Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Kerala High Court

Shafi vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 29 March, 2011

Author: K.M. Joseph

Bench: K.M.Joseph, M.L.Joseph Francis

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.A.No. 1380 of 2006()


1. SHAFI,S/O.MOIDEEN,THANIKUNNEL VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :29/03/2011

 O R D E R
                             K.M. JOSEPH &
                     M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
                   -----------------------------------------
                   CRL.APPEAL NO. 1380 OF 2006 C
                   ------------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 29th March, 2011

                                 JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J.

Appellant is the accused in SC.No.312/05 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)II, Thodupuzha. He stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/= with default sentence.

2. Briefly put, the prosecution case is that at 11 A.M. On 9.11.1996, the appellant with the intention of doing away with his wife Nazeera, beat her on her cheek in his house and when she fell unconscious on the bed, the appellant put potassium cyanide into her mouth, causing her death. Crime No.243/96 of Adimaly Police Station was registered on the basis of the information given by PW1. After investigation was completed, a charge was laid before  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 2 the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly and the case was committed by it to the Court of Session, Thodupuzha. Before the court below, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 20 and marked Exts.P1 to P18 on the side of the prosecution. Mos. 1 and 2 were also marked. There is no oral testimony adduced on the side of the appellant. He has marked Exts.D1 and D2.

3. The trial court after appreciation of the evidence, reasoned that Nazeera died due to cyanide poison. The trial court has ruled out the possibility of suicide. The learned Sessions Judge also ruled out homicide being committed by any other person, as in their house besides the appellant, apart from the deceased, there was only their 1= year old child. The court below proceeded to find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it was the appellant who caused the death of his wife by administering cyanide.

4. We heard Shri Shaijan C. George, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S. U. Nazar, the learned Public Prosecutor. 

CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 3 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no legal evidence available on record for the court to enter the verdict of guilt against the appellant. He would submit that the case of the prosecution was that potassium cyanide was procured by the appellant and he administered it to his wife. MO2 is allegedly the poison which was recovered on the basis of a statement given by the appellant to the Police Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It was sent for chemical analysis. Contrary to the case of the prosecution, it turns out that it is sodium cyanide and not potassium cyanide. He would further submit that there is no motive for the appellant to do away with his wife. He would further submit that there is no basis to apply the last scene together theory in the facts of this case. He would further submit that in a case of death by poisoning, the prosecution must establish the following circumstances:

(1) There must be a clear motive for the accused to administer poison to the deceased.



CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 4 (2) The deceased died of the poison said to have been administered.

(3) The accused had the poison in his possession. (4) Accused had the opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased.

(See Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra - AIR 1984 sc 1622) Of the above circumstances, he would submit that while it may be open to the court to conclude that the appellant had the opportunity to administer poison, the other circumstances are not proved by the prosecution. As regards the procurement of potassium cyanide, the prosecution, though it attempted to prove the case of the appellant having procured the poison through PW8, it is pointed out that the said witness has not toed the prosecution line. The other circumstance which was pressed by the prosecution was extra- judicial confession made to PW7 by the accused. It is submitted that in this regard, apart from the fact that PW7 was declared  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 5 hostile, inherently the case of extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW7 is incredible. He would submit that the prosecution case based on recovery under Section 27 is highly vulnerable. The attesting witness to the recovery mahazar, though has admitted his signature, he has not deposed in favour of the prosecution otherwise. Besides, it is submitted that the recovery is allegedly effected from a shelf from the open verandah of the house of the accused. The recovery was on 11.11.1996. He would point out that the Police Officer was expected to conduct a thorough search of the premises and prepare a scene mahazar. A scene mahazar, in fact, was prepared a day before the alleged recovery. He poses the question as to how if the Officer had conducted such a search, he could have possibly overlooked the alleged package containing sodium cyanide. In this context, he would point out that the Officer in fact did suspect death by poisoning as he has seized the shaddy of the deceased. He would submit that whether it is potassium cyanide as was the prosecution  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 6 case, or it was poisoning by sodium cyanide as is sought to be proved through MO2 and the Report of the Chemical Examiner, there is a dichotomy. He would submit that whether it is potassium cyanide or sodium cyanide, when a persons consumes it, it will mix with hydrochloric acid present in the stomach and form hydrocyanic acid. He would submit, however, that if only proper investigation had been done and tests undertaken, the exact salt could have been identified and the matter could have been established as to whether it was a case indeed of death by poisoning by using potassium cyanide or sodium cyanide. He would also fault the prosecution for the fact that at the Medical College Hospital, Histo Pathological tests were not undertaken. He would further submit that after the matter was remanded by this Court, the evidence on record would show that the deceased was pregnant. He would submit that evidence on record would show that the prosecution was aware of this fact and it was suppressed. He would suggest that it is possible that the deceased may have  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 7 committed suicide, if there may have been affair and a woman who is having an affair would know whether she has become pregnant and this could provide a sufficient reason for a woman to put an end to her life, to escape from the future ignominy. He would also submit that the evidence of the sister of the deceased who had allegedly come to stay with the deceased, a week prior to the date of occurrence and who stayed on till a few days prior to the fateful day, was to the effect that the deceased was in a melancholy mood. He would submit that if indeed it was a case of death by cyanide poisoning, there would be the smell of bitter almond. He would point out that the postmortem report would reveal that there was no such unusual smell noted.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein the Apex Court pointed out the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In a case of circumstantial evidence, it  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 8 was held that they must be fully established and all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for conclusion, consistent with innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that with all human possibility, the act must have been done by the accused and the circumstances should be such as to exclude every hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved. In Palvinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1952 SC 354), again the Court warned against suspicion however strong they may be, taking the place of proof by evidence. He would also submit that it is the law that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakenessof the defence, and that only when various links in a chain are complete, a false plea or false defence may be used to assure the Court. The infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case cannot be cured by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by the Court (See Sharad Birdhichand Sarda  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 9 v. State of Maharashtra - AIR 1984 SC 1622). Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the decision of the Apex Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006 (4) KLT 638 (SC)) cannot assist the prosecution.

6. Shri S. U. Nazar, learned Public Prosecutor would not seriously dispute that there were some laches in the investigation. But, he would submit that the prosecution had succeeded otherwise in proving the case and he supported the Judgment. He also relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006 (4) KLT 638 SC). Therein, the Apex Court proceeded to hold as follows:

"If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 10 does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here, it is necessary to keep in mind S. 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of S. 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 11 was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation...............The law does not require the prosecution to prove the impossible. All that it requires is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may, on its basis, believe in the existence of the fact in issue. Thus, legal proof is not necessarily perfect proof; often it is nothing more than a prudent mana's estimate as to the probabilities of the case. Since it is exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible for the prosecution to prove facts which are especially within the knowledge of the opponent or the accused, it is not obliged to prove them as part of its primary burden........In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind.

The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 12 explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete."

He also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Babu (2008 (3) ILR 527). We notice that the said Judgment has been set aside by the Apex Court by its Judgment in Babu v. State of Kerala ((2010) 9 SCC 189).

7. The incident took place on 9.11.1996. The appellant, his wife Nazeera and their child were residing in a small house at a place in Mannamkandam Village. According to the appellant, the deceased was found lying in the bed by the side of the child and when he called, she did not respond. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Would further state that he alerted his neighbour and the deceased was taken by road, firstly in the jeep driven by PW11 who made them over to PW13, the driver of another jeep who, in turn, rushed them to the hospital at Kothamangalam. PW1 gave the first information and proved Ext.P1 FI Statement. He is the nephew of the appellant. He would  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 13 say as follows:

He went to the Police Station at Adimali and gave information. When he was sitting in his house, towards Noon, his friend Shamsudeen came in a commander jeep. There were others also. He was told that the wifeof the accused has been takento the hospitaland she died. In the same jeep, he went to the hospital. He was told that information must be given to the police and then only the body will be released and he went and gave information to the police. He denies having seen the elder brother of the accused Sathar going to call for jeep. He says that when he later on went to his house, he was told by his mother that the deceased was not keeping well and Sathar had gone to call for the jeep. He states that it is after 1-1/2 hours after that, that Shamsuddeen came to him. He says that Shamsuddeen came to know of the death on the basis of phone call which came at the town. He says that his mother has not gone to the hospital. In Cross Examination, he would say as follows:



CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 14 He says that he does not remember as to whether he told the police who all took Nazeera in the jeep. He does not remember whether he stated to the police that Jameela, Aabida and Mundakkal Kunjumon and others took to hospital. He did not see them taking to hospital. He did not see them taking to hospital. He does not have direct knowledge of who took and how to the hospital. He does not know who went to call for jeep. He says that he has not stated to the police about him seeing Sathar going to call for the jeep. The accused and the deceased were on good terms. He does not know of any problems. He does not know of any difference of opinion between them. He does not know how Nazeera died. There were many people when he went to the hospital. The accused was there. Neighbours were there. Nazeera knew tailoring. The accused had sold the property in which he was residing in and purchased another. The house where the deceased was residing in was purchased by the accused. He does not know whether the accused is doing any other business. 

CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 15

8. In Re Examination, he would say that he came to know later that the deceased had died of poisoning. When a statement in Ext.P1 starting with the words "today in the morning at 11/30" he says that since it is ten years, he is not able to remember whether he made such a statement. He says that he is not able to remember whether he had said that, in the jeep, mother and others went to the hospital. He also does not remember whether he stated that Nazeera used to go for tailoring.

9. PW2 is a witness to Ext.P2 Inquest Report. He states in answer to a question by court that there was froth coming from the mouth of the deceased. He states that there was no injury on her body. In cross-examination he would say that at the time of the inquest, the accused was present. PW3 is a neighbour of the accused. He was present at the time of inquest and signed the same. He states that the accused first went to the residence of PW5 and told him that the deceased was lying unconscious. PW5 called him. They went to the residence of the accused. There, the  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 16 accused and his 1= year old child was present. The deceased was lying unconscious. When the accused was asked what had happened, he said that the deceased was lying unconscious.

Thereupon, PW5 and PW3 called for a jeep and took her to the hospital. When they reached the hospital, the Doctor examined her and pronounced her death. He would state that it was about 10/10 when the accused called PW5. They reached the hospital at 1 PM. He would state that he was not aware that Nazeera was afflicted with any illness. In cross-examination he would state, inter alia, as follows:

The police have not questioned. It is after PW5 called, he went to the house of the accused. The accused called out loud to PW5. The child of the accused was in his hands. There was nobody else. Jameela and Abida joined them on the way to the hospital. The accused and his wife were in good terms. They had no difference of opinion. He is not able to say whether it was a natural or unnatural death. He used to go to the house of the  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 17 accused and the accused and deceased used to visit them. The deceased knew tailoring and the accused used to do it jointly. By the time he went, Nazeera was not speaking anything. There was only some mumbling. He did not see anything in particular in her. There was only one door to the house. Accused was not present with them when the deceased was taken to the hospital. He went somewhere and he was not seen. The accused came after half an hour after reaching the hospital. At the hospital, there were eight or nine persons including the witness. In answer to a question as to whether the accused had gone to call for the jeep, he is unable to say. In answer to the court question, he says as follows:

At the time when the person went to call for the jeep, the accused was not present. When the accused called, he entrusted Nazeera with them and left. He does not know whether it was to call the jeep. The jeep of one Udayan came after twenty minutes. He is not able to say whether the accused was there in the jeep, when they went to the hospital. The deceased did not become  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 18 unconscious before the incident. It was on a Monday. It was not a holiday, which is his memory. When the accused was asked what happened to Nazeera, he would say he did not know. The accused was not found tensed and did not appear sorrowful on her becoming unconscious. There is no particular emotion. The accused did not say that she must be taken to the hospital or that she should be taken to a particular hospital. He took the child also to the hospital. Rehim (CW9) is the friend of the accused. In re- examination, he would say that Nazeera used to go to the tailoring occasionally. In further cross with permission, it is stated by him as follows:

When they went there, the accused was present. It was for taking Nazeera to the hospital and for other things that they were called. He did not observe any particular emotion by the accused. He does not know who met the expenses in the hospital. He would say that it was the accused who gave information to the Doctor. The father and uncle of the deceased were all there at the time of  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 19 post-mortem. The accused had been staying only for one year. The accused used to go for work regularly. He is not able to say whether the accused was doing real estate. He is not able to say who are his friends and enimies. He would say that he came to court along with the father of the deceased. He says that he is not on intimate terms with CW9 and that he is not contacted CW9. It is only his hearsay that the accused and CW9 were friends. Again, there was examination at the instance of the court and therein, it is stated by him that it is only after twenty minutes after he reached the hospital that the accused came there. He says that when Nazeera was taken to the hospital, the accused was not present.

10. PW4 is the father of the deceased. He would state, inter alia, as follows:

Nazeera died on 9.11.1996 which was a Saturday. He would say that it was about 2 PM when he saw Nazeera in the hospital. He doubted that she died of poisoning. At the inquest, his evidence was recorded. He expressed his doubt. There was froth  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 20 from Nazeera's mouth. He used to go enquiring about his daughter every fifteen days. Nazeera did not have any illness. The accused did many businesses, but lost all the money. He was staying in a rented house. He demanded Rs.5,000/= which he gave. A house was purchased. It is after one year that his daughter died. The appellant was having financial difficulties when Nazeera died. There was oedema on the cheek of his daughter when he saw her. In cross-examination, he, inter alia, stated as follows:

The appellant is remarried. The child was then and now with the appellant. He pointed out the swelling to the Tahsildar. He has nothing to say if it was not noted. The financial difficulties of the appellant are known to him only through hearsay. He does not remember the date on which he gave Rs.5,000/=. There is no document. It was returned after six months. He does not remember the exact date of the marriage of his daughter. There is a criminal case for his having taken the goods from the appellant's house, but it was dismissed. When he went to the hospital, the  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 21 appellant was present there. He was also present at the funeral.

11. PW5 is one Mammukunju. He would depose as follows:

He knows the accused. He was the immediate neighbour in 1996. In the morning after 10 AM, the accused called him from the road by name. He said that his wife is not well. PW5 called PW3 and went to the house of the accused. The deceased was lying unconscious with the one year old child in her hand. There was nobody in the house. He poured some water on her face, but she did not get up. His son went and called a vehicle. He, Ibrahim (PW3) and Ibrahim's wife with the accused, took the deceased to the Dharmagiri hospital. The Doctor after examination, said that she was no more. He does not know how she died. She did not die of a disease. In answer to question by court, he says as follows:

The accused called stating that the wife had a chest pain. The accused was distressed when he called. The accused used to go to his tailoring shop in the morning and return in the evening. He is not able to remember whether the day of occurrence, was a  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 22 holiday. Before these incidents, the witness has not seen the deceased getting dizziness. In Cross Examination, he would say as follows:

He does not know whether Nazeera knows tailoring. He is having "Pashukaravu" and sale of milk. In the morning, he would take milk to Irumbupalam. Thereafter, he goes about his affairs with the cows. In his knowledge, he says, the accused and the deceased were having a good relationship. He does not know whether the accused was having real estate business. He does not know what all business the accused had. The accused had accompanied them to the hospital. The child was also there in the hospital. He does not remember whether it was after locking the house. He is not able to say when the accused goes and comes from his job. He did not see any froth from her mouth. He did not see any injury on her. He says that they did not go inside the hospital at Irumpupalam. They changed vehicles. In respect of one vehicle, he paid the fare. He has not asked for the money and  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 23 nobody gave also. The deceased was sitting on the right side of the witness. There were one person on both sides. He does not remember who. The accused and the child were there in the vehicle. As the condition of the jeep was not good, from the front of the hospital, a Commander jeep was called for. The father of the deceased used to come occasionally. The deceased did not go and stay with his father. He has not enquired whether it was the accused who paid the fare for the commander jeep.

