High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Ponnusamy v. State by Inspector of Police - C.A.No.175 of 1994  RD-TN 1 (18 September 2001)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN C.A.No.175 of 1994
Ponnusamy ... Appellant Vs.
State by Inspector of Police
(L & O) B.6
Peelamedu Police Station
Coimbatore. ... Respondent Appeal against the judgment dated 28.1.1994 made in S.C.No.141 of 19 93 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,Coimbatore. For Appellant : Mr.N.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.S.Jayakumar , Additional Public Prosecutor : JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
On 4.8.1992 at about 2.00 am Ponnusamy, the appellant herein administered poison to his wife Rajammal by providing Oleander seeds mixed with halwa, as a result of which the deceased Rajammal died at 9.30 am at the General Hospital, Coimbatore. In respect of this accusation, the appellant was tried for the offence under Section 302 I. P.C and convicted thereunder. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed. 2) The necessary facts leading to the filing of this appeal are summarized as follows:
a) Eleven months prior to the date of occurrence, the marriage between Rajammal, the deceased and Ponnusami, the accused was held. The accused was working as a watchman in P.S.G.V textiles at Narasimanaicken Palayam. At the time of marriage, 3 sovereigns of gold jewels were given by P.W.6, the mother of the deceased. Some months later, when PW6 came to visit the house of the accused, she found that those jewels were missing. When enquired about this, the deceased told her that on the request of her husband, she handed over the same to him. During Deepavali, PW6 provided cloths and cash of Rs.100/-.
b) During the first three months, both the deceased and the accused were living happily. But later, the deceased was not allowed to take bed with him. When this was informed by the deceased to PW6, she requested her son Rengasamy to enquire about the same. Accordingly, Rengasamy met the accused and asked about the reason. The accused told him that he was observing silence for about three months. From then onwards, there was no cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased, though they were living under the same roof.
c) They were living in a rented house belonging to PW5, Karunakaran. PW1 Natarajan and PW2 Rajeswari, who are husband and wife, were residing in the house situated nearby. PW3 Lakshmi was staying in the house just opposite to the house of the accused.
d) On 1.8.1992, the accused went to the Mill and applied for permission for two days leave from PW9, the supervisor of the mill and left the mill. On 3.8.1992, the accused was found collecting Oleander seeds (Arali seeds) from a tree. This was witnessed by PW11 Easwaran. When asked about the reason for collecting the seeds, the accused told him that he was collecting the same for the purpose of making medicine. This was at about 5.30 pm. At about 8.00 p.m on 3.8.1992 , PW7 Kadirvelu and PW8 Viswanathan met the accused, who was sitting near the temple and conversed with him. All the three decided to go to night film show. Accordingly, at about 9.00 p.m., they went to the theatre and witnessed film show. Thereafter, all the three came back home. The accused came back at 1.30 am and entered into the house along with a parcel carrying in his hand. This was witnessed by PW4 Nagaraj, who was then working as a Contractor supervising the construction work of a building. PW5 Karunakaran also saw the accused entering into the house. At about 4.30 am early morning on 4.8.1992, the accused came out of the house. When PW4 Nagaraj asked him as to where he was going during that time, he told him that he was going to temple.
e) PW3 Lakshmi left her house at 5.30 a.m. and went to the market and purchased some vegetables and came back at 6.30 a.m. On hearing that the deceased Rajammal was crying out of pain, she went and saw her and at that time, the deceased Rajammal told her that her husband/ accused gave halwa in the night and after eating the same, she developed chest pain and dysentery. PW3 and PW4 took the deceased to hospital at about 7.30 am. PW13, the Doctor attached to Shanmugapriya Clinic examined the deceased, to whom the deceased told that she ate halwa given by her husband. Since her condition was so serious and she vomited some yellow colour substance, the Doctor suspected it as oleander poison and so he referred her to the Government Hospital. Ex.P7 is the certificate issued by him. Thereafter, PW3 Lakshmi, PW1 Nataraj and PW2 Rajeswari took the victim to the Government Hospital at Coimbatore. PW14 Dr.Sundaramurthy attached to the Government Hospital at about 8.30 am admitted her, to whom also the deceased Rajammal stated that she took Halwa, which was given by her husband. Then after treatment, she was admitted in the special ward. He also gave intimation Ex.P9 to Police, since it is a poison case. He issued Ex.P8 accident register extract. PW 15 Dr.Chellappan also examined the victim. The victim told PW15 Doctor about what had happened at about 2.00 am in their house. Despite the treatment given by the Doctors PW14 and PW15, the victim died at 9.30 am. Ex.P11 is the case sheet.
