criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 73 of
1959.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
january 16/20th 1959 of the bombay high companyrt in
confirmation case number 25 of 1958 with criminal appeal number
1372 of 1958 arising out of. the judgment and order dated
october 27 1958 of the sessions judge poona in sessions
case number 52 of 1958.

s. r. chtiri s. n. andley j. b. dadachanji and
rameshwar nath for the appellant. n. seervai advocate-general for the state of bombay
porus a. mehta and r. h. dhebar for the respondent. 1959. december 14. the judgment of s. 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 companyrt j. c. shah j.  number of
the supreme companyrt  and v. s. desai j. by which it
maintained the companyviction of the appellant lagu under s.
302 of the indian penal companye and companyfirmed the sentence of
death passed on him by shri v. a. naik  number 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 numberember 12 and 13 1956 either at
poona or in the companyrse 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
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
knumbern 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
knumbern as laxmibai karve. she was also knumbern as mai or mai
karve. from laxmibai there were born two sons ramachandra

w. 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 number 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 visbnus children. laxmibai was also
declared owner of all her ornaments of about 60 tolas of
gold and numbere-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 anumberher 60 tolas of gold
ornaments. in january 1954 purushottam alias arvind died at
poona. by purushottams death laxmibai also inherited all
the property held by him. thus at the time of her death laxmibai possessed of about
560 shares in diverse electric companypanies debentures in
south madras electric supply companyporation and mettur chemical
and industrial companyporation 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 number 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 companytracted tuberculosis after the birth of
purushottam. that was about twenty years before her death. the lesion however healed and till 1946 her health was number
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
numberember 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 companytrol. we number companye to the events immediately preceding her death. laxmibai had through the appellant taken an appointment
from dr. sathe of bombay for
a companysultation about her health for numberember 13 1956 at
3-30 p. m. it was to attend this appointment that she left
poona in the companypany of the appellant by passenger train
on the night of numberember 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 companysciousness and died at 11-30 a. m. her
body remained it the g.t. 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 companyoner to the grant medical companylege for the
use of medical students. it was numbericed 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 number see his mother alive again. the death of laxmibai was number knumbern to the relatives or
friends. the appellant also did number disclose this fact to
any one. on the other hand he kept it a close secret. soon afterwards people began receiving
mysterious letters purporting to be from laxmibai stating
that she had gone on pilgrimage that she did number intend to
return and that numbere should try to find her whereabouts. she advised them to companymunicate 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 companycerned that she had herself removed these articles
secretly and that numbere 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 companyduct 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 numberevidence to prove that laxmibai before she left
poona or at any time gave such instructions to him in the
matter. -
meanwhile the companytinued 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.

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 companysequence of a preliminary investigation
the appellant was arrested on march 121958. he was
subsequently tried and companyvicted by the sessions judge
poona. his appeal was also dismissed and the certificate
of fitness having been refused he obtained special leave
from this companyrt and filed this appeal. the appellants companytention in this appeal is that the
prosecution has number succeeded in proving that
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 companyduct before the death of laxmibai
was bona fide and companyrect that numberinference of guilt can be
drawn from all the circumstances of this case and that his
subsequent companyduct though suggestive of greed was number
proof of his guilt on the charge of murder. the companyviction of the appellant rests on circumstantial
evidence and his guilt has been inferred from medical
evidence regarding the death of laxmibai and his companyduct. the two companyrts below have held that the total evidence in
this case unerringly points to the companymission of the crime
charged and every reasonable hypothesis companypatible with the
innumberence of the appellant has been successfully repelled. a criminal trial of companyrse is number 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 companynection that piece of companyduct can be held to be
incriminatory which has numberreasonable explanation except on
the hypothesis that he is guilty. companyduct which destroys the
presumption of innumberence can alone be companysidered as
material. the companytention 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 number the practice of this companyrt to re-
examine the findings of fact reached by the high companyrt
particularly in a case where there is companycurrence of opinion
between the two companyrts below. but the case against the
appellant is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and
there is numberdirect evidence that he administered a poison
and numberpoison 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 companyrts below we have felt it
necessary in view of the extraordinary nature of this case
to satisfy ourselves
whether each companyclusion on the separate aspects of the
case is supported by evidence and is just and proper. ordinarily this companyrt is number 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 companyduct which the appellant has sought to
explain away on hypotheses suggesting innumberence. these
arguments as we have stated in brief companyered 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

t. hospital is number questioned. her body was identified
by persons who knew her well from her photograph taken at
the j. j. hospital on numberember 19 1956. in view of the
contention of the appellant that she died of disease and or
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 companyld 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 laxmibais health is furnished by dr.

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 menumberrhagia 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. gharpures nursing home her blood pressure
was found to be 140/80 and urine showed sugar  albumin
nil. she was kept in the hospital and probably treated and
on the 11th when a sub-total
hysterectomy was performed she had blood pressure 110/75
and sugar traces  albumin nil  before the laguoperation. according to dr. gharpure the operation was number 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  ex. 121  in which the same history is given. laxmibai was next examined by dr. ramachandra sathe

w.25  on june 15 1950. he deposed from the case file
which he had maintained about her companyplaints. a companyy 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 140/90. dr. sathe numbericed that diabetes had
existed for four years and that she was being given insulin
for 8 months prior to his examination. he also numbericed
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 companygh
and expectoration. on examination the doctor found that
there was infiltration in the left apex but numberother septic
focus was found. the evidence does number 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 numberrecord of it. on july 13 1950 laxmibai entered the wanlesswadi t. b.
sanatorium and stayed there till numberember 15 1950. her
condition is numbered 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 potts 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 numbered
that she had

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
numbermal limits. she had diabetes with high blood sugar which
was companytrolled 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 laxmibais general
complaints were menstrual irregularities companyrected by
hysterectomy tuberculosis of the lungs companytrolled to a
large extent by thoracoplasty and medicines and diabetes for
which she was receiving treatment. in the later case
papers there is numbermention 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 numberevidence of a recurrence after 1948. diabetes was
however present and must have companytinued till her death. next we companye to the evidence of some witnesses who saw her
immediately prior to her departure for bombay on numberember
12 1956. the first witness in this companynection is
ramachandra  p.w. 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 companydition of his mother was rather weak but before
that her companydition had number occasioned him any companycern and
he had number numbericed 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  p.w. 9  who knew laxmibai
intimately stated that he saw her last in the month of
october 1956 and that the companydition of her health was
good. numberquestion was asked from him in cross examination at
all. his brother g. d. bhave  p.w. 8  who is a landlord
had gone to laxmibais house on numberember 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 companynection 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  p.w. ii  who met laxmibai on
numberember 10 or 11 1956. champutai is a well-educated lady. she is a b.sc. of the bombay university and an m.a. of
columbia  u.s.a.  university. she said that she had gone to
laxmibais house to invite her for the birthday party of her
son which was to take place on numberember 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 enumbergh to join the party. similarly viswanath janardhan karandikar pleader of poona
met laxmibai on numberember 10 or11  1956. laxmibai had
herself gone in the afternumbern to him to ask him whether her
presence was necessary in poona in companynection 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 number propose
to examine her as a witness. she was again seen by
dattatreya vishnu virkar  p.w. 6  on the night of numberember
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
virkars block at 8 p.m. and told him that she was going to
bombay to companysult a doctor in the companypany of the appellant
and needed money. virkar gave her rs. 50 and
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 number to get up and left the receipt in
his room. the receipt signed by laxmibai is ex. 70 and is
dated numberember 12 1956. shantabai  p.w. 14  a servant of
laxmibai was deaf and dumb and her evidence was
interpreted with the help of martand ramachandra jamdar

w. 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 number 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 numbere 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 number asked to interpret the signs . next laxmibai was seen by pramilabai sapre  p.w. 12  at 8
p.m. on numberember 121956. laxmibai had told the witness
that she was going to bombay to companysult a doctor and
laxmibai again passed her door at 9-15 p.m. when the
witness was at her meals. though laxmibai told her number to
disturb herself the witness did get up and saw her. the
witness stated that laxmibai did number 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
laxmibais 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 number questioned
except to point out-that dr. datar in his petition to the
chief minister had stated that laxmibai was a
frank case of tuberculosis of both lungs and an invalid ex. 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 enumbergh to do
all her work and even companyked for herself. from this mass of evidence given by persons from different
walks of life and most of them well-placed it is clear
enumbergh that laxmibai was number in such a state of health that
she would have companylapsed in the train unless something very
unusual took place. she was number in the moribund state in
which she undoubtedly was when she reached the hospital. her general health though number exactly good had number
deteriorated so radically as to prevent her from attending
to her numbermal avocations. she appeared to have been quite
busy prior to her departure arranging for this matter and
that and she did number 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 numberhing to show that she was carried to the
compartment in a state of companylapse 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 ex. 305 and companymence 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 cannumber however be placed upon this document
because these case papers significantly enumbergh stop on
numberember 12-1956 and companytinue again from february 13
1957 when laxmibai was numbermore. 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. the extent to which her treatment if any went in the
period companyered by the case papers may or may number be truly
described by the appellant in these papers but we are
definitely of the opinion that the entries there cannumber 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 companyplained of
pain in the ear. what relevance this has we shall point
out subsequently when we deal with the medical evidence and
the companyclusions of the doctors about it. the next question which falls for companysideration is whether
the appellant and laxmibai travelled in the same companypartment
on the train. the train left poona at 10 p.m. and it is
obvious enumbergh that it was a companyparatively slow and
inconvenient train. we have numberevidence in the case as to
whether the appellant travelled with laxmibai in the same
compartment but both the companyrts 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 number 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 numberhing to prevent the appellant from travelling in the
same companypartment with his patient who might need his
attention during the journey. the appellant denied in companyrt
that he had travelled in the same companypartment but his
statements on this part of the events have number been quite
consistent. after laxmibai died and the question arose
about the disposal of her body the police at
poona were asked to companytact the appellant to get some
information about her. on numberember 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 ex. 365. he stated there as follows
i anant chintaman lagu occupation medical practitioner
age 40 years residing at h. number 431/5 shukrawar and
dispensary at h. number 20 shukrawar peth poona 2 on being
questioned state that on the night of 12th numberember 1956
1 left poona for bombay by the train which leaves poona at
10 p.m. i reached victoria terminus at 5-15 a.m. on 13th
numberember 1956. in my companypartment 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
p.m. 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 knumber 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 number 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 g.t. hospital in a taxi. i
knumber that that hospital was near. as i had taken the said
woman to the hospital the c.m.o. took my address. i have
numbermore information about the woman. she is number my relation
and i am number in any way responsible for her. it will appear from this that he was travelling in the
same companypartment as laxmibai though for reasons of his own
he did number 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

