SASIKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal is the sole accused in S. C. No. 138 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Erode. In that case, he was tried for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. (2 counts) and on being found guilty, stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on each count with a further direction that the sentence has to run concurrently. He is challenging that conviction by filing this appeal. Heard Mr. C. R. Malarvannan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V. Arul, learned Government Advocate for the State.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that at about 2. 15p. m. on 22. 5. 2000, the accused, by mixing nitrite poison in a cool drink with the brand name "mirinda" and by adding it to liquor namely brandy, made two persons by name Karuppannasamy and Ponnusamy consume it. As a result thereof, both of them died. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P. W. s 1 to 24 besides marking Exs-P1 to P34. The accused neither examined any witness on his side nor brought in documentary evidence. In this judgment, we will refer Karuppannasamy as deceased No. 1 (in short "d1") and Ponnusamy as deceased No. 2 (in short "d2 ). The case of the prosecution as spoken to by the witnesses, in short, is as hereunder: p. W. 1 is the mother of D2. D1 and D2 are working in an export printing factory. It belongs to P. W. 4. Both the deceased have been working there for almost 15 years as "dye Masters". The accused is employed there as a supervisor. At 8a. m. on 22. 5. 2000, D2 went for his work. At 3. 30p. m. , the accused came home and informed P. W. 1 that D2 is lying unconscious in the factory. She and others went to the factory where they found D1 and D2 lying dead with froth through their mouth. She went to the Police Station immediately and gave the complaint which stands marked as Ex-P1. She had indicated that she has suspicion regarding the death of her son (D2 ). P. W. 2 is the father of D1 - he being the eldest son. P. W. 2's son went for work on the morning of the occurrence day and at 5p. m. on that day, he came to know that his son as well as P. W. 1's son died. Immediately, he went to the work place where he found both D1 and D2 lying dead with froth through their mouth. He came to know that Mirinda cool drink mixed with nitrite poison had been consumed by both of them, which resulted in their death. He also came to know that the accused is responsible for those deaths. It is his further evidence that the accused was having an illicit affair with a girl called Sumathi, who was also working in the same factory. P. W. 3 is a woman worker in the same factory where both the deceased and the accused were working. She is not an eye witness to the occurrence. She would state that on coming to know about the event, she went to the factory where she observed the dead bodies. She would also say that the accused had an illicit affair with Sumathi and that Ponnusamy (D2) is the cousin of Sumathi. Both the dead had vomitted near the water tank. Both the deceased used to make fun of the accused as an handicapped person and she came to know that both the deceased had consumed medicine mixed with nitrite poison and they died.

(3.) P. W. 21 is the Sub Inspector of Police in the investigating police station. On the occurrence day evening, P. W. 1 appeared before him and gave a written complaint, which he registered as Ex-P1 in his police station crime No. 436/2000 under Section 174 Cr. P. C. Ex-P30 is the printed First Information Report prepared by him and he sent the material records to the court as well as to the higher officials. P. W. 23 is the Inspector of Police holding additional charge in the investigating police station. On receipt of the material records sent by P. W. 21, he commenced investigation and reached the scene of occurrence at about 7p. m. In the presence of P. W. 7 and another, he prepared Ex-P2 - Observation Mahazar and Ex-P31 - rough sketch. He recovered the vomitted material available at the scene of occurrence, which stands marked as M. O. 1 under Ex-P3 attested by P. W. 6 and another. Between 8. 30p. m. and 11. 30p. m. , he conducted inquest over the dead body of D1 in the presence of panchayatars and witnesses. During inquest, he examined P. W. 2 and others and recorded their statements. Ex-P32 is the inquest report. Then, he conducted inquest from the midnight of that day till 3a. m. on the following morning over the dead body of D2 in the presence of panchayatars and witnesses. Ex-P33 is the inquest report. Then, he sent both the dead bodies through P. W. s 19 and 20 respectively -police constables for postmortem. He examined P. W. s 1, 3,7 and others and recorded their statements. Then, he altered the section of offence from one under Section 174 Cr. P. C. to one under Section 302 I. P. C and prepared Ex-P34, the altered express First Information Report, which he sent to the court. He examined further witnesses and recorded their statements.