f) On receipt of Ex.P9, PW20 Sub-Inspector of Police went to the hospital at about 10.25 am on 4.8.1992, where she was informed that the deceased already died. Then, she obtained a statement Ex.P22 from PW1. She came back to the police station and registered a case as suspicious death. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 found in the statement recorded by PW20. Ex.P23 is the printed FIR. PW20 sent the Express FIR to the superior officers as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer PW18. On receipt of the intimation from P.W. 20, P.W.18, the Revenue Divisional Officer went to the hospital and conducted inquest between 4.00 p.m and 4.15 p.m. Ex.P17 is the inquest report. He also gave requisition ExP12 to the Doctor for conducting post-mortem.
g) PW 16 Dr.Sundararaj, conducted the post mortem on 5.8.1992 at 10.00 a.m. He found the following:
"Heart: Rt. Chamber contained fluid blood. Left chamber empty. NO lesion.
Liver, Spleen, Kidneys congested.
Stomach contained 150 ml. of brown coloured fluid, with characteristic pungent odour. Mucosa congested.
Small intestines proximal part contained 60ml of brown fluid with characteristic pungent odour.
He gave post-mortem certificate Ex.P13 and sent the viscera for chemical analysis. Ex.P14 is the Viscera report. On the basis of this report, Dr.T.V.Shanmugaveluswamy, in Ex.P15 gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of poison, however could not be detected in the analysis.
h) After getting the medical report, PW18, the Revenue Divisional Officer sent his report Ex.P19 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, giving his opinion that the deceased died due to the poison administered by her husband, the accused.
i) PW21, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, on receipt of the R.D.O's report and on receipt of other records, conducted further investigation. He went to the spot and prepared Ex.P24 observation mahazar and Ex.P25 rough sketch. He examined all the witnesses. On 16.8.1992, he was able to trace out the accused at about 4.00 p.m. After the accused was arrested, on his confession Ex.P4, MOs 1 to 4 were recovered under Ex.P6. MO3 is the remaining sweet meat (Halwa), which was kept in the paper along with oleander powder (Arali powder). Thereafter, the case was altered into one under Section 302 IPC and the Commissioner sent the altered FIR Ex.P26. He sent all the material objects for chemical analysis through Court. PW 17, the Forensic Expert, sent a report Ex.P16 stating that MO 3 contained oleander poison. After completing the investigation, PW21 filed the charge sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. j) During the course of trial on the side of the prosecution, PWs1 to 21 were examined, Ex.P1 to P26 were filed and MOs 1 to 4 were marked. k) On being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied his complicity in the crime. He stated that he went to the temple on the date of occurrence and when he came back home, he was informed that the deceased died. However, no evidence was adduced on his side. l) The trial court on analysis of the various available records concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Hence, this appeal. " 3) Mr.Manoharan, learned counsel for the appellant would make the following submissions, while assailing the judgment impugned. "i) There is no eye witness in this case. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the motive aspect has to be established by prosecution. In this case, no material has been placed by the prosecution to prove the reason as to why the husband had to commit murder of his own wife. ii) Ex.P14, Viscera report would completely falsify the case of prosecution, as the said report would show that there was no oleander poison detected . As such, the prosecution case cannot be accepted, especially when Ex.P13, the post-mortem certificate would show that there was brown fluid with characteristic pungent odour and was available in the stomach. Though PW13 would state that the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 4.8.1992 at about 7.30 am as a case of poison administered by her husband, he issued the certificate Ex.P11 only two years later, probably to help the police.