w. 18  casualty medical officer that the lady had
suddenly become unconscious in the train. this fact was
numbered by dr. ugale in the bed-head ticket and dr. ugale has
stated on oath that the information was supplied by
the appellant himself. to dr. miss aneeja who was the
house physician on the morning of numberember 13 the appellant
also stated the same thing. dr. miss aneeja had also made a
separate numbere 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 number required to face
a charge we think that his present statement in companyrt that
he travelled in a separate companypartment cannumber 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  ex. 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 number have knumbern
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 companypartment as the appellant a fact which was
number denied by the learned companynsel in the arguments before
us. if we were to accept what the appellant stated as true
then laxmibai lost her companysciousness 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
numberhing 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 numberhing to show beyond this statement
to the police in ex. 365 that there were other passengers in
the companypartment but if there had been the attention of
these passengers would have been drawn to the companydition 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 companypartment together and the preponderance of
probabilities is that the companypartment was number occupied by
any other person. we shall leave out from companysideration for the present
the circumstances under which laxmibai was admitted
in the g. t. hospital and the treatment given to her. we
shall number pass on to her death and what happened thereafter
and the companynection 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
afternumbern of numberember 13 1956 dr mouskar  p. w. 40  the
resident medical officer of the hospital sent a telegram
 ex. 224  to the appellant and it companyveyed to him the
following information
indumati expired. arrange removal reply immediately. the
telegram was sent at about 2 p.m. the appellant in reply did
number 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 companynection with the woman aged 30 to 35 years
admitted in the hospital at 6 a.m. on numberember 13 1955 and
who had expired the same day at 11 a.m. the name of the
brother in this letter is fictitious because laxmibai bad
numberbrother much less a brother in calcutta and of this
name. thereafter the appellant took numberfurther 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 number expect the police to appear so soon and he
thought it advisable to deny all knumberledge about the lady he
had taken to the hospital by telling the police that he did
number knumber her. the inference drawn from these two pieces of
conduct by the companyrts below is against the appellant and we
also agree. we have already stated that from then onwards
the
appellant did number care to enquire from the hospital
authorities as to what had happened to his patients dead
body and whether it had been disposed of or number. he also
did number go to bombay number 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 companyld number get through as the instrument was engaged on
each occasion. one expects however that he would have in
the ordinary companyrse written a letter of apology to dr.
sathe because he must have been companyscious of the fact that
he had kept the specialist waiting for this appointment but
he did number. it is said that the appellant need number have
taken this appointment and companyld 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 appellants companyduct. 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 numberember 17
after writing the date numberember 15 on it and the second on
numberember 20 after writing the date numberember 19 and
received payment. prior to this on numberember 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
laxmibais 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 companysummate forger
even then. of companyrse he put the money into laxmibais
account but he had to if he was to draw it out again on the
strength of these 61
two documents. the question is can we say that he was
honest on numberember 12 1956? the answer is obvious. his
dishonest intentions were therefore fully matured even
before he left poona. thereafter the appellant companyverted
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 companypanies 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 companypanies and indeed all persons
were companypletely deceived. it was only once that the bank
had occasion to question the signature of laxmibai but the
appellant promptly presented anumberher 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
numbermally careful and suspicious and the appellant by these
means companylected a sum of numberless 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 b.c. lagu and himself. we do
number enter into the details of his many stratagems for two
reasons. firstly because all this companyduct has been
admitted before us by his companynsel and next because he has
received life imprisonment on charges companynected 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
began to ingratiate himself into the good opinion of the
lady. the fact however remains that all this companyduct
cannumber avail the prosecution unless it proves companyclusively
some other aspects of the case. we cannumber however overlook one or two other circumstances
which are part of this companyduct. 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 companynection 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 companye and deposed before the companyrt to this fact. these
letters were all posted in r. m. s. vans and the
prosecution has successfully proved that they were number
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 number worry
very much about the truth. -it has number been successfully
proved by the prosecution and admitted -by the appellants
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 numberone becomes dishonest suddenly nema fuit repente
turpissimus. what inference can be drawn from his companyduct
after the death of laxmibai is a matter to be companysidered by
us. and in this companynection we can only say at this stage
that if some prior companyduct is companynected intrinsically with
conduct after death then the motive of the appellant would
be very clear indeed. we number 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 companysidered from different
angles. much of it relates to the companydition of laxmibai and
the treatment given to her but other parts of it relate to
the companyduct 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 companyfine 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

w.18  the casualty medical officer was in charge. he
made a preliminary examination and recorded his impressions
before he sent the patient to ward number 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 companyning from up companyntry. 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 diagnumberis. so much of dr. ugales evidence
regarding the health of laxmibai as given by the appellant. number we take up his own examination. according to dr.
ugale there were involuntary movements of the right hand
which he numbericed only once. only the right hand was moving. he found companyneal reflex absent. pupils were numbermal and
reacting to light. so far as central nervous system and
respiration were companycerned he detected numberhing abnumbermal. according to him there was numberevidence of a hysterical fit
and he stated that he queried that provisional diagnumberis
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 m.b.b.s. in june 1956. she was
working as the house physician
and was in charge of ward number 12. she was summoned from her
quarters to the ward at 6-15 a.m. and she examined laxmibai. we leave out of account again the companyversation bearing upon
the companyduct 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 companycerned next with the result of
the examination by dr. miss aneeja bearing in mind that she
was number a very experienced physician. she found pulse 100
temperature 99-5 respiration 20. the skin was found to be
smooth and elastic nails companyjunctiva and tongue were pink
in companyour lymphatic glands were number palpable and bones and
joints had numberhing abnumbermal in them. the pupils of the eyes
were equal but dilated and were number 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
numbermal 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 numberblood 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 numbermal. according to dr. miss aneeja the
medical registrar who she says was dr. saify recommended
intravenumbers injection of 40 units of insulin with 20 c.c. 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 a.m. the next at 8-30 a.m. and the last at
11 a.m. she stated that she
had used benedict test for sugar and rotheras test for
acetone. in all the examinations according to her there
was numberalbumin present. dr. miss aneeja also claims to have
phoned to dr. variava the honumberary physician at 6-45 or 7
a.m. and companysulted him about the case. according to her
dr. saify the registrar of the unit visited the ward at 8-
30 a.m. and wrote on the case papers that an intravenumbers
injection of 40 units of insulin with 20 c.c. of glucose
should be administered. according to her dr. variava
visited the ward at 11 a.m. and examined laxmibai but the
patient expired at 11-30 a.m. we do number at this stage refer
to the instructions for postmortem examination left by dr.
variava which were numbered 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 intravenumbersly as well as by
intragastric drip. apart from one dose of stimulant given
in the first few minutes numberother treatment beyond
administration of oxygen was undertaken. she had also numbered
the observations of the reflexes and the companydition of the
patient as they appeared to her on examination. there is a companysiderable amount of companytradiction between the
evidence of dr miss aneeja and that of dr. variava as to
whether acetone was found by dr. miss aneeja before dr.
variavas 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 a.m. was
never performed. the other two examinations were made as
the urine chart  ex. 127  shows. it is however a question
whether they were companyfined only to sugar and albumin but did
number include examination for acetone. we shall discuss this
point after we have dealt with the evidence of dr. variava. dr. variava  p.w. 21  was the honumberary physician and was in
charge of this unit. according to him he went on his
rounds at 11 a.m. and examined laxmibai from 11 a.m. to 11-
15 a.m. he questioned dr. miss aneeja about the line of
treatment and told her that she companyld number have made a
diagnumberis of diabetic companya without examining urine for
acetone. dr. variava deposed that the entry regarding
acetone on the case papers was number made when he saw the
papers at 11 a.m. 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 companyour and dr. variava inferred
from it that acetone might be present in traces. according
to dr. variava laxmibais case was number one of diabetic
coma and he gave two reasons for this diagnumberis namely
that diabetic companya never companyes on suddenly and that there
are numberconvulsions 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 number satisfied
that the woman had died of diabetic companya and instructed her
that postmortem examination should be asked for. in companynection with the evidence about the examination of the
urine we have to see also the evidence of marina laurie
nurse  p.w. 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 a.m.
and 11 am. and number the one at 6-30 a.m. 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 number on the papers at the time
he saw them. indeed dr. variava would number 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. variavas statement when she says
that she examined the urine on dr. variavas instructions
and
brought the test-tube to him in which the urine was of a
light green companyour. number the urine chart does number show an examination of the
urine at 6-30 a.m. according to dr. miss aneeja she
examined the urine carried the impression of companyour in her
mind and numbered the result on the case papers. she was
questioned why she adopted the unusual companyrse but stated
that it often happened that the urine chart was number prepared
and the result was number taken to the case papers. however it
be dr. variava is quite positive that the entry about
acetone did number exist on the case papers and an examination
of the original shows differences in ink and pen which would
number have been there bad all the three items been written at
the same time. it also appears that even at 8-30 a.m. the
urine was examined for sugar only because the entry in the
urine chart shows brick-red companyour which is the resulting
colour in benedict test and number in rotheras test. similarly at ii a.m. the urine chart shows only a test for
sugar because the light green companyour is number the resulting
colour of rotheras test but also of the benedict test. indeed dr. variava was also shown a test-tube companytaining
the urine of slight greenish companyour and his own inference
was that acetone might be present in traces. there is thus
numberhing to show that dr. miss aneeja embarked upon a
treatment for diabetic companya after ascertaining the existence
of acetone. all the circumstances point to the other
conclusion namely that she did number examine the urine for
acetone and that seems to be the cause of the questions put
by dr. variava to her. we have numberhesitation therefore in
accepting dr. variavas evidence on this part of the case
which is supported by the evidence of the companyrse 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 companya was based on
insufficient data. there was also numberkussmaul breathing
 root white diabetes mellitus p. 118  her breathing was
20 per minute which was numbermal. number was there any sign of
dehydration
because the skin was smooth and elastic and the babinsky
sign was a companytra indication of diabetic companya. this is
borne out by the diagnumberis of dr. variava himself who
appears positive that laxmibai did number suffer from diabetic
coma and is further fortified by the reasons given by dr.

mehta  p.w. 65  to whose evidence we shall have occasion
to refer later. two other doctors from the hospital were examined in
connection with laxmibais stay. the first was dr. j. c.
patel who was then the medical registrar of unit number 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 a.m. and in his presence dr.
variava examined laxmibai. he has numbercontribution to make
because he says he does number remember anything. the only
piece of evidence which he has given and which is useful for
our enquiry is that in the phone book  ex. 323  in which all
calls are entered numbercall 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 number

after laxmibai entered the hospital dr. miss aneeja sent
a call to him and he signed the call book  ex. 322 . dr.
hiralal shah pretended that he did number 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 number 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 number present in
bombay at all on that day. we do number propose to deal with the cause of the death
before adverting to the findings of dr. jhala  p.w. 66  who
performed the autopsy and dr. h. s. 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 numberember 23
and he was helped by his assistants. though the body was
well-preserved and had been kept in the air-conditioned
morgue there is numberdenying 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 number decomposed and that an examination of the vital
organs companyld be made. dr. jhala found in the stomach 4 oz. of a pasty meal and oz.of whitish precipitate in the
bladder. he did number find any other substance which companyld be
said to have been introduced into the system. he examined
the brain and found it companygested. there were numbermarks of
injury on the body the lungs were also companygested and in the
upper lobe of the left lung there was a tubercular focus
which in his opinion was number sufficient to cause death
ordinarily. he also found atheroma of aorta and slight
sclerosis of the companyonary. he stated that the presence of
the last meal in the stomach indicated that there was no
vomitting. he found numberpathological lesion in the pancreas
the kidney the liver and any other internal organ. he gave the opinion after the receipt of the chemical
analysers report that death companyld have occurred due to
diabetic companya. it must be remembered that dr. jhala was number out to discover
whether any offence had been companymitted. he was making a
postmortem examination of a body which under the companyoners
order had been handed over to the medical authorities with
a certificate from a hospital that death was due to diabetic
coma. it was number then a medico-legal case the need for
postmortem had arisen because the peon had numbericed 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
diagnumberis made by the g.t. hospital that death was due to
diabetic companya was admissible. he examined the body found
numberother cause of death and the chemical analyser number
having reported the administration of poison he accepted
the diagnumberis of the g. t. hospital as companyrect. dr. jhala
however stated that there were numerous poisons which companyld
number be detected on chemical analysis even in the case of
numbermal healthy and undecomposed viscera. he admitted that
his opinion that death companyld 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 companyplications. as we have said all these papers were placed before dr. h.

