Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. The prosecution has further led the evidence regarding the phial which was lying in the room where Biswajit died. In that we have the evidence of two witnesses, namely, Ramalingam (CW-1) and S. Shanmugasundaram (CW-3). Initially it was Ramalingam (CW-1) who was the Investigating Officer. In his evidence, S. Shanmugasundaram (CW-3) who took over the investigation has revealed that the said Gardenal tablets were purchased at Calcutta at Lot No. 185. It has also come in his evidence that the said particular lot number was sold only at Calcutta. He collected this information from one A.K.Dutta, the Sales Development Officer in charge of May & Baker Company. From this, the prosecution probably suggested that the tablets which were sold only in Calcutta, must have been procured by the accused. We fail to see as to how such an inference could be possible on the basis of this evidence. The tablets could have been bought even by the deceased or by anybody else. Unless it was specifically proved that the tablets were available only at that place exclusively, no inference can be drawn that it was Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) or Assadid Poddar (A-2), who procured the tablets. They were ordinary sleeping pills, the overdose of which would have been fatal. The pills, however, were not poison. Therefore, the procurement of the sleeping pills, in our opinion, would lead nowhere. Therefore, the circumstance that the Gardenal tablets were purchased from Calcutta, does not help the prosecution.

"I did not tell Inspector Shanmugasundaram that during the period when I went into the bathroom, A-1 tried to commit suicide by hanging herself with a saree. I did not tell S. Shanmugasundaram and Inspector Ramalingam that Biswajit came out of the bathroom out of my request."

23. The Inspector S. Shanmugasundaram (CW-3), however, has admitted that even Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) had tried to commit suicide and she was treated by the doctors. These things put together make the prosecution case extremely suspicious. Even this witness S. Shanmugasundaram admitted in his evidence that Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) had tried to commit suicide by taking Potassium Permanganate crystals. It cannot be ignored that the Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) was tried on account of that offence and was convicted and granted probation. If Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) herself was in such perturbed mental state, could she then either persuaded Biswajit to swallow 100 tablets or forcibly put 100 tablets into Biswajit's mouth. If she had persuaded Biswajit to swallow 100 tablets, there would undoubtedly be an offence under Section 306 IPC, however, the fact remains that that circumstance is neither proved nor even alleged as a prosecution case. Prosecution case is simply to the effect that Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) and Assadid Poddar (A-2) have committed murder of Biswajit. Considering the total lack of evidence on this aspect, it is very difficult to come to a definite conclusion that Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) persuaded Biswajit to swallow the tablets. We would, therefore, choose to reject that possibility. The only other possibility left is that BIswajit was forcibly made to swallow the tablets. We have already looked into the medical evidence for that purpose and more particularly, the injuries on the body of Biswajit (deceased). The injuries are not suggestive of forceful administration. The injuries are of three types. Firstly, there are seven burn marks, which according to Subbash Dass (PW-5), were given by Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) when they were traveling from Chennai to Pondicherry in a car. These burn marks cannot have any nexus with the swallowing of 100 tablets forcefully. Second injury is left upper eye-lid was found swollen and bluish in colour. Even this injury has nothing to do and could not be connected with the forcible swallowing. Then there are three linear scratches on the left forearm. Obviously, these injuries would have nothing to do with the forcible administration of tablets to Biswajit. Very significantly, there are no injuries on the mouth or cheek of Biswajit, which we would have expected if there was a theory of forcible ingestion of the tablets. The prosecution has no evidence whatsoever, nor did the prosecution suggest that the tablets were fed by some trick like, firstly, dissolving the tablets in alcohol and then giving that alcoholic drink to Biswajit (deceased). For that matter, there is no evidence. This is apart from the fact that Subbash Dass (PW-5) has not even whispered about Biswajit's drinking after he reached Pondicherry. The theory of mixing the tablets in the drink gets further blow, inasmuch as, when Biswajit was made to vomit by Subbash Dass (PW-5) by giving him the lukewarm water, he actually vomited the broken and intact tablets. Therefore, one thing is certain that Biswajit had swallowed the tablets straightaway without mixing or dissolving the said tablets in any other drink. There is enough evidence to the effect that when Biswajit vomited, some half broken tablets came out from his mouth. In fact, only on that basis, it was deduced by Subbash Dass (PW-5) that Biswajit had swallowed certain tablets and from a phial, which he took to Dr. Datta, who told him and Assadid Poddar (A-2) that the tablets were poison and on that basis, Biswajit was also advised to be shifted to the hospital. Now, all this leaves only one possibility and that is of Biswajit's swallowing the tablets himself, which theory, if accepted, we have to exonerate both A-1 and A-2.

