PONNUSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 4.8.1992 at about 2.00 am Ponnusamy, the appellant herein administered poison to his wife Rajammal by providing Oleander seeds mixed with halwa, as a result of which the deceased Rajammal died at 9.30 am at the General Hospital, Coimbatore. In respect of this accusation, the appellant was tried for the offence under Section 302 I. P.C and convicted thereunder. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE necessary facts leading to the filing of this appeal are summarized as follows: a) Eleven months prior to the date of occurrence, the marriage between Rajammal, the deceased and Ponnusami, the accused was held. THE accused was working as a watchman in P.S.G.V textiles at Narasimanaicken Palayam. At the time of marriage, 3 sovereigns of gold jewels were given by P.W.6, the mother of the deceased. Some months later, when PW6 came to visit the house of the accused, she found that those jewels were missing. When enquired about this, the deceased told her that on the request of her husband, she handed over the same to him. During Deepavali, PW6 provided cloths and cash of Rs.100/- b) During the first three months, both the deceased and the accused were living happily. But later, the deceased was not allowed to take bed with him. When this was informed by the deceased to PW6, she requested her son Rengasamy to enquire about the same. Accordingly, Rengasamy met the accused and asked about the reason. THE accused told him that he was observing silence for about three months. From then onwards, there was no cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased, though they were living under the same roof. c) THEy were living in a rented house belonging to PW5, Karunakaran. PW1 Natarajan and PW2 Rajeswari, who are husband and wife, were residing in the house situated nearby. PW3 Lakshmi was staying in the house just opposite to the house of the accused. d) On 1.8.1992, the accused went to the Mill and applied for permission for two days leave from PW9, the supervisor of the mill and left the mill. On 3.8.1992, the accused was found collecting Oleander seeds (Arali seeds) from a tree. This was witnessed by PW11 Easwaran. When asked about the reason for collecting the seeds, the accused told him that he was collecting the same for the purpose of making medicine. This was at about 5.30 pm. At about 8.00 p.m on 3.8.1992 , PW7 Kadirvelu and PW8 Viswanathan met the accused, who was sitting near the temple and conversed with him. All the three decided to go to night film show. Accordingly, at about 9.00 p.m., they went to the theatre and witnessed film show. THEreafter, all the three came back home. THE accused came back at 1.30 am and entered into the house along with a parcel carrying in his hand. This was witnessed by PW4 Nagaraj, who was then working as a Contractor supervising the construction work of a building. PW5 Karunakaran also saw the accused entering into the house. At about 4.30 am early morning on 4.8.1992, the accused came out of the house. When PW4 Nagaraj asked him as to where he was going during that time, he told him that he was going to temple. e) PW3 Lakshmi left her house at 5.30 a.m. and went to the market and purchased some vegetables and came back at 6.30 a.m. On hearing that the deceased Rajammal was crying out of pain, she went and saw her and at that time, the deceased Rajammal told her that her husband/ accused gave halwa in the night and after eating the same, she developed chest pain and dysentery. PW3 and PW4 took the deceased to hospital at about 7.30 am. PW13, the Doctor attached to Shanmugapriya Clinic examined the deceased, to whom the deceased told that she ate halwa given by her husband. Since her condition was so serious and she vomited some yellow colour substance, the Doctor suspected it as oleander poison and so he referred her to the Government Hospital. Ex.P7 is the certificate issued by him. THEreafter, PW3 Lakshmi, PW1 Nataraj and PW2 Rajeswari took the victim to the Government Hospital at Coimbatore. PW14 Dr.Sundaramurthy attached to the Government Hospital at about 8.30 am admitted her, to whom also the deceased Rajammal stated that she took Halwa, which was given by her husband. THEn after treatment, she was admitted in the special ward. He also gave intimation Ex.P9 to Police, since it is a poison case. He issued Ex.P8 accident register extract. PW 15 Dr.Chellappan also examined the victim. THE victim told PW15 Doctor about what had happened at about 2.00 am in their house. Despite the treatment given by the Doctors PW14 and PW15, the victim died at 9.30 am. Ex.P11 is the case sheet. f) On receipt of Ex.P9, PW20 Sub-Inspector of Police went to the hospital at about 10.25 am on 4.8.1992, where she was informed that the deceased already died. THEn, she obtained a statement Ex.P22 from PW1. She came back to the police station and registered a case as suspicious death. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 found in the statement recorded by PW20. Ex.P23 is the printed FIR. PW20 sent the Express FIR to the superior officers as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer PW18. On receipt of the intimation from P.W.20, P.W.18, the Revenue Divisional Officer went to the hospital and conducted inquest between 4.00 p.m and 4.15 p.m. Ex.P17 is the inquest report. He also gave requisition ExP12 to the Doctor for conducting post-mortem. g) PW 16 Dr.Sundararaj, conducted the post mortem on 5.8.1992 at 10.00 a.m. He found the following: "Heart: Rt. Chamber contained fluid blood. Left chamber empty. NO lesion. Lungs: Oedematus. Liver, Spleen, Kidneys congested. Stomach contained 150 ml. of brown coloured fluid, with characteristic pungent odour. Mucosa congested. Small intestines proximal part contained 60ml of brown fluid with characteristic pungent odour. He gave post-mortem certificate Ex.P13 and sent the viscera for chemical analysis. Ex.P14 is the Viscera report. On the basis of this report, Dr.T.V.Shanmugaveluswamy, in Ex.P15 gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of poison, however could not be detected in the analysis. h) After getting the medical report, PW18, the Revenue Divisional Officer sent his report Ex.P19 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, giving his opinion that the deceased died due to the poison administered by her husband, the accused. i) PW21, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, on receipt of the R.D.O's report and on receipt of other records, conducted further investigation. He went to the spot and prepared Ex.P24 observation mahazar and Ex.P25 rough sketch. He examined all the witnesses. On 16.8.1992, he was able to trace out the accused at about 4.00 p.m. After the accused was arrested, on his confession Ex.P4, MOs 1 to 4 were recovered under Ex.P6. MO3 is the remaining sweet meat (Halwa), which was kept in the paper along with oleander powder (Arali powder). THEreafter, the case was altered into one under Section 302 IPC and the Commissioner sent the altered FIR Ex.P26. He sent all the material objects for chemical analysis through Court. PW 17, the Forensic Expert, sent a report Ex.P16 stating that MO 3 contained oleander poison. After completing the investigation, PW21 filed the charge sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. j) During the course of trial on the side of the prosecution, PWs1 to 21 were examined, Ex.P1 to P26 were filed and MOs 1 to 4 were marked. k) On being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied his complicity in the crime. He stated that he went to the temple on the date of occurrence and when he came back home, he was informed that the deceased died. However, no evidence was adduced on his side. l) THE trial court on analysis of the various available records concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Hence, this appeal. "

(3.) AS correctly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, this is a case where no direct evidence is available for administering poison. In otherwords, this is a case where only we have various pieces of circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain the conviction, must satisfy that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established. These circumstances should be of a definite tendency and unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. In other words, circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain so that there is no escape from the conclusion that in all human probability, the crime was committed, by the accused and none else and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.