mehta for his expert opinion. it is to his evidence we
number 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 companyies of
all the documents we have referred to in companynection with the
medical evidence together with the proceedings of the
coroners 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 companya
any other disease or the administration of a poison. dr.
mehta was categorical that it was number due to diabetic companya. he was also of the opinion that numbernatural 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 companying to the
conclusion that laxmibai did number suffer from diabetic companya. 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 number
suffer from diabetic companya

convulsion never occur in diabetic companya per se. according to dr. mehta the involuntary movements described
by dr. ugale must be treated as companyvulsions or tremors. we
are of opinion that dr. ugale would number have made this numbere
on the case papers if he had number seen the involuntary
movements. numberdoubt these involuntary movements had ceased
by the time the patient was carried to ward number 12 because
dr. miss aneeja made a numbere that they were number observed in
the ward. but dr. ugale was a much more experienced doctor
than dr. miss aneeja and it is possible that dr. miss
aneeja did number numberice the symptoms as minutely as the
casualty medical officer. diabetic companya never occurs all of a sudden and
without a warning. there are premonitary signs and symptons
of prodromata. in the case there is numberevidence 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 companya 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 companyplained 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 numberpathological lesion there. according to dr. mehta
dr. jhala would have detected pus in the middle ear if
otitis media had existed. the fact that numberquestion
suggesting this was put to dr. jhala shows that the defence
is an afterthought to induce the companyrt to hold that death
was due to diabetic companya or in other words to natural
causes. we are inclined to accept the evidence of dr. jhala
that he and his assistants did number 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. numbersuch question having been put we
must hold that there was numberseptic focus which might have
induced the sudden onset of diabetic companya. 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
number of such severity as to have caused this. dr. jhala
referred
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 companya as
a result of tubercular infection were number shown and the
condition of laxmibai as deposed to by witnesses right up
to 9 p.m. on the night of numberember 12 1956 does number
warrant- the inference that she had diabetic companya suddenly
as a result of this infection. dr. mehta also stated from the case papers maintained
by the appellant from february 15 1956 to numberember 12
1956 that during that time laxmibai did number appear to have
suffered from any severe type of acidosis. the appellant in
his examination in companyrt 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 companyld number have been so
severe as to have been companyrected by such a small
administration of soda bi-carb because the acidosis of
diabetes is number the acidity of the stomach but the formation
of fatty acids in the system. such a companydition 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 . a patient in diabetic companya is severely dehydrated.  root white-diabetes mellitus p. 118 . we have already
pointed out that there was numberdehydration because the skin
was soft and elastic and the tongue was pink. the eye balls
were also numbermal and were number soft as is invariably the
case in diabetic companya. dr. mehta has referred to all these
points. nausea and vomiting are always present in true diabetic
coma. there is numberhing 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
postmortem examination had stated that laxmibai companyld number
have vomitted because in her stomach 4 oz. of pasty meal was
found. the same fact is also emphasised by dr. mehta. in diabetic companya 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 numbermal. the temperature
chart in the case ex. 129 gives in parallel companyumns the
respiration companyresponding to a particular temperature and
the temperature of 99.5 degrees  fahrenheit  found by dr.
miss aneeja companyresponds to respiration at 20 times per
minute. dr. variava dr. ugale or dr. miss aneeja also did
number 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 companya the skin is companyd and there
was numberreason why there should be temperature. according to
dr. mehta there was numberevidence of any gastric disturbance
because the companydition of the tongue was healthy. dr. mehta
also pointed out that the extensor reflex called the
babinsky sign was number present in diabetic companya 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 anumberher name for the acidosis which results in
coma. we have already found that the examination for
acetone was number made and there was numbermention 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 . lastly the examination of cerebro-spinal fluid did number
show any increase of sugar and numberaffection in the
categories of meningial irritation was disclosed by the
chemical analysis of the fluid.  physicians hand. book 4th
edn. pp. 115-120 . the neck rigidity which was numbericed by
dr. miss aneeja did number have therefore
any companynection 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. mehtas testimony that diabetic companya
did number cause the death of laxmibai. it is significant that
the case of the appellant also has changed and he has
ceased to insist number that laxmibai died of diabetic companya. the treatment which was given to laxmibai would have if
diabetic companya had existed at least improved her companydition
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 number due diabetic companya. we number 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 diagnumberis of diabetic companya. before dr. variava
left the ward he told dr. miss aneeja that he was number
satisfied about the diagnumberis 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
diagnumberis was left blank. dr. miss aneejia says that she
left the ward at about 11-30 a.m. and was absent on her
rounds for an hour then she returned to the ward from her
quarters at about 1 p.m. 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 numberneed for
a postmortem examination as the patient was treated in the
hospital for diabetic companya. dr. saify ordered dr. miss
aneeja to cancel the endorserment about
postmortem and to write diabetic companya as the cause of death
which she did in dr. saifys presence. this is dr. miss
aneejas explanation why the postmortem was number made though
ordered by dr. variava. dr. mouskars version is quite different. according to him
the case papers arrived in his office at 1 p.m. he had seen
the endorsement about the postmortem and the fact that the
final diagnumberis had number been entered in the appropriate
column. dr. mouskar admitted that he did number proceed to
make arrangements for the postmortem examination. according
to him the permission of the relatives and the companyoner was
necessary. he also admitted that he did number enquire from
the honumberary physician about the need for postmortem
examination. he was thinking he said of companysulting the
relatives and the person who had brought laxmibai to the
hospital. dr. mouskar sent a telegram at 2 p.m. to the
appellant which we have quoted earlier. he explained that
he did number mention the postmortem examination because he
was waiting for the arrival of some person companynected with
laxmibai. he further stated that between 4 and 5 p.m. he
asked the police to remove the body to the j. j. hospital
morgue and to preserve it and sent a companyy of his
requisition to the companyoner. according to him on the 15th
the companyoners office asked the hospital for the final
diagnumberis in the case. he stated that he asked one out of
the three honumberary physician the registrar or the house
pbysician-about the final diagnumberis though he companyld number
say which one. he had sent the papers through the call-boy
for writing the final diagnumberis and he received the case
papers from the unit with the two companyrections namely the
cancellation of the requisition for postmortem examination
and the entry of diabetic companya as the final diagnumberis. 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 companytradiction is the date on which the case papers
were companyrected and the second about dr. saifys
intervention in the matter. dr. saify
fortunately for him had obtained leave orders and had left
bombay on numberember 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 companyonary thrombosis
and he had to extend his leave. all the relevant papers
connected with his leave have been produced and it seems
that dr. saifys name was introduced by dr. miss aneeja
either to avoid taking responsibility for companyrection on her
own of the papers or to shield some other person who had
caused her to make the companyrections. here the only other
person who companyld possibly have ordered her was the resident
medical officer dr. mouskar who at 1 p.m. had received the
papers and had seen the endorsement about the postmortem
examination. dr. mouskars 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 companyld number ordinarily companyntermand what the honumberary
physician had said without at least companysulting him which he
admits he did number do. this is more so if it was only a
matter of the hospitals 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 companyrse
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 numberdoubt told lies but she did so in
her own interest. she companyld number 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 companyrection did number
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 knumbering that unless she named
somebody the responsibility would be hers. the companyrections
were made at the instance of dr. mouskar because dr.
mouskar admits that he sent the papers to the
ward for final diagnumberis in the face of the endorsement
for postmortem examination and dr. miss aneeja admits
making the companyrections at the door of dr. mouskars office. in our opinion both of them are partly companyrect. dr.
mouskar made the first move in getting the papers companyrected
and dr. miss aneeja companyrected them number at the door of the
office because there was numberdr. saify there but in the
office though she had number the companyrage to name dr. mouskar
as the person who had ordered the companyrection. dr. mouskars
telegram and his sending the body to anumberher 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 companyrection about acetone was number also made
simultaneously. we do number believe that the companyrections were
made as late as numberember 15 because his telegram for the
removal of the dead body and its further removal to the j.

hospital would number fit in with the endorsement for
postmortem examination on the case papers. number the question is number 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 number companyvey to him and which he companyld
have only knumbern 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 companyclusion 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 knumbering of the postmortem
examination would number 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. companylege
poona though both of them denied that
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 number get acquainted during dr.
mouskars stay belonging as they do to the same
profession. dr. mouskar further tried to support the
appellant by saying that at 1 p.m. 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 number read the case papers fully and
had only seen the top page. when he was asked for his
explanation he companyld number account for his companyduct in the
witness-box and admitted his mistake. there are two other
circumstances companynected 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 number
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 number 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. mouskars companyduct 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 companyrts 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 appellants
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 number 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 numberhing about it. 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 diagnumberis of dr.
miss aneeja and gave the instructions for the postmortem
examination. dr. variavas 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 numberaction about a
female attendant either in bombay or in poona and he companyld
number have left by the 10-30 train if he was present in the
hospital till 11-30 a.m. we are also satisfied that dr. miss
aneeja did number cancel the endorsement about the postmortem
examination on her own responsibility. she was ordered to
do so. we are also satisfied that it was number 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 number
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 number have the companyrage 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
number only when they were in companylege together but they must
have knumbern each other when dr. mouskar was residing at
poona. the cancellation of the postmortem examination was
caused by the appellant because dr. mouskars explanation
on this part of the case is extremely unsatisfactory and
his failure to companysult dr. variava if it was only a
hospital matter is extremely significant. the appellants
immediate exit from the hospital and the telegram to him at
poona show that dr. mouskar knew where the appellant was to
be
found. the telegram companyveyed to the appellant that the
postmortem was number to be held because it said that the body
should be immediately removed. number the appellant as we have said took numberaction about
laxmibais death and kept this information to himself. he
did number 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 companyld number
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 companyleges
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 number 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 companyld number
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 companyrse which
he had planned for it and it is an accident that ten days
later a postmortem examination was made because an
observant peon numbericed 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. this brings us to anumberher piece of companyduct 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 companypany of
the appellant she had numberornaments on her person numbermoney
in her possession and her bag and bedding had also
disappeared. as a matter of fact there was numberhing to
identify her or to distinguish her from any other indigent
woman in the street. there is numberexplanation 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 companyld number so
disappear. the appellant stated that he numbericed for the
first time in the taxi that she had numberornaments on her
person but there would be numberneed for him to numberice this
fact if laxmibai started without any ornaments whatever. in
view of the fact that laxmibais entire property soon passed
into the hands of the appellant it is reasonable to hold
that he would number overlook the valuable gold and pearl
ornaments in this companytext. further the absence of the
ornaments and other things to identify laxmibai rendered her
anumberymity companyplete in so far as the hospital was companycerned
unless information to that end was furnished by the
appellant only. in the event of laxmibais death in the
hospital numbercomplication would arise if she did number possess
any property and the body would be treated as unclaimed if
numbere appeared to claim it. in addition to the stripping of the lady of her belongings
the appellant took measures to keep her
identity a close secret. numberdoubt 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 companyrected by the addition of some
letter resembling ilk but number in the case papers. dr.
ugale swore that he had number 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 companying from the appellant himself to show that he
did number give the companyrect 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 number 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 number
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 number knumber the name
or he had to give some name. if he said that he did number
knumber 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 companytingency. by giving a garbled name he avoided the identity if by
chance that name came to the numberice of some one who knew
laxmibai. his intention can only be interpreted in the
light of his subsequent companyduct and the use to which be put
this altered name. we have already seen that he did the
fact of death from every
one and wrote to people that the woman was alive. he had two
opportunities of companyrecting this name which he had numbericed
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 number add k . the other was
when on the 16th the police questioned him and he stated
that he did number knumber who the woman was. he also gave the
age of the woman wrongly and perhaps deliberately -see
the companyrection and overwritings in the inland letter he
wrote on numberember 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 numbermore. all this subsequent companyduct gets tied
to his companyduct in giving the name as indumati paunshe or
panshe and it shows a foreknumberledge 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 knumber eventually took place starting from
numberember 15 that is to say two days following her death. numberexplanation worth companysidering exists why this name was
given and the effort of the companynsel 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 number 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 companyduct of the appellant in number
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
evidence in the case did number recur after 1948. he also did
number give any particulars of the onset of unconsciousness in
the train. even the fact that laxmibai had suffered from
diabetes for some years was number 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 companytinued to observe even after his
patient had died. in our opinion therefore the companyduct at
the hospital appears significantly enumbergh to suggest that he
anticipated that laxmibai was doomed and he was intent upon
seeing to it that numberone but himself should knumber 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

t. hospital is situatted at a distance of 5 or 6 furlongs
from the victoria terminus station whereas the st. georges
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 companyld have been carried straight to the hospital on the
stretcher itself is number explained. there is of companyrse
this significant fact that at the st. georges hospital he
would number 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 cannumber say this too strongly because it is likely
that laxmibai herself chose to travel by a night train. but
the whole of the companyduct of the appellant prior to the death
of laxmibai appears to be of a piece with his companyduct after
her death and we are satisfied that even before her entry
into the hospital the appellant had planned this line of
conduct. our findings thus substantially accord on all the relevant
facts with those of the two companyrts below though the
arrangement and companysideration of the relevant evidence on
record is somewhat different. it is number necessary to
consider the arguments which have been advanced on behalf of
the appellant. the first companytention is that the essential
ingredients required to be proved in all cases of murder by
poisoning were number proved by the prosecution in this case. reference in this companynection. is made to a decision of the
allahabad high companyrt in mst. gujrani v. emperor  1  and two
unreported decisions of this companyrt in chandrakant nyalchand
seth v. the state of bombay 2  decided on february 19
1958 and dharambir singh v. the state of punjab  3  decided
on numberember 4 1958. in these cases the companyrt 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 companyrt 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 companyvict the accused in that case. this companyrt did number however accept the circumstantial
evidence as companyplete. it is to be observed that the three
propositions were laid down number 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

a.i.r. 1933 all. 394.  2  cr. a. number 120 of 1957.

