would surely have been led by the name Indumati Paunshe to enquire if it was Laxmibai Karve
So it seems to me that if the appellant had really wanted that the woman he took to the hospital should never be discovered to have been Laxmibai he would have used a totally different name
I am unable to hold that the use of the name  Indumati Paunshe  is any clear evidence of the guilty intention of the appellant
In this connection I have to refer to the 545 appellants letter of November 14 1956 to the G T Hospital in which he pointed out that in the hospital record the name had been taken down as  Pannshe  that is s with an extra  n  and this should be corrected
By this time the appellant had clearly conceived the idea that the news of the death of Laxmibai should be prevented from becoming public
He had also misled the hospital authorities by informing them that Indumati s brother would arrive to take over her body as already stated she had no brother
Therefore this attempted correction in the name by deleting the extra  n  is really irrelevant the extra  n  would not in any event have made the discovery of the identity of the dead person easier
What led the appellant to make this attempt cannot however be ascertained
Then I have to consider the fact that the appellant told Dr Ugale that Laxmibai had become unconscious of a hysterical fit and she had a history of similar attacks before
It is said that this story about hysterical fit is false and had been conceived to hide the fact that she had been poisoned
The appellant had denied that he had mentioned hysterical fit to Dr Ugale and said that he had only stated that she had suddenly become unconscious
That he had mentioned sudden onset of unconsciousness in the train is admitted by Dr Ugale
It is somewhat curious that the appellant would have mentioned both  hysterical fit  and  patient suddenly became unconscious in the train 
It is significant that hysterical fit was entered in the case paper by Dr Ugale under the head  Provisional Diagnosis  a thing for which I think the doctor in charge has some responsibility
It may also be stated that Dr Anija did not say that the appellant mentioned hysterical fit to her
In these circumstances I have some doubt if the appellant had in fact mentioned hysterical fit  to Dr Ugale
I will however proceed on the basis that the appellant did mention hysterical fit to Dr Ugale
Now there is evidence that for nine years upto 1948 Laxmibai had suffered from hysterical fits
There is no 546 evidence one way or the other whether she had such fits thereafter
If she had not the prosecution could have easily produced evidence of it
The only evidence on which the prosecution relied was that of Laxmibai s son Ramachandra
All that he said was that between 1943 and 1948 his mother suffered from fits and that in 1956 when he had come to Poona for his marriage his mother was not suffering from fits Now Ramachandra does not appear to have much knowledge of his mother s health
He did not even know what kind of fits these were nor that his mother suffered from diabetes
Apart from the nature of his evidence it has to be remembered that he was living separtely from his mother since 1946 and was away from Poona since 1952
It cannot therefore be said that it would have been improbable for the appellant to have thought that Laxmibai had a relapse of a hysterical fit
I now come to the fact that the address of Laxmibai given by the appellant to the hospital authorities was his own address
It is said that he did so deliberately to ensure all communications concerning her from the hospital coming to him that he knew that Laxmibai was going to die and wanted that nobody else would know of her death
I find some difficulty in appreciating this
I do not see what communication could be addressed by the hospital authorities to Laxmibai after her death or when she was lying ill in the hospital
Further there was no other address which the appellant could have given
Laxmibai lived alone in her flat and when she was away there would be no one there to receive any communication addressed to her at that address
Her only son Ramachandra was away from Poona
She was clearly more friendly with the appellant than with her other relatives none of whom was a very near relative
In these circumstances and particularly as he had taken Laxmibai to Bombay it seems only natural that he would give his own address
Again if he had given Laxmibai s own address that would have served his purpose as well for he had a room in her house and because of his friendly relation with 547 Laxmibai would have been in charge of her flat in her absence as he in fact was
It would not have been difficult for him to ensure that any letters that came for Laxmibai would reach him
He could also have given an entirely false name and address and disappeared from the scene altogether the body of Laxmibai would then whether there was postmortem examination or not have been disposed of in due time as an unclaimed body and nobody would have ever known what had happened to Laxmibai
Indeed it is the prosecution case that this was the appellant s plan and things happened just as he had planned and that is why he deliberately brought Laxmibai to the hospital and gave his own address
What strikes me is that this plan would have worked with any false address given
I am therefore unable to think that the fact that the appellant gave his own address is a circumstance which can be reasonably explained only on the hypothesis of his guilt
I come now to the most important circumstance on which the Courts below have strongly rested their conclusion
It is said that the endorsement made on the hospital case paper reading  Asked for postmortem  under the direction of Dr Variava had been crossed out and under the heading  Cause of death  in that paper the entry  diabetic coma  had been interpolated
The Courts below have found that it is the appellant who had procured these alterations to be made with the help of his friend Dr Mouskar
If this is so then no doubt it would be a very strong circumstance pointing to the guilt of the appellant for the only reasonable explanation of this act would be that he wanted to prevent a postmortem examination which might reveal that Laxmibai had been poisoned
As I have already said the alterations had no doubt been made
But in my view there is no evidence whatever to show that the appellant had anything to do with them
Before state my reasons for this view it is necessary to set out the relevant evidence on this point
Dr Anija admits that she made the alterations but she says that she did it in these circumstances After 548 she had made the endorsement Asked for postmortem  on the case paper she asked the sister in charge of the ward to send the case paper to Dr Mouskar whose duty it was to do the needful as regards the postmortem examination and herself followed Dr Variava on a round of the wards which took her about an hour