iii) The evidence of PW9, the Supervisor of the Mill cannot be accepted, as he has not produced the attendance register and only one paper has been marked as Ex.P3 to show that the appellant was absent from 3.8.1992 onwards. But, the case of the defence is that he was a temporary worker and on and from 3.8.1992, he was not given job. Therefore, he had to come out of the mill.
iv) PW6 Valliammal, the mother of the deceased also would admit both in chief and cross examination that the relationship between the husband and wife was cordial. In the absence of any material to prove that the deceased died due to the poison administered by her husband, the appellant, there cannot be any conviction under Section 3 02 IPC. On these reasonings, the accused is liable to be acquitted". 4) In support of his submissions, the counsel for the appellant would cite the following authorities:
1. RAM DAS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1977 CRI.L.J.955) ;
2. SURINDER PAL JAIN VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION (1994 1 LW ( Crl.) 4);
3. TARSEEM KUMAR VS. THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION (1995 CRI.L.J.4 70) ;
4. PADALA VEERA REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS (AIR 1990 SC 79);
5. RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB
5) In reply to the above submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while justifying the reasonings given by the trial Court for convicting the accused, would submit that there are enough materials to conclude that the accused alone administered the poison due to which the deceased died and merely because, the oleander poison was not detected as per the report Ex.P14, it cannot be concluded that the deceased did not die due to poison as various pieces of circumstantial evidence available in this case would go to show that the accused only gave the poisonous Halwa to the deceased, as a result of which, she died in the hospital. He would cite the following citations:-
1. ANANT CHINTAMAN LAGU VS. THE STATE OF BOMBAY (AIR 1960 SC 500) 2. MAHABIR MANDAL AND OTHERS V. THE STATE OF BIHAR (AIR 1972 SC 1331) 6) We have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 7) As correctly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, this is a case where no direct evidence is available for administering poison. In otherwords, this is a case where only we have various pieces of circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain the conviction, must satisfy that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established. These circumstances should be of a definite tendency and unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. In other words, circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain so that there is no escape from the conclusion that in all human probability, the crime was committed, by the accused and none else and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.
8) As laid down by the Apex Court in ANANT CHINTAMAN LAGU VS. STATE OF BOMBAY (AIR 1960 SC 500) in the poisoning cases, the prosecution must establish the three propositions.
1. Death took place by poisoning;
2. that the accused had the poison in his possession and 3. that the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased.
Though these three propositions must be kept in mind always, while appreciating the various pieces of evidence available in this case, sufficiency of evidence direct or circumstantial to establish murder by poison will depend upon the facts of each case. If the evidence in a particular case does not justify the inference that death is the result of poisoning because of the failure of the prosecution to prove the fact satisfactorily, either directly or by circumstantial evidence, then the benefit of the doubt will have to be given to the accused person. But, the circumstantial evidence, in the absence of direct proof of the three elements, must be so decisive that the Court can unhesitatingly hold that the death was a result of administration of poison (though not detected) and that the poison must have been administered by the accused person, then the conviction can be rested on it.
9) In the light of the above proposition laid down by the Supreme Court, let us now evaluate the evidence available on record. The following are the pieces of circumstantial evidence available on record:- i) PW 6 Valliammal, the mother of the deceased would speak about the strained relationship between the deceased and the accused. ii) PW 18 Revenue Divisional Officer in his report Ex.P19 would state that the accused had relationship with some other girl. iii) The evidence of PW6 and PW18, who speak about the motive aspect. iv) PW 11 saw the accused collecting oleander seeds on 3.8.19 92 at about 5.30 pm
v) PW 4 and PW5 saw the accused entering into the house at about 1.30 a.m. on 3/4.8.1992.
vi) PW4 saw the accused coming out of the house at 4.30 am. vii) PW9, the Mill Supervisor under whom the accused was working would state that the accused was absent from 3.8.1992. viii) Oral dying declaration given by the deceased at 6.30 am to PW3 and at 7.30 am to PW 13 at the private nursing home and at 8.30 am to PW14 Doctor at General Hospital at Coimbatore and again at 8 .30 a.m. to PW15 another Doctor in General Hospital.