12. PW6 is a relative of the deceased. He resides one Kilometre away from the house of the accused. He had arranged the marriage. He said that the deceased has no illness. Accused had tailoring apart from lending of furniture. Upon knowing about taking her to the hospital, he also went. There was white froth coming from the mouth of the deceased. In the inquest, he said that he had suspicion about the death. He says, inter alia, that the accused lost money in "Nottirittippu". He further adds that he voluntarises and says that the accused had taken advance for  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 24 selling his house and he would say that it is his knowledge that the accused was robbed off money from what he got as advance for selling his house and also the items in the shop. The accused went to see a rich woman at Ernakulam for a friend. He says, he learnt that the girl liked the accused more. The accused had desired to marry the girl at Ernakulam. The deceased had came to his house a week before the death. She told that two days before she came, she saw a dead hen. When she returned from the bath, she buried as she was asked to do by the accused. He says he believes that she was done away with and the police did not investigate properly. In Cross Examination, he would state as follows:

He did not complain to the higher authorities about the investigation. He told the Tahsildar about the matter. He says that if it is not there, he has nothing to say. The deceased died on 9.11.1996. On the 10th, the police came to the hospital. He told them all. It was not taken down. When asked about the financial dealings, he spoke about in the Chief Examination, he would say  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 25 that it was the talk with the town. He came to know about it one week before the death. He is not related to the accused. After the proposal from Ernakulam, the accused and the deceased were not on good terms. The accused went for the marriage proposal of the son of Kaja, who was the Vice President of the Adimali Panchayat.

He says that he does not know the house name of the girl or the name of the girl and the marriage proposal is hearsay. He does not know whether the accused is the Secretary of Mujahid. He does not know whether the accused regularly goes to the mosque. The witness goes to a different mosque. He would say that before the marriage, he did not hear anything bad about the accused and that was why he proposed. He would say that when he reached the hospital, the accused was not there. He reached the hospital at about 5 O' Clock. He was there about two hours. The accused was present at the hospital at the time of inquest. He has gone to the house of the accused once after the marriage. He is on good terms with the father of the accused. Despite demand for the child  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 26 by the relatives, the accused did not give them.

13. PW7 is one one Abdul Rahman. He would say as follows:

He knows the accused. He does not know where the accused resided in 1996. He was in jail at the time of death in connection with another case. It was a forest case where it is alleged that he pointed a gun against a forest officer. He was absconding without bail. When standing to go to Adimali, he was arrested. On Monday, he was in police custody. On Tuesday, the accused was brought to the police station. By Noon at 4 PM, he was produced in court. Next day, he got bail. He did not go to Dharmagiri hospital on 9.11.1996 evening on knowing about the death of the wife of the accused at about 4/30 PM. He says, he did not see the accused in the precincts of the hospital on 9.11.1996. He would say, the accused did not tell him that he hit at the ear of the deceased and when she fell unconscious, cyanide poison was administered. He would say that his statement was not recorded in  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 27 connection with the death. In Cross Examination, he would state as follows:

He was born and he grew up at Irumpupalam. The accused was also born and brought up at Irumpupalam. He knows the elder brother of the accused Sathar. He denies having given Ext.P3 statement to the police. At the time of death, he was absconding. The day before the police caught, he says that he did not go to Kothamangalam. He does not remember whether he went to Irumpupalam City. He denies the contents of Exts.P3(a), P3(b) and P3(c) which are put to him. He is residing at Irumpupalam. The accused is also residing there. In answer to the question whether the accused contacted him after he received summons, it is noted that the witness took time to say "No". He says, after he got out on bail, he came to know of the death of the deceased. He denies it as incorrect suggestion that he and the accused were arrested on the same day. From two days' before he was arrested, he was at Irumpupalam. He would say that he goes to  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 28 Irumpupalam town mosque and the accused also goes there. He has no enmity towards the accused. In Cross Examination by the accused, he would state as follows:

The distance between Thonippara to Irumpupalam is five kilometres. When he first saw the accused in the Police Station, it was about 2 PM.

14. PW8 is one Raju. He would say as follows:

In 1996, he was a gold smith. He worked from the Veranda/floor of a vegetable shop at Irumpupalam. He has seen the accused at Irumpupalam. He has not spoken to him. He would say that he does not know what is cyanide. He denies having given cyanide as demanded by the accused. He denies having given the statement to the police that he purchased cyanide from the brother and gave it to the accused. He admits that the police questioned him. His elder brother is one Raveendran who is a cooli worker. He would say that he (brother) did not have any plating shop at Perumbavoor (question by the court). For gold smith, cyanide is  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 29 not necessary. He says that he does not know for that purpose, cyanide is used for. In Cross Examination, he would say that he did not give Ext.P4 statement. Cyanide is used by people who do plating. It is not available for purchase at Irumpupalam. He has not given cyanide to the accused. He cannot make out cyanide upon seeing it. He denies having made a statement to the police that Raveendran who was running a plating shop had died. He has not gone to the house of the accused. In cross examination by the accused he would say that he has not seen cyanide so far. He has worked only for two months in the front floor of the shop. The police has not shown him cyanide. He would say in further questioning by Court that he has heard that cyanide is used for plating.

15. PW9 is the witness to the scene mahazar.

16. PW 10 is the sister of the deceased. She would state as follows:

She used to come to her sister's house often. Eight days  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 30 before she died, she went to her sister's house. She stayed for four days and, thereafter, returned to Adimaly. It was Nazeera, who took her to Adimaly. On the way, Nazeera took necklace from the elder sister of the accused from her house to wear it. This was because the deceased did not have a necklace to wear. During the stay for four days in her sister's house, she felt that her sister had some mental strain. A hen was being kept to get egg for the child. Her sister used to go for her bath before nine every day. This was after feeding the hen. When she came back, she found her hen dead. This was on the day before PW 10 had gone to her sister's house. This information was given to her on the very day she reached the house of her sister. The accused did not permit the deceased to touch the hen. She was told that the hen was buried. Deceased also told that the accused had gone along with his friend to somewhere in Malappuram region to see a girl. The girl however liked the accused. They were very wealthy. They belonged to 'Kadiyani' faction. Her sister told her that the accused  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 31 told her that he was told that if he joins their faction, they will marry the girl to him and they will give Rs.5 to 6 lakhs. The ornaments of the deceased and the child were pawned by the accused. She had given statement about the hen being killed etc, to the police. In Cross Examination, she would say as follows:

Whatever was stated to the police have been recorded. In her view, her sister was sufficiently beautiful. Neither the sister, nor the accused demanded money from the witness. She does not know of money being demanded of the families of the accused or the deceased. Her sister and the accused lived a normal life to her knowledge. She did not see anything out of the ordinary. There is no need also to think on such lines. She reiterates the incident of going for seeing the girl. She does not know anything more than that. It was for a friend that they went. She heard that the accused joined the 'Kadiyani' faction. It is her information that it was in the same year of the death of her sister. She does not know whether there is 'Kadiyani' faction in Malappuram. She heard that 10 to 15  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 32 persons of this faction are in Adimaly. She does not know to which madrassa the accused and others went. After death, she has no connection with the accused. During the time of marriage, the accused was working in Mujahideen. Mujahideen go to mosque. His father was also Mujahideen. Her sister had abortion 3 to 4 times. The witness has failed in the seventh and nineth standards and, thereafter, she was learning tailoring at Adimaly. Almost every Saturday, her father and brothers used to go to visit the deceased. She denies the suggestion that her sister was not in good terms with the relatives. She does not know the reason why they were residing seperately. When it is suggested to her that her sister had quarreled with her mother in law and she had broken her hand, she says she does not know. She denies that it was because of the continious quarrel picked by her sister with the relatives of the accused that they were residing seperately. She found that they were having good relation ship with the relatives. She does not know whether the shop of the accused will remain closed on  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 33 Saturdays. The accused was fully looking after his wife and child. She denies the suggestion that her relatives were not in good terms with her sister. She denies the suggestion that she had been to the house of the sister only on two occasions and that she had returned on the same day. She has also denied that she went and came back on Saturday. She denies that she had not been permitted to reside there. She has not directly seen the incident of the dead hen. She had given information to the police. When told that it is not seen in the statement, she reiterates that she had told to the Police Officer and it was recorded. She denies the suggestion that her sister when she resided at Thonippara had never come to her family house. She denies the suggestion that the statement about the hen was false and she adds that the police had come then and taken out the hen. She deposes that she had told to the police that if he joins in the 'Kadiyani' faction he would get wealth and gold. When it was brought to her notice that it was not seen in the statement, she reiterates that she had said so and that was recorded. 

CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C       34

The child's ornament was pawned.             She does not remember

whether she had told the police that the accused had pawned the necklace. The accused would go after nine in the morning. She has seen the accused going after her sister comes back from her bath. They all ate together. She did not asked the accused about the things which her sister told her. She does not know whether the accused is hardworking. It was the accused who used to purchase the provisions for the house. In Re-Examination, she would say that there was only one hen. The hen was being raised for the purpose of feeding the child with the eggs from the hen. She has seen the hen before.

17. Pw11 is a taxi driver of the first jeep by which the deceased was taken to the hospital. He would say as follows. He knows the accused and his brother Sathar. In 1996 before Noon, one child came and called the vehicle for hire. The vehicle went near the house of the accused. The accused and his sister brought the deceased and put her in the vehicle. There were only the accused and his sister. The deceased was put in the front seat. There was milk in the back portion. The vehicle stopped in front of Kiran hospital  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 35 and they were put in another jeep and the accused said that she had chest pain. There were neighbours in the house of accused. He did not tell the police that the neighbour who came to the house of Shafi (accused) has put the deceased into the jeep. The Court declared him as hostile. In cross examination by the prosecution he would state as follows:

After he completes service for the milk society he runs his jeep as taxi. By 9' 0 clock the work of the society would be over. He would deny the statements in Exts.P6 and P6(a ). In Cross Examination, he would say that when the morning milk was being taken to the store, a 10 - 12 year old child stopped him saying that he must go for medical case and he came with the child and took the patient. There were 5 - 8 persons in the house.

18. Pw12 is the witness to the recovery of MO.2. He would say as follows. He knows the accused and his house. He admits the signature in the mahazar (Ext.P7). It must have been about in the after noon about 10 years ago. He would say he has signed at Thonipara as directed by the police officer. The jeep was taken by the police. When they went to the house of the accused he and 3 policemen alone were there in the vehicle. He remained in the jeep and the police returned after two hours. The accused was not present  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 36 in the jeep. He was asked to go and sign at Adimali police station. He denies as having seen the accused producing a pack of cyanide. He was declared hostile. In cross examination he would say as follows. In the mahazar presence of accused is noted. The police did not threaten him to sign. He would say it is not correct to say that he signed the mahazar where it is stated that the accused took and gave the cyanide from the top portion of the varandha. During 1996 he resided near the house of the accused.

19. Pw13 is one Shaji who is the driver of the jeep in which the deceased was taken to the hospital at Kothamangalam from Irumbupalam. He says that he knows the accused and his brother. It was the elder brother who called his jeep. It was about 9.45 to 10 he says from his memory in front of the hospital the jeep driven by Pw11 with lights on came and then he took the deceased to the hospital and he came back. The accused said that the deceased was having chest pain. He reached the hospital at Kothamangalam after 11 O' clock. He has given statement to the police. He says he does not remember that it is after 11 that Sathar (elder brother of the accused) called his vehicle. He was declared hostile. In Cross Examination he would say as follows:

He saw the patient being taken to the casuality. He denies the  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 37 statement that he has given evidence that it is after 11 O' clock he was called. Ext.P8 is marked. He says, there were no incident of an attempt for the body to be brought back in his vehicle and the doctor retaining it to inform the police. He denies the suggestion of the prosecution that as per the demand of the accused he is changing the time when the deceased was taken to the hospital. In cross examination by the accused he would say as follows: He has given evidence to the police about chest pain. He would state that he is able to remember few persons in the vehicle. The accused and Abida were there. He does not know the names of others. He would say that when they reached the hospital it was about 11 O' clock in the morning. The taxi fare was given by the accused and he came back. In questioning by the Court he would say as follows:

The Court questioned how he is able to remember the timings. In answer he would say as follows:

The vehicle called is the vehicle used for taking milk. The milk was brought from Ozhuvathadam. The commitment to the dairy is that the milk should be brought by 8.30. The deceased was flanked on both sides by the accused and his sister. The deceased was not speaking and was unconscious. The witness is having a hotel at Irumbupalam now. The accused is at Thonippara itself. He comes to  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 38 drink tea from his place.

20. Pw14 is the Tahsildar at Devikulam. He prepared the inquest marked as P2. He says he recorded the statement of Cw4 to

8. The witness said that the death was due to poisoning. In cross examination he would say that there were no wounds or marks on the body. He is not able to remember whether ASI and SI were there. He sent the report to the RDO. He points out that the witnesses did not point out any mark to him. Cw4 Ismail did not point out any thickening on the lips. He says if there were any thickening of marks he would have mentioned in the report. He says that it was mentioned that the accused had financial difficulty. He has not taken the cloth on the body into custody. There were number of persons other than the witnesses in the inquest. He is not able to say whether the hospital mortuary is in an empty corner. In re-examination he would say as he was convinced that the death was due to poisoning and he did not closely watch the body. He could see no injury apparently on the face.

21. Pw15 is the Village Officer who prepared Ext.P9 plan. He has not stated in P9 the wooden rack on the southern side of the floor attached to the hall. He adds that he did not enquire about it and he  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 39 has not seen it. It is not mentioned in Ext.P9 and it is not necessary. He is not able to remember as to whether there is any such rack. He has not mentioned about the well in A9. The measurement was shown in A9 after measurement. In the plan the distance to the neighbour's house is not mentioned. In the mahassar it is mentioned. He is not able to say whether the house is electrified as it is after 10 years.

22. Pw16 is the police constable who has recorded Ext.P1. He is not able to remember whether on that day the S.I and C.I were present in the station.

23. PW 18 would depose as follows:

He was the Sub Inspector of Police, Adimaly from 1.08.1996 till 20.5.1998. He took over the investigation of this case on 11.11.1996. He questioned Cws. 9, 10 & 11 and took statements.

He arrested the accused at 3 O'Clock on 11.11.1996 from the house of his sister Jameela. He recorded his confession statement. He refers to the portion containing the statement leading to the recovery of MO 2. He would further state that as per the information furnished and as led by the accused, he reached his  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 40 house and refers to the recovery being effected from the plank on the verandah. Exhibit-P7(a) is the confession statement leading to the recovery. Cyanide was produced in Court next day. It was in his safe custody till produced. The accused was produced in Court on 12.11.1996. He marks Exts.P3, P3(b), & P3(c) statements. Further investigation was done by the Circle Inspector of Police. In cross examination, he would, inter alia, state as follows:

On 09.10.2010 he was in station duty. He is not able to remember which duty. He does not remember when he understood that unnatural death was reported. He says that ASI was empowered to investigate on 09.10.2010, though it was not specifically mentioned in the CD. In the CD of the ASI, it is stated that as per direction, investigation has been done. It is not stated whose directions specifically. There is one jeep in the Station. The Circle Inspector has another jeep. The Court was only one kilometre away from the Station. Every day, police goes for Court duty. The accused was produced through the police in Court at  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 41 2/45. He would say it was not correct to say that the accused was taken in Udayan's jeep to the Court. He denies having called the jeep of Udayan (PW12) for Station purpose. He does not remember Udayan. He says it is not correct to say that he went in Udayan's jeep on 12.11.1996 at about eight in the morning. The accused did not say that poison was concealed in the particular place. The poison was recovered from above the wooden plank. In the mahazar, it is only stated that the plank was above the floor. It is not stated in the mahazar where it is fitted. The length or the width of the wooden plank is not mentioned in the mahazar. The height of the wooden plank from the floor was not mentioned in the mahazar. The floor is lying open. It is not mentioned in the mahazar as from which portion of the plank, poison was obtained.