About 12 30 pm she proceeded to Dr Mouskar s office to make enquiries as to when the postmortem examination was to be held
She met Dr Saify the Registrar of Unit No 1 of the hospital in which Ward No 12 was included outside Dr Mouskar s office
Dr Saify had the case paper in his hand and he told her that Dr Mouskar thought that there was no need for holding a postmortem examination as the case had been treated as one of diabetic coma and also asked her to cancel the direction about the postmortem examination and to show in the column meant for cause of death  Diabetic coma 
As Dr Saify was her official superior she accordingly carried out his directions and made the alterations in the case paper as required
I will now refer to Dr Mouskar s evidence on this aspect of the case which was as follows The case paper relating to Laxmibai came to his office at 1 pm on November 13
At that time the endorsement  Asked for postmortem  was still there and diabetic coma had not been shown as the cause of death
There was arrangement in the hospital for postmortem examination but he did not proceed to arrange for it immediately as on the face of it it was not a medico legal case nor a road side case
It was the invariable practice to ask for the permission of the Coroner for holding the postmortem examination in all cases but before doing so it was necessary in nonmedico legal cases to get the permission of the relatives of the deceased for holding the postmortem examination
In that view of the matter at 2 pm he sent the telegram to the appellant at his address as appearing in the case paper
He never met the appellant in the hospital
On the next day that is November 14 about 4 pm he wrote to the police to remove the dead body to their air conditioned morgue in the J J Hospital 549 for better preservation as no reply to the telegram had been received
till then
He sent a copy of this letter to the Coroner
On the morning of November 15 somebody from the Coroner s office rang him up and asked him about the final diagnosis
He thereupon sent the case paper through a ward boy to Unit No 1 with an oral message either to the Honorary physician the Registrar or the Assistant Houseman as to whether they were able to tell him about the final diagnosis and whether they still insisted on postmortem examination
He did this as there was no final diagnosis uptil then and as the physicians often changed their minds in a non medico legal case
After about half an hour the case paper came back to him and he found that the final diagnosis had been stated as  Diabetic coma  and the endorsement Asked for postmortem had been crossed out
He then wrote out the death certificate and sent it to the Coroner
The Courts below have disbelieved both Dr Anija and Dr Mouskar as to their respective versions regarding the manner in which the case paper had been altered
It has to be noticed that a art from the evidence of these two doctors there is no other evidence on this question
The Courts below have held that the alteration was made by Dr Anija at the direction of Dr Mouskar and that Dr Mouskar had been persuaded to give that direction by the appellant whose friend he was on a representation that he the  appellant was the patient s old family doctor and knew the case to be one of diabetic coma and that it would save the family humiliation if the dead body was not cut up for a postmortem examination
They also held that the alteration was made on November 13 soon after the death of Laxmibai and before the appellant had left Bombay for Poona
They have further held that Dr Mouskar got the alteration made as a friendly act for the appellant and that he was in no way a conspirator in the crime
There is no direct evidence to support this finding but it has been inferentially arrived at from the evidence of these two doctors
The reasons on which this finding is based may be thus stated a Dr Mouskar was an old friend of the 70 550 appellant b both Drs
Anija and Mouskar had lied with regard to this part of their evidence c Dr mouskar s conduct after the death of Laxmibai and his evidence in court showed that he wanted to assist the appellant d Dr Anija being very much junior to Dr Mouskar had been prevailed upon by the latter to give false evidence and e lastly that no one excepting the appellant could have been interested in avoiding the postmortem examination
As to the first reason the only evidence on this question is that of Dr Mouskar
All that he said was that in 1934 he and the appellant had studied Inter Science in a college in Poona together and that he had stayed in Poona for three different periods namely 1922 26 1931 36 and 1948 51
He also said that while studying together he had come to know the appellant by name but had never talked to him and had never come in contact with him since 1934
The Courts below have disbelieved the later part of the evidence of Dr Mouskar and have held that he and the appellant were friendly
This finding does not seem to me to be based on strong grounds
No reason has been given as to why Dr Mouskar should be disbelieved
The prosecution led no evidence to show that the two were friendly
No witness has been found to say that the two were seen talking to each other in the hospital
It has not been noticed that the difference in age between the two was twelve years
I will take the next three reasons together
They are that Drs
Anija and Mouskar had both lied and that the conduct and the evidence of Dr Mouskar showed that he wanted to help the
appellant and lastly that Dr Anija gave false evidence only as she dared not estrange Dr Mouskar who held a much higher position
There is no doubt that Dr Anija told lies
The first lie was that she had tested the urine at 6 30 am for acetone
She also interpolated into the case paper an entry showing that she had found acetone in the urine which she said she examined at 6 30 am
Dr Variava said that he took her to task for diagnosing the case as diabetic coma without having tested the urine for acetone which she told him she had not 551 that acetone had been found on the first examination of urine was not there when he saw it at about 11 am
The second lie which Dr Anija said was that she put through a telephone call to Dr Variava about 7 am and told him about the symptoms she had found and that she had been giving insulin
She said that Dr Variava agreed with her diagnosis and asked her to continue the treatment she had started
That this is untrue will appear from the fact that Dr Variava denied that this talk had taken place
Dr Variava s recollection is supported by the fact that on arrival at the hospital he doubted if the case was of diabetic coma and the treatment given was the correct one
