NAGAMMAL Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Balasubramanian, J) The appellant in this appeal was tried in S.C.No.42 of 1999 on the file of Court of Sessions, Perambalur for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C.(two counts). On being found guilty, she stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on each count and the sentences are directed to run concurrently. It is that conviction, which is in challenge in this appeal. Heard the learned counsel on either side. There are two deceased in this case namely, Keppagounder and Karupayee. Karupayee is the mother of Keppagounder. Keppagounder is the husband of the accused. P.W.13 is the son of the accused and Keppagounder. For convenience sake, in this judgment, we will hereinafter refer to both the deceased as D.1 and D.2.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that by mixing Nitrite poison in milk, the accused gave the same to D.1 and D.2, who after drinking the same became sick. Out of the two, Keppagounder (D.1) died on the spot. Karupayee (D.2) was taken to the hospital of P.W.4, where he pronounced her dead. Therefore the accused is guilty of the offence of murder on two counts. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2, to whom D.2 is stated to have given an oral dying declaration at 7.00 a.m. on 17.2.1999 that it is the accused, who gave the milk and both the deceased after drinking the same became sick. P.W.13 is the son of the accused and D.1 and he had been examined to prove that his mother/the accused gave the milk to both D.1 and D.2, which they drank. P.W.1 is a resident of Nuthapur. D.1 was not liking the way of the accused often going out; staying away for sometime and then coming home. Therefore D.1 was always reprimanding his wife/the accused. D.2 also joined D.1 in that action. This, according to the prosecution appears to have been annoying the accused. At 7.00 a.m. on 17.2.1999, when P.W.1 went to the house of D.2 he found her blabbering. She told him at that time that the accused gave her milk and on drinking it, she had suffered a burning sensation in her stomach and that she is becoming unconscious. She also said that the accused also gave milk to her son namely, D.1. Thereafter D.2 could not even utter any word and she fell down. She also died on the spot. He also found Keppagounder/D.1 in an unconscious state. He brought a Homeopathy Doctor and another Doctor and they advised him to take them to the Government Hospital. On P.W.1 reaching the house of Keppagounder (D.1), P.W.2, P.W.13 and others came. P.W.4, the Doctor pronounced D.1 dead on he being taken before him. Then P.W.1 lodged the information with P.W.9, the Village Administrative Officer, which is Ex.P.1. P.W.2 had also given evidence of hearing the oral dying declaration from D.2 as spoken to by P.W.1. He would also state that he followed P.W.1 to the house of the accused. P.W.3 is the Homeopathy Doctor. He would state that on 17.2.1999 P.Ws.1 and 2 asked him to visit the house of the deceased and on reaching the house, he found Keppagounder (D.1) in a very serious condition and D.2 already dead. He advised them to take both the deceased to the hospital. P.W.4 is the Siddha Medical Practitioner, before whom at 11.00 a.m. on 17.2.1999, two or three persons brought Keppagounder in a tempo van. On examination, he found him dead and accordingly told so. P.W.5 knows the accused as well as the witnesses. He also knows the deceased. He has married the younger sister of D.1. It was almost 2.00 p.m. on the day of the occurrence, when the dead bodies were brought to the Village. To protect the interest of the minor son of D.1 and the accused namely, P.W.13, Ex.P.2, the settlement deed was brought into existence. P.W.6 is the Sub-Registrar, in whose office Ex.P.2 had come to be registered. P.W.7 turned hostile. His evidence recorded till he was treated as hostile is of no use either to the State or to the accused. P.W.8 examined to prove that the accused was working under him and in that course she had a chance of acquiring the poison concerned namely, Nitrite, turned hostile. His evidence also is of no use to either side. P.W.13 is the son of the accused and D.1. He would state that at 7.00 a.m. on the date of occurrence when he was in the house, D.1 and D.2 were also there. At that time his mother (the accused) boiled the milk and gave it to his father and grand-mother. On drinking the same, his grand-mother died on the spot and his father became unconscious. Milk was given to his father and grand-mother in M.O.1 series tumblers.

(3.) P.W.9 is the Village Administrative Officer. When he was in the office on 17.2.1999, P.W.1 appeared before him and narrated the complaint, which he reduced into writing. Ex.P.1 is the said complaint. Along with his report Ex.P.3, he sent it to the investigating police station. P.W.21 is the investigating officer in this case. At 11.30 p.m. on 17.2.1999 he received the report from P.W.9, the Village Administrative Officer and registered Ex.P.1 in his Police Station Crime No.30 of 1999 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.(two counts). He prepared Ex.P.19, the printed First Information Report. He sent the material records to the court as well as to the higher officials. P.W.17 accordingly collected the records and went to the court at Perambalur after midnight on 17.2.1999. Finding that the Judicial Magistrate was not there, he proceeded to the Court at Ariyalur where he handed over the records to the Judicial Magistrate. P.W.21 continued the investigation by reaching the scene of occurrence at 02.00 hours on 18.2.1999. In the presence of P.W.10 and another he prepared Ex.P.4, the Observation Mahazar. From the scene of occurrence he recovered M.O.1 series (two stainless steel tumbles) under Ex.P.5 attested by the same witnesses. Ex.P.20 is the rough sketch prepared by him. From 3.30 a.m. till 6.00 a.m. on that morning, he conducted inquest over the dead body of D.1 and prepared Ex.P.21, the inquest report. Between 6.00 a.m. and 8.00 a.m. on that day, he conducted inquest over the dead body of D.2 and prepared Ex.P.22, the inquest report. Through P.W.19, the police constable he sent the dead body of D.1 with a requisition for post-mortem. Likewise he sent the dead body of D.2 through P.W.18, the police constable for post-mortem with a requisition in regard thereto. He examined P.Ws.1,2,3,5,9,10,13,17,18 and 19 and recorded their statements.