AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Judgment pronounced by N. Dhinakar, J.—The appellant is the first accused and in this judgment she will be referred to as ""A.1"" for the
sake of convenience. She was tried along with the other accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai in Sessions Case No.190 of 1989. The
charge against the first accused under charge No.1 is u/s 302, I.P.C. with an allegation that at 2.00 P.M. on 5.7.1987, she administered medicine
in large quantity with a view to cause his death to her husband Natarajan, as a result of which, the said Natarajan died at about 4.00 P.M. on the
same day. The second accused was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of a charge u/s 302, I.P.C. read with Section 109, I.P.C. for abetting
the said commission of the offence of the first accused. The learned Sessions Judge, while convicting the first accused and sentencing her to
undergo imprisonment for life, acquitted the second accused. Hence, the present appeal by the first accused.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts necessary to dispose of the appeal can be briefly summarised as follows:-
The first accused is the wife of the deceased Natarajan. The said Natarajan was working as an Officer in State Bank of India at Tirunelveli. At
Tirunelveli, he was staying with his wire, A.1, his son, P.W.3, who was aged about 9 years at that time and his two daughters. They were living in
the upstairs portion of the house, in which A.2 was living in the ground floor along with his mother. P.W.4 was the servant maid in that house. The
second accused, according to the prosecution, used to go to the upstairs portion of the first accused, after the deceased leaves for his office.
According to the prosecution, whenever the second accused goes to the house, the first accused was in the habit of sending away her son, P.W.3,
her daughters and the maid servant, P.W.4 on one pretext or the other. On a particular day, A.2''s mother also saw A.2 talking with A.1 and took
A.1 to task as to why she is spoiling her son. While the matter continued thus, the deceased received orders of transfer to Madurai. After he was
transferred, he took a house for rent bearing Door No.47, State Bank Colony, Doak Nagar at Madurai and he also shifted his family. Since he
was not relieved immediately, the first accused and her son were staying in the house at Madurai. The second accused went to the house of the
first accused and stayed there for three days and left a day prior to the arrival of the deceased. The deceased went to bed at night and got up in the
morning and picked up a quarrel with his wife, the first accused, as to whether she is trying to kill him, since he was unconscious throughout the
night. On the next day, the first accused served him some tiffin, who after tasting it spit it saying it tastes sour. At Madurai, the deceased suddenly
developed diarrhoea and he went to the doctor, P.W.2 to take treatment. The doctor was also told that apart from diarrhoea he is also vomiting.
P.W.2 administered the Perinorm injection. On the next day also, the deceased went there and complained to the doctor that vomiting continues.
P.W.2 once again gave Perinorm injection. Third day also, the deceased went to the doctor'' and told him that though vomiting stopped, he
continues to suffer from dysentery. The doctor, P.W.2 prescribed Choloerstrep and asked him to come for check up in the evening. The deceased
did not go back to the doctor thereafter.
On 4.7.1987, the deceased was normal and on 5.7.1987 the deceased was looking sleepless. At about 7.30 A.M. he went to the bath room.
He opened the door and fell down. P.W.3, the son of the deceased, who entered the house, on seeing this, shouted that his father had fallen down.
P.W.5, the maid servant in the house at Madurai, helped A.1 and P.W.3 to carry the deceased and place him in the bed. P.Ws.3 and 5 asked the
first accused as to whether they can go and fetch the doctor. The first accused told them to mind their business and she wrote the name of some
medicine in a slip, handed over the said slip to P.W.5 with a direction to go and purchase the same. P.W.5 went to the shop of P.W.9, who found
that the slip contained the name of the medicine as ""Valium"". Since Valium is a scheduled drug, he refused to give the said medicine to P.W.5
stating that such medicine is not available in his shop. P.W.5 returned to the house and reported the said fact to A.1 and thereafter she went to her
house for lunch. The first accused locked up her son, P.W.3 along with her husband inside the house and went away. She returned after an hour.