Further there is a call book in the hospital on which telephone calls made by the house physicians are entered
There is no entry there showing a call having been made by Dr Anija on Dr
Variava
The third lie that she said was that it was Dr Saify who told her outside Dr Mouskar s office to make the alteration in the case paper
It has been clearly established that Dr Saify was not on November 13 in Bombay at all
He was then on leave and in Indore
I come now to Dr Mouskar
No  art of his evidence has been directly found to be false
The Courts below have disbelieved him on improbabilities
The first improbability they found was in Dr Mouskar s explanation that he did not arrange for the postmortem examination immediately as he considered the permission of the Coroner and the relatives of the deceased necessary before holding the postmortem examination and that this was the invariable practice in non medico legal cases
I do not know why it should be said that this practice is improbable
The prosecution did not lead any evidence to show that there was no such practice as spoken to by Dr Mouskar
That the Coroner s permission had to be taken would be borne out by the fact as appearing in the correspondence that the police asked the Coroner to hold an inquest as the cause of death was not known
The Courts below referred to the telegram that Dr Mouskar sent to the appellant at about 2 pm on November 13 and observed that if Dr Mouskar had delayed the postmortem examination only in order to obtain the 552 consent of the relatives then the telegram would not have asked the appellant to arrange for the removal of the dead body
Dr Mouskar said that he had intended to ask for the permission to hold the postmortem examination when the appellant appeared on receipt of his telegram
The Courts below have not accepted this explanation
It does not seem to me that this explanation is so absurd that it must be rejected
No other view would fit in with the circumstances of the case
This I will explain now
It has to be remembered that the finding of the Courts below is that Dr Mouskar was not in any sense a conspirator with the appellant in the crime
The learned Advocate General of Bombay who appeared for the respondent also made it clear that he did not suggest that Dr Mouskar was in any conspiracy
On the evidence on the record it would be impossible to hold that Dr Mouskar was in any conspiracy with the appellant
There is no reason whatever for him to have done that
There is no evidence of such friendship between the appellant and Dr Mouskar from which it can possibly be inferred that Dr Mouskar would have become a party to secreting a diabolical crime committed by the appellant
The trial Court expressly held I do not think that at that time Dr Mouskar realised that there was anything suspicious about the death of Laxmibai nor do I think that he was aiding or abetting the suppression of truth by cancelling the postmortem examination
 The High Court also took the same view
We then come to this that if Dr Mouskar had procured the cancellation of the direction for postmortem examination he had done so without thinking that there was anything suspicious about the death of Laxmibai and only to oblige his friend the appellant by saving the family of the deceased from humiliation by cutting up her body
Now that being so when Dr Mouskar got the direction cancelled at the appellant s request he would naturally expect the appellant to take charge of the body and to remove it for cremation
Evidently the appellant had disappeared for otherwise Dr Mouskar would not have sent him a telegram to Poona
What wouldhave been the normal reactions then of an 553 innocent man in Dr Mouskar s position He would have been very much surprised
He would have thought that he had been let down
It is not too much to think that he would have grown suspicious
As an innocent man as he has been found to be the only thing he could then possibly have done was to have restored the direction for postmortem examination and to proceed to take steps to have it held
I cannot imagine that an innocent man in such circumstances would have acted otherwise
It will be remembered that the appellant s reply to the telegram was not received for over two days and in the meantime Dr Mouskar did nothing in the matter
I find it impossible to hold that Dr Mouskar innocent as he was would have waited all this time and done nothing about the postmortem examination at all
It would have been impossible for him then to have asked if the doctors in charge of the case still wanted a postmortem examination as he actually did
If he was not a party to any conspiracy with the appellant I cannot think it possible for him to have sent the telegram to Poona asking the appellant to remove the body after he had been innocently made to obtain a cancellation of the direction and found that the appellant had disappeared
I may also add that if the appellant had duped Dr Mouskar and procured him to obtain a cancellation of the direction for postmortem examination it would be extremely unlikely for him to have taken the risk of disappearing from the hospital without making any arrangement for the disposal of the body for then he could not be sure whether the postmortem would be held or not
It would have been more natural for him to have taken over the body and cremated it
That would not have affected his design as alleged by the prosecution to have evidence of the natural death of Laxmibai created and to have kept back the know edge of her death from her relatives
I therefore think that the telegram instead of showing that Dr Mouskar had already obtained a cancellation of the direction for postmortem examination rather indicates that that direction had not till then been cancelled as is Dr Mouskar s own evidence
This makes the explanation 554 of Dr Mouskar as to why he sent the telegram a very probable explanation
Now there are other things which would support Dr Mouskar s evidence
On November 14 about 4 pm he wrote to the police intimating them that a Hindu female named Indumati Panshe who had been admitted into the hospital on November 13 at 5 45 am for treatment of hysterical fits had died the same day at 11 30 am  He further stated in that letter that a telegram had been sent to the address given at the time of the admission of the patient but without a response and requested that the dead body might be removed to the J J Hospital morgue
This would indicate two things
First that Dr Mouskar was surprised at having received no answer from the appellant to his telegram and that being so if he had been innocently induced to get the case paper altered he would not have permitted the alteration to remain there