ix) PW13 Doctor would refer about the oral dying declaration in Ex.P7. x) PW 14, the Doctor at General Hospital Coimbatore would refer about the oral dying declaration in Ex.P8 accident Register and Ex.P9 the intimation sent to the Police.
xi) The evidence of PW16, who conducted post-mortem and issued certificate Ex.P13.
xii) Ex.P15 issued by another Doctor Shanmugavelusamy in which he gave opinion that the deceased died due to poison.
xiii) The accused was found missing from 4.8.1992 onwards and ultimately, he was arrested by PW21, the Investigating Officer on 16 .8.1992 at about 4 p.m. On his confession, MOs 1 to 4 were recovered. xiv) The accused took the police and pointed out the Arali tree, from which he collected Arali seeds as mentioned in Ex.P5 Observation Mahazar. xv) PW 17 Forensic Expert sent Ex.P16 report stating that MO3 , the remaining halwa, which was recovered from the house, was found to contain oleander poison.
10) Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly attack the judgment impugned on the basis that the motive as well as the reasons for the death of the deceased have not been established. According to the counsel for the appellant, the motive aspect may not be significant in the cases, where eyewitnesses are available, , but in a case, which is based on circumstantial evidence, the evidence relating to the motive would assume greater importance and as such, in the absence of solid material to establish motive for the murder, the accused cannot be convicted.
11) It is further vehemently contended that in the light of Ex.P14 , the report submitted by PW 17 Forensic Expert that the oleander poison is not detected in the viscera, the trial court cannot convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the prosecution did not place any material to show that the oleander seeds mixed with halwa, which was consumed by the deceased had caused the death. 12) On going through the records, we are unable to accept the contentions urged by the counsel for the appellant in respect of these two aspects. It may be true that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the evidence relating to the motive is also connecting link to form the complete chain of circumstantial evidence. But in the present case, it cannot be contended that there is no material to show that there was motive. On going through the evidence of PW6, the mother of the deceased, it is obvious that there was strained relationship between the deceased and the accused for over three months prior to the date of occurrence. 13) According to PW6, she was informed by the deceased that the accused did not use to take bed with her and on enquiry through his son, the accused told him the reason for the same that he was observing silence for about three months. It is the specific evidence of PW 6 that from then onwards, there was no cordial relationship between the deceased and the accused.
14) In this context, the evidence of PW18, the Revenue Divisional Officer would be quite relevant. Immediately on getting information about the suspicious death from the Police station, PW 18 went to the scene and examined the witnesses and concluded in his report Ex.P.19 that the accused did not have any conjugal relationship with his wife for about three months and he had an affair with some other girl. 15) These things would make it clear that there was strained relationship between the accused and the deceased. Of course, in this case, what is the immediate motive for the accused to commit murder could not be made available. But, the fact remains that the accused applied for leave for two days from 1.8.1992 and subsequently,he did not attend the work. Ex.P3, a sheet of attendance register marked through the Supervisor of the Mill under whom the accused was working would show that he was absent on 3.8.1992. That apart, PW11 would state that he saw the accused collecting oleander seeds on 3.8.1992 at 5.30 pm. Only on that night, the occurrence had taken place.
16) In the light of the said fact situation, we cannot accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the motive had not been established. It is the report of PW 18 and the evidence of PW6 that the accused did not take bed with the deceased for the past three months. This would indicate that t he accused must have planned to do something against his wife, especially when he applied for leave from 1.8.1992 as spoken to by PW9. Therefore, the submission with regard to motive, in our view, would lack substance.