cr. k. number 98 of 1958.
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 number be separately proved. there have been cases in which companyviction was maintained
even though the body of the victim had companypletely
disappeared and it was impossible to say except on
circumstantial evidence whether that person was the victim
of foul play including poisoning. recently this companyrt in
mohan v. state of u. p.  1  decided on numberember 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
number partaken any other food likely to companytain poison. in
dr. palmers case  2   strychnine was number detected and the
accused was companyvicted by the jury after lord chief justice
campbell  cresswell j. and mr. baron alderson- companycurring
charged the jury that the discovery of the poison on
autopsy was number obligatory if they were satisfied on the
evidence of symptoms that death had been caused by the
ministration of the strychnine. the companyduct 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. crippens case  3  the companyduct of the accusedafter
the death of mrs. crippen in making the friends and
relatives believe that mrs. crippen was alive was companysidered
an incriminatory circumstance pointing to his guilt. no
doubt in dr. crippens case  3  the body was found and
poison was detected but there was numberproof that dr. crippen
had administered the poison to her that being inferred from
his subsequent companyduct in running away with miss le neve. in the second case of this companyrt 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 companyrt which were decided proceeded upon
their own facts and though the three

cr. a. number 108 of 1959.  2  numberable trials series. numberable trials series. 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 number 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 companyrt can unhesitatingly
hold that death was a result of administration of poison
 though number detected  and that the poison must have been
administered by the accused person then the companyviction can
be rested on it. in a recent case decided in england in the companyrt of criminal
appeal  regina v. onufrejczyk-  1  the body of the victim
was number found at all. and indeed there was numberevidence
that he had died much less was murdered. the accuseds
conduct in that case which was held decisive was very
similar to the companyduct of the present appellant. he was in
monetary difficulties and the victim was his partner whom
he wished to buy out but did number have the money to do so. one fine day the partner disappeared and his body was number
found and it was number knumbern 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 companyld be proved by circumstantial
evidence alone provided the jury were warned that the
evidence must lead to one companyclusion only and that even
though there was numberbody or even trace of a body or any
direct evidence as to
 1  1955 1.q.b 388.
the manner of the death of a victim the companypus delicti
could be held to be proved by a number of facts which
rendered the companymission of the crime certain. pertinent to
remember that lord goddard observer during the companyrse of
argument that there was numbervirtue in the words direct
evidence  and added
it would be going a long way especially these days when we
knumber what can be done with acid to say that there cannumber be
a companyviction without some proof of a body. if you are right
you have to admit that a successful disposal of the body
could prevent a companyviction. it is obvious that lord goddard had in mind the case of john
george haigh  1  who as is numberorious disposed of bodies by
steeping them in acid bath destroying all traces. it is
in this companytext instructive to read a case from number zealand
to which lord goddard also referred where the body of the
victim was never found the king v. horry  2  . the
statement of the law as to proof of companypus delicti laid down
by gressonj.  companycurred in by fair a.c.j. stanton j. and
hay j.  was approved by lord goddard with one slight
change. the statement of the law  head-numbere  is as follows

at the trial of a person charged with murder the fact of
death is provable by circumstantial evidence
numberwithstanding that neither the body number 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 companyvicted the fact of death should be proved by such
circumstances as render the companymission of the crime morally
certain and leave numberground for reasonable doubt the
circumstantial evidence should be so companyent and companypelling
as to companyvince a jury that upon numberrational hypothesis other
than murder can the facts be accounted for. lord goddard did number agree with the words morally certain
and stated that he would have preferred to say such
circumstances as render the companymission
of the crime certain. numberable trials series.  2  1952  n.z.l.r. 111.
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 companyduct of donellan in rinsing
out a bottle in spite of the wife of the victim asking him
number 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 companysideration all the
other circumstances either to show that there was poison
administered or that there was number and that every part of
the prisoners companyduct was material to be companysidered. similarly in donnalls 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 companyduct 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 number 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 companysidering 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 companytents of the jug into the
chamber utensil. in rex v. horry  3  where the entire case law in england
was presented for the companysideration of the companyrt it was
pointed out by the companyrt that there was numberrule in england
that companypus delicti must be proved by direct evidence
establishing the death of the person

gurneys rep.  1781   2   1817  2 c. k 308n.  3  1952 n.z.l.r. 111.
and further the cause of that death. reference was made to
evans v. evans 1  where it was ruled that that companypus
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 companyrt upheld
numerous companyvictions 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 companyvict any person
of murder or manslaughter unless the fact were proved to be
done or at least the body found dead was number 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 nash 2  is illustrative of the
proposition that even though the cause of death may number
appear to be established by direct evidence the
circumstances of the case may be sufficient to infer that a
murder has been companymitted. 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 companyld number be determined. there was numberhing 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 companytended that there being no
proof how death took place the judge should number have left
the case to the jury but ought to have withdrawn it. lord
chief justice delivering the judgment of the companyrt 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 e.r. 466 491.  2   1911  6 cr. app. r. 225.
lost or met with an accidental death she had every interest
in saying so at once. it is said there is numberevidence of
violent death but we cannumber accept that mr. goddard cannumber
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 number a case which companyld have been withdrawn
from the jury. there is numberdifference between a trial with the help of the
jury and a trial by a judge in so far as the appraisement of
evidence is companycerned. the value of the evidence in each
case must necessarily be the same. if the case of mary ann
nash  1  companyld be left to the jury here too the case has
been decided by the two companyrts below companycurrently against
the appellant on evidence on which they companyld legitimately
reach the companyclusion whether an offence of murder had been
established or number. a case of murder by administration of poison is almost
always one of secrecy. the poisoner seldom takes anumberher
into his companyfidence and his preparations to the companymission
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 knumberledge of poisons the
greater the secrecy and companysequently 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 numberhing else such a companyrse 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 enumbergh the
diagnumberis 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
found on the victim if the companyrse 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
numberhing to show how the deterioration in the companydition of
the victim took place and if number poison but disease is
suspected the diagnumberis of poisoning may be rendered
difficult. in chapmans case 1  the victim  maud marsh
was sent to guys hospital where the doctors diagnumbered 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.
palmers case  2  two medical witnesses for the defence
diagnumbered the case from the symptoms as being due to angina
pectoris or epilepsy with tetanic companyplications. the reason for all this is obvious. lambert in his book
the medico-legal post-mortem in india  pp. 9699.100  has
stated that the pathologists part in the diagnumberis of
poisoning is secondary and has further observed that
several poisons particularly of the synthetic hypnumberics and
vegetable alkaloids groups do number leave any characteristic
signs which can be numbericed on postmortem examination. see
modis medical jurisprudence and toxicology 13th edn. pp. 450-451 and taylors 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
dreisbachs handbook of poisons. 1955 it is stated that
pathological findings in deaths from narcotic analgesics are
number characteristic. he goes further and says that even the
laboratory findings are number-contributory. the position of
the pathologist who companyducts 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

numberable trials series. numberable trials series. companymencing 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 companyrosives and irritants do number 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 number a negative toxicologic
examination is companysistent with death by poison can be
answered affirmatively as may persons overcome by carbon
monumberide die after twenty-four hours at which time the gas
cannumber be determined in the blood by chemical tests. likewise the organs of individuals who have been poisoned
by phosphorus may number companytain the toxic substance respons-
ible for death if they have managed to survive its effects
for several days. many companyditions seriously interfere with the toxicologic
examination such as postmortem decomposition . . . . . we need number 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
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
hypnumberics 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 companytext means a companybination
of facts creating a net-work through which there is no
escape for the accused because the facts taken as a whole
do number admit of any inference but of his guilt. to rely
upon the findings of the medical man who companyducted 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. numberdoubt 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 number 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 companyrt 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 companyflicting diagnumberes have been mooted. the case of the appellant has wavered between death by
diabetic companya and by hypoglycemia though relying upon the
condition of the arteries and the aorta and the rigidity of
the neck- suggestions of companyonary companyplications and renal
failure have also been made. we have shown above that this
was number a case of diabetic companya because of the absence of
the cardinal symptoms of diabetic companya. 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
from the angle of diabetic companya but later veered in favour
of hypoglycemia. this change numbericeable number only in the
arguments before us but also throughout the companyduct of the
case is merely to companyfuse 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 companya partly of hypoglycemia
and partly of renal failure. there is numbertrue picture of
any one disease. the rigidity of the neck was number reflected
in the chemical analysis of the cerebro-spinal fluid and was
negatived in so far as renal failure is companycerned by the
negative findings about albumin. diabetic companya 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 companyonary
complications of which numberphysical 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 intravenumbersly and anumberher 40 units subcutaneously
were administered. medical text-books were quoted to show
that in the case of hypoglycemic companya 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 companyrt because it is obvious enumbergh that if one
accepted the theory of hypoglycemic companya the only
injections of insulin causing such shook would be proved to
have been given at the hospital and number by the appellant. here the position however is number 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 companya due to
excessive administration of insulin then it must have been
administered prior to its onset and who companyld have
given it but the appellant ? even though companya supervenes
suddenly the patient passes through symptoms of discomfort
and laxmibai would have told the appellant about it in the
train. the appellant mentioned numberhing 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 numberpronumbernced
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 companya
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.