The second thing it shows is that Dr Mouskar even in the afternoon of November 14 referred to hysterical fits as the illness of the patient
This would be impossible if the prosecution case is true namely that at about 1 pm on November 13 Dr Mouskar had procured Dr Anija to state in the case paper that the cause of death was diabetic coma
The next thing that the Courts below have found against Dr Mouskar is that his story of having received a telephone call from the Coroner s office on the morning of November 15 asking for the final diagnosis of the case was unbelievable
I find no reason to disbelieve Dr Mouskar
His evidence is strongly supported by the death certificate which he issued on that date stating diabetic coma as the cause of death
There is no reason to think that Dr Mouskar would have issued this certificate on the 15th unless he had been asked about the cause of death
Furthermore the police on that date had actually wanted to know the cause of death as will appear from their letter of November 15
If the police could ask I do not see why the Coroner s office could not
In that letter the police asked Dr Mouskar to send per bearer the cause of death to enable them to dispose of the dead body
I have earlier referred to this letter
It is on a copy 555 of this that the endorsement  Diabetic coma Dr N section Variava G T Hospital had been made
There is no other explanation as to why Dr Mouskar sent the death certificate on this date and not on any other date
Indeed if he was under the impression that the appellant or a relative of the deceased would come and take charge of the body for cremation as the prosecution case must be then he would not have issued the death certificate for that was wanted only to enable the police to dispose of the dead body
Therefore it seems to me likely that Dr Mouskar had been asked by the Coroner about the cause of death
Now if he was so asked it does not strike me as wholly improbable that he asked the physicians in charge whether they were then in a position to state the cause of death or still insisted on a postmortem examination
It has to be remembered that till then no suspicion attached to the case
Dr Mouskar said that he had seen the physicians change their opinion in such matters and had therefore asked whether a postmortem examination was still required
It has also to be remembered that Dr Mouskar had no knowledge that the direction for postmortem examination had been given by Dr Variava
All that he knew was that such a direction appeared over the signature of Dr Anija
It does not seem to me improbable that Dr Mouskar on being asked by the Coroner to state the cause of death would have enquired of the physicians in charge about it
If this version is not true then the only other probable theory would be that the alteration in the case paper had been made at 1 pm on November 13 which as I have earlier said cannot be accepted in view of the telegram and the other records in this case
It was also said that Dr Mouskar s version cannot be accepted for it was not possible for him to make enquiries about the cause of death through a ward boy
I think this would be too insignificant a ground for disbelieving Dr Mouskar
I may now deal with the letter of the police dated November 15 to Dr Mouskar asking for the cause of the death
It will be remembered that this letter was sent along with a copy of it and on the copy the endorsement  Diabetic coma Dr W section Variava
556 G T Hospital  had been made
Dr Mouskar denied that these letters ever came to him
The Courts below have been unable to accept his denial
Their view is that it is Dr Mouskar who got the endorsement set out above to be made and is falsely denying it
I am unable to appreciate why Dr Mouskar should falsely deny it
He was innocent
He had on that date issued the death certificate
He could easily have admitted the fact if he had made the endorsement or got it made
Now it seems to me that there is no evidence that the letter was produced before Dr Mouskar
In normal course as spoken to by police Inspector Kantak who had written this letter the original would have been retained at the office of Dr Mouskar and only the copy would have come back to the police with an acknowledgment of the receipt of the original endorsed on it
That did not happen
Both the copy and the original were received back by Kantak
The bearer who was sent to deliver the letter was not called
There is therefore no evidence whatever that the letters were actually delivered or what had actually happened
On the contrary the return of both copies to the police would show that they had not been delivered to Dr Mouskar for if the letter had been deliver ed then there is no reason why Dr Mouskar would not have given a formal reply to it stating that diabetic coma was the cause of death
He would have had no difficulty in doing so because on the same day he sent the death certificate mentioning diabetic coma as the cause of death
He had no reason to take to subterfuge and to get the words  Diabetic coma
Dr N section Variava
G T Hospital  written on the copy by somebody
It would therefore appear that there is no reason to disbelieve Dr Mouskar when he said that he bad not received the letters and had nothing to do with the endorsement made on the copy of the letter
What might have happened was that the death certificate having been earlier issued some clerk in the office returned these letters and by way of an informal communication of the cause of death made the endorse
ment on the copy
It may be stated here that Dr Anija admitted to the police that the words  Diabetic coma  in the endorsement had been written by her 557 but in court she denied that she had written them
This is another instance which makes me greatly doubt her veracity
It may be that she had written the words  Diabetic coma  and got some one else to write out the rest of the endorsement
I come now to the last fact which the Courts below have thought fit to disbelieve in the evidence of Dr Mouskar
I have earlier mentioned that when Laxmibai was lying unconscious in Ward No 12 Dr Anija had sent for the Registrar
Dr Anija stated that the Registrar whom she sent for was Dr Saify
This is untrue for as I have already said it has been proved clearly that Dr Saify was not in Bombay at all on that day
Now it appears that the hospital kept a call book in which a House Physician wanting to call the Registrar would make an entry and send it to the Registrar
This call book was produced on September 2 1958 and it showed that Dr Anija had herself written down the name of Dr Shah as the Registrar whom she was calling
What therefore had happened was that Dr Saify being away on leave to the knowledge of Dr Anija she had sent the call to Dr Shah
This call book conclusively proves that Dr Anija s statement that she had been told by Dr Saify the Registrar to make the alteration in the case paper is false
