# ANANT CHINTAMAN LAGU v. THE STATE OF BOMBAY

- **Citation:** [1960] 2 S.C.R. 460
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/anant-chintaman-lagu-v-the-state-of-bombay-1873
- **Pages:** 109

## Headnote

,,
,,
,
, ,
z959
Decem/;er r4
. . .....;.-
. ·~. -
'
,
/
,'
-"·---~r
460'
, SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)]
...
ANANT CHINTAMAN LAGU
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY
~ (S. ·K. DAs,' A. K. SARKAR and M. liIDAYATULLAH, JJ.)
Criminal Law-Murder by poisoning-Circumstantial evidence
-Poison not detecteiJ,in body of deceased-Conduct of accused, both
before and aft_er-Conviction for murder.
At the trial of a person for murder by alleged poisoning, the
fact of death by poisoning is provable by circumstantial evidence,
notwithstanding that the autopsy as well as the chemical analysis
fail to disclose any poison; though the cause of death may not
appear to be established by direct evidence, the medical evidence
of experts and the circumstances of the case may be sufficient to
infer that the death must be the result of the administration to
the victim of some nnrecognised poison or drug which acts as a
poison, and a conviction can be rested on circumstantial evidence
provided that it is so decisive ,that the court can unhesitatingly
hold that the death was not a natural one.
Per S. K. Das and !\I. Hidayatullah, JJ -Where the evidence,
showed that the appellant who was the medical adviser of the
deceased, deliberately set about·first to ingrath1te himself in the
good opinions of his patient and becoming her confidant, found
out all about her affairs and gradually began managing her affairs,
that all the time he was planning to get at her property and had
forged her signature on a dividend warrant and had, obtained
undated cheque from her and then under the guise of helping
her to have a consultation with a specialist in Bombay took hei;
in a train,, and then brought the patient unconscious to a hospital
bereft of all property with which she had started from home and
gave a wrong name to cover her identity and wrong history of
her ailments, that after her death he abandoned the body to be
dealt with by the hospital as an unclaimed body, spread the story
, that she was alive and made use of the situation to misappropriate
all her properties, and that he tried by all means to avoid postmortem examination and . when questioned gave false and
conflicting statements, held that if the deceased died in circum-
. stances which prima facie admit of either disease or homicide by
poisoning,one must look at the conduct of the appellant both
, before and after the death of the deceased, that the corpus delicti
could be held to be proved by a number of facts which render
the commission of the crime certain, and that the medical
evidence in the case and the conduct of the appellant unerringly
pointed to th,e conclusion that the death of the deceased 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.
•
I r
' ..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
461
Per Sarkar, J.-If it could be established in this case that
the deceased had died an unnatural death, the,conclusion would
be inevitable that unnatural death had been ·brought about by
poison, but the circumstances were not such that from them the
onlv reasonable conclusion to be dra\vn \vas that the deceased
died an unnatural death. Held, that the prosecution had failed
to prm·e the guilt of the appellant.
-
Regina v. Onufrejczyk, [1955] I Q.B. 388,_ The King v. Horry,
[1952] N.Z.L. III, Mary Ann Nash's case, (r9n) 6 Cr. App. R. 225
an~ Donna/l's case, (r8r7) 2 C.&K. 308n, considered and relied on.
CRDIINAL
APPELLATE
J URISDICTIO::<r:
Criminal.
Appeal No. 73of1~59.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated January 16/20th, 1959, of the Bombay
High Court in Confirmation case No. 25 of 1958 with
Criminal Appeal No. 1372of1958, arising out of the
judgment and order dated October 27, l!J58, of the
Sessions Judge, Poona, in Sessions Case No. 52 of le58.
A. S. R .. Ghari, s: N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji. and
Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant.
H. N. Seeri-ai, Advocate-General for the State ·of
Bombay, Porus

## Text

_Characters 0–39,820 of 245,134. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39820 for what follows._

,,
,,
,
, ,
z959
Decem/;er r4
. . .....;.-
. ·~. -
'
,
/
,'
-"·---~r
460'
, SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)]
...
ANANT CHINTAMAN LAGU
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY
~ (S. ·K. DAs,' A. K. SARKAR and M. liIDAYATULLAH, JJ.)
Criminal Law-Murder by poisoning-Circumstantial evidence
-Poison not detecteiJ,in body of deceased-Conduct of accused, both
before and aft_er-Conviction for murder.