17) Secondly, the counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the reason for the death has not been established. In support of his contention, the counsel for the appellant relied only on the viscera report Ex.P14, which was marked through PW 17. According to PW 17, through Ex.P14, the four articles such as stomach, lungs, liver, kidney which were sent for analysis, did not contain oleander poison. 18) At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the observation of the Supreme Court in poisoning cases made in the decision in ANANT CHINTAMAN LAGU VS. THE STATE OF BOMBAY ( AIR 1960 SC 500), which is as follows:
" If circumstnatial evidence, in the absence of direct proof of the three elements is so decisive that the Court can unhesitatingly hold that the death was a result of administration of poison ( though not detected) and that the poison must have been administered by the accused person, then the conviction can be rested on it."
19) The above observation of the Supreme Court would make it clear that even though poison is not detected but when there are materials to show that the poison was administered by the accused, the accused can be convicted.
20) In the present case, we have got Ex.P15 opinion which is marked through PW16 Doctor in which it is stated that the deceased would appear to have died of poison. It is true that Dr. Shanmugavelusamy would state in Ex.P15 that in the light of Ex.P13 post-mortem certificate, oleander poison was not detected.
21) Regarding this aspect, the evidence of PW13, 14 and 15, the Doctors who gave the treatment to the deceased is quite relevant. According to PW 13, Dr. Subramaniam, the deceased Rajammal was admitted and when she was enquired, she informed the Doctor that her husband gave the halwa the earlier night and the same was eaten by her and after taking it, she got giddiness and vomited thereafter. He would also state that she vomited in the hospital also and since the substance which was vomited was in yellow colour, PW13 suspected that it was a poison case and therefore, he referred the patient to the General Hospital ,Coimbatore. Ex.P7 is the certificate issued by him. In the said certificate, he referred about the oral dying declaration given by the deceased against the accused and also mentioned about vomited yellow substance, which was suspected to contain oleander poison.
22) The deposition of PW14 would reveal that after the deceased was admitted in the hospital, she was given detenus oxide injection and admitted in the intensive care unit. In the course of treatment, her stomach was cleaned
and washed. He issued Ex.P8 accident register in which he referred about the oral dying declaration given by the deceased and about the stomach wash, which was done to her during the treatment. 23) PW 15 another doctor who had attended on her would state that the deceased became serious at about 9.10 am. According to him, despite the treatment given to her, she died at 9.30 am, since her heart beat suddenly stopped. He would state that the deceased would appear to have died of oleander poison, but the same could not be detected as the stomach had been completely washed . The relevant evidence is as follows .
xxxxxTamil typed xxxxx
The fact that the stomach wash was done had been spoken to by PW14 also. 24) In the light of this evidence and the opinion given by the Dr.T.V.Shanmugavelusamy in Ex.P15, we are unable to throw out the entire materials produced on the side of the prosecution, merely on the basis of Ex.P14 marked through PW17. As correctly pointed out by the Additional Public Prosecutor, there are overwhelming evidence in this case to indicate that the accused and the accused alone had perpetrated the crime of administering the poison to his wife.
25) As referred to above, the evidence relating to the oral dying declaration has been spoken to by PW3 and PW4, who are the neighbours of the deceased. In the same way, PW 13 and PW 14, the Doctors also would speak about the oral dying declaration given by the deceased which has been referred to in Ex.P7 and P8. That apart, Ex.P8 and P9 are the earliest documents in this case. Ex.P9 is the intimation sent from the hospital to the Police, which was received by PW20, the Sub-Inspector of Police. In Ex.P9 also, the administration of poison to the deceased by the husband is mentioned.
26) Apart from this oral dying declaration, which can be accepted as true in view of the evidence both oral and documentary given by the persons, who were not inimical towards the accused, we have got evidence relating to the fact that the accused entered into the house at 1.30 am on 3/4.8.1992 and came out of the house at about 4.30 am as spoken to by PW3, PW4 and PW5. Admittedly, the accused was living with the deceased in their rented house during the relevant period. 27) In the light of those materials, which would show that the accused was seen in the house along with the deceased, it should be seen whether the accused had given any explanation with regard to his presence during the relevant time in the house of the accused. Either in the suggestion put to the witnesses or in the statement given under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused never stated that during the relevant period, he was not residing with the deceased. When it is established that the accused was staying with his wife under the same roof, then it is for the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to prove as to what had happened inside the house during the relevant period. In the absence of any explanation with regard to that, there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the prosecution in its entirety.