24. CW9 (CW9 is examined as PW 7) was questioned before recovery. Cws 10 & 11 were questioned after recovery. He does not remember who all were there at the time of arrest/recovery, in answer to a question whether the ASI was present at the time of  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 42 arrest or recovery. It was omitted to be mentioned in the mahazar about the sealing. At that time, there is no Station seal or personal seal and that was why coin was used. He does not remember whether slip was used to identify MO 2. He does not remember whether he, the witnesses or the accused signed. He says that he has seen cyanide poison before. He does not know the features of Potassium Cyanide and Sodium Cyanide. He cannot say that the recovered cyanide is so scientifically. The accused told him that it was cyanide. It was a recovery bona fide. He has not put it into the box. He does not know about it being in the box in Court. What was taken were pieces. He did not smell it. He says, because of other work, he could not produce the accused and recovered items on 11.11.1996. The specific reasons could be stated only if the other documents were perused. He denies that such things did not take place on 11.11.1996. He sent express report to the superior officers on 11.11.1996. The direction the house faces is not mentioned in the mahazar. He did not investigate more in the  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 43 kitchen. He did not give special direction to the doctor who did the post mortem. He has not seen the post mortem. He did not prepare arrest memo, as, such a procedure was not there at the time. In answer to the question whether there were neighbhours at the time of recovery, he says, there were some persons. In answer to the question why neighbhours were not made witnesses to the recovery, his answer was that the persons present at that time and who witnessed were made witnesses. He does not know how Udayakumar came there. He does not know whether Udayakumar is a driver. He does not know the recovery witnesses before. He does not know whether there is any well in the house. It did not attract his attention. He did not go to the tailoring shop of the accused. From his investigation, he does not know whether they went inside Kiran Hospital. He did not investigate that. What CW 11 Fassila (Fassila was examined as PW 10) said was written down. It is not recorded that Fassila stated that the hen died. The witness adds that she said many things. What was taken down was  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 44 that which was connected with the case. He did not dig out the hen. It is not within his knowledge as to whether it was dug out. In answer to a question, whether Fassila did not say that if joins kadiyani faction, he will get a lot of gold and wealth, he says that it was not recorded. It is also not recorded that the child's neklace was pawned by the accused. He did not give requisition for chemical analysis of the recovered poison. The weight of the recovered article is approximate. In re-examination, it is stated as follows:

In answer to a question why CW 9 (PW 7) was questioned, he would say that many in that area were questioned. He got secret information that CW 9 was a friend of the accused and he knew something and that was why he was questioned. He does not remember having arrested him in any case. He did not question the witnessess to the inquest as he did not see them on that day. He investigated the matter only for one day. In cross examination, with permission, in answer to the question as to whether the report  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 45 shown to him would show that CW 9 was arrested on the 12th, it was submitted in Court, his answer was that CW9 was arrested as per warrant. He admits the signature. He says he did not arrest. The said document was marked as D1. He says that it is not stated in the CD that there was information before him that the accused and CW9 were friends.

25. PW19 was the Circle Inspector of Police, Adimaly on 13.11.1996. He would say that he took over the investigation on 13.11.1996. The MO 2 produced by PW 18 was forwarded with Ext.P15 forwarding note. He took further statement from CW 1.

He further questioned Cws 12, 13 & 17. CW 12 gave statement as Exts.P6 & P6(a). CW 13 gave evidence as Ext.P8. In answer to Court question, he would say that he questioned CW 4. He gave version as given to the Tahsildar and so, it was not seperately taken. The accused killed his wife to marry another. In cross examination, he would say as follows:

The witnesses questioned by the S.I have given evidence that  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 46 the accused intended to kill his wife. He has not questioned the Tahsildar. He has not produced the statement of the doctor. He denies the allegation about creating a false case etc. He would say that it is not correct to say that it was to see that the truth is not established that he did not examine the relatives and the people of the accused and that they are not made witnesses. Thereafter, on 20.04.2010, PW 19 was again recalled and cross examined. He would say as follows:

He has read the post-mortem report during the time of investigation. He questioned the doctor who conducted the post- mortem. There is no particular reason why he did not produce the statement given by the doctor under section 161. He has not consulted the forensic advisors of the department. He only saw the doctor. The object produced in the Court is potassium cyanide. He denies that it was produced with much delay. The charge sheet was given on 25.08.1997. He obtained the report of the forensic lab on 26.05.1997. He agrees that the prosecution case is that the  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 47 accused administered potassium cyanide to his wife and killed her. As per Ext.P16, the material object is found to be sodium cyanide. He got one copy from the laboratory. He denies the allegation that the investigation was affected by external influence. He says he does not know about the missing of the FSL Report obtained in the Court, after the receipt of the report by him. He would deny that he and other external forces had together thoughtfully kept it from the Court. He denies the allegation that the property list (thondy list) was produced after much delay. He would say that PW 10 went on 2.11.1996 and she returned on the 4th day. The witnesses have not mentioned about Nazeera going to her house near to her death. He would say that the investigation did not reveal that the deceased was in close contact with anyone on the days immediately before her death. He would say that it was only when he questioned the doctor that he knew that the deceased Nazeera was pregnant. He did not know it from the questioning of other witnesses. He would say that he investigated about the possibility  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 48 of the deceased and her sister Fassila coming by poison like cyanide and he says that he did not get any information about their having obtained it. He denies the suggestion as incorrect that Nazeera has concealed the pregnancy from her relatives and neighbours and on account of the shame that she committed suicide. He would say that gold smiths use pure cyanide salts.

26. PW20 was a Lecturer in Forensic Science, Medical College, Kottayam who conducted the post mortem. He would, inter alia, state as follows:

White froth was seen from the mouth and nostrils. Post mortem staining was not clear due to dark complexion. The body was of an adult female of 158 cm height and weight 49 kgs. Stomach contained rice and curries 400 gm emitting no unusual smell. Blood and viscera were preserved for chemical analysis. Bits of tissues were prepared for hysto pathological examination. He marks Ex.P18 which is a Report of Chemical Examination. He would say that the deceased died due to cyanide poison. Cyanide  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 49 poison can cause instant death. All the cyanides are very potent poisons. He refers to potassium cyanide, sodium cyanide, calcium cyanide, hydrogen cyanide which are the usual terms of cyanides as these are highly poisonous. It is correct to say that all cyanides are rapidly acting poisons causing instant or immediate death. Right side of face of the deceased appeared somewhat oedimation ("thadippu") with shades of redness on the skin there. He says, it is possible that this observation indicates physical assault on the face. He says that the possibility cannot be ruled out that if the force is applied with the hands of the assailant to open the mouth of the deceased, the above said oedimatus with streaks of redness be caused. He says that the possibility cannot be ruled out that the abrasion found on the back of right elbow and right knee in Ext.P17 can be caused, while the deceased was struggling to escape from the hands of the assailant. It is to be noted that he had earlier stated that the right conjenctiva was more congested and the right side of the face appeared somewhat oedimatus with  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 50 streaks of redness on the skin there. Assault on the right side of the face can cause the redness on the face and conjunctival congestion on the right side. He says that he had collected blood and viscera and bits of tissues. The bits of tissues were examined in the Medical College itself. The Chemical Analysis Report was sent to the Medical College, Kottayan. On receiving that Report, he gave the final opinion which is Ext.P18 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Devikulam. One copy was sent to the S.I. of Police, Adimaly. The post mortem was conducted in between 1/15 PM and 2/15 PM on 10.11.1996. He does not rule out the possibility that the streaks of redness found on the right side of the face would indicate that the assailant had administered cyanide poison by opening the mouth of the deceased forcefully. In answer to the question by the court, he stated as follows:

Cyanide is obtainable in liquid form, powder form, etc. Hydrogen cyanide is usually in liquid form. If cyanide is applied inside the mouth, it will get immediately absorbed into the blood  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 51 from the mouth itself. It need not got into the stomach. If sodium cyanide is applied, death can happen within half an hour. It is immediate death. Froth formation is also instantaneous. It will continue during the process of death also. Sodium cyanide and potassium cyanide are used for metal cleaning, especially by gold smith. Very minute quantity of sodium cyanide, say around 50 mgs, if applied to the mouth and if it remains there for one or two minutes, it will get absorbed into blood and will cause death. If applied to the mouth, it is practically difficult for the victim to spit it out. In Cross Examination, he would say as follows:

He did not do any consultation regarding cause of death before doing the post mortem examination. Ext.P17 suggested that the mode of death was asphyxia. If cyanide is touching the tongue, physical action by the victim is almost impossible. In seconds or minutes it can cause death. Patient will immediately collapse. The effect will depend on the personality of the person, the quality of the poison taken etc. He says he cannot say what kind of sort of  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 52 the cyanide (must be salt of the cyanide) was applied to the victim.