At the trial of a person for murder by alleged poisoning, the
fact of death by poisoning is provable by circumstantial evidence,
notwithstanding that the autopsy as well as the chemical analysis
fail to disclose any poison; though the cause of death may not
appear to be established by direct evidence, the medical evidence
of experts and the circumstances of the case may be sufficient to
infer that the death must be the result of the administration to
the victim of some nnrecognised poison or drug which acts as a
poison, and a conviction can be rested on circumstantial evidence
provided that it is so decisive ,that the court can unhesitatingly
hold that the death was not a natural one.
Per S. K. Das and !\I. Hidayatullah, JJ -Where the evidence,
showed that the appellant who was the medical adviser of the
deceased, deliberately set about·first to ingrath1te himself in the
good opinions of his patient and becoming her confidant, found
out all about her affairs and gradually began managing her affairs,
that all the time he was planning to get at her property and had
forged her signature on a dividend warrant and had, obtained
undated cheque from her and then under the guise of helping
her to have a consultation with a specialist in Bombay took hei;
in a train,, and then brought the patient unconscious to a hospital
bereft of all property with which she had started from home and
gave a wrong name to cover her identity and wrong history of
her ailments, that after her death he abandoned the body to be
dealt with by the hospital as an unclaimed body, spread the story
, that she was alive and made use of the situation to misappropriate
all her properties, and that he tried by all means to avoid postmortem examination and . when questioned gave false and
conflicting statements, held that if the deceased died in circum-
. stances which prima facie admit of either disease or homicide by
poisoning,one must look at the conduct of the appellant both
, before and after the death of the deceased, that the corpus delicti
could be held to be proved by a number of facts which render
the commission of the crime certain, and that the medical
evidence in the case and the conduct of the appellant unerringly
pointed to th,e conclusion that the death of the deceased 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.
•
I r
' ..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
461
Per Sarkar, J.-If it could be established in this case that
the deceased had died an unnatural death, the,conclusion would
be inevitable that unnatural death had been ·brought about by
poison, but the circumstances were not such that from them the
onlv reasonable conclusion to be dra\vn \vas that the deceased
died an unnatural death. Held, that the prosecution had failed
to prm·e the guilt of the appellant.
-
Regina v. Onufrejczyk, [1955] I Q.B. 388,_ The King v. Horry,
[1952] N.Z.L. III, Mary Ann Nash's case, (r9n) 6 Cr. App. R. 225
an~ Donna/l's case, (r8r7) 2 C.&K. 308n, considered and relied on.
CRDIINAL
APPELLATE
J URISDICTIO::<r:
Criminal.
Appeal No. 73of1~59.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated January 16/20th, 1959, of the Bombay
High Court in Confirmation case No. 25 of 1958 with
Criminal Appeal No. 1372of1958, arising out of the
judgment and order dated October 27, l!J58, of the
Sessions Judge, Poona, in Sessions Case No. 52 of le58.
A. S. R .. Ghari, s: N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji. and
Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant.
H. N. Seeri-ai, Advocate-General for the State ·of
Bombay, Porus A .. JJJehta 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.
'959.
Ansnl
Chintaman Lagu
v.
The State of
Bombay
HIDAYATULLAII J.-This appeal by special leave is Hidaya1u11aA J.
against the judgment of the Bombay High Court
[J.C. Shah, J. (now of the Supreme Court) and V. S.
Desai, J.] by which it maintained the_ conviction of
the appellant, Lagu, under s. 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, and confirmed the sentence of death passed on
him by Shri V. A. Naik (now Naik, J.) Sessions Judge,
Poona.
·
The appellant was tried for the murder of one
taxmibai Karvc, and the charge held proved against
him was that on or about the night between· Novem·
her 12 and 13, 1956, either at Poona or in the course
of a railway journey between Poona and Bombay, he
administered to the said Laxmibai Karve, some unrecognised poison or drug which would act as a poison;
59
z959
Anant
Chintaman Lagu
v.
The State of
Bombay
Hidayatullah ].
462
SUPREME .COURT REPORTS [l960(2)]
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
she was known as Indumati, Indutai or Indu Ponkshe.
In the year 1922, she married Anant Ramachandra
Karve, a widower with a son by name, Vishnu.
On
her marriage, as is the custom, she was named
Laxmibai by the family of her husband and was
known as Laxmibai Karve. She was also known as
Mai or Mai Karve. From Laxmibai there were born
two sons, Ramachandra (P.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. 30,000 to his son, Vishnu,
to set him up in business.