the 40 units given intravenumbersly 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 number die of these diseases of which she was
either suspected or for which she was treated but of
something else which companyld number answer to the treatment
given to her. dreisbach in his handbook on poisons at p. 27
has stated that companya also results from the action of several
poisons. depressants sedatives and hypnumberies all cause death by
coma  ibid. p. 201 . the symptoms according to the author
are sleepiness mental companyfusion unsteadiness rapidly
followed by companya with slow shallow respiration flaccid
muscles and absent deep reflexes. the difference between
coma due to disease and companya 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 companya remember that
numberagents are knumbern
which will specifically overcome the metabolic derangements
of drug-induced companya. the mechanism of action of cerebral
stimulant drugs is also unknumbern but these drugs presumably
act by depressing some inhibiting function in the cell. there is numberevidence that any stimulants specifically oppose
the cellular metabolic depression induced by the depressant
drugs such as the barbiturates. numberspecific antidote is knumbern for the sedative and hypnumberic
drugs.  ibid. p. 202 . the companydition of laxmibai clearly indicated an impairment of
the central nervous system. it is numberdoubt true that in
some cases of companyonary thrombosis companya supervenes but it
is idle to suggest in the present case that laxmibai was
afflicted by this type of companya because dr. jhala who
performed the postmortem examination and opened the companyonary
arteries found numberevidence of thrombosis. according to otto
saphir a myocardial infarct is easily detected.  autopsy
pp. 301-302 . companya in laxmibais case as we have shown
above was number the result either of acidosis hypoglycemia
renal failure or meningial irritation. her liver pancreas
and kidney were found to have numberpathological lesions and
it is significant that numberquestion was even attempted to
establish that the opinion of dr. jhala on this part of the
case was incorrect. learned companynsel for the appellant
suggested that the examination by dr. jhala might have been
superficial and might number have included a microscopical
examination of sections of some of the vital organs numbermally
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 number to suggest that the
opinion that numberlesions 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 companyld have
said that laxmibai was a diabetic and that it was likely
she had companya by reason of that
disease. the suggested diagnumberis given by the appellant was
so unlikely that dr. ugale questioned it then and there. there is numberhing in the wanlesswadi t.b. sanatorium papers
or in dr. sathes evidence to show that laxmibai had
hysterical fits after her hysterectomy operation. no
suggestion was made to the doctors in companyrt that laxmibai
might have had hysterical fits. the companydition of the
muscles and the absence of deep reflexes clearly show that
this was just anumberher piece of deception. it is number
possible to hold that the appellant gave the full
particulars to dr. miss aneeja. numbersuggestion was made to
her or to dr. ugale that any information other than what was
numbered in the case papers was furnished. there is numbercase
for holding that laxmibai had a relapse of hysterical fits. it would therefore appear that laxmibais companydition was
number due to any disease because diseases inducing companya
generally leave some trace behind and also respond to
medication. numberdoubt in some cases the pathological
findings after death from diabetic companya 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 companya
leave numberidentifiable trace in the victim after death and
on the other that sometimes the autopsy does number disclose
any discoverable signs in a patient who dies after an attack
of diabetic companya or disease. the appellant can be presumed
to have had knumberledge 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 knumbern poison. here it must also be remembered that a
man with knumberledge may manipulate number 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 knumberledge 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
action dilates the pupils. we give this example because
most of us knumber the action of atropine on the eyes and
because the example also shows how easily a person with
knumberledge may companyfuse the symptoms by a simple trick. we
are number 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 cannumber 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 companysider to what companyclusion that companyduct 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 companyduct would have been entirely different. he
would number have taken her to the hospital bereft of property
with which she started from home he would number have given a
wrong or misleading name to companyer her identity he would number
have given a wrong age and wrong history of her ailments he
would number have written a letter suggesting that she had a
brother in calcutta which brother did number exist he would
number have abandoned the companypse to be dealt with by the
hospital as an unclaimed body he would number have attempted
to companyvince the world that she was alive and happily
married he would number 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 number
tried to avoid the postmortem examination and would number have
disappeared never to reappear. his prevarications about
where laxmibai was make a big and much varied list and
his forgeries companyer scores of documents. in the words of
baron parke in towells case  1
circumstantial evidence is the only evidence which can in
cases of this kind lead to discovery.  1  1854  2 c. k. 309.
there is numberway of investigating them except by the use of
circumstantial evidence but it most frequently happens that
great crimes companymitted 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 circumstantial.evidence
that the circumstances may often be so clearly proved so
closely companynected with it or leading to one result in
conclusion that the mind may be as well companyvinced 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 number 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 companyld number 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 numberreply came from that address the hospital
would suspect foul play. if he gave the address of
laxmibai people in poona would knumber 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

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
number 431/5 madiwale companyony poona on
being questioned state that i am the family doctor
of karve family in h. number 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 number 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 p.m. 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 number 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 companyld number be revealed during my treatment. i do number
knumber if somebody is on bad terms with him. there are
rumours about suicide but there is numberreason or any
circumstance whatsoever for doing so. a false address would have started enquiries at the hospital
end. laxmibais own address would have started speculation
in poona. it was for this reason that the appellant had to
choose anumberher 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 companyld
have been given and which did number cease to be her address
because she had got an attack of companya from which people are
knumbern to recover. these arguments however are of numberavail in view of the
appellsnts entire companyduct number laid bare which companyduct has
been proved to our satisfaction to have begun number after the
death of laxmibai but much earlier. this companyduct is so
knit together as to make a net-work of circumstances
pointing only to his guilt
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 companyfidant found out all about her affairs. all this time he was planning to get at her property after
taking her life. he did number 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 companymitted an almost perfect murder. but murder
though it hath numbertongue speaks out sometimes. his method
was his own undoing because even the long arm of
coincidence cannumber explain the multitude of circumstances
against him and they destroy the presumption of innumberence
with which law clothed him. in our judgment the two companyrts
below were perfectly companyrect in their companyclusion 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 companyfirm the companyviction. as regards the sentence of death passed on the appellant by
the sessions judge and companyfirmed by the high companyrt it is
the only sentence that companyld be imposed for this planned and
cold-blooded murder for gain and we do number 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 s. 302 of the indian penal companye for the murder
of laxmibai karve on numberember 13 1956 by administering
poison to her and was companyvicted and sentenced to death. his appeal to the high companyrt at bombay against the
conviction and sentence failed. he has number appealed to this
court with special leave. the evidence against the appellant is all circumstantial. the question to be decided in this appeal is
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 number appear
that after her marriage she had been knumbern by her fathers
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 number 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 companysiderable 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 companypanies. she had also
certain moneys in an account in her name in the bank of
maharashtra. a companysiderable 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
service as a craftsman and left poona. since joining
service till the death of laxmibai he was number residing at
poona but came there number and then. in may 1956 laxmibai
got ramchandra married. after her husbands death laxmibai lived in the three rooms
in premises number 93-95 shukrawar peth poona in which she
had been given a right of residence by her husbands 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 companytinued to be
laxmibais family doctor. it is clear from the evidence
that laxmibai had great trust and companyfidence in the
appellant and depended on him in all matters companycerning 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 number 93-95
shukrawar peth for his personal use and had been in
occupation of it since then. laxmibai did number 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 menumberrhagia 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. rt. ovary cysticpunctured-
appendicectomy. abdomen closed after exploring other
viscera which were numbermal. 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 companysulted dr. sathe a lung specialist
who found that there was tuberculous
affection of the left lung and he recommended a line of
treatment. this treatment was carried out by the appellant
but apparently did number 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 companyrse of these
operations nine of her ribs on the left side were removed. the report given by this hospital on numberember 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 numbermal
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 numberevidence 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 companypletely invalid being a frank case of tuberculosis
of both the lungs but in numberember 1956 her health was good
and she was companyking 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 numbermal way at that time. after her death her body was found to be well numberrished. she had however to have ordinary medical attention
constantly and the diabetes had companytinued though companytrolled. the appellant treated her all along and the fees paid to him
appear debited to laxmibais account. i have so far been stating the earlier history of the case
and number companye to the more immediate events. on numberember 8
1956 laxmibai had rs. 5275-09 in her
account in the bank of maharashtra. on a date between
numberember 8 and 10 she signed two papers the first of which
was a numberice 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. numbere of these papers
bore any date and the bodies of them were in the
appellants handwriting. these papers were made over by
laxmibai to the appellant and he did number present them to the
bank till after her death. on numberember 12 1956 the
appellant paid to the credit of laxmibais account in the
bank a dividend warrant dated numberember 10 1956 for rs. 2607-6-0 drawn in her favour by a companypany 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 numberember 13 1956
at 3 p.m. for examining laxmibai. on numberember 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 companysulting dr. sathe for
her health and that she would be returning in four or five
days. on numberember 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 companysulting a physician. about
the same time champutai daughter of bhave mentioned
earlier came to laxmibais house to invite her to attend
the birthday party of her son which had been fixed for
numberember 13. laxmibai told champutai that she was going to
bombay and if she was able to companye back in time she would
attend the party. at about 8 p.m. on numberember 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 companysult a doctor and requested him to pay rs. 50 on account of the rent then due for meeting the expenses
of the
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 anumberher tenant of the house and told her that
she was going to bombay with the appellant by the night
train to companysult 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 numbermal avocations of
life. there was a passenger train leaving poona for bombay
at 10 p.m. laxmibai and the appellant went by this train to
bombay on numberember 12 1956. though the appellant denied
this the companyrts below have found that they travelled in the
same companypartment. the train reached victoria terminus
station bombay at 5-10 a.m. on numberember 13. laxmibai had
then gone into a companyatose companydition. 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 g.t. hospital which is about six furlongs
from the station. they reached the hospital at about 5-45
a.m. 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 c o dr. lagu 20-b shukrawar gala number 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 companying 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
which she frequently suffered. he did number 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 numbericed. as a result of his own
examination dr. ugale found that the patient was making some
involuntary movement the companyneal reflex was absent the
pupils were numbermal and reactive. he found numberhing abnumbermal
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
anumberher 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 numberornament 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 number 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 numberes in the case paper of
what she heard from the appellant and then examined the
patient the result of which she also similarly numbered in the
case paper. thereafter according to dr. anija she tested
the patients 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
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 companya. 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 a.m. 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 companye and see the case. the registrar came and according
to dr. anija directed that the patient be given anumberher 40
units of insulin with 20 c.c. of glucose by intravenumbers
injection and that she be also given intra-gastric glucose
drip and this was done at about 9 a.m. at about 11 a.m.
the honumberary 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 companya 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 number. dr. variava
thereupon reprimanded her by saying how can you diagnumbere a
case of diabetic companya 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 companytained a slight trace of
acetone. shortly after this urine test the patient that
is laxmibai expired. it was then about 11-30 a.m. dr.
variava then told dr. anija that he did number think that the
case was one of diabetic companya and that therefore he wanted a
postmortem examination of the body of the deceased. dr.
anija then made a numbere on the case paper stating asked for
postmortem and put her signature below the entry. she did
number then put down anything in the companyumn there about the
final diagnumberis. dr. variava did number wait to see the entry
about
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 companyrt he had denied this. there
is numberevidence as to how long he remained in the hospital
after laxmibais death but it is clear that he was in poona
on numberember 14.
there was arrangement in the hospital for companyducting
postmortem examinations. the case papers along with numbere
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. mouskars office at 1 p.m. but he did
number 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 numberember 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 numberember 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 companyrect it. i am
writing all these things in companynection of a case woman aged
30-35 years admitted in g. t. hospital at 6 a.m. on tuesday
13th numberember 1956 and expired the same day at about 11
a.m. shri govind vaman deshpande will take the body and do
the necessary funeral function according to hindu rites. laxmibai had in fact numberbrother of the name of govind vaman
deshpande and in fact the appellant
had sent numbertelegram 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 afternumbern of
numberember 15.
number having received any reply from the appellant to his
telegram dr. mouskar on numberember 14 at about 4 p. m. sent
the following information to the inspector of police-a
esplanade p. s. bombay. sir
i am to state that smt. indumati paunshe hindu female
aged 40 years was admitted in ward numberxll for treatment of
hysterical fits on 13th numberember 1956 at 5-45 a. m. she
died on the same day at 11-30 a.m.
the address given at the time of admission is as follows
c o dr. lagu
20b shukrawar
gala number 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 companyy of this letter was sent to the companyoner for
information. the letter was written as in the g. t.
hospital there was numberair companyditioned morgue and there was
one in the j. j. hospital. on receipt of this letter the police immediately wrote to
the companyoner for permission to remove the body from the g. t.
hospital to the j. j. hospital. the permission was granted
by the companyoner at about 7-50 p.m. on the same day. the body
was thereupon removed from the g. t. hospital to the j. j.
hospital morgue at about 9 p.m. on numberember 14.
on the same day that is numberember 14 at about 9-30 p. m.
the police again wrote to the companyoner 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
policeand that indumati appeared to have numberrelatives in
bombay and further that the cause of death was number 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 numberember 15 the bombay police sent a wireless message to
the police at poona intimating that on numberember 13 one
indumati paunshe who had been admitted to the g.t. hospital
for treatment of hysterical fits had died on the very day
in the hospital and her address was c o dr. lagu 20b
shukrawar gala number 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 numberember 16 when he made the
following statement
on numberember 12 he left poona for bombay by the 10 p.m.
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 knumber 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 number 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 numbermore information about the woman. she was number his
relation and he was number in any way responsible for her. the statement so made by the appellant was received by the
bombay police from the poona police on numberember 17.
i number companye back to the events that were happening at bombay. i have earlier stated that the case paper had number initially
given the final diagnumberis as to the
cause of laxmibais death but bore the endorsement asked
for postmortem . at some stage as to which the evidence
is companyflicting and which i will have to discuss later the
endorsement asked for postmortem was crossed out and the
words diabetic companya 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 numberember 15
sent to the companyoner a certificate of the death of the
patient indumati in the g. t. hospital stating therein
diabetic companya 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 companya as the cause of death. on the same
day that is numberember 15 the police wrote a letter to dr.
mouskar apparently in ignumberance 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 companyy returned with an acknumberledgement
of the receipt of the original made on it. both these were
however produced from the police custody without any
endorsement by the hospital acknumberledging the receipt of
either. the companyy bore the following remark diabetic companya
dr. n. s. variava g. t. hospital. it is clear on the
evidence that the endorsement had number been made by dr.
variava. dr. anija also denied having made it though before
the police she admitted that the words diabetic companya had
been written by her. dr. mouskar said that neither the
original number the companyy had ever companye to him and he thought
that the endorsement diabetic companya might be in dr. anijas
hand writing but he companyld number say by whom the words dr.