27. He has seen the chemical examination report and it also did not say what kind of cyanide salt was found during chemical analysis. Only the chemical examiner can say how much quantity of cyanide was present in the blood and what kind of salt was detected during examination. Redness of face cannot be caused simply by poison. If it is the result of poisoning, it must occur in other parts of the body also. Only by close watch, the streaks of redness noted by him on the face could be noticed. A casual look is not sufficient. He would then say that if the victim lies on a cot by touching that portion of face with the cot for some time, the redness on the face and oeadima can occur. Froth formation can also be caused in other types of death, especially asphysial death. He does not remember whether he had handed over the chemical examination report to the police or Magistrate or whether he was questioned by the police in connection with the case. The  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 53 abrasions are small and the size and age of the abrasions on the right knee and elbow is not mentioned in Ext.P17. The abrasions can be caused by various means. He would say that directions are certainly ante-mortom. If solid crystals of cyanide are applied forcibly, the possibility of the victim spitting out the crystals cannot be ruled out. He cannot say whether the death in this case was suicide, homicide or accidental. Cyanides are usually used in metal cleaning and is commercially available. Cyanide is having a peculiar smell, like the smell while tapioca is boiled. He did not get that smell during post-mortem examination. He adds that the smell is not detected by all people. Because of the genetic nature, only found people can detect the smell. In this case the death might have occurred 16 to 18 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. It is not mentioned in Ext.P17. But he says, from the findings in Ext.P17 he can deduct the approximate time of death. If poison enters stomach, some poison can cause irritation of the mucosa and may produce secretion and even small, haemorage. If  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 54 cyanide poison is taken in empty stomach, it will cause much irritation of the mucosa secretions and congestions and corration of the mucosa. He cannot say how poison was administered in this case. If cyanide is put in tongue, mucosa of the tongue need not show any specific injury. He does not totally rule out the possibility that there will be discolouration and swelling of the tongue if it touches the tongue. This possibility is there if it is put on the throat also. But he adds that the possibility is minimum. He states, if cyanide is applied to a person who is unconsious, then there is possibility of irritation, discolouration etc, at the point of contact with the poison. He adds that he had not noticed discolouration etc, in this case. If a person dies of cyanide poisoning, the entire body surface will show bright red discolouration. But this discolouration may not be visible in a dark complexional person. He denies as incorrect the suggestion that in all cases of cyanide poisoning, jaws will be firmly closed and fingers will be clenched. Bright red discolouration of the skin  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 55 and the peculiar smell are the characteristics of cyanide poison. He says that cyanide was detected in the blood and in the entire organs. He denies the suggestion that the deceased did not die due to cyanide poison. He adds, because of general findings in the post-mortem and the chemical examination report, the deceased died due to cyanide poisoning. He denies the suggestion that it was on the request of the police officers he falsely prepared the report, without thoroughly examining the deceased.

In Re-Examination, he would say as follows:

Streaks of redness found on the face, the possibility is more for application of force on the face, like beating or pressing with hands. If the person survives the injury, it will fade within one or two days. If he dies, it will not fade. In this case, it was more an injury. Again, in answer to the questions by the Court, he would say as follows:

All cyanides are combinations of carbon and nitrogen. In sodium cyanide there will be addition of sodium also. If exposed  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 56 to air, it will get oxidised. If wrapped in a paper after a long time, some part of it will get decomposed and its potency will be diminished all on a sudden. A very small quantity of sodium cyanide will cause instant death. A layman cannot purchase it from open market. In cross with permission, he would say as follows:

If mouth is forcibly pressed with hands, will there not be injuries on either side of the jaw ? That is a usual possibility. If beaten with hands, signs of fingers will be there. That is the streaks of redness noted by him, he says.

28. This Court had noted that PW 20 had given final opinion (Ext.P18) that the deceased died due to cyanide poisoning. This is on the basis of the chemical anaylisis report dated 28.01.1997. But the Report was not formally introduced into evidence. This Court had allowed the Petition filed by the Public Prosecutor and forwarded the case to the court below u/s.391 of the Cr.P.C. to take further evidence to formally receive the certificate of the chemical  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 57 analysis and to recall PW 20 to formally mark the document. The Court also allowed PW 20 to be made available for further cross examination. The court below has also allowed examination of the accused further u/s.313 with reference to the further materials introduced in evidence and the records were sent back. Pursuant to the same, PW 20 was recalled and in chief examination, he marked Ext.P19 as the Chemical Analysis Report on the basis of which he had given Ext.P18, the final opinion as cause of death. As per Ext.P19 report, the hydrocyanic acid was detected in the blood and viscera sent for chemical analysis. The percentage of the poison in the blood of the deceased is sufficient to cause death. In cross examination, he would say as follows:

The tissues were collected from the uterus, liver, kidney, heart, lungs and brain. He has not specifically mentioned in the post-mortem certificate, from which part of the body the tissues were collected. Irritant poisons can cause abrasions on the skin and mucus membrane. It may not have any specific pattern or  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 58 dimension. He has not mentioned the dimensions of the streak on the face. He says that all the authentic compilers of medical jurisprudence lay down one of the characteristic features of post- mortem appearance in a cyanide poisoning as the smell of bitter almond. There is no mention of smell of bitter almond or any specific smell in Ext.P17. Contrary to it, it was specifically mentioned, no unusual smell. He says that usual or normal colour of post-mortem staining is bluish red. The colour of post-mortem staining in cyanide poisoning is bright red. He denies as incorrect that in cyanide poisoning, such bright red colouration is traceable even in the case of dark complexioned persons. He says that he has not mentioned any petchial homerrage in plura and pericardium. He says that hystapathological examination was conducted in the Medical College Lab. The cyanide salt will react with hydrochloric acid in the stomach and produce hydrocyanic acid. The cyanide salt and acid can cause corrosion of stomach mucosa. He says, it is possible from the stomach contents, for an  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 59 expert to detect which salt derivation was used. The food particles found in the stomach were sent for chemical analysis. In Ext.P18, he has not mentioned anything about histopathological examination. He would say that on considering the presence of soft tissues in uterus and corpus luteum, there is chance of pregnancy in the deaceased. He has not ascertained whether it was a real pregnancy or not. He does not remember whether he referred this fact to the investigating officer at any point time. He says that in an unmarried girl becoming pergnant is a cause of committing suicide. In answer to the question whether the information regarding pregnancy would be a good lead for the investigating agency, he says that it can help the investigation if it is noted. He denies that there is a mis-match between Exts.P17 & P19. He says that it is possible that phenomena, like osmosis is possible, if viscera is put in saturated saline or other solution. He also says that it is possible if hydrocyanic acid is mixed with such solution, the same phenomena can occur. He agrees that the  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 60 common salt derivative of cyanide used by gold smiths are Potassium Cyanide or Zinc Cyanide. Pure sodium cyanide is used as re-agents in labortaries.