Thereafter, she went to the kitchen and powdered the tablets. When P.W.3 questioned as to what she is doing, the first accused told him that it is
to be mixed with milk and has to be given to the deceased and that the deceased will be alright if he takes the medicine. The first accused mixed
the powder in milk. She attempted to wake up Natarajan who did not wake up. She asked P.W.3 to open the mouth of his father and with the
help of P.W.3, she poured the milk in the mouth of the deceased who drank the same. After some time, the deceased suffered fits. P.W.3 went
and told this fact to the first accused, who admonished him to mind his business. She went and stood by the side of her husband and after some
time, the deceased became motionless. The first accused went out and brought P.W.2, who on examining him, found him dead. Information was
sent to the relatives and P.W.1, the younger brother of the deceased went there in a car. The dead body of Natarajan was taken to Tuticorin, the
native place. On their way, the first accused told P.W.3 that if relatives questioned about the cause of death of his father, he must inform them that
while watching T.V. he complained of chest pain and later he died. She also told him that unless P.W.3 says as advised by her, she will also die
and his younger sisters will become orphans. They reached Tuticorin. At Tuticorin, P.W.3 informed their relatives as advised by her mother.
P.W.1 is the younger brother of the deceased and he is a doctor by profession. The deceased was taken to a cemetery and was buried and
P.W.8, a Mason constructed the cemetery at Tirunelveli Road at Tulicorin. The other funeral ceremonies were conducted. After the ceremonies
were over, the family members were sitting together and talking among themselves as to the future of me first accused. The elder brother as well as
the elder sister of P.W.1 told A.1 that she should live either with her parents or with them. A.1 replied that she had already fixed up a house at
Palayamkottai. P.W.1''s elder sister asked A1 as to how she has fixed up the house at Palayamkottai and whether she knew that her husband
would die. The first accused thereafter agreed to live with them. The final ceremonies of the deceased were over on 13.7.1987. On 14.7.1987,
P.W.1''s elder brother, Ramachandran wanted to visit the house of the first accused at Madurai to bring the articles from there. He also wanted to
bring back the insurance policies and the record sheets of the children. When the elder brother of P.W.1 asked A.1 to hand over the keys of the
house, she declined to hand over the same. Ramachandran insisted and threatened that if the keys are not handed over, he will report the matter to
the police. The first accused yielded and handed over the keys to him. Ramachandran, accompanied by P.W.1 and another brother Vijayakumar,
went to Madurai and opened the door. There they found empty strips of Valium tablets in the kitchen, which were marked as M.O.1 series in this
case. They also found two diaries on the table, which were marked as M.Os.2 and 3 in the case. P.W.1 grew suspicious and questioned P.W.5.
P.W.5, thereafter told him that she was asked to buy the medicines from the medical shop and also took P.W.1 to the shop of P.W.9. P.W.1
questioned P.W.9, who also told him that on a particular day, P.W.5 came to his shop with a ship and asked for Valium Tablets and he refused lo
give the said tablets. After returning to Tuticorin, P.W.1 look P.W.3 aside and enquired him as to what transpired at Madurai. P.W.3 then told
P.W.1 that on the date of the incident; his father became unconscious and fell down at the door and thereafter he was removed to the bed and
placed in a cot. He also narrated the fact of the first accused asking P.W.5 to buy the tablets and her incapacity to buy them. He also told him that
the first accused left the house, after locking him in the house with his father and returned with some tablets. He slated that he found his mother
powdering some tablets and mixing the same in milk and administering it to the deceased. P.W.1, on thinking over the matter and discussing it with
the relatives, went to B.4 Police Station and gave a complaint, expressing his suspicion about the cause of death of his brother Natarajan.
