STATE OF KERALA Vs. SANKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal by the State is directed against the order of acquittal of the respondent who was tried on charge of murder for causing the death of one Suseela by administering poison at about 4.30 p. m. on 4-12-1980. Suseela 15 year old unmarried daughter of P. W. 1 Krishnan was seen vomiting. She was rushed to the hospital. There she died at about 7.30. p. m. P.W1 reported a case of suicide by consuming poison. P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, on recording the statement of P.W.1, registered a case of 'unnatural death'. The inquest on the dead body was held on 5-12-1980. PW. 11, the Doctor, conducted the autopsy and certified in Ext. P9 that her uterus contained a male foetus. Viscera was sent for chemical analysis. Ext. P10 report of the chemical examiner showed that a poisonous organochloro compound along with ethyl alcohol was detected in the stomach, intestine, liver etc. P.W.11 who reserved the opinion as to cause of death pending result of the chemical examination confirmed that the death was due to poisoning. P.W.12, in the course of further investigation arrested the respondent, Sanku, on 8-12-1980. On information furnished by the respondent recovery of M. O.1 empty bottle from the estate near the house of P.W.1 was effected. Final report was laid against the respondent on the allegation that he had illicit intimacy with the deceased Suseela, her pregnancy was considered to be detrimental to his interest and thus motivated he procured the poison Corobon 20 from the shop where PWs 4 and 5 were employed and administered the poison to Suseela while they were in the estate near their house and thereby caused the death of Suseela. PWs 2 and 5 were cited to prove that the deceased and the respondent were together in the estate from where the empty bottle was recovered. The prosecution thus relied on circumstantial evidence in support of the charge against the respondent.

(2.) At the trial PWs. 1 to 14 were examined and Exts.Pl to P11 were proved. M.O. 1 was also identified. The respondent had only a simple denial of the charge. The learned trial Judge found that the prosecution has not proved the charge against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the respondent. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal the State has preferred the appeal.

(3.) In a case where the definite charge is that the accused caused the death of the victim by administering poison, the prosecution has necessarily to establish in the absence of direct evidence the circumstances that the accused had a strong motive, that he bad procured the poison in question and had the opportunity to administer the same to the deceased and that the victim died of the particular poison. If there is failure on the part of the prosecution to establish any one of these essential elements, no irresistible inference of guilt can be drawn and a conviction is not warranted. (Vide Rama Gopal v. State of Maharashtra 1972 S.C. 656).