29. The first question to be addressed is what was the cause of death. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution case is that the accused administered Potassium Cyanide resulting in the death of the deceased. He would point out that the chemical analysis report, on the other hand, would show that MO 2 was sodium cyanide and not potassium cyanide. He would further contend that the two classic signs of cyanide poisoning are not present in this case. They are emissions of smell of bitter almond and red colouration of the skin. He would point out that both are absent in this case. We are not impressed by the contentions of the appellant. The evidence of PW 20, the doctor would show that the deceased died of cyanide poisoning. All cyanides are dangerous poisons. Small quantities put on the tongue would result in death. If sodium cyanide is administered,  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 61 death follows in half an hour. Of course, it depends on the quantity besides the personality of the person to whom it is administered. Cyanide poison was found all over the deceased's body. The deceased was a dark complexioned woman and all PW 20 says is that it is difficult to decipher the red colouration in a dark complexioned person. PW 20 has also, not doubt, said that in cases of cyanide poisoning, smell of bitter almond or of boiled tapioca will be there. But we must remind ourselves that the doctor has also said that he did not get that smell while tapioca is boiled during the post-mortem examination and he has stated that smell is not detected by all people and it has to do with the genetic nature. The report of the chemical examiner has categorically found that hydrocyanic acid was detected in the stomach and part of intestine, liver, kidney and blood. The picric acid paper test for cyanide was found positive in respect of the above mentioned items. The thio-cyanide test for cyanide also was found to be positive. No poison was detected in item No.4 sent for chemical  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 62 analysis. Item No.4 was saturated saline. The prussican blue test as also the guiacum resin test yielded positive results. They are tests for ascertaining whether the person died on cyanide poisoning. The liver and kidney contained 0.462 MG/100 GM, while blood contained 1.08 MG/100ml. It is stated that hydro cyanide acid and its alkali salts are highly poisonous substances. No doubt, Ext.P16 report of the Joint Chemical Examiner finds that the picrate test in the pressian blue test were found positive in regard to MO 2, which is described as 13 grams of a calories wet substance in a polythene cover involved in Crime No.243/96 of Adimaly police station for chemical analysis of cyanide. It is found that the test for potassium cyanide was found negative while the test was sodium cyanide was found positive and the report is that the colourless wet substance was identified as sodium cyanide.

30. No doubt, the learned Counsel for the appellant, would contend that the prosecution charge is that the deceased was done away with potassium cyanide, while MO 2 recovered substance  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 63 was found to be sodium cyanide. But, the fact remains that PW 18 who effected recovery of MO 2, has stated as follows:

There are different types of cyanide. The accused did not say which type of cyanide is MO 2. He does not know about the features of potassium cyanide and sodium cyanide. Nor, is he able to say that about it being cyanide on a scientific basis. He would say that the accused mentioned that it is cyanide and it was produced and it was taken custody of bona fide. PW 20, the doctor, has deposed that, all cyanide are combinations of carbon and nitrogen. In sodium cyanide there would be addition of sodium also, and if, exposed to air, it will not get oxidised. When he was recalled and examined, he would say that cyanide salt will react with hydrochloric acid in the stomach and produce the hydrocyanic acid. He has also said that common salt derivatives of cyanide used by goldsmiths are potassium cyanide or zinc cyanide. He also says that, pure sodium cyanide is used as reagents in the labortaries. PW 19, the Circle Inspector, who conducted the  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 64 investigation from 13.11.1996, would not doubt say, that the object (thondi) produced in this case is potassium cyanide. This he said when he was recalled on 20.4.2010. He would say that goldsmiths use pure cyanide salts.

31. No doubt, it is true that the Chemical Examiner in Ext.P19 does not specify whether the cyanide was sodium cyanide or potassium cyanide.

32. We can safely hold that the deceased died of cyanide poisoning. This finding of ours has the support of the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ext.P19), the post-mortem findings and the evidence of PW 20, who was then a lecturer in forensic science.

We would think that the evidence of the doctor explains the alleged absence of symptoms projected by the appellant. In particular, the report of Chemical Examiner clearly would clinch the issue that the deceased died due to cyanide poisoning. The distinguishing features of potassium cyanide and sodium cyanide have not been brought on record. In fact, as noticed, PW 18 does  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 65 not profess to know the features of potassium cyanide and sodium cyanide. It is, no doubt true, that PW 19 would depose that what was produced was potassium cyanide. It is equally true that by the time he made that statement in Court, Ext.P16 report of the Joint Chemical Examiner was there to show that MO2 was actually sodium cyanide. It is to be noted in this regard also that the Charge was filed before the Court on 25.8.97 stating that potassium cyanide was used. Ext.P16 which is the Chemical Examination Report finding that MO 2 was sodium cyanide is dated 10.11.98 and received by the Court on 28.5.2005. Therefore, at the time when the Charge was filed, the Police officer was not aware of the fact that it was scientifically found to be sodium cyanide. Apparently, the Police Officers proceeded on the basis that it was potassium cyanide. As already noted, the distinguishing features between the two poisons is not on record. However, both cyanides are highly poisonous. In regard to Hydrocynic acid, in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology(23rd edition Page 476), it  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 66 is stated as follows:

Hydrocyanic acid forms cyanide with metals. All these, potassium or sodium cyanide, mercuric cyanide and silver cyanide are used in photography, electroplating, case hardening steel, silver and gold processing and dyeing, these are soluable in water, alcoline in reaction and highly poisonous and also irritant to the skin. Hydrocyanic is one of the purely very rapidly acting poisons. The toxic action of potassium cyanide depends largely upon the hydrochloric acid contents of the stomach (page 482). It is also stated that an old sample of potassium cyanide may also be converted by hydrolysis into the comparatively harmless potassium formate. PW 20 has stated that the cyanide salt will react with hydrochloric acid in the stomach and produce hydrocyanic acid. Hydrocyanic has been detected in Ext.P19 report of the Chemical Examiner. The mere fact that it was not stated in the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ext.P19) as to whether, the salt was potassium cyanide or sodium cyanide, cannot, at any rate,  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 67 detract from the fact that the deceased died of cyanide poisoning or to be more precise, by hydrocyanide poisoning.

28. The further question, of course, is the more important question to be addressed and answered, namely whether the death was due to suicide commited or was it an accident or was it a case of homicide ? We think that we can safely rule out death being the result of an accidental consumption of the poison. The question will be limited to whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the accused has administered the poison or was it a case of suicide ? It is in the context of the same that we have to address ourselves as to the various aspects. The incident took place on 09.11.1996. The evidence unerringly establishes that in the house of the accused, besides the accused, only the deceased and their one and half year old child resided with him. We would think that the evidence would show that the relationship between the accused and the deceased was cordial. However, there is some  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 68 evidence to indicate that after the marriage proposal came from Ernakulam/Malappuram, it caused disharmony (See the evidence of Pws. 6 and 10). Deceased was a Muslim woman. Be it potassium cyanide or sodium cyanide, both poisons are hard to come by in the market. As between the appellant and his deceased wife, certainly the possibility is more in favour of the accused coming by the same. Of course, it was the case of the prosecution that the accused procured it through PW 8, who in turn procured it from his brother who had a plating shop at Perumbavoor.

Prosecution relied on the statement given by him. However, PW 8 was declared hostile and he has stated that he has not given the cyanide to the accused as was sought to be proved by the prosecution. We can hold that there is no evidence as such to show that the accused has procured the poison as alleged by the prosecution. Of course, there is the incident of the hen being killed a few days prior to the date of occurrence and the accused asking the deceased to burry the hen. This is the evidence of PW10 (sister  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 69 of deceased) as also PW6 (relative of deceased). However, we must observe, as noted by the Trial Court also, the police did not proceed to investigate the matter digging out the hen and ascertain if possible whether it died due to poisoning (though PW10 would contrary to PW18 claim that it was dug out). Of course, if the version of the prosecution is accepted in this regard, it would indicate that the appellant had experimented the poison on the hen as the hen had died and the accused has asked the deceased to bury it.

29. PW1 had given Ext.P1 F.I Statement to the police. He is none other than the nephew of the accused. In Ext.P1, he would say that in the morning at 11.30, the deceased fell unconscious in her house and she was taken in a jeep to the Kothamangalam Dharmagiri hospital. By about 1'O clock they reached the hospital and the doctor said that she had died. He would say that he came to know this, when he was sitting in his house, he would say that his elder uncle Sathar went to call the jeep. When he asked him  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 70 why he was going, he was told that Nazeera, his Aunt had fallen down unconscious and was taking her to the hospital. Immediately, he went to Irumbupalam and called vehicle and took the deceased. In the jeep, his mother Jameela and Aunt Abidha and one Mundakkal Kunjumon also was there. He also refers to the deceased being taken to Kiran Hospital on the way. They were taken to the Dharmagiri Hospital. Immediately thereafter, he followed in another jeep. He would say that they were happily married. He says that he does not know about any quarrel between them. He does not know how she died. He gives the statement at 5.30 pm on 09.11.1996 to the officer at the Adimaly Police Station.