P.W.10, the Circle Inspector of Police, B-North Circle, Madurai on the complaint given by P.W.1 registered a case in Crime No.1561 of 1987
under the caption ""suspicious death"" and prepared-express reports. Ex.P.9 is the copy of the printed First Information Report. P.W.10, thereafter
proceeded to the house of the deceased at Doak Nagar, Madurai and inspected the same. He prepared Ex.P.10, the observation mahazar and
also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P.11 in the presence of witnesses. He issued a requisition, Ex.P.7 to P.W.7, the Tahsildar for exhuming the body of
Natarajan. On 9.8.1987 at about 11.30 A.M. the body of Natarajan was exhumed after P.W.8, the Mason who earlier built the cemetery broke
it. On the requisition issued by the Tahsildar. P.W.6. the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital. Tuticorin conducted
autopsy on the same day and found the following:-
On the body of a male lying on the back in a coffin in the burial ground with hands and legs stretched with well featured all the organs are
shrivelled with shape except the brain matter. A little brain matter seen. Heart is pale yellowish white.
He issued Ex.P.3, the Post-mortem Certificate with his opinion that the death would appear to have occurred about 3 to 4 weeks prior to the
autopsy. He also sent for chemical analysis the stomach and contents, intestines and contents, sample of liver, one kidney, some brain matter nails,
hairs, right femur, skull, lung and the preservative used. Ex. P.4 is the report of the Chemical Examiner received by him and on the basis of the said
report, P.W.6 gave a final opinion, Ex.P.5 that the deceased died on account of the administration of Diazepam, which is a poisonous substance.
Though he said that he is not able to give the cause of death, he had given his opinion that the probable cause of death may be due to the
administration of Diazepam. Ex.P.6 is the opinion given by him on the questionnaire prepared by P.W.10.
After the transfer of P.W.10 on 26.10.1987, his Successor-in-office, P.W.11 took up investigation, who investigated the case till 1.3.1988.
M.Os.1 to 3 were produced by P.W.1 at 9.00 A.M. which were seized under Form 95 by P.W.11. After completing the investigation, a final
report was filed against the accused on 28.2.1969.
When questioned on the incriminating circumstances appearing against her u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the first accused denied
her complicity and examined D.W.1, an Officer working in the Regional Office, State Bank of India, Madurai. She also marked Ex.D.3, the
Service register of Natarajan. He also produced Exs.D.4 to D.6 which were also marked on the side of the defence. The daughter of the
deceased, D.W.2 was also examined to say that the deceased used to suffer from dysentery and vomiting and that her father used to take
treatment from the Bank staff doctor. It was her further evidence before the trial Court that at Tuticorin, her paternal uncle had kept them in a room
and ill- treated them and on coming to know that the police officers are coming, they were taken away and detained in a house near the beach.
According to her, P.W.1 took her as well as her younger sister to the police station, where she found her mother in the custody of the police
officers. D.W.2 further stated that her mother was in the habit of serving food or giving milk to the father and he always used to take it by himself.
The first question that is to be decided by us is the cause of death. It is of course true that the post-mortem doctor, P.W.6 has stated that he
cannot give the cause of death, but has opined after obtaining the Viscera Report, Ex.P.4 that the probable cause of death is on account of the
deceased having consumed Diazepam. There is no direct evidence that Diazepam was administered by the first accused and to prove the said fact,
the prosecution before the trial court relied upon the circumstantial evidence. In the decision reported in Deonandan Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar,
, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-
Where there is no eye-witness to the murder and the case against the accused depends entirely on circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof
required to convict the accused on such evidence is that the circumstances relied upon must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished
by these circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and in a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but the completed
chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused"".