By his will he gave
the house No. 93-95, Shukrawar. Peth, Poona to
Ramachandra with a right of residence in at least
three rooms to his widow, Laxmibai and a further
right to her to receive Rs. 50 per month from the rent
of the house.
He assigned an insurance policy of
Rs. 5,000 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 Vishnu's children. Laxmibai was also declared owner of all her
ornaments of about 60 tolas of gold and nose-ring and
pearl bangles which were described in the will.
In addition to what she inherited from her husband,
Laxmibai inherited about Rs. 25,000 invested in shares
from her mother, Girjabai, and another 60 tolas of
gold ornaments.
In January 1954, Purushottam
alias Arvind died at Poona. By Purushottam's death
Laxmibai also inherited all the property held by him.
T
-
•
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
463
Thus,. at the time of her death, Laxmibai was
possessed of about 560 shares . in diverse Electric
Companies, debentures in South Madras Electric
Supply Corporation and Mettur Chemical and Indus-
, trial Corporation, a sum of Rs. 7,882-15-0 31t the Bank
of Maharashtra, a sum of Rs. 35,000 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 one,
third share was not affected. Before this, Ramacharidra
had closed his business in 1951, 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, arid he went away in June,
1956.
Laxmibai had 8ontracted tuberculosis after the birth
of Purushottam. That was about twenty years before
her death. The lesion, however, healed and till 1946
her health was not bad. From 1946 she suffered from
diabetes. In 1948 she was operated for hysterectomy,
and before her operation, she was getting hysterical
fits. On June 15, 1950, she was examined by Dr. R. V.
Sathe, who prescribed some treatment. In July, 1950,
she was admitted in the Wanless Tuberculosis Sanatorium for pulmonary affection, and she Wai? treated
till November 15, 1950. ·Two stages of thoracoplasty
operations were performed, but she left, though a
third stage of operation was advised.
In the operations, her leftside first rib and portions of 2nd to 6th'
ribs were removed. · Laxmibai was, however, treated
with medicines, and the focus, it appears, was under
control.
·
We now come to the events immediately preceding
her death.
Laxmibai had, ·through the appellant,
taken an appointment from Dr. Sathe 9f Bombay for·
I959
Anant.
Chintaman Lagw
v.
Ths Slate of
Boinbay
Hidayatullah ].
..
r959
Anant·
Chintaman Lagu
v.
The State of
Bombay
Hidayatullah].
464
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2))
a consultation about her health, for November 13,
1956, at 3-30 p. m. It was to attend this appointment
that she left Poona in the company of the appellant
by Passenger train on the night of November 12, 1956,
for Bombay. The train arrived at Victoria Terminus
Station at 5-10 a. m. thirty-five minutes late. It is an
admitted fact that Laxmibai was then deeply unconcious and was carried on a stretcher by the appellant to a taxi and later to the G. T. Hospital, where
she was entered as an in-door patient at 5-45 a. m. She
never regained consciousness and died at 11-30 a. m.
Her body remained at the G. T. Hospital till the evening
of the 14th, when it was sent to the J. ,T. Hospital
morgue for preservation. Later, it was to be handed
over under the orders of the Coroner to the Grant
Medical College for the use of Medical Students. It
was noticed there that she had a suspicious ligature
mark on the neck, and the body was subjected to
post-mortem 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 post-mortem.
"
The appellant was the medical attendant and friend
of the family.
He and his brother (also a. medical
practitioner) attended on Anant Ramachandra Karve
tlll his death. The appellant also treated Pnrshottam
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 Jnne, 1956, and did not see his mother
alive again.
The death of Laxmibai was not known to the relatives or friends.
The appellant also did not disclose
this fact to any one. On the other hand, he kept it a
close secret. Soon afterwards, people began receiving
'
•
-
j
-
..
-
S.C.R..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
465
mysterious letters purporting to be from Laxmibai,
stating that she had gone on pilgrimage, that she
_ did not intend to return and that none should try
to find her whereabouts. She advised them to communicate with her through the newspaper "Sakal".
Laxmibai also exhorted all persons to forget her, as
she had married one-Joshi and had settled at Rathodi,
near Jaipur in Rajasthan. People who went to her
rooms at first found them locked, but soon the doors
were open and the meveable pl'operty was found to
have been removed. Through these
mysterious
letters Laxmibai informed all concerned that she had
herself removed these articles secretly and that none
was to be blamed or suspected. It is the prosecution
case that these letters were forgeries, and that the
appellant misappropriated the properties ofLaxmibai,
including her shares, bank deposits etc.