Dr Mouskar had said in his evidence that he could not trace this call book
The Courts below have thought that he was lying and was deliberately preventing this call book from coming to light so that Dr Anija might not be contradicted by her own writing that it was Dr Shah whom she had sent for which in its turn would show that her story that it was Dr Saify who had asked her to make the alteration in the case paper was false
Now Dr Mouskar s evidence was concluded on August 25 1958 and he had retired from the office of the Resident Medical Officer on August 14 preceding
Dr Anija s evidence was taken down on August 18 and August 19 1958
1 do not see why if the call book was considered to be of that importance the police could not produce it after Dr Mouskar had left office
It was actually produced from the hospital and must have been lying there all the time
The next thing to be noticed is that there is 558 nothing on the record to show that Dr Mouskar was interested in establishing that Dr Saify was on duty on November 13 and therefore prevented the call book from being produced
In fact Dr Mouskar in his evidence about Dr Saify stated that  he was not working in the hospital on the 13 14 and 15 November
 I think also that he was not staying in his quarters during that period and I did not see Dr Saify on these days at all Therefore there is no basis for suggesting that Dr Mouskar deliberately prevented the production of the call book
I may here state that there is nothing in the evidence of Dr Mouskar which goes to show that he was supporting Dr Anija in any of her lies
The Courts below have excused the lies of Dr Anija in the view that she had told them as she dared not estrange Dr Mouskar
Again there seems to me to be no basis for this finding
There is nothing on the record to show that Dr Anija expected anything from Dr Mouskar or would have been in any difficulty if she had told the truth even at the risk of putting Dr Mouskar in a difficult situation
There is no evidence that Dr Anija had any talk directly with Dr Mouskar concerning the case of the unconscious Laxmibai and therefore she could not and did not directly contradict anything that Dr Mouskar said
Again it is clear from the evidence that Dr Anija had left the hospital on January 31 1957
She had worked there without any remuneration
There is no evidence that she had anything to do with the hospital or its Resident Medical Officer after she had left the hospital
Again on the date that Dr Anija gave evidence Dr Mouskar had already retired from his office at the hospital
In these circumstances I find no justification for the conclusion that Dr Anija had lied only out of fear of Dr Mouskar
I might also point out that the only lie in Dr Anija s evidence which the Courts below thought she said out of fear or at the persuasion of Dr Mouskar was her statement that it was Dr Saify who had told her that Dr Mouskar had wanted the direction as to postmortem examination crossed out and diabetic coma written as the cause of death
I have earlier stated that dr Mouskar has gone against this part of 559 Dr Anija s evidence by saying that Dr Saify was not in Bombay on the day in question
It is clear therefore that it was not Dr Mouskar who had wanted that Dr Anija should interpose Dr Saify between him and her in the matter of the direction for altering the case paper
Further if Dr Mouskar really wanted that Dr Anija should put the blame for the alteration on somebody else then Dr Anija would not have mentioned that Dr Saify told her that Dr Mouskar had wanted the alteration
She would simply have said that it was at Dr Saify s order only that she made the alteration or put the responsibility on Dr Shah
The Courts below have been unable to explain why Dr Anija brought in Dr Saify at all
I think this is capable of an explanation as I will show later
The net position therefore is that Dr Anija was clearly lying there is no clear proof that Dr Mouskar had lied at all
On the contrary his evidence and conduct would seem to be consistent with the contemporaneous record and there is no material on which it can be found that Dr Anija told the lies as she was afraid of Dr Mouskar
I come now to the last reason on which the Courts below found that it must have been the appellant who procured the alteration in the case paper
It has been said that no one else was interested in getting that done
I take it that this does not mean a finding that the appellant was interested in getting the alteration made for then of course his guilt would already have been assumed
What it means is that if it is not possible to find reasonably that any one else was interested in getting the alteration made then it would fit in with the theory that the appellant had committed the crime and therefore was interested in getting the alteration made
The real question is can it be reasonably said on the evidence that there was no one other than the appellant who could be interested in getting the alteration made  I think it cannot
On the facts established and without making any assumption one way or the other it seems to me very probable that it was Dr Anija who was interested in preventing the postmortem examination and therefore in making the interpolations on the case paper
I will now state m reasons for this view
560 I have earlier stated that Dr Anija examined the urine of the patient at 6 30 am on November 13
There is an entry with regard to it in the case paper which reads Sugar    Albumin Acetone   There is little reason to doubt that Dr Anija did examine the urine at that time for sugar for otherwise she was not likely to have started the insulin injections
She gave two of these one at 6 30 am and the other at about 9 am
Dr Variava s recollection is that when the case paper was shown to him about 11 am the entry Sugar    Albumin  was there but the entry  Acetone    was not there and that Dr Anija told him that she had not examined the urine for acetone
The entry  Acetone    was clearly interpolated in the case paper later
It wasbecause she had not tested the urine for acetone but had none the less started the treatment for diabetic coma that Dr Variava had taken her to task and asked her to test the urine for acetone
All this clearly shows that Dr Anija had interpolated the entry  Acetone    at some later time
The trial Court thought that Dr Mouskar having invented the theory of diabetic coma  must have also thought it necessary to make entries regarding the presence of acetone  
in the case record  to support this false diagnosis
This is nobody s case
Such a finding would necessarily mean that Dr Mouskar was in conspiracy with the appellant to hide the crime by creating evidence in support of natural death of the patient