27. Same thing goes about the evidence of Dr. Battacharya (PW-1), who initiated this prosecution. His evidence about the illegal intimacy between A-1 and A-2 was all hearsay. He had seen nothing. His further evidence in examination-in-chief could not have been allowed to be brought on record because he was admittedly not present on the spot, where the incident took place. It is his contention that it was on 24.5.1984 that Subbash Dass (PW-5) narrated the whole incident to him. Since his evidence is only inferential, it will be of no use to the prosecution. The witness in his cross-examination has made some strange claims like he did not have the knowledge of marriage between Biswajit and A-1. All the photographs like D-1 to D-4 belie his claim that he was not aware of the relation between Biswajit and Sonali Mukherjee (A-1). The tone of letters written by PW-1 suggests that parents of Biswajit have accepted his marriage and everything was alright with them. Even if everything in his evidence is accepted, all the letters written by him belie the claim made by the witness that Biswajit was murdered. It is for the first time that he told that he came to know from the Ashram people that there was illegal intimacy between Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) and Assadid Poddar (A-2). He has very specifically admitted that he could not tell the name of persons who told him about the illegal intimacy between A-1 and A-2. It is his claim that he came to know about this illegal intimacy way back in February, 1984. However, in his letter Exhibit D-28, he does not seem to have referred to any such illegal intimacy, which was extremely strange. His complete silence in the letter Exhibit P-12 dated 26.5.1984 about his having been told by Subbash Dass (PW-5) about the happenings, raises doubts. He clearly admitted that when he wrote the letter Exhibit P-12, he was not sure whether the death of Biswajit was homicidal or suicidal. He made an assertion that the Police officers, investigating the case, stayed in the flat belonging to the family of A-1, which was flatly denied by both the police officers, namely, Ramalingam (CW-1) and S. Shanmugasundaram (CW-3). There is nothing to suggest that these police officers were working under the influence of anybody else, muchless the accused persons and their relatives. The witness was candid in accepting his relationship with Sarogi. It is obvious that Exhibits P-10 and P-12 were the wild guesses made and therein some suspicious statements have been made which belie the claim that this was a murder. The witness went to the extent of saying that he had not given any statements to Ramalingam (CW-1) or S. Shanmugasundaram (CW-3). In his evidence, S. Shanmugasundaram (CW-3) has specifically admitted that he had examined Dr. Battacharya (PW-1) on 17.7.1984. On that basis, the witness refused to answer any question about his having made any disclosures to S. Shanmugasundaram (CW-3). In short, the evidence of Dr. Battacharya (PW-1) does not inspire any confidence and has to be rejected.

29. Having discussed all these witnesses, we are of the firm opinion that the whole prosecution rests on suspicions and it is trite law that mere suspicion is not enough to convict the accused persons.

30. In fact, in this case, the whole basis of the complaint was the dishonest investigation on the part of Ramalingam (CW-1) and S. Shanmugasundaram (CW-3). Seeing their evidence closely, we do not think that such an inference was possible. These two witnesses have been examined as Court Witnesses and, therefore, they could have been cross-examined by the prosecution. Their cross-examination does not reveal anything to suggest that investigation was guided investigation, so as to exonerate the accused persons.