Keeping the above principle in mind, we will now analyse the evidence to find out whether Diazepam was administered by the first accused to the
deceased. First, we will take up the motive. It is the case of the prosecution that the first accused and the second accused were in illicit relationship
with each other. To speak about the said fact, they have examined P.W.3 as well as P.W.4, who have in their evidence stated that the second
accused was in the habit of coming to the upstairs portion and was visiting A.1 and whenever he used to visit her, the first accused would send
them away on some pretext or the other. It is also the evidence of P.W.3 that after the deceased was transferred to Madurai, he shifted his family
and the first accused with her son, P.W.3 was residing in the house at Doak Nagar. Since the deceased was not relieved immediately, he was
living alone and it is the case of the prosecution that the second accused visited the house of A.1 and stayed there for three days and left a day
prior to the arrival of the deceased. A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 clearly shows that all was not well with A.1 and she was in illicit
relationship with the second accused. P.W.3 is a child witness aged about 9 years during the relevant period and there is no reason for him to have
come out with a false version giving the details as regards the activities of his mother and thereby implicating her in a case of murder. In spite of
lengthy cross- examination, nothing was brought out from his evidence. The only suggestion made to P.W.4, the maid servant who worked at
Tirunelveli, is that she was not the maid servant which was of course denied by her. From the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, we can safely presume
that the second accused was in illicit relationship with the first accused during the relevant period.
The next aspect to be considered by us is whether on account of the illicit relationship, which A.1 had with the second accused, the first accused
administered Diazepam. According to C.W.1, the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai Medical College, Madurai, Valium
and Calmpose are the brand names of Diazepam. The Viscera Seport, Ex.P.4 shows that the stomach of the deceased contained Diazepam, which
means that the deceased had consumed either Valium or Calmpose. P.W.1., in his evidence has stated that after the funeral ceremonies were over,
he wanted to go back to Madurai to bring the Insurance Premium as well as the grade sheets of the children and asked for the keys from the first
accused. The first accused declined to hand over the keys. This conduct of the first accused is one of the circumstances to be put against her, since
it is not in consonance with her innocence. There was no reason for her to reject the request of P.W.1 by refusing to hand over the keys. This fact
coupled with the evidence of the witnesses that when they were discussing about the future plans of the first accused, she told them that she had
taken up her residence at Palayamkottai. She was immediately asked by her sister-in-law Baghyam as to how she has fixed up the house even
before the death of her husband, for which she had no answer. This conduct of the accused, which is also against her. when looked at from the
background of the refusal to hand over the keys to P.W.1, indicates that she wanted to suppress a material factor, which came to the knowledge
or P.W.1 subsequently. Only after P.W.1 threatened her that he will give a complaint if she refuses to hand over the keys, she handed over the
same. P.W.1 had reached the house at Doak Nagar, Madurai, searched the house and found empty strips of Valium tablets, which are marked as
M.O.1 series as well as several strips containing Valium tablets. P.W.1 being a doctor, immediately grew suspicious about the cause of death of
his brother, and therefore, questioned P.W.5, the maid servant. P.W.5 narrated the whole incident as to what transpired on the date when the
deceased died. P.W.5 also took P.W.1 to the shop of the Chemist, P.W.9 and pointed out P.W.9 to P.W.1. P.W.9 also supported P.W.5 by
telling P.W.1 that on the date of the incident, P.W.5 came to his shop and asked for Valium tablets after producing a slip handed over to her by
the first accused. P.W.9 told P.W.1 that he did not dispense the said medicine, since it is a scheduled drug. The suspicion of P.W.1 grew and he
took P.W.3 aside and questioned him as to what transpired. P.W.3 came out with the entire version of what happened in the house on that day.
Immediately thereafter. P.W.1 laid a complaint with the police and the body was exhumed and subjected to post-mortem. The Viscera Seport, as
we stated earlier, showed that the deceased had taken Diazepam. It Is the evidence of P.W.3 that after the deceased fell down unconscious, he
was removed to the cot and placed on it with the help of his mother, A.1 as well as with the help or P.W.5. According to him, the first accused
asked P.W.5 to go out and bring some tablets by handing over the slip and that P.W.5 returned and told her that she could not buy those tablets.