The findings of the trial Court that Dr Mouskar was innocent and that he had procured Dr Anija to make the entry  Acetone    cannot stand together
The latter ending must be rejected as it is purely inferential
The High Court did not find that the entry  Acetone    had been made by Dr Anija at the persuasion of Dr Mouskar
But it appears to have taken the view that Dr Anija having been induced by Dr Mouskar to state diabetic coma as the cause of death herself incorporated before the papers were submitted to the Coroner an entry with regard to the examination of the urine in the case paper and in that entry included  Acetone   
Whether the High Court is right in its view that the entire entry as to the result 561 of urine test at 6 30 am of November 13 1956 had been made in the case paper later is a matter which I need not discuss
The only question is who made the entry  Acetone    and when
I may state here that the papers were sent to the Coroner at the time Of the postmortem examination namely on November 22 1956
According to the High Court therefore the entry  Acetone    had been made by Dr Anija on her own and Dr Mouskar had nothing to do with it and that Dr Anija made the entry not at about 1 pm on November 13 1956 when she crossed out the direction for postmortem examination and wrote out diabetic coma as the cause of death but almost nine days later
The High Court did not accept that part of Dr Mouskar s evidence where he said that he was positive that the entry  Acetone    was in the case paper when it reached him at 1 pm on November 13
Earlier he had said that he had not read the case paper fully when it first came to him
Dr Mouskar was plainly making a mistake
It is nobody s case that it was then there
Even on the prosecution case it was added sometime later that is when after the receipt of the case paper Dr Mouskar had been persuaded by the appellant to procure a cancellation as to the direction for postmortem examination
We then come to this that the entry  Acetone   had been made by Dr Anija on her own
If she did this she must have had some reason for it
I cannot imagine that reason being anything else excepting to create evidence in support of her diagnosis of diabetic coma
The next lie which Dr Anija spoke and which I wish now to refer is the false story of her telephone talk with Dr Variava at about 7 am
She said that she then informed Dr Variava about the condition of the patient and that she had started insulin injection and further that Dr Variava told her to continue the treatment
I have earlier said that this statement was a clear falsehood and given reasons for this view
It is nobody s case and it could not be that Dr Mouskar had asked her to tell this lie
Why then did she do so Again the only possible reason that I can think of is the same that I have given earlier namely that she was keen on creating evidence in support of the line of treatment that she had given to 562 the patient
She had been treating the patient as a case of diabetic coma
It is clear from her evidence and of course from that of Dr Variava that he had reprimanded her for adopting that line of treatment without having tested the urine for acetone
She had clearly made a mistake in the treatment of the case and this might have put her in a difficulty with the hospital authorities and also in her future professional career
It was clearly her interest to see that her mistake was not finally established as a result of the postmortem examination which had been directed by Dr Variava
In these circumstances she was under a great temptation to prevent the postmortem examination which might have revealed her mistake
It must be remembered that she had just started on her professional career and was a very young person
I am unable therefore to hold that apart from the appellant there was no one else who could have been interested in crossing out the direction as to postmortem examination and inserting diabetic coma as the cause of death
In the circumstances that I have mentioned it seems quite probable that Dr Anija had made the alteration in the case paper entirely on her own and to save herself from the possible effects of her mistake
It also seems probable to me that Dr Anija had made the alterations on November 15 when Dr Mouskar had sent the case paper through the ward boy for ascertainment of the cause of death
I have earlier said that Dr Anija had falsely introduced Dr Saify as the person who had told her that Dr Mouskar had wanted the direction as to postmortem examination to be crossed out and diabetic coma to be stated as the cause of death
I have also said that Dr Mouskar did not support Dr Anija as to the presence of Dr Saify in the hospital on the day in question
Why then did Dr Anija introduce the name of Dr Saify  I have said that the Courts below have not been able to find any explanation as to why Dr Anija introduced the name of Dr Saify
It seems to me that when the alteration which she had made on her own was found out in the course of the investigation she had to give some explanation as to why she had made it
She thought of saying that she did it under the orders of Dr Mouskar who was very 563 much her senior and whom she was bound to obey
But she also realised that Dr Mouskar was sure to deny that he had asked her to make the alteration and as against his her evidence was not likely to be accepted
It was therefore that she hit upon the idea of interposing Dr Saify in between her and Dr Mouskar in the hope that Dr Saify being also a very young person there was some chance of her evidence being accepted as against his
Apart from that there does not appear to be any other explanation as to why Dr Anija introduced the name of Dr Saify
She had clearly forgotten while inventing this story that Dr Saify was away on leave but that of course makes no difference for if she had remembered it she might have named somebody else probably Dr Shah or Dr Patel who worked in Unit No 2 of the Hospital
Then it has to be remembered that Dr Anija admitted to the police that she had written out the words  Diabetic coma  on the letter from the police of November 15 asking for the cause of death and this she later denied
All this would make more probable the view that it was Dr Anija who in order to prevent the detection of the mistake made by her in the treatment of Laxmibai had the endorsement Asked for post  mortem  crossed out and inserted in the case paper diabetic coma as the cause of death and that she had not been asked by Dr Mouskar to make the alteration in the case paper
I think it right to state here that it cannot be said that Dr Shah was also to blame for the wrong diagnosis of diabetic coma
Dr Anija said that pursuant to her call the Registrar came at about 8 45 am and approved of her diagnosis and advised a further insulin injection of 40 units
