Shibanta Nag vs State Of Tripura

This appeal is filed by the original accused who has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 6(six) years in addition to payment of fine.

Brief facts are as under:

The first information report was lodged by one Manindra Pal alleging that his daughter Pampi Pal was married to the accused Shibanta Nag. On the date of incident i.e. 15.10.2016 at about 3:30 in the afternoon the accused had picked up a quarrel with his wife and assaulted her after which he forcibly administered poisonous liquid in her mouth to cause death. Her daughter rushed to the house of the complainant and informed him about the incident. The daughter was admitted in a hospital.

Though first information was lodged against the present appellant and two of his family members, a charge-sheet was filed only against the appellant. A charge was framed against him alleging that he had committed offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 307 of IPC.

The first informant was examined as PW-1. He gave the same version as stated by him in the first information report. He stated that upon learning about the incident he had rushed to the house of his daughter where he found that she was lying in an unconscious state. Her husband had gone away. He took his daughter to a nearby hospital where she was admitted for two days.

PW-2 and PW-3 were people having their establishments in the nearby vicinity and had also rushed to the site upon being informed about the incident. The main witness of course was the victim herself who was examined as PW-5. She deposed that after couple of years of the marriage the husband had started harassing her. He would assault her. On 15.10.2016 at about 3:30 in the afternoon the husband picked up quarrel with her and assaulted her and poured poison (some kind of insecticide) in her mouth from a small glass while she was sitting in a bed. Her child started crying. Hearing the commotion people gathered there including Pradip Das, PW-3. She thereafter lost consciousness.

PW-6, Puja Nag was the daughter of the accused and the victim. She was aged about 8 years on the date her deposition was recorded. She supported her mother that her father had poured poison in the mouth of the mother.

Dr. Sucharit Chakma, PW-7 was the Medical Officer at Fatikroy Primary Health Centre where the wife of the accused was shifted. Upon examination she had found the smell of organo phosphorus present in her breath and clothes. She had washed the stomach by normal saline. According to her the patient was stable throughout her stay in the hospital. She opined that the poison could be fatal upon human consumption.

In the cross-examination, she agreed that she had not conducted any blood or saliva test of the patient to ascertain the presence of poison. She clarified that since there was apparent smell of poison from her mouth coupled with her physical condition she did not see any need for further examination.

Raju Datta, PW-9 was the Investigating Officer. He narrated the steps he had taken during the course of investigation. In the cross-examination he stated that he could not locate the container of poison and, therefore, did not seize it. Certain improvements in the deposition of witnesses were also brought on record through the cross-examination of this witness.

From such evidence on record, it can be gathered that there are major gaps in the prosecution case for establishing charge of Section 307 of IPC against the accused. There is no evidence on record as to the precise nature of the substance that might have been administered by the accused to his wife. Even if, therefore, the version of the quarrel between the wife and the husband and his trying to force some liquid down her throat is accepted, the crucial question is did the prosecution establish what it was. In this context there is no scientific evidence whatsoever. The doctor-in-charge of the above Primary Health Centre merely stated that when the patient was brought to him from her breath and her clothes he could smell a particular insecticide which was a poisonous substance. He did not subject the saliva or the intestinal fluids of the patient which might have been emanated through vomiting or cleaning up the stomach as a doctor had reported, to any chemical analysis. Thus his opinion that she was made to consume poisonous substance was merely a conjecture based on his ability to distinguish substance on the basis of smell which would be a highly unsafe factor to rely upon. Secondly the container from which such insecticide might have been poured was never recovered by the investigating agency. From where, when and how the insecticide was procured is also not made clear. The accused was not an agriculturist and was stated to be a mason. Keeping insecticide in the house was, therefore, not natural. Even going by the version of the wife of the accused the incident had taken place suddenly. There is no suggestion of preplanning or premeditation on part of the accused. None of the witnesses including the wife has thrown any light on how did the accused find the pesticide handy when a sudden quarrel broke up between the husband and wife.

The first informant, father of the wife had stated that she was lying motionless when he reached the site. She was promptly shifted to a nearby hospital. The doctor had recorded the history of consumption of poison. The doctor had also stated that she was in a stable condition throughout the treatment. If this history was given by the wife, it would mean she was fully conscious when she was taken to the hospital which would clash with the version of the first informant that she had lost consciousness when he had reached the site.

For such reasons, I would find it unsafe to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Under the circumstances, conviction and sentence of the accused is set aside. Impugned judgment dated 12.10.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar in Sessions Trial No.23(U/K) of 2017 is reversed. Appeal is allowed and disposed of. Appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other criminal case.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.