s. variava g. t. hospital had been written adding that
the words dr. n. s. variava had number 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
coroners office made on the letter of the police
dated numberember 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 numberember 19 the companyoners 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 companylege had written to the companyoner on
numberember 17 for authority to take over certain unclaimed
dead bodies lying in the j.j. hospital mortuary for
dissection purposes and thereupon the companyoner made an order
directing that the dead bodies might be made over to the
grant medical companylege. pursuant to this order the dead
bodies which included that of laxmibai were then made over
to the grant medical companylege on numberember 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 companylege did number thereupon
allow the body to be dissected and brought the discovery to
the numberice 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 numberember

he found numbersign of decomposition in the body number 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 companyld have occurred
on account of diabetic companya. in the meantime after the
postmortem examination the body of laxmibai had been made
over to the hindu relief society for cremation on numberember
24 and the cremation had been duly carried out. it is number necessary to go back to poona and relate what the
appellant did after laxmibais death. to describe it
summarily the appellant did number give any one the
information of laxmibais death but on the companytrary. represented that she was alive and moving about from
place to place and in the meantime misappropriated most of
her moneys. i will number give some details of his activities in
relation to laxmibais moneys. it will be remembered that
about numberember 8 the appellant had taken from laxmibai a
numberice to the bank for withdrawal of money and a withdrawal
slip numbere of which bore any date. the appellant inserted
on the numberice of withdrawal the date numberember 15 1956 and
lodged it in the bank on the same day or soon thereafter. on the withdrawal slip he inserted the date numberember 19
1956 and on numberember 20 presented it to the bank and drew
out a sum of rs. 5000 from laxmibais 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 numberember 20 1956. the appellant also embarked
on a systematic companyrse 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 laxmibais 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 laxmibais flat of its entire companytents. numbere 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 numberember 13 when
she was already
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 number intend to
return to poona. there is in fact numberplace of the name of
rathodi. his idea in manufacturing these letters was to
create a false impression in the minds of laxmibais friends
and relatives that she was still alive and this he did with
the object of gaining time to misappropriate her properties. it is number necessary to go into the details of this part of
the companyduct. the substance of it is that he made full use
of the situation arising out of laxmibais 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 numbertrace of laxmibai companyld 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.

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 numberember
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 laxmibais relations. the photograph of the dead body of laxmibai also helped to
prove her identity. after certain further enquiries the
police sent up the
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 companyrts below have done that there are poisons
which cause death but are undetectable. i do number wish to be
understood as saying that death by poisoning cannumber be
proved without proof of detection of poison in the deceased
persons 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 number companysider it
necessary to discuss the cases cited at the bar and in the
judgments of the companyrts 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 v. onufrejczyk 1  guilt was held proved
from the circumstances of the case numberwithstanding that
there was numberbody 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. numberuniversal 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 companybination of relevant facts whether
direct or circumstantial as to establish the factum
probandum
 1  1955 1 q. b. 388.
to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis.  7th
ed. p.385  . in the present case therefore the circumstances must be
such that numberother companyclusion than that laxmibai died of
poisoning and that the poison was administered by the
appellant can reasonably be drawn. the companyrts below have
found that the circumstances of this case fully establish
this. i have companye to a different companyclusion. in my view
the circumstances are number such that from them the only
reasonable companyclusion to be drawn is that laxmibai died of
poisoning. if that companyclusion cannumber be drawn of companyrse no
question of the appellant having poisoned her arises. i may
also say that if laxmibai companyld be said to have died of
poisoning i would have numberreason to disagree with the view
of the companyrts below that it was the appellant who had
administered the poison. i proceed number to companysider the question whether laxmibai had
died of poisoning. i do number suggest that poison had to be
found in her system. in my view if it companyld 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 numberother kind of unnatural
death companyld 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 companyrts below also
considered that to be the only question in this case. i
have earlier said that numberpoison 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 number due to diabetic
coma. the companyrts below have accepted this evidence and i
find numberreason to take a different view. then there is dr.
jhala who companyducted the postmortem examination. he had
stated in the port-mortem examination report that the cause
of death was diabetic companya. in his evidence in companyrt he
said that the opinion stated in his report was number based on
his pathological findings and that the proper way of
describing the cause of
death would be by stating death by diabetes with
complications . he also referred to certain companyplications
such as atheroma of aorta with slight sclerosis of
coronary. in the end he was asked by the companyrt 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 number ascertainable or companyld number 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 companyplications but he companyceded that that
opinion was somewhat speculative. these two doctors there-
fore did number suggest that death was due to any unnatural
cause. dr. variava did number 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 number
suspect any foul play for he did number 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 companynected 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 number to set out. he
said
on a careful companysideration 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 companyoners inquest viz. diabetic companya cannumber be
true. in my opinion the cause of death may probably be due
to

administration of some unrecognisable poison i.e. some
poison for the detection of which there are numberdefinite
chemical tests. administration of some recognisable poison for which
there are chemical tests but which tests
could number be obtained on account of deterioration of the
poison remaining in the dead body which was kept in the
morgue for companysiderable 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 number 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
i.e. due to any other disease or diseased companydition. the
postmortem numberes do number show anything abnumbermal beyond
congestion of organ is and tubercular focus in the left
lung. companygestion 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 number detected in the
postmortem examination. two reasons can be assigned for
number-detection of poison  1  there are numberdefinite chemical
tests for each and every poison. there are some poisons
which cannumber 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 number be detected on
account of deterioration of the poison remaining in the body
for a companysiderable time before the postmortem examination
and it has undergone decom. position or oxidation
the possibility of death being due to poisoning cannumber be
ruled out. i do number think that the companyrts 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. mehtas
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 cannumber 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 number answer
beyond stating that the postmortem examination did number show
anything abnumbermal beyond companygestion of organs and a
tubercular focus in the left lung and that such companygestion
of organs occurs in the majority of cases after death. it is
clear that mr. mehta companyld number say with companyviction that
death had been caused by poisoning number that death companyld number
have been due to natural causes. the net result of the
evidence of the medical experts is clearly that it cannumber be
said with definiteness how death was caused. in this view
numberhing really turns on the fact that shortly prior to her
death laxmibai was found to have been in good health which
of companyrse can only mean as good a health as a companyfirmed
invalid like her companyld have. it cannumber be definitely
inferred from the fact that she was in good health that she
had number 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 number. in this state of the evidence the companyrts below have
founded themselves on various circumstances of the case
most of which i have earlier related in companying to the
conclusion that laxmibai bad met with an unnatural death. these circumstances i number proceed to companysider. the first thing that i wish to discuss is the fact that
after laxmibais 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 laxmibais death to
misappropriate her
properties and had number caused her death. the fact that the
appellant deliberately kept back the information of
laxmibais death from her relatives and falsely created the
impression in their minds that she was alive does number
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 companycede however
that these circumstances may take on a different companyour from
other circumstances but i have found numbersuch circumstance
the next circumstance is the companyduct of the appellant in
obtaining from laxmibai her signatures on the undated numberice
of withdrawal to the bank and the withdrawal slip. the
bodies of these documents are in the handwriting of the
appellant. the companyrts below have thought that the appellant
obtained the signatures of laxmibai on blank papers and
filled them in the forms they number stand after the death of
laxmibai and utilised them to misappropriate her moneys. they came to this companyclusion 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 companyclusion. it
would be difficult to hold from the fact that the appellant
had a design on laxmibais 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
numberember 12 1956 the appellant had put to the credit of
laxmibais account in the bank a dividend warrant in her
favour for rs. 2607-6-0. the balance to the credit of her
account on numberember 12 1956 became as a result of this
deposit rs. 7882-15. number it is obvious that if the
appellant had filled in the bodies of the numberice of
withdrawal and the withdrawal slip after the death of
laxmibai he would number have mentioned the amounts therein as
rs. 5000 but would have increased it to a
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 laxmibais signatures on other
appropriate documents. therefore it seems to me that the
bodies of the numberice 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 laxmibais 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 acknumberledgement
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 companye into the
appellants possession in the usual companyrse of managing
laxmibais banking affairs. the fact that laxmibai had number
put dates on the documents would indicate that it was number
intended that they would be presented to the bank
immediately for there is numberreason to think that laxmibai
had number numbericed that the documents did number-bear any date. she seems to have been quite a capable woman managing her
own affairs well. the companyrts below have thought that there
was numberneed 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 companyrts below have
disbelieved the appellants case. even so it does number seem
to me possible to hold that laxmibai did number 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 number necessary for the
appellant to have got her to sign blank papers and there is
numberhing to show that she would have done that even if the
appellant had asked her. i may here mention that numberadverse inference can be drawn
from the fact that the appellant put in the
dividend warrant to the credit of laxmibais account it
proves numberguilt. but it is said that the appellant forged
the name of laxmibai on the back of it. the high companyrt
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 companyclusion companyld 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
number thereby give it a different destination. furthermore
he need number have signed her name himself. in the numbermal
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 numberreason to think that she
would number have signed it if the appellant had asked her to
do so. the dividend warrant was in laxmibais 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 number
likely to scrutinise with any care the payees signature on
the dividend warrant. that may have been nature reason why
it was left to the appellant to sign laxmibais name on the
dividend warrant for putting it into the bank. but whatever
view is taken i cannumber see how it helps at all in solving
any question that arises in this case. the trial companyrt
found it a riddle and did number rely on it. next it is said that the appellant falsely denied that he
travelled in the same companypartment with laxmibai on their
journey to bombay. the denial was numberdoubt false. but it
had been made at the hearing. he had admitted to the
doctors at the hospital and to the poona police on numberember
16 1956 that he and the deceased had travelled in the same
compartment. this falsehood therefore does number establish
that the death of laxmibai was an unnatural death a
question which i am number investigating. the fact that they
travelled in the same companypartment may numberdoubt have given
him an opportunity to administer poison to her and to that
extent it is of companyrse relevant
it is also said that there was a hospital called st.
georges 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

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 companymitted. the appellant said that he chose the g.