28) Coupled with these factors, it would also be important to consider the conduct of the accused. As noted above, he was absent from 3.8.1992 by not attending the work as spoken to by PW9. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C , the accused stated that he went to the temple and when he came back to the ho use, he was informed that the deceased died. He did not choose to state as to what happened thereafter. He had also not stated as to what steps he took to find out the reasons for the cause of death of the deceased.
29) On the other hand, it is the evidence of PW21, Investigating Officer that he arrested the accused on 16.8.1992 and from him, MOs1 to 4 were recovered. One other piece of evidence that has been produced by the prosecution is Ex.P16 marked through PW 17. The evidence of PW 17 and Ex.P16 would reveal that the remaining halwa, which was recovered from the house of the accused did contain oleander poison. 30) Under those circumstances, in our view, the materials available on record would form the complete chain to hold that the accused alone had committed the crime. As earlier indicated, mere opinion contained in Ex.P14 that the oleander poison was not detected from the viscera would not be enough to hold that the prosecution case is totally untrue. 31) In this context, the observation made by the Supreme Court in MAHABIR MANDAL AND OTHERS V. THE STATE OF BIHAR (AIR 1972 SC 13 31), which is relevant, is to be noted.
"Empty reference has been made by Mr.Chari to report dated December 23, 1963 of the Chemical Examiner, according to whom no poison could be detected in the viscera of Indira deceased. This circumstance would not, in our opinion, militate against the conclusion that the death of the deceased was due to poisoning. There are several poisons particularly of the synthetic hypnotics and vegetable alkaloids groups, which do not leave any characteristic signs as can be noticed on post mortem examination."
32) This observation, in our view, would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The above observation of the Supreme Court was based on the reference made in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. Those
references were also referred to by the Apex Court, which are as follows:-
" It is quite possible that a person may die from the effects of a poison, and yet none may be found in the body after death, if the whole of the poison has disappeared from the lungs by evaporation, or has been removed from the stomach and intestines by vomiting and purging, and after absorption has been detoxified, conjugated and eliminated from the system by the kidneys and other channels. Certain vegetable poisons may not be detected in the viscera, as they have no reliable tests, while some organic poisons, especially the alkaloids and glucosides, may be oxidation during life or by putrefaction after death, be split up into other substances which have no characteristic reactions sufficient for their identification."
33) This observation would make it clear that poison like that of oleander poison may not normally be detected in the viscera as they have no reliable tests. Moreover, it is seen from this observation that the whole of the poison would disappear from the lungs by evaporation or removed from the stomach and intestines by vomiting and purging. 34) As indicated above, in this case, stomach wash was given by PW 14 at the General Hospital, Coimbatore . According to PW 13, the deceased vomited in the private nursing home. Therefore, it may not be possible for PW 17 to detect vegetable poison from the viscera and the lungs of the deceased.
35) As pointed out by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, where the deceased dies as a result of poisoning, it is difficult to successfully isolate the poison and recognise it. Lack of positive evidence in this respect would not result in throwing out the entire prosecution case, if the other circumstances clearly point out the guilt of the accused. 36) In this case, the three propositions, which were referred to by the Supreme Court in ANANT CHINTAMAN LAGU VS. THE STATE OF BOMBAY (AIR 1960 SC 500) have been established through the materials discussed above. When sufficient materials are available, which are circumstantial to hold that the death is the result of poisoning, even though the variety of the poison was not detected from viscera, it must be held that the poison must have been administered by the accused person alone and he is liable to be convicted.
37) The citations referred to by the counsel for the appellant would not be of any use, since in those cases, the Supreme Court, on facts, decided that there is no sufficient material to convict the accused. 38) In view of what is stated above, we do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the findings given by the trial Court and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant are liable to be confirmed.
39) In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. The trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence. (M.K.V.J) (P.S.D.J)
// TRUE COPY//
SUB-ASST. REGISTRAR To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
C.A.No.175 of 1994
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.