The appellant has admi.tted his entire conduc~ after
the death of Laxmibai, by which he managed to get
hold of her property. His explan~tion was that he
would have given the proceeds to some charitable institution according t9 her wishes adding some money of
his own to round off the figure. He led no evidence to
prove that Laxmibai before she left Poona or at any
time gave such instructions to him in the matter.
Meanwhile, the continued disappearance of Laxmibai was causing uneasiness to her friends and relat- ·
ives. On December 31, 1957, G. D. Bhave (P. W. 8)
addressed a complaint to the Chief Minister, Bombay.
Similarly, Dr. G. N. Datar (P. W. 5) also addressed a
letter to the Chief Minister, Bombay on February 16,
1958, and in both these petitions, doubts were expressed.
Ramachandra too made a report, and in_ consequence of a preliminary investigation, the appellant
was arrested on March 12, 1958. He was subsequently
tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge, Poona.
His appeal was also dismissed, and the certificate
of fitness having been refused, he obtained special
leave from this Court and filed this appeal.
The appellant's contention in this appeal is that
the prosecution' has not succeeded in proving that
-r959
Anant
Clrintaman Lagu
v.
The State of
Bombay
H idayatullah ] •
r959
Anant
Chint'aman Lagu
v.
The State of
Bombay
Hidayatullah ].
466
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2))
Laxmibai was poisoned at all, or that there was any
poison administered to her which would evade detection, yet cause death in the manner it actually took
place. The appellant contends also that his conduct
before the death of Laxmibai was bona fide and correct,
that no inference of guilt can be drawn from all the
circumstances of this case, and that his subsequent
conduct, though suggestive of greed, was not proof of
his guilt on the charge of murder.
The conviction of the appellant rests 01;1 circumstantial evidence, and his guilt has been inferred from
medical evidence regarding the death of Laxmibai
and his conduct. The two Courts below have held
that the total evidence in this case unerringly points
to the commission of the crime charged and every
reasonable hypothesis compatible with the innocence
of the appellant has been successfully repelled. A
criminal trial, of course, is not an enquiry into the
conduct of an accused for any purpose other than to
determine whether .he is guilty of the offence charged.
In this connection, that piece of conduct can be held
to be incriminatory which has no, reasonable explanation except on the hypothesis that he is guilty.
Conduct which destroys the presumption of innocence
can alone be considered as material. The con ten ti on
of the appellant, briefly, is that the medical evidence
is inconclusive, and that his conduct is explainable on
hypotheses other than his guilt.
Ordinarily, it is not the practice of this Court to
re-examine the findings of fact reached by the High
Court particularly in a case where there is concurrence
of opinion between the two Courts below. But the
case against the appellant is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, and there is no direct evidence that
he administered a poison, and no poison has, in fact
been detected by the doctor, who performed the postmortem examination, or by the Chemical Analyser.
The inference of guilt having been drawn on an
examination of a mass of evidence during which
subsidiary findings were given by the two Courts
below, we have felt it necessary, in view of the extraordinary nature of this case, to satisfy ourselves
•
•
-
-
•
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
467
whether each conclusion on the separate aspects of
the case, is supported by evidence and is just and
·proper. Ordinarily, this Court is not required to enter
into an elaborate examination of the evidence, but we
have depR.rted from this rule in this particular case,
in view of the variety of arguments that were addressed to us and the evidence of conduct which the
appellant has sought to explain away on hypotheses
suggesting innocence. These arguments, as we have
stated in brief, covered both the factual as well as the
medical aspects of the case, and have necessitated a
close examination of the evidence once again, so that
we may be in a position to say what are the facts
found, on which our decision is rested.
That Laxmibai died within six hours of her admission in the G. T. Hospital is not questioned. Her
body was identified by persons who knew her well from
her photograph taken at the J.J. Hospital on November 19, 1956. In view of the contention of the
appellant that she died of disease 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 maintain- .
ed at the institutions where she was treated in the
past, the evidence of some of the doctors who dealt
with her case, of the observation of witnesses who
could depose to her outward state of health immediately before her departure, and lastly, the case papers
maintained by the appellant as a medical adviser.
The earliest record of Laxmibai's health is furnished by Dr. K. C. Gharpure (P. W. 17), who treated
her in 1948. According to Dr. Gharpure, she entered
his Nursing Home on April 6, 1948, and stayed
there till April 24, 1948. Laxmibai was then suffering
from Menorrhagia and Metrorrhagia for about six
years. In 1946 there was an operation for dilatation
and also curettage. She had Diabetes from 1945 and
hysterical fits since · 1939. On admission in Dr.
