STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AMBUBEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 25.02.1992 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha in Sessions Case No.38 of 1991. Respondent accused was charged with the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution version was that on 09.11.1990, the respondent original accused Ambuben Ajabhai had put a rat poison in the Bajri flour in the kitchen of Chatrabhai Khengarbhai to cause death of family members because of past illwill and animosity. Marghaben, sister of Chatrabhai prepared food including Roties from such flour, which was consumed by the family members. They immediately started reacting badly and started throwing up. Unwell persons were shifted to hospital. Marghaben, Shantaben and Naviben died. The other persons who consumed the food viz. Vahtabhai, Chatrabhai and Nanjibhai Khengarbhai responded to the treatment and survived. The prosecution, therefore, charged the accused with the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge found insufficient evidence to convict her. It is this judgment which the State has challenged in this appeal.

(3.) P .W.1 Dr. Jayeshbhai Shantilal Panchiwala, Exh.6, has carried out the postmortem. He had given his detailed account in his deposition as well as in the P.M. report. According to him, the cause of death was circulatory collapse leading to death. He made this conclusion subject to modification after chemical analysis. In his crossexamination, he stated that he had sent the viscera for forensic analysis since the medicine for rat poisoning contained elements of aluminum phosphide, zinc phosphide, zinc sulphate and zinc oxide. Upon consumption of such heavy metal, the symptoms shown by the deceased could occur. He also agreed that such symptoms could occur by bacterial food poisoning. He admitted that since he was not sure about what closed the blood circulation, he had sent the substance for FSL analysis. He once again agreed that at the time of P.M. he could not state with certainty whether the death of all three persons were caused by bacterial food poisoning or consumption of substance such as aluminum phosphide, zinc phosphide, zinc sulphate and zinc oxide. He agreed that even after perusing the report of the chemical analyzer, he could not state with any certainty whether the death was caused by such substance. Since the cause of death in all 3 cases was multiple, he was unable to come to any final conclusion. According to him, however, there was a greater probability that the deaths were caused by the consumption of such chemicals. He also agreed that it was not possible for him to state conclusively whether the deaths were homicidal or suicidal. He agreed that he had collected viscera from the stomach. He though that if there is presence of poisonous substance, it would be detected in the forensic analysis.