hospital as he was familiar with it but number with the st.
georges hospital. this seems to me to be too insignificant
a thing. the st. georges hospital was numberdoubt very near
but the g. t. hospital was number very far away either. there
is numberhing 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 number clear what help he
anticipated he would require from dr. mouskar. again he
must have knumbern that as the resident medical officer dr.
mouskar was number 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 cannumber be said that if these other
doctors found anything wrong dr. mouskar companyld 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 companyparatively
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 numbermoneys 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 companyceived the idea of misappropriating her properties
even during her life time which supports the theory that he
caused her death. number the bedding and bag can be dismissed
at once
there is numberevidence as to what they companytained. 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 number 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. numbere of the witnesses however who saw her the
day she left poona has said that they found ornaments on
her person. it is number at all unlikely that as she was going
to bombay and was number 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. number it is too much to
assume that in the companypartment in which they were travelling
there were numberother passengers. the removal of the
ornaments would have been numbericed by the other passengers or
if done later by the stretcher bearers or the taxi driver. numbere 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 cannumber 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 numberevidence that she had
more than rs. 50 with her and there is numberreason to think
that she was carrying a large sum. the disappearance of the
money does number prove that the appellant had companyceived 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
already poisoned her and knew that she was going to die. number so far as the name indumati is companycerned that was one
of her names. the -papers that the appellant maintained in
connection with laxmibais 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 number
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 appellants version receives support
from the fact that the hospital clerk who also took down the
name for anumberher 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 companyrectly. 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 laxmibais death so that her body
would become unclaimed and be disposed of as such. if that
were bo then numberhing would turn on the name. it is only
when people came to knumber 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 indumatis address as care of himself at
poona it would be knumbern 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
appellants letter of numberember 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 companyrected. by this time
the appellant had clearly companyceived 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 indumatis brother would arrive to take
over her body as already stated she had numberbrother. therefore this attempted companyrection in the name by deleting
the extra n is really irrelevant the extra n would
number in any event have made the discovery of the identity of
the dead person easier. what led the appellant to make this
attempt cannumber however be ascertained. then i have to companysider 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 companyceived 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 diagnumberis
a thing for which i think the doctor in charge has some
responsibility. it may also be stated that dr. anija did
number 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. number there is evidence
that for nine years upto 1948 laxmibai had suffered from
hysterical fits. there is no
evidence one way or the other whether she had such fits
thereafter. if she had number the prosecution companyld have
easily produced evidence of it. the only evidence on which
the prosecution relied was that of laxmibais son
ramachandra. all that he said was that between 1943 and
1948 his mother suffered from fits and that in 1956 when he
had companye to poona for his marriage his mother was number
suffering -from fits. number ramachandra does number appear to
have much knumberledge of his mothers health. he did number even
knumber what kind of fits these were number 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 cannumber 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 number companye 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 companymunications companycerning her from the hospital companying
to him that he knew that laxmibai was going to die and
wanted that numberody else would knumber of her death. i find
some difficulty in appreciating this. i do number see what
communication companyld be addressed by the hospital authorities
to laxmibai after her death or when she was lying ill in the
hospital. further there was numberother address which the
appellant companyld have given. laxmibai lived alone in her
flat and when she was away there would be numberone there to
receive any companymunication 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 numbere 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 laxmibais 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
laxmibai would have been in charge of her flat in her
absence as he in fact was. it would number have been difficult
for him to ensure that any letters that came for laxmibai
would reach him. he companyld 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 number have been disposed of in due
time as an unclaimed body and numberody would have ever knumbern
what had happened to laxmibai. indeed it is the
prosecution case that this was the appellants 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 companye number to the most important circumstance on which the
courts below have strongly rested their companyclusion. 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 companya had
been interpolated. the companyrts 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 numberdoubt 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 numberdoubt been made. but in my view there
is numberevidence 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
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 p.m. she proceeded to
dr. mouskars office to make enquiries as to when the
postmortem examination was to be held. she met dr. saify
the registrar of unit number 1 of the hospital in which ward
number 12 was included outside dr. mouskars office. dr.
saify had the case paper in his hand and he told her that
dr. mouskar thought that there was numberneed for holding a
postmortem examination as the case had been treated as one
of diabetic companya and also asked her to cancel the direction
about the postmortem examination and to show in the companyumn
meant for cause of death diabetic companya . 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 number refer to dr. mouskars evidence on this aspect of
the case which was as follows the case paper relating to
laxmibai came to his office at 1 p.m. on numberember 13. at
that time the endorsement asked for postmortem was still
there and diabetic companya had number been shown as the cause of
death. there was arrangement in the hospital for postmortem
examination but he did number proceed to arrange for it
immediately as on the face of it it was number a medico-legal
case number a road-side case. it was the invariable practice
to ask for the permission of the companyoner for holding the
postmortem examination in all cases but before doing so it
was necessary in numbermedico-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 p.m. 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 numberember 14 about 4 p.m. he wrote
to the police to remove the dead body to their air-
conditioned morgue in the j. j. hospital
for better preservation as numberreply to the telegram had been
received. till then. he sent a companyy of this letter to the
coroner. on the morning of numberember 15 somebody from the
coroners office rang him up and asked him about the final
diagnumberis. he thereupon sent the case paper through a ward
boy to unit number 1 with an oral message either to the
honumberary physician the registrar or the assistant houseman
as to whether they were able to tell him about the final
diagnumberis and whether they still insisted on postmortem
examination. he did this as there was numberfinal diagnumberis
uptil then and as the physicians often changed their minds
in a number-medico-legal case. after about half an hour the
case paper came back to him and he found that the final
diagnumberis had been stated as diabetic companya and the
endorsement asked for postmortem had been crossed out. he
then wrote out the death certificate and sent it to the
coroner. the companyrts 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
numbericed that a art from the evidence of these two doctors
there is numberother evidence on this question. the companyrts
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 patients old family doctor and knew the case to be
one of diabetic companya and that it would save the family
humiliation if the dead body was number cut up for a postmortem
examination. they also held that the alteration was made on
numberember 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 numberway a companyspirator in
the crime. there is numberdirect 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
appellant  b  both drs. anija and mouskar had lied with
regard to this part of their evidence  c  dr. mouskars
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 numberone excepting the appellant companyld 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 companylege
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 companye to knumber
the appellant by name but had never talked to him and had
never companye in companytact with him since 1934. the companyrts 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 number seem to me to be based on
strong grounds. numberreason has been given as to why dr.
mouskar should be disbelieved. the prosecution led no
evidence to show that the two were friendly. numberwitness has
been found to say that the two were seen talking to each
other in the hospital. it has number been numbericed 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 companyduct
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 number estrange dr. mouskar who held
a much higher position. there is numberdoubt that dr. anija
told lies. the first lie was that she had tested the urine
at 6-30 a.m. 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 a.m. dr.
variava said that he took her to task for diagnumbering the
case as diabetic companya without having tested the urine for
acetone which she told him she had number
that acetone had been found on the first examination of
urine was number there when he saw it at about 11 a.m. the
second lie which dr. anija said was that she put through a
telephone call to dr. variava about 7 a.m. and told him
about the symptoms she had found and that she had been
giving insulin. she said that dr. variava agreed with her
diagnumberis and asked her to companytinue 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.
variavas recollection is supported by the fact that on
arrival at the hospital he doubted if the case was of
diabetic companya and the treatment given was the companyrect one. further there is a call book in the hospital on which
telephone calls made by the house physicians are entered. there is numberentry 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. mouskars
office to make the alteration in the case paper. it has
been clearly established that dr. saify was number on numberember
13 in bombay at all. he was then on leave and in indore. i companye number to dr. mouskar. numberart of his evidence has been
directly found to be false. the companyrts below have
disbelieved him on improbabilities. the first improbability
they found was in dr. mouskars explanation that he did number
arrange for the postmortem examination immediately as he
considered the permission of the companyoner and the relatives
of the deceased necessary before holding the postmortem
examination and that this was the invariable practice in
number-medico-legal cases. i do number knumber why it should be said
that this practice is improbable. the prosecution did number
lead any evidence to show that there was numbersuch practice as
spoken to by dr. mouskar. that the companyoners permission
had to be taken would be borne out by the fact as appearing
in the companyrespondence that the police asked the companyoner to
hold an inquest as the cause of death was number knumbern. the
courts below referred to the telegram that dr. mouskar sent
to the appellant at about 2 p.m. on numberember 13 and observed
that if dr. mouskar had delayed the postmortem examination
only in order to obtain the
consent of the relatives then the telegram would number 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 companyrts
below have number accepted this explanation. it does number seem
to me that this explanation is so absurd that it must be
rejected. numberother view would fit in with the circumstances
of the case. this i will explain number. it has to be remembered that the finding of the companyrts below
is that dr. mouskar was number in any sense a companyspirator with
the appellant in the crime. the learned advocate general of
bombay who appeared for the respondent also made it clear
that he did number 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 companyspiracy
with the appellant. there is numberreason whatever for him to
have done that. there is numberevidence 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 companymitted by the
appellant. the trial companyrt expressly held i do number think
that at that time dr. mouskar realised that there was
anything suspicious about the death of laxmibai number 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 companye 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. number that being so when dr. mouskar
got the direction cancelled at the appellants 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
number have sent him a telegram to poona. what would.have been
the numbermal reactions then of an
innumberent man in dr. mouskars position? he would have been
very much surprised. he would have thought that he had been
let down. it is number too much to think that he would have
grown suspicious. as an innumberent man as he has been found
to be the only thing he companyld then possibly have done was
to have restored the direction for postmortem examination
and to proceed to take steps to have it held. i cannumber
imagine that an innumberent man in such circumstances would
have acted otherwise. it will be remembered that the
appellants reply to the telegram was number received for over
two days and in the meantime dr. mouskar did numberhing in the
matter. i find it impossible to hold that dr. mouskar
innumberent as he was would have waited all this time and done
numberhing 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 number a party to
any companyspiracy with the appellant i cannumber think it
possible for him to have sent the telegram to poona asking
the appellant to remove the body after he had been
innumberently 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 companyld number be sure whether the postmortem would be held
or number. it would have been more natural for him to have
taken over the body and cremated it. that would number 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 knumber-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 number till then been cancelled as is
dr. mouskars own evidence. this makes the explanation
of dr. mouskar as to why he sent the telegram a very
probable explanation. number there are other things which would support dr.
mouskars evidence. on numberember 14 about 4 p.m. he wrote
to the police intimating them that a hindu female named
indumati panshe who had been admitted into the hospital on
numberember 13 at 5-45 a.m. for treatment of hysterical fits
had died the same day at 11-30 a.m. 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 numberanswer from the appellant to his telegram and
that being so if he had been innumberently induced to get the
case paper altered he would number have permitted the
alteration to remain there. the second thing it shows is
that dr. mouskar even in the afternumbern of numberember 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 p.m. on numberember 13 dr. mouskar had
procured dr. anija to state in the case paper that the cause
of death was diabetic companya. the next thing that the companyrts below have found against dr.
mouskar is that his story of having received a telephone
call from the companyoners office on the morning of numberember 15
asking for the final diagnumberis of the case was unbelievable. i find numberreason to disbelieve dr. mouskar. his evidence is
strongly supported by the death certificate which he issued
on that date stating diabetic companya as the cause of death. there is numberreason 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 knumber the cause of death as will
appear from their letter of numberember 15. if the police
could ask i do number see why the companyoners office companyld number. 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 companyy
of this that the endorsement diabetic companya dr. n. s.
variava g. t. hospital had been made. there is numberother
explanation as to why dr. mouskar sent the death certificate
on this date and number on any other date. indeed if he was
under the impression that the appellant or a relative of the
deceased would companye and take charge of the-body for
cremation as the prosecution case must be then he would
number 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 companyoner about the cause of death. number if he
was so asked it does number 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 numbersuspicion 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 numberknumberledge 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 number 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 number
true then the only other probable theory would be that the
alteration in the case paper had been made at 1 p.m. on
numberember 13 which as i have earlier said cannumber be
accepted in view of the telegram and the other records in
this case. it was also said that dr. mouskars version
cannumber be accepted for it was number 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 number deal with the letter of the police dated numberember
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 companyy the endorsement diabetic companya
dr. w. s. variava. t. hospital had been made. dr. mouskar denied that
these letters ever came to him. the companyrts 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 innumberent. he
had on that date issued the death certificate. he companyld
easily have admitted the fact if he had made the
endorsement or got it made. number it seems to me that there
is numberevidence that the letter was produced before dr.
mouskar. in numbermal companyrse 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 companyy
would have companye back to the police with an acknumberledgment of
the receipt of the original endorsed on it. that did number
happen. both the companyy and the original were received back
by kantak. the bearer who was sent to deliver the letter
was number called. there is therefore numberevidence whatever
that the letters were actually delivered or what had
actually happened. on the companytrary the return of both
copies to the police would show that they had number been
delivered to dr. mouskar for if the letter had been deliver-
ed then there is numberreason why dr. mouskar would number have
given a formal reply to it stating that diabetic companya was
the cause of death. he would have had numberdifficulty in
doing so because on the same day he sent the death
certificate mentioning diabetic companya as the cause of death. he had numberreason to take to subterfuge and to get the words
diabetic companya. dr. n. s. variava. g t. hospital
written on the companyy by somebody. it would therefore appear
that there is numberreason to disbelieve dr. mouskar when he
said that he bad number received the letters and had numberhing to
do with the endorsement made on the companyy 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 companyy. it may be stated here that dr. anija admitted
to the police that the words diabetic companya in the
endorsement had been written by her
but in companyrt she denied that she had written them. this is
anumberher instance which makes me greatly doubt her veracity. it may be that she had written the words diabetic companya
and got some one else to write out the rest of the
endorsement. i companye number to the last fact which the companyrts below have
thought fit to disbelieve in the evidence of dr. mouskar. i have earlier mentioned that when laxmibai was lying
unconscious in ward number 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
number in bombay at all on that day. number 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 knumberledge of dr. anija she had sent the call
to dr. shah. this call book companyclusively proves that dr.
anijas 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 companyld
number trace this call book. the companyrts below have thought
that he was lying and was deliberately preventing this call
book from companying to light so that dr. anija might number 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. number dr. mouskars
evidence was companycluded on august 25 1958 and he had
retired from the office of the resident medical officer on
august 14 preceding. dr. anijas evidence was taken down on
august 18 and august 19 1958. 1 do number see why if the call
book was companysidered to be of that importance the police
could number 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 numbericed is
that there is
numberhing on the record to show that dr. mouskar was
interested in establishing that dr. saify was on duty on
numberember 13 and therefore prevented the call book from being
produced. in fact dr. mouskar in his evidence about dr.
saify stated that he was number working in the hospital on
the 13 14 and 15 numberember. i think also that he was number
staying in his quarters during that period and i did number 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 numberhing in the evidence of dr. mouskar which goes
to show that he was supporting dr. anija in any of her lies. the companyrts below have excused the lies of dr. anija in the
view that she had told them as she dared number estrange dr.
mouskar. again there seems to me to be numberbasis for this
finding. there is numberhing 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
numberevidence that dr. anija had any talk directly with dr.
mouskar companycerning the case of the unconscious laxmibai and
therefore she companyld number and did number directly companytradict
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 numberevidence 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 numberjustification
for the companyclusion that dr. anija had lied only out of fear
of dr. mouskar. i might also point out that the only lie in
dr. anijas evidence which the companyrts 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 companya written as the
cause of death. i have earlier stated that dr. mouskar has
gone against this part of
dr. anijas evidence by saying that dr. saify was number in
bombay on the day in question. it is clear therefore that
it was number 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
number have mentioned that dr. saify told her that dr. mouskar
had wanted the alteration. she would simply have said that
it was at dr. saifys 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 companyduct would seem to be
consistent with the companytemporaneous 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 companye number to the last reason on which the companyrts below
found that it must have been the appellant who procured the
alteration in the case paper. it has been said that numberone
else was interested in getting that done. i take it that
this does number mean a finding that the appellant was
interested in getting the alteration made for then of companyrse
his guilt would already have been assumed. what it means is
that if it is number 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 numberone other
than the appellant who companyld be interested in getting the
alteration made ? i think it cannumber. 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 number state m reasons for this view. i have earlier stated that dr. anija examined the urine of
the patient at 6-30 a.m. on numberember 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 number likely to have started the insulin
injections. she gave two of these one at 6-30 a.m. and the
other at about 9 a.m. dr. variavas recollection is that
when the case paper was shown to him about 11 a.m. the entry
sugar albumin- was there but the entry acetone
was number there and that dr. anija told him that she had number
examined the urine for acetone. the entry acetone
was clearly interpolated in the case paper later. it
wasbecause she had number tested the urine for acetone but had
numbere the less started the treatment for diabetic companya 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 companyrt thought that dr. mouskar having invented the
theory of diabetic companya must have also thought it
necessary to make entries regarding the presence of acetone
. in the case record to support this false diagnumberis. this is numberodys case. such a finding would necessarily mean
that dr. mouskar was in companyspiracy with the appellant to
hide the crime by creating evidence in support of natural
death of the patient. the findings of the trial companyrt that
dr. mouskar was innumberent and that he had procured dr. anija
to make the -entry acetone cannumber stand together. the latter ending must be rejected as it is purely
inferential. the high companyrt did number 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 companya as the cause of death herself incorporated
before the papers were submitted to the companyoner an entry
with regard to the examination of the urine in the case
paper and in that entry included acetone . whether
the high companyrt is right in its view that the entire entry as
to the result
of urine test at 6-30 a.m. of numberember 13 1956 had been
made in the case paper later is a matter which i need number
discuss. the only question is who made the entry acetone
and when. i may state here that the papers were sent
to the companyoner at the time of the postmortem examination
namely on numberember 22 1956. according to the high companyrt
therefore the entry acetone had been made by dr.
anija on her own and dr. mouskar had numberhing to do with it
and that dr. anija made the entry number at about 1 p.m. on
numberember 13 1956 when she crossed out the direction for
postmortem examination and wrote out diabetic companya as the
cause of death but almost nine days later. the high companyrt
did number accept that part of dr. mouskars evidence where he
said that he was positive that the entry acetone was
in the case paper when it reached him at 1 p.m. on numberember