Gharpure's Nursing Home, her blood pressure was
found ti;> 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
I959
Anant
Chintaman Lagu
v.
The State of
Bombay
Hidayatullah ].
I959
Anant
Chintaman Lagu
v.
The Stale of
Bombay
Hidayatullah ].
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960(2)~
hysterectomy was performed, she had blood pressure
110/75 and sugar traces (albumin nil) before the
operation. According to Dr. Gharpure, the operation
was not for hysterical fits, and along with hysterectomy the right ovary was cysticpunctured and
the appendix was also removed. A certificate was
issued by Dr. Gharpure (Ex. 121), in which the same
history is given.
Laxmibai was next examined by Dr. Ramachandra
Sathe (P.W.25) on June 15, 1950. He deposed from
the case file which he had maintained about her
complaints. A copy of the case papers shows that
she was introduced to him by the appellant. At that
- time, her w.eight was 120 lbs. and her blood pressure,
140/90. Dr. Sathe noticed that diabetes had existed
for fq,ur years, and that she was being given insulin for
8 months prior to his examination. He also noticed
hysterectomy scar, and that she had a tubercular
lesion on the left apex 20 years ago.
According to
the statement of the patient, she had trouble - with
tuberculosis from May 1949, and her teeth were
extracted on account of pyorrhoea. She was getting
intermittent temperature from September 1949, and
was receiving streptomycin and PAS irregularly. She
was then suffering from low temperature, slight cough
and expectoration. On examination, the doctor found
that there was infiltration in the left apex but no
other septic focus was found. The evidence does
not show the treatment which was given, and the
doctor merely stated that he must have recommended
a line of treatment to the patient, though he had no
record of it.
On July 13, 1950, Laxmibai entered the Wanlesswadi
T. B. Sanatorium, and stayed there till November 15,
1950. Her condition is noted in two certificates which
were issued by the Sanatorium and proved by Dr.
Fletcher (P. W. 16), the Medical Superintendent. In
describing the previous history of the patient, the case
papers showed that she had a history of Pott's disease
(T. B. of the spine) 20 years before. She had diabetes
for five years and history of hysterectomy operation
two years before. It was also noted that she had
I
•
' -
____,. -
-
-<·
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
4S9
T. B. of the lungs 15 years back, but had kept well
for 14 years and a new attack began in or about 1949.
The certificate describes the treatment given to her in
these words :
"Patient was admitted on 13th July, 1950.
X-Ray on admission showed extensive filtration on
the left side with a large cavity in the upper zone;
the right side was within normal limits. She h'ad
diabetes with high blood sugar which was controlled
by insulin. Two stages of thoracoplasty operations
on the left side were done and there was good clear- •
ing of disease but there was a small residual cavity
seen and the third stage operation was advised.
The patient is leaving at her own request against
medical advice. Her sputum is positive."
From the above, it appears that Laxmibai's general
complaints were menstrual irregularities corrected by
hysterectomy, tuberculosis of the lungs controlled to
a large extent by thoracoplasty and medicines and
diabetes for which she was receiving treatment. In
the later case papers, there is no mention of hysterical
fits, and it seems that she had overcome that trouble
after the performance of hysterectomy and the cysticpuncture of the ovary, for there is no evidence of a
recurrence after 1948. Diabetes was, however, present,
and must have continued till her death.
Next, we come to the evidence of some witnesses
who saw her immediately prior to her departure for
Bombay on November 12, 1956. The first witness in
this connection is Ramachandra (P.W. 1), son of
Laxmibai. He has given approximately the same
description <'If her many ailments and the treatment
she underwent. He last saw her in June, 1956, when
his marriage was performed. According to him, the
general condition of his mother was rather weak, but
before that, her condition· had not occasioned him any
concern and he had not noticed anything so radically
wrong with her as to prompt him to ask her about
her ailments. When' he last saw his mother in June
1956, he found her in good health. Dr. Madhav
Domadhar Bhave (P.W. 9), who knew Laxmibai
60
z959
Anant
Chintaman Lagu
v.
The State of
Bombay
Hidayatullah ].
r959
Anant
Chintaman Lagu
v.