It is his further evidence that when he and P.W.5 asked A.1 as to whether they can go and fetch a doctor, she asked them to mind their business
and later, according to P.W.3, she went out of the house after locking him up with the father. He has further deposed that his mother returned after
an hour and he saw her powdering the tablets with the grinding stone. He has deposed that his mother mixed the powdered tablets in the milk and
when questioned, she told him that it is good for his father and according to him, the milk mixed with the powder was administered by her mother
to the father on the date of the incident. P.W.3 has further deposed that after some time, the deceased suffered fits and died. This is yet another
circumstance, which indicates that A.1 having failed to obtain tablets through P.W.5, went out and purchased tablets, returned home and then after
grinding them to powder, mixed it in milk and administered to the deceased. We have no reason to reject the evidence of P.W.3. since his
evidence remains unshaken. In this context, the conduct of the first accused is relevant u/s 8 of the Evidence Act. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that
after the death, she advised P.W.3 not to divulge anything to the relatives, but on the contrary, asked him to tell the relatives that while his father
was watching T.V. he suffered chest pain and died thereafter. When the doctor, P.W.2 also was brought to the house after the death, he was
informed by the accused that the deceased while watching T.V. suffered chest pain and that he died later. This conduct of the first accused in
coming out with the false version is an additional link in the chain of circumstances, as held by the Supreme Court in the case cited supra. The facts
narrated above, coupled with the conduct of the first accused show that the deceased was administered Valium, a brand name for Diazepam. In
fact, P.W. 1 on searching the house, found empty strips of Valium Tablets as well as several strips of Valium Tablets in the house. If the deceased
was in the habit of taking Valium in small quantities for sleep, then the best person to speak about the said fact is the accused and the accused
alone, since she is the wife of the deceased. She did not come out with any such explanation, even when she was questioned u/s 313, Cr.P.C. by
stating that her husband was in the habit of taking Valium for sleep and that he was suffering from Insomnia. The absence of such explanation is an
additional link, as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to supra. An useful reference can be made to a judgment of the Supreme
Court, in this context, in Anant Chintaman Lagu Vs. The State of Bombay, , wherein the Supreme Court held;
A case of murder by administration of poison is almost one of secrecy."" The poisoner seldom takes another into his confidence, and his
preparations for the commission of the offence are also secret. The greater his knowledge of poisons, the greater the secrecy, and consequently the
greater me difficulty of proving the case against 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 nothing else, such a course would be
incumbent upon the prosecution. There are various factors which militate against a successful isolation of the poison and its recognition. The
discovery of the poison can only take place either through a post mortem examination of the internal organ or by chemical analysis. Often'' enough,
the diagnosis of a poison is aided by the information which may be furnished by relatives and friends as to the symptoms found on the victim, if the
course of poison has taken long and others have had an opportunity of watching its effect. Where, however, the poison is administered in secrecy
and the victim is rendered unconscious effectively, there is nothing to show how the deterioration in the condition of the victim took place and if not
poison but disease is suspected, the diagnosis of poisoning may be rendered difficult.
Circumstantial evidence in this context means a combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape for the accused, because
the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt. To rely upon the findings of the medical man who conducted the post
mortem 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. No doubt, due weight must be given to
the negative findings at such examination. But bearing in mind the difficult task which the man of medicine performs and the limitations under which
he works, his failure should not be taken as the end of the case, for on good and probative circumstances an irresistible inference of guilt can be
drawn.
When we apply the above principles, as laid down by the Supreme Court, to the facts of this case, we have no hesitation in coming to the
conclusion that the deceased died on account of the administration of poison in the form of Diazepam and the said poison was administered by the
first accused. The fact that the post-mortem doctor could not give the cause of death, does not deter us from coming to such a conclusion, in the
background of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, which we have extracted above. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contends that the first accused would not have had the knowledge that giving of such a quantity of tablets would cause death. This argument is to
be stated only to be rejected, when we take into consideration that M.O.1 series are four strips with each strip containing 10 tablets. We, on the
medical evidence, therefore, conclude that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in convicting the accused u/s 302, I.P.C. and there is no reason
for us to interfere with the finding. In the result, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. The learned Sessions Judge
shall take steps to commit the accused to jail to undergo the remaining period of sentence.