She also said that the Registrar wrote on the case paper the words Inj
Insulin 40 units Iv
glucose 20 cc
 By  the Registrar  she was of course referring to Dr Saify
It is clear from the call book that it was Dr Shah who was the Registrar of Unit No 2 who had been sent for by Dr Anija
Dr Shah said in his evidence that he must have gone to the patient pursuant to the call but he had no recollection of the case at all
He denied that the entry  Inj
Insulin 40 units Iv
glucose 20 cc
was in his hand writing
Dr Patel who was 564 officiating as the Registrar of Unit No 1 in the absence of Dr Saify on leave also denied that that entry was in his handwriting
Dr Shah said from the sequenceof time noted in the call book and the case paper that he must have gone to the ward before 6 30 am
According to Dr Shaw he could not have seen the case paper when he called because he was not the Registrar of Unit No 1
He admitted that he must have advised Dr Anija about the case
What the advice was we do not know
It is clear however that Dr Anija had started treating the case as diabetic coma and given 40 units of insulin before she sent for the Registrar
Indeed according to her the Registrar who must have been Dr Shah arrived at 845 am
So we get that Dr Anija started treatment of diabetic coma and gave insulin prior to 6 30 am and her statement that the Registrar wrote down the direction for a second insulin injection of 40 units at 8 45 am is false
It is therefore clear that the treatment given to the unconscious Laxmibai had been under the judgment of Dr Anija alone
It would follow that Dr
Shah had no responsibility for that treatment
This is also supported by the fact that Dr Anija did not tell Dr Variava that Dr Shah had also thought it to be a case of diabetic coma
There is another circumstance against the appellant which must now be noticed and that is that the appellant left the hospital soon after the death of Laxmibai without showing the least care as to what happened thereafter
This conduct considered with the appel
lant s letter of November 14 1956 stating falsely that  Indumati s  brother would come to take over her body and further considered with the subsequent conduct of the appellant in fraudulently misappropriating the deceased Laxmibai s money clearly indicates that immediately after the death of Laxmibai the appellant had conceived the idea of misappropriating her properties
It has been suggested that it would be somewhat strange that the dishonest intention cropped up in the appellant s mind so suddenly and therefore it is reasonable to think that he had entertained that design even during the lifetime of Laxmibai
The Courts below have accepted that suggestion
I cannot say that that is an unreasonable view to take
565 But supposing the appellant had during Laxmibai s lifetime cast a covetous eye on her properties would that be enough to justify a finding that her death had been an unnatural death  I do not think it would
The design may provide a motive for murder but the murder that is in this case an unnatural death cannot be proved by it
That design does not exclude the possibility that Laxmibai died a natural death and the appellant made full use of the opportunity thereby provided to carry his design into effect
I think I should mention here one other aspect of the case
The trial Court observed that the symptoms found in the record as to the last illness and death of Laxmibai all clearly pointed to the conclusion that death was due to hypoglycemia and that hypoglycemia might be one of the possible causes of her death
The trial Court however held that there was nothing to show in the symptoms that hypoglycemia could have been of spontaneous origin though the matter was not very clear
It would seem that the trial Court thought that the hypoglycemia had been induced by two injections of insulin given by the appellant to Laxmibai sometime on November 12
The trial Court for this purpose relied on the evidence of Shantabai a maid servant employed by Laxmibai who said that on November 12 the appellant gave Laxmibai two injections
This maid servant was deaf and dumb and her evidence must be of doubtful value
However that may be there is nothing to show that death was caused by hypoglycemia brought about by the two injections given by the appellant assuming that he had given them
It has to be remembered that in the hospital Laxmibai was given two further injections of insulin of 40 units each
It may be that these injections really caused her death
That is a possibility which on the finding of the trial Court cannot be brushed aside
Now if that is so then clearly the appellant is not responsible for the death of Laxmibai
He had done nothing to induce Dr Anija or any of the other doctors in the hospital to give more insulin to Laxmibai
There is no evidence to that effect
Dr Anija was clear in her evidence that she never consulted Dr Lagu regarding the diagnosis that death was due to diabetic
I need not further into this aspect of the 566 matter for all that I wish to point out is that the trial Court had thought that hopoglycemia might be the cause of death
The High Court thought that it was not possible in view of the absence of evidence about the time taken for insulin to induce hypoglycemia to hold that death was due to hypoglycemia induced by a massive dose of insulin
It seems to me that if there was no evidence that was the fault of the prosecution and not of the appellant
In all cases and particularly in a case of this kind it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the death was an unnatural death and exclude by evidence completely the possibility of death having been caused by some instrumentality other than the appellant
This is another reason for saying that it has not been clearly established in this case that Laxmibai s death was an unnatural death or has been caused by the appellant
I have so long been discussing the facts which are supposed to lead towards the guilt of the appellant
I propose now to deal with some of the facts which seem to be in his favour
The prosecution case is that the appellant had in the train administered to her an undetectable poison which caused her death
Now if the appellant had done that he must have made a plan for it before he started on the journey to Bombay with her from Poona
It seems unlikely that if he had done that he would have made no effort to keep it a secret that he was taking her to Bombay
The evidence is clear that he made no such effort
The next fact that has to be faced by the prosecution is that the railway compartment would be a most unusualplace in which to administer a poison
The appellant could not have expected that there would be a compartment for Laxmibai and himself in which there would be no other passenger