The State of
Bombay
Hidayatullah ]·
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)]
intimately stated that he saw her last in the month of
October, 1956, and that the condition of her health
was good. No question was asked from him in crossexamination at all. His brother, G.D. Bhave, (P.W. 8),
who is a landlord, had gone to Laxmibai's house on
November 8, 1956, and met her in the presence of the
appellant. Laxmibai had then told him that she was
going to Bombay with the appellant to consult
Dr. Sathe in connection with her health. She had also
stated that she would be returning in four or five days.
, According to the witness, she was in good health, and
was moving about and doing her own work. The
next witness is Champutai Vinayak Gokhale (P.W. ll),
who met Laxmibai on November 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
Laxmibai's house to invite her for the birthday party
of her son, which was to take place on November 13,
1956. She found Laxmibai in good· state of health,
and Laxmibai promised that though she would be
going to Bombay, she would return soon enough to
join the party. ~
Similarly,
Viswanath
Janardhan Karandikar,
pleader of Poona, met Laxmibai on November 10 orll,
1956.
Laxmibai had herself gone in the afternoon
to him to ask him whether her presence was necessary
in Poona in connection with the suit filed by Vishnu,
to which we have referred earlier. The witness stated
that Laxmibai was in good state of health at that
time, and that he informed her that he did not propose
to examine her as a witness. She was again seen by
Dattatreya Vishnu Virkar (P.W. 6) on the night of
November 12, 1956, an hour before she left her house
for Bombay. Virkar, who is a Graduate in Electrical
Mechanics and in Government service, was a tenant
living in the same house. Laxmibai, according to the
will of her husband, was entitled to Rs. 50 out of the
rents from tenants. She went to Virkar's Block at
8 p.m .. and told him that she was going to Bombay
to consult a doctor in the company of the appellant
and needed money. Virkar $&Ve her Rs. 50 and
'
-
•
....
•
'
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
471
Laxmibai went back to her Block saying that she
would give a receipt. Later, she brought the receipt
to Virkar seated at his meals, asked him not to get up
and left the receipt in his room. The receipt signed
by Laxmibai is Ex. 70, and is dated November· 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
(P.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 not properly
answered by Shantabai, but she stated by pantomime
that on the day on which she left, the appellant had
given two injections to Laxmibai. The learned Sessions
Judge made a note to the following effect :
"In the morning the accused gave Laxmibai one
injection and in the evening he gave the second one.
(The signs were so clear that I myself gathered the
. meaning and the interpreter was not asked to
interpret the signs). "
Next, Laxmibai was seen by Pramilabai Sapre
(P.W. 12) at 8 p.m. on November 12, 1956. Laxmibai
had told the witness that she was going to Bombay to
consult a doctor and Laxmibai again passed her door
at 9-15 p.m., when the witness was at her meals.
Though Laxmibai told her not to disturb herself, the
witness did get up and saw her. The witness stated
that Laxmibai did not suffer from T. B. after the
operation but was suffering from diabetes, and that
she sometimes used to give Laxmibai her injections of
insulin but only till 1953. The last witness on the
state of Laxmibai's he[!,lth 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 ancl a small bedding. He then saw the appellant arriving there, and
Laxmibai presumably left in a rickshaw or a tonga,
because there was a staQd for these vehicles in the
neighbourhood. All this evidence was not questioned
except to point out-that Dr. Datar in his petition to
the Chief Minister had stated that Laxmibai was a
I959
Anant
Chintaman Lagu
v.
The .State of
Bombay
Hidayatullah ].
1
472
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2))
'959
fi·ank case of tuberculosis of both lungs and an invalid
(Ex. 68).
But Dr. Datar explained that he had so
Ch'nt:;;:' Lagu stated.there, because it was being "circulated" that
1
v.
she had gone on a long pilgrimage alone, and that it
The State of
waEI most improbable. Indeed, Dr. Datar said that
Bombay
Laxmibai was well enough to do all her work and even
cooked for herself.
Hidayatullah J.
From this mass of evidence given by persons from
different walks of life and most of them well-placed, it
is clear enough that laxmibai was not in such a state
of health that she would have collapsed in the traiu,
unless something very unusual took place. She was
not iu the moribund state in which she undoubtedly
was, when she reached the hospital. Her general
health, though not exactly good, had not deteriorated
so radically as to prevent her from attending to her
normal avocations. She appeared to have been quite
busy prior to her departure arranging for this matter
and that, and she did not rely upon other persons'
help but personally attended to all that she desired.
Right up to 9-15 or so in the night, she was sufficiently
strong and healthy to go about her' affairs, and indeed,
she.must have boarded the train also in a fit state of
health, because there is nothing to show that she was
carried to the compartment in a state of collapse or
unconsciousness.
