PREMASUDHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREMASUDHA/a1 and Balan @ Balasubramaniam/a2 have filed these criminal appeals challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon them for the offences under Sections 109 r/w 302 and 302 I. P. C. respectively.

(2.) THE facts in brief are as follows: (a)THE deceased in this case viz. , one Ramachandran was working as a Constable in Neyveli C. I. S. F. A1-Premasudha is the wife of the deceased. A1 along with her minor son was living at Bhavanisagar. A2-Balan @ balasubramaniam was the friend of A1. He was running a mechanic shop at bhavanisagar. (b)A1 had developed illicit intimacy with A2. THE deceased who was working at Neyveli used to visit Bhavanisagar once in a week. On coming to know that A1 had illicit intimacy with A2, the deceased made arrangements to shift his family to Neyveli. As soon as this was known to A1 and A2, they had planned to kill the deceased. (c)On 02. 06. 2002, A1 asked P. W. 12 - Ponnusamy to get pesticide from a shop. Accordingly, P. W. 12 purchased the pesticide from one dhanalakshmi Stores under Ex. P2 bill and handed over the same to A1. A1 planned to mix pesticide with pepsi and give the same to the deceased. This plan was conveyed to A2, who was in Erode at that time. (d) On 04. 06. 2002, A2 was asked to come to the house of the deceased to help in packing all the materials to shift the house to neyveli. Accordingly, he came. As planned earlier, the pesticide was mixed with pepsi and the same was served to the deceased. On consuming the drink, the deceased vomited and fainted. (e)At 10. 00 p. m. , A. 2 and the deceased were taken to a private hospital at Sathyamangalam. Dr. Viswanathan, P. W. 19 gave first aid to both the deceased and A2, who had also consumed a portion of the pepsi. THEreafter, both of them were sent to K. G. Hospita l , Coimbatore . (f) On 04/05. 06. 2002 at 12. 30 mid night, P. W. 18 dr. P. Balasubramaniam admitted them in the K. G. Hospita l , Coimbatore and treated them. P. W. 25, another doctor treated A2 in the hospital and referred the deceased to C. M. C. Hospita l , Coimbatore , as his condition was serious. When the deceased was being taken to C. M. C. Hospital , he passed away and the doctor declared that he was brought dead. (g) On 05. 06. 2002 at about 11. 30 a. m. , on coming to know the death of the deceased, P. W. 1 - Pichayee, the mother of the deceased gave a complaint (Ex. P12) to the police. On receipt of the complaint, P. W. 24-Sub inspector of Police registered a case under Section 174 Cr. P. C. in Crime No. 125 of 2002. He prepared Ex. P13 printed first information report and sent the same to the higher officials. (h)P. W. 28 - Inspector of Police took up investigation and went to C. M. C. Hospital, Coimbatore. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and other witnesses and prepared inquest report Ex. P22. He also visited the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch- Ex. P23. (i)On 06. 06. 2002, the dead body was sent for postmortem with a requisition (Ex. P14 ). P. W. 26 -Dr. Menaka Sekar conducted autopsy and issued Ex. P16 - postmortem certificate. THE final opinion of the Doctor is ex. P17. THE Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of organophosphorus insecticide poisoning. (j) In the meantime, A2 who took treatment in the K. G. Hospital was discharged. THEreupon, on 10. 6. 2002, he appeared before the village Administrative Officer - P. W. 27 and gave a confession (Ex. P18 ). Recording his statement, P. W. 27 prepared a report (Ex. P19) and handed over the same along with A2 to P. W. 28, the Investigating Officer at about 3. 30 p. m. on 10. 6. 2002. (k)P. W. 28 arrested A2 and recorded his confession statement and in pursuance of the confession, M. O. 1 - pesticide bottle and m. O. 4 - pepsi bottle were recovered. Other witnesses were examined and material objects were sent for chemical examination. (l) After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against both the accused for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants took us through the entire evidence and would contend that the entire case is based upon the extra judicial confession and since the extra judicial confession does not inspire confidence, both the accused are liable to be acquitted. They also pointed out various irregularities with reference to the materials available on record.