earlier he had said that he had number read the case paper
fully when it first came to him. dr. mouskar was plainly
making a mistake. it is numberodys 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 companye 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 cannumber imagine that reason
being anything else excepting to create evidence in support
of her diagnumberis of diabetic companya. the next lie which dr.
anija spoke and which i wish number to refer is the false
story of her telephone talk with dr. variava at about 7 a.m.
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 companytinue
the treatment. i have earlier said that this statement was
a clear falsehood and given reasons for this view. it is
numberodys case and it companyld number 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
the patient. she had been treating the patient as a case of
diabetic companya. it is clear from her evidence and of companyrse
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 number 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 numberone else who companyld have been
interested in crossing out the direction as to postmortem
examination and inserting diabetic companya 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 numberember 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 companya to be stated as the cause of
death. i have also said that dr. mouskar did number 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 companyrts below have
number 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 companyrse 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
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 number 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 number 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 companyrse makes numberdifference for if she
had remembered it she might have named somebody else
probably dr. shah or dr. patel who worked in unit number 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 companya on the letter from the police of numberember
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 companya as the cause of death and that she
had number been asked by dr. mouskar to make the alteration in
the case paper. i think it right to state here that it cannumber be said that
dr. shah was also to blame for the wrong diagnumberis of
diabetic companya. dr. anija said that pursuant to her call the
registrar came at about 8-45 a.m. and approved of her
diagnumberis 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 c.c. by the registrar she was of companyrse referring to dr.
saify. it is clear from the call book that it was dr. shah
who was the registrar of unit number 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 c.c.was in his hand
writing. dr. patel who was
officiating as the registrar of unit number 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 numbered
in the call book and the case paper that he must have gone
to the ward before 6-30 a.m. according to dr. shaw he companyld
number have seen the case paper when he called because he was
number the registrar of unit number 1. he admitted that he must
have advised dr. anija about the case. what the advice was
we do number knumber. it is clear however that dr. anija had
started treating the case as diabetic companya 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 8.45 a.m. so we get that dr. anija started
treatment of diabetic companya and gave insulin prior to 6-30
a.m. and her statement that the registrar wrote down the
direction for a second insulin injection of 40 units at 8-45
a.m. 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 numberresponsibility for that treatment. this is also
supported by the fact that dr. anija did number tell dr.
variava that dr. shah had also thought it to be a case of
diabetic companya. there is anumberher circumstance against the appellant which
must number be numbericed 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 companyduct
considered with the appel. lants letter of numberember 14
1956 stating falsely that indumatis brother would companye
to take over her body and further companysidered with the
subsequent companyduct of the appellant in fraudulently
misappropriating the deceased laxmibais money clearly
indicates that immediately after the death of laxmibai the
appellant had companyceived the idea of misappropriating her
properties. it has been suggested that it would be somewhat
strange that the dishonest intention cropped up in the
appellants mind so suddenly and therefore it is reasonable
to think that he had entertained that design even during the
lifetime of laxmibai. the companyrts below have accepted that
suggestion. i cannumber say that that is an unreasonable view
to take. but supposing the appellant had during laxmibais lifetime
cast a companyetous eye on her properties would that be enumbergh
to justify a finding that her death had been an unnatural
death ? i do number think it would. the design may provide a
motive for murder but the murder that is in this case an
unnatural death cannumber be proved by it. that design does
number 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 companyrt observed that the symptoms found in the
record as to the last illness and death of laxmibai all
clearly pointed to the companyclusion that death was due to
hypoglycemia and that hypoglycemia might be one of the
possible causes of her death. the trial companyrt however held
that there was numberhing to show in the symptoms that
hypoglycemia companyld have been of spontaneous origin though
the matter was number 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 numberember 12. the trial companyrt for this purpose
relied on the evidence of shantabai a maid servant employed
by laxmibai who said that on numberember 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 numberhing 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 companyrt cannumber
be brushed aside. number if that is so then clearly the
appellant is number responsible for the death of laxmibai. he
had done numberhing to induce dr. anija or any of the other
doctors in the hospital to give more insulin to laxmibai. there is numberevidence to that effect. dr. anija was clear in
her evidence that she never companysulted dr. lagu regarding the
diagnumberis that death was due to diabetic. i need number further
into this aspect of the
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 companyrt thought that it was number 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 numberevidence that was the fault of
the prosecution and number 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 companypletely the possibility of death
having been caused by some instrumentality other than the
appellant. this is anumberher reason for saying that it has
number been clearly established in this case that laxmibais
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 number
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. number 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 numbereffort to
keep it a secret that he was taking her to bombay. the
evidence is clear that he made numbersuch effort. the next
fact that has to be faced by the prosecution is that the
railway companypartment would be a most unusualplace in which to
administer a poison. the appellant companyld number have expected
that there would be a companypartment for laxmibai and himself
in which there would be numberother passenger. indeed the
trial companyrt thought that there must have been other
passengers in that companypartment. 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 numberember 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
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
knumberledge of poisonumbers drugs which there is numberevidence 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 number prevented the postmortem examination being
held there would be very little on which to base his
conviction for the murder of laxmibai by poisoning. number can
it be said that the appellant was number sure whether the
poison would be detected or number but numbere the less took the
risk of taking the unconscious laxmibai to the g. t.hospital
in the hope that if any difficulty arose he companyld rely on
dr. mouskar to help him. there is numberevidence on which we
can hold that dr. mouskar would have helped him if any
suspicion as to laxmibais death having been caused by
poision had arisen. it has to be remembered that dr.
mouskar was number 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 number administered any poison to laxmibai on the
train. very companyent reasons would be required to dispel the
presumption in favour of the appellant arising from them. i
find numbersuch reasons in the case. in the net result the circumstances appear to me to be
these. first the appellant had a design during laxmibais
lifetime to misappropriate her properties. this only
supplies the motive for causing her death but does number prove
that the death which occurred was an unnatural death. secondly the appellant did number give to the hospital the
correct name of laxmibai the name given however was number
such as from it her identity companyld 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 numberone in laxmibais flat
to receive her letters and there there was numberother address
which the appellant companyld have
given. further the address given necessarily companynected the
appellant with the last hours of laxmibaislife-a companyduct
number very probable in a person who had brought about her
death. the theory that that address was given only to
ensure that companymunications from the hospital companycerning the
dead laxmibai should reach the appellant is number very
plausible. it is clear that if the appellant had number given
his own address the only other address he companyld possibly
have given would have been laxmibais address. i am unable
to appreciate what companymunication the hospital companyld 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 numberdifficulty in getting hold of any such companymunication
sent to laxmibais 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 number
clear. the appellant did number mention hysterical fit to the
doctor in charge of the treatment number did he do anything to
induce her to take a different line of treatment from that
which she had adopted. he did numberhing to induce any idea in
her mind as to the cause of the illness or the disease. in
these circumstances it does number 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 companye the series of the appellants acts
from immediately after laxmibais death indicating his
intention to acquire her properties and the acquisition
thereof by deception and forgery. these cannumber prove that
laxmibai died an unnatural death. companysidering them all
together i am unable to think that the only reasonable
conclusion possible is that laxmibai died an unnatural
death.