We have stated earlier that the appellant who was
presumably treating her for her ailments had maintained case papers to show what treatment he was
giving her from time to time. These case papers are
Ex. 305, and commence on February 27, 1956. The
medicines that have been shown as prescribed in these
case papers show treatment for diabetes, general
debility, tuberculosis, rheumatism and indigestion.
Much reliance cannot, however, be placed upon this
dqcument, because these case papers significantly
enough stop 0.11November12, 1956, and continue again
from February 13, 1957, whea Laxmibai was no more.
There are four entries of treatment given to Laxmibai
between February 13 and ~'ebruary 28, 1957, when
Laxmibai had . already died and her body had undergone. post-mortem examination and been cremated.
,
-
I
\.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
473
The extent to which her treatment, if any, went in
r959
the period covered by the case papers may or may not
be truly described by the appellant in these papers, but Ch' Anant L
we are definitely of the opinion that the entries there
intam:_n
agu
cannot be read without suspicion, in view of the extraThe State of
ordinary fact described by us here. It appears, howBombay
ever, that the last insulin injection was given to her
on September 27, 1956, though the appellant stated in H'.dayatullah f.
his examination as accused in the case that she was
put on Nadisan tablets for diabetes. The a·ppellant
was questioned by the Sessions Judge as to the State of
her health, and he stated that Laxmibai on the day she
left for Bombay had a temperature of 100 degrees and
was suffering from laryngitis, pharyngitis, and complained of pain in the ear. What relevance this has,
we shall point out subsequently when we deal with the
medical evidence and the conclusions of the doctors
about it.
The next question which falls for consideration is
whether the appellant and Laxmibai travelled in the
same compartment on the train. The tain left Poona
at 10 p.m., and it is obvious enough that it was a
comparatively slow and inconvenient train. We have
no evidence· in the case as to whether the appellant
travelled with Laxmibai in the same compartment, but
both the Courts below have found from the probabilities of the case that he did. The best person to tell
us about this journey is necessarily the appellant, and
reference may now be made to what he stated in regard
to this journey. The appellant had arranged for the
examination of.Laxmibai by Dr. Sathe at Bombay. He
was the family physician and also a_friend.
~axniibai ·
was an elderly lady and the appellant was for some
time previous to this journey living in the main ·room
of her block. There would be nothing to prevent the
appellant from travelling in the same compartment
with his patient, who might need his a.ttention during
the journey. The appellant denied in Court that he
had travelled .in the same compartment, but his statements on this part of tho events have not been quite
consistent. After Laxmibai died and the question
arose about the disposal of her body, the police a~
r959
Anant
Chintaman Lagu
v.
The State of
Bombay
Hidayatullah].
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)]
Poona were asked to contact the appellant to get some
information about her. On November 16, 1956, before
any investigation into an 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. No. 431/5,
Shukrawar and dispensary at H. No. 20, Shukrawar
Peth, Poona 2, on being questioned, state that on
the night of 12th November, 1956, I 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
November, 1956. In my compartment I had 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 know that
her name was Indumati Pause, about 36 years old
and she had a brother serving in Calcutta. Other
passengers got down at V. T. The woman, however,
did not awake. I, 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 know that that hospital was near. As
I had taken the said woman to the hospital, the
C.M.O, took my address. I have no more information about the woman. She is not my relation and
I am not in any way responsible for her."
It will appear from this that he was travelling in the
same compartment as Laxmibai, though for reasons of
his own he did not care to admit that he was taking
her to Bombay. Similarly, in the hospital when he
was questioned about the patient he had brought for
admission; he stated to Dr. Ugale (P. W.18), Casualty
Medical Officer, that the lady had suddenly become
unconscious in ·the train. This fact was no.ted by
Dr. Ugale in the bed-head ticket, and Dr. Ugale has
stated on oath that the information was supplied by
...
' -
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS·
475
•
the appellant himself. To Dr. Miss Aneeja, who was
r959
the House Physician on the morning of November 13,
A .
the appellant also stated the same thing. Dr. Miss Chinta;;:
1
Lagu
Aneeja had also made a separate note of this, and
v.
stated that the information was given by the appel-
. The State of
lant. In view of these statements made by the
Bombay
appellant at a time when he was not required to face a Hidayatullah ].
charge, we think that his present statement in Court
that he travelled in a separate compartment cannot be
accepted.
