Case: Jaipal Vs. State Of Haryana

Prakash Devi died an unnatural death on4 the father of Prakash Devi employed asof Police, had obliged the son-in-law by giving a sum of Rs.of his own and another sum of Rs.through his son. This obligation too failed to restore matrimonial harmony in the couple. The wife initiated proceedings for recovery of maintenance under. while the husband filed a suit seeking dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. Onthe husband, i.e., the accused-appellant lost in his suit. He preferred an appeal in the High Court. Onthe matter was compromised with the intervention of elders of the village. As per settlement the wife was to join the husband which she failed toThe prosecution further alleges that some 3 or 4 days prior to the death of Prakash Devi her brother Virender Singh had come to Narnaul where the accused met him and directed him to send Prakash Devi to join with97 Smt., accompanied by Prakash Devi, reached the house of the accused situated in a locality known as Housing Board Nasibpur at about 12.00 or 12.30 p.m. The accused was present in the house. Smt. Beena was asked by the accused to sit in the outer room telling her that he wanted to speak to Prakash Devi in privacy. Prakash Devi was taken by the accused in the inner room of the house. The husband and wife were in conversation for aboutwhen Smt. Beena heard the voice of Prakash Devi complaining of uneasiness. She went inside the inner room. The accused told Prakash Devi that he had some tablet with him which could be given to her to come out of her feeling of uneasiness. Then he gave one tablet to Prakash Devi. After consuming the tablet Prakash Devi felt more uneasy and vomited. Smt. Beena took Prakash Devi to Narnaul on a rickshaw. She vomited once againoutside the house. She also said that she might not survive and requested for calling the accused so as to see him. Smt. Beena accompanied by Parkash Kaur reached Navjeevan Hospital at Narnaul. The accused also reached there on a scooter. The accused assured Smt. Beena of taking care of Prakash Devi whereupon Smt. Beena left for her home at DongraAhir. Having informed her family members, she once againcame to Navjeevan Hospital, Narnaul, accompanied by her brothers-in-law Sardara and Siri Chand. Navjeevan Hospital is run by Dr., a private medical practitioner at whose instance the accused had shifted Prakash Devi to Civil Hospital, Narnaul. In fact, Dr.y did not admit Prakash Devi and as he suspected the case to be one of poisoning referred herto Civil Hospital. He remembered Prakash Devi having been brought to him between 3 and 4 p.m. on that day. Smt. Beena and her brothers-in-law reached Civil Hospital but only to find Prakash DeviRajender Singh, Sub-Inspector of P.S. Narnaul had come to the hospital in connection with investigation of some other offence. There Smt. Beena met him and informed him of the incident which had taken place. Rajender Singh recorded the statement of Smt. Beena at 9.30 p.m. and forwarded the same to P.S. Narnaul whereat, at 9.40 p.m. the statement of Smt. Beena was registered as FIR and the investigation) in casualty department of the hospital. He sent an information (Exhibit PO) to the police informing the police of Prakash Devi having been admitted in the hospital. The police reached the hospital and sought for opinion of Dr. Ajay Ram if Prakash Devi was in a position to make any statement. Dr. Ajay Ram found Prakash Devis condition not fit for making any statement. Prakash Devi expired at 4.50 p.m. intimationwas given by him to the police. Dr. Ajay Ram gave Prakash Devi a stomach wash as it was suspected to becase of poisoning,e was taken in a bottle, sealed and handed over to the police. According to Dr. Ajay Mann the patient Prakash Devi was not fully conscious when brought to the hospital yet she was in a position to reply to some of the queries put to her. She did not give the history of poisoning. However, she was vomiting and she had also vomited on the floor of the hospital though the vomited material was not preserved as sample.

Reasoning:
Though, the house of the accused is situated in a locality inhabited by people and not in a secluded place yet the two witnesses to the seizure memo of the samples are - Virender Singh, husband of) and brother of the deceased, and one police employee namely Balbir Singh, ASI. It was suggested by the defence, during the cross-examination of Dr. S.N. Sharma, that the samples of vomit would give positive findings regarding aluminium phosphideif it was sprinkled over the vomit before lifting thethe High Court was inclined to place reliance on the seizure offrom the place situated outside the house. However thattoo has its own infirmities. As we have already noticed thehas been seized from place situated at a distance of 150 yards from the house of the accused while according to Smt. Beena the deceased hadat a place just about 25 feet from the house. It is difficult to reconcile the two depositions as to the distance. Secondly, in a village it is highly doubtful thatwould remain lyingand intact for the period of more than 16 hours overnight and on a thoroughfare. From the presence of aluminium phosphide in the sample ofin the facts and circumstances of the case it is not safe to infer the deceased having been administered aluminium phosphide because a safe link between thesamples and the deceased is not established. Sample offrom the hospital was not taken for whateverwe are not recording any positive finding in that regard yet we cannot resist observing that the father of the deceased as also the brother-in-law of the deceased being police personnel of anearby to the place of the incident probably they had successfully prevailed over the doctors who yielded into giving an opinion which would implicate theWe are unhesitatingly of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed in proving such chain of circumstantial evidence as would fasten the guilt on the accused leaving no room for doubt.