Indeed the trial Court thought that there must have been other passengers in that compartment
That being so it becomes improbable that the appellant had planned to poison her in the train
Again it has been proved as a fact by Dr Sathe himself that the appellant had made an appointment with him for November 13
Was it necessary for him to have done this if he knew that Laxmibai would die before the hour fixed with Dr Sathe  Further if he had administered 567 a poison to Laxmibai would he have taken her to a public hospital That would have been impossible unless the appellant was perfectly certain that the poison was absolutely undetectable
That requires a great deal of knowledge of poisonous drugs which there is no evidence to think the appellant possessed
But assume that the appellant was so certain that the poison would never be detected why then should he have worried about the postmortem examination at all If it is found that the appellant had not prevented the postmortem examination being held there would be very little on which to base his conviction for the murder of Laxmibai by poisoning
Nor can it be said that the appellant was not sure whether the poison would be detected or not but none the less took the risk of taking the unconscious Laxmibai to the G Thospital in the hope that if any difficulty arose he could rely on Dr Mouskar to help him
There is no evidence on which we can hold that Dr Mouskar would have helped him if any suspicion as to Laxmibai s death having been caused by poision had arisen
It has to be remembered that Dr Mouskar was not doing the work of a physician in the hospital but was in charge only of the administration
All these are very strong circumstances indicating that the appellant had not administered any poison to Laxmibai on the train
Very cogent reasons would be required to dispel the presumption in favour of the appellant arising from them
I find no such reasons in the case
In the net result the circumstances appear to me to be these
First the appellant had a design during Laxmibai s lifetime to misappropriate her properties
This only supplies the motive for causing her death but does not prove that the death which occurred was an unnatural death
Secondly the appellant did not give to the hospital the correct name of Laxmibai  the name given however was not such as from it her identity could never have been discovered
Thirdly the appellant gave his own address instead of that of Laxinibai
It seems to me that that was a natural thing for him to have done in the circumstances of the case for there would have been no one in Laxmibai s flat to receive her letters and there there was no other address which the appellant could have 568 given
Further the address given necessarily connected the appellant with the last hours of Laxmibai slife a conduct not very probable in a person who had brought about her death
The theory that that address was given only to ensure that communications from the hospital concerning the dead Laxmibai should reach the appellant is not very plausible
It is clear that if the appellant had not given his own address the only other address he could possibly have given would have been Laxmibai s address
I am unable to appreciate what communication the hospital could have sent to Laxmibai at her address after her death or when she lay in the hospital
In any event the appellant would have had no difficulty in getting hold of any such communication sent to Laxmibai s own address
Fourthly the appellant told Dr Ugale that Laxmibai had had a hysterical fit
It is doubtful whether he said so and also whether if he did it was purposefully false
What purpose it served is not clear
The appellant did not mention hysterical fit to the doctor in charge of the treatment nor did he do anything to induce her to take a different line of treatment from that which she had adopted
He did nothing to induce any idea in her mind as to the cause of the illness or the disease
In these circumstances it does not seem possible to hold that hysterical fit had been mentioned by the appellant to prevent detection of the fact that Laxmibai had been poisoned
Lastly come the series of the appellant s acts from immediately after Laxmibai s death indicating his intention to acquire her properties and the acquisition thereof by deception and forgery
These cannot prove that Laxmibai died an unnatural death
Considering them all together I am unable to think that the only reasonable conclusion possible is that Laxmibai died an unnatural death
In my view the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant
In the result I would allow the appeal
BY COURT
In accordance with the opinion of the majority the appeal is dismissed
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent brought a suit for partition against the petitioner in respect of certain Watan lands
The trial court decreed the suit but the High Court of Bombay reversed that decreein appeal
The Privy Council restored the decree of the trial court and an Order in Council was drawn up accordingly
Execution of the said decree was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the lands in suit being admittedly remuneration attached to the office of the Patil and as such governed by the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act 1874 Bom
III of 1874 were not liable to partition
A certificate under section 1o of the Act was issued by the Collector at the instance of the petitioner and the executing Court cancelled the execution case
The respondent appealed to the High Court and that court following its own Full Bench decision in Rachapa vs Amingouda 1881 V Bom
283 held the certificate to be invalid since it was not addressed to the Privy Council which had passed the decree and set aside the order of the executing court
Thereafter a fresh certificate under section 1o of the Act was issued by the Collector and addressed to this Court and the petitioner applied to this Court under that section for the cancellation of the said decree granted by the Order in Council the Privy Council having ceased to have any jurisdiction in the meantime The question for decision was whether as a result of the constitutional changes this court could be said to have passed the decree and could entertain the petition
Held that the petition must be allowed
The combined effect of sections 5 and 8 of the Abolition of the Privy Council jurisdiction Act 1949 and articles 3742 and 135 of the Constitution was that this petition which lay to the Privy Council before it ceased to exercise its jurisdiction could be presented to the Federal Court before the commencement of the Constitution and thereafter to this Court
The certificate issued by the Collector and addressed to this Court was therefore valid and must be given effect to