,
The train halted at various stations en route; and
evidence was led in the case, of the Guard, K. Shamanna (P. W. 37), who deposed from his memo book
(Ex. 214). This train made 26 halts en route before it
arrived at V. T. Statiou. Some of these halts were of
as many as 20 minutes. It is difficult to think that
the appellant would not have known till he arrived at
Victoria Terminus that his patient was unconscious,
and the fact that he mentioned that she became
suddenly unconscious shows that he knew the exact
manner of the onset. Without, however; speculating
as to what had actually happened, it is quite clear to
us that Laxmibai was in the same compartment as the
appellant, a fact which was not denied by the learned
counsel in the arguments before us. If we were to
accept what the appellant stated as true, then Laxmibai lost her consciousness sqddenly. It is, however, a
little difficult to accept as true all that the appellant
stated in this behalf, because he told a patent lie to the
police when he was questioned, that he knew nothing
about the woman or who she was, but took her to the
hospital as an act of humanity when he founcf her
unconscious. There is nothing to show beyond this
statement to the police in Ex. 365 that there were
other passengers in the compartment; but ifthere had
been, the attention of these passengers would have
bel(n drawn to the condition of Laxmibai, and some
one would have advised the calling of the Guard or the
railway authorities at one of these stations at which
the train halted. The circumstances of the case, there-
. fore, point to the appellant and Laxmibai being in
the compartment together1 and the :prerondera.nce of
z959
Anant
Chintaman Lagu
v.
The State of
Bombay
H idayatullah ] .
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)]
•
probabilities is that the compartment was not occupied
by any other person.
We shall leave out from consideration for the present
the circumstances under which Laxmibai was admitted
in the G. T. Hospital and the treatment given to her.
We shall now pass on to her death and what happened
thereafter and the connection of the appellant with
the circumstances resulting in the disposal of the
dead body. We have already stated that the appellant
was present iu the hospital till her death. We
next·hear of the appellant at Poona. On the afternoon
of November 13, 1956, Dr. Mouskar (P. W. 40), the
Resident Medical Officer of the Hospital, sent a telegram (Ex. 224) to the appellant, and it conveyed to
him the following information:.
"Indumati expired. Arrange removal reply immediately." The telegram was sent at about 2 p.m. The
appellant in reply did not send a telegram, but wrote
an inland letter in which he stated that the name of
the woman admitted by him in the hospital had been
wrongly shown as "Paunshe", and that there was an
extra "u" in it. He also stated that he had informed
her brother at Calcutta about the death, and that the
brother would call at the hospital for the body of his
sister. The name of the brother was shown as Govind
Vaman Deshpande. The letter also stated that the
appellant was writing in connection with the woman
aged 30 to 35 years admitted in the hospital at 6 a.m.
on November 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 had no brother, much
less~ brother in Calcutta and of this name. Thereafter,
the appellant took no further action in the matter
till the police questioned him on the 16th, two days
after he had sent the letter. It seems that the appellant did not expect the police to appear so soon, and
he thought it advisable to deny all knowledge about
the lady he had taken to the hospital by telling the ·
police that he did not know her. The inference drawn
from these two pieces of conduct by the Courts below
is against the appellant, and we also agree. We
have already stated that from then onwards, the
J
•
•
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
477
appellant did not care to enquire from the hospital
r959
authorities as to what had happened to his patient's
Anant
dead ~ody, and whether it had been disposed of Chintaman Lagu
or not. He also did not go to Bombay, nor did he
v.
inform Dr. Sa the about the cancellation of the appointThe State of
ment. In his examination, he, however, stated that
Bombay
he attempted to telephone to Dr. Sathe, but could not Hidayatullahf.
get through, as the instrument was engaged on each
occasion. One expects, however, that he would have
in the ordinary course written a letter of apology to
Dr. Sathe, because he must have been conscious of the
fact that he had kept the Specialist waiting for this
appointment; but he did not. It is said that the
appellant need not have taken this appointment and
could have told a lie to Laxmibai; but the appointment with Dr. Sathe had to be real because if the plan
failed, Laxmibai would have been most surprised why
she was brought to Bombay. With this ends the
phase of events resulting in the death of Laxmibai.
We shall deal with the events in the hospital later, but
we pursue the thread of the appellant's conduct.
Prior to the fateful journey, Laxmibai had passed
two documents to the appellant. They are Exs. 285
and 286. By the first, Laxmibai intimated' the Bank
of Maharashtra, Poona, that she was going to withdraw
in the following week from her Savings Bank account
a sum of money between Rs.1,000 and Rs. 5,000.
The other document was a bearer cheque for Rs.