30. In his deposition as PW1, he admits having given Ext.P1 statement. He would say that by about noon, when he was sitting in his house, his friend Shamsudeen came in a jeep. There were others in the jeep. He mentioned that the deceased was taken to the hospital and found dead. He went in the jeep to the hospital. He would further say, he was told that he has to give information  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 71 to the police for getting the body released. He went to the police station and gave information. He says that he did not see his Uncle going to call the jeep. He would say that later, when he went to the house, his mother told him that Aunt(deceased) was not well and Sathar had gone to call for a jeep. It is after one and half hours. After that, that Shamsudeen told that phone came informing about the death of the deceased. He would say that his mother has not gone to the hospital. In Cross Examination, he would say that he does not remember, exactly as to whether, who all took the deceased to the hospital. He is not capable of remembering exactly whether he told Jameela, Abidha and Kunjumon etc. took her to the hospital. He has not seen her being taken to the hospital. He does not know directly as to who all took and how she was taken to the hospital. He does not know who went to call for the jeep. He says, he has not given statement to the police that he saw his Uncle, Sathar go to call for the jeep. There is a distance of one and a half kilometers between his house and accused's house. He  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 72 reiterates that the accused and his wife were on good terms and he does not know whether they had any problems. He does not know how Nazeera died. The accused was there when he reached the hospital. There were neigbours. In Re-Examination, he would say that he later came to know that Nazeera died of poisoning. He says when he is shown the statement in Ext.P1 F.I.statement that at 11.30 on 9.11.1996 etc. because it is 10 years, he is not able to remember.

31. Thus PW1 admits, having given Ext.P1 statement. Of course, it was given on the same day as on the date of occurence and within a few hours of the incident happening. Therein, the time mentioned by him is 11.30 am as the time, when he received information. He would also say that the body reached the hospital at 1'O clock. No doubt, in Re-Examination, he would say that he does not remember, having regard to the lapse of time, whether he made such a statement. He does not specifically deny.

32. PW3 is a neighbour. He was present at the time of the  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 73 inquest. He has spoken about the accused going to the house of Mammukunju, who was examined as PW 5, to say that the deceased was lying unconsious and PW 5 calling and they went to the house of the accused. According to him, he and Mammukunju called the jeep and took her to the hospital. He would say that it was at about 10.30 that the accused called PW 5. He would also say that they reached the hospital at 1'O clock. He was a close neighbour for one year. He would say in Cross, the accused called PW 5 loudly. The child was with the accused. There were only three of them. He would say that Jameela and Abidha (Aunts of accused) joined him on the way to the hospital. The accused and the deceased were on good terms and that there was no difference of opinion between them. He would say that the accused and his wife used to come to his house and that he used to go to their house. He would say that at the time when they went to the hospital, the accused was not with them. After half an hour, after reaching the hospital, the accused came to the hospital. A  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 74 suggestion is put as to whether was it not the accused who went to call for the jeep ? He does not know as to who went. In answer to a question by Court, he said that at the time when somebody went to call for jeep, the accused was not to be seen. The accused went after calling them and entrusting Nazeera with them. He does not know whether it was to call for the jeep of Udayan. He did not see the accused in the jeep. He was not there in the jeep in which they went to the hospital. It was not a holiday. In Cross with permission, he would say that they were called for taking her to the hospital. It was the accused who gave information to the Doctor. In answer to a question by the Court, he says that immediately upon the jeep reaching the hospital, Nazeera was taken inside the hospital. He would say that at the time when Nazeera taken inside the hospital, the accused was not present.

33. PW5 is Mammukunju. PW5 Mammukunju is the neighbour, who has stated that after 10'O clock, he was called by name from the road by the accused. He called PW 3 and went to  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 75 the house. According to him, it was his son who called the jeep and PW 3 and the wife of PW 3 together took her to the hospital. The accused told him that his wife had chest pain. He does not remember whether it was a holiday. He would say that the accused was there when they went to the hospital and there was no occasion to speak with the doctor. He has not seen any froth from the mouth of the deceased. He speaks about the vehicles being changed and of paying the taxi fare. Of course, Pws. 11 & 13 had given a different version about the time. PW 11 is the driver of the Jeep who took the deceased from the house till they were transferred to the jeep driven by PW 13. According to PW 11, it was at about 9'O clock in the morning that he was called and according to PW 13, it was about 9.45 when they were taken by him and they reached the hospital at about 11'O clock. The version of PW 1 in Ext.P1 statement, as already noted, is that they reached the hospital at 1'O clock. The version of PWs 3 & 5 would also support the case of the prosecution that they would have reached  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 76 the hospital at 1'O clock and certainly not at 11'O clock. In the 313 statement of the accused, of course, he would, inter alia, say as follows:

That on 9.11.1996 (Saturday) morning the deceased went to bath and she came back at 8'O clock and he was looking after the child. Thereafter, he went to have his bath. By about 9'O clock, he came back after his bath and washing and he saw Nazeera did not respond to his call and also he was in shock for a minute. He took the child and he called PW 5. He would say that on hearing his voice, Ibrahim(PW 3) also came. He went to call jeep. Then he would say he went to inform his sister and brother. His brother Sathar was not there. The jeep driver Basil came. When he and Abidha reached the front of the house, there were neighbours. He and his sister took Nazeera. PW 5 and PW 3 and his wife helped them into the jeep and after locking the house they went to the hospital. At the Kiran hospital, they were asked to go to other hospital and they went to the Dharmagiri Hospital. It was at 11.30  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 77 in the morning that the doctor at the Dharmagiri Hospital examined her and pronounced her death. He would say that he has not killed even an ant and that on Saturday the shop has a holiday. He has a case that the police is yielding to other influences and the case against him is false and he is innocent.

34. The most important question, of course, is whether the recovery of MO 2 is to believed. PW 18 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who has spoken about the recovery. MO 2 was found from the shelf, on the open verandah of the appellant's house. No doubt, PW 12 has denied having witnessed the actual recovery. He would say that it was in his jeep that they reached the house of the accused. He admits the signature in the recovery mahazar. He also deposes that he was not compelled to put his signature. But, of course, he denies having witnessed the actual recovery. It may be true, as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that when the scene mahazar was prepared on 10.11.1996 (Ext.P5) MO 2 was not detected and the recovery was effected only on  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 78 11.11.1996 i.e, the next day. PW 18 has specifically stated in his deposition before Court, that the accused has stated that he has concealed the MO 2 at a place in his house and he will take it and give it. We see no reason why the Police Officer (PW 18), should swear to false testimony against the accused. It may be true that the wooden plank stood on an open verandah. It is still part of the house of the accused and it may not be fully correct to describe it as accessible to all. It is also true that PW 18 has deposed that he does not know how Udayakumar, the witness to the recovery, was there. We must note that he was giving evidence after a long period of time. He has sent express report to the superior officers. He investigated the matter only for one day. There is not even the slightest evidence to suggest that PW 18 had any animus against the accused or he was acting to favour sombody else or anyone influenced him. Of course, a statement is attributed to PW 7 to the effect that he went to the hospital upon knowing about the death of Nazeera and the accused who was his friend, told him about the  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 79 poisoning and he had also asked him to remove MO 2 from where it was kept. But, PW 7 has turned hostile.

35. No doubt, the medical evidence does not show that the sodium cyanide was found in the body of the deceased. Of course, if it had been found that the salt actually in the body of the deceased was potassium cyanide, it would have been fatal to the case of the prosecution, as MO 2 has been found to be sodium cyanide vide Ext.P16 Chemical Examination Report. Death is due to the effect of hydro cyanide poisoning. If the recovery of MO 2 is believed and as the death due to cyanide poisoning is established, then it becomes equally clear that the poisoning in this case was achieved through administering sodium cyanide as contained in MO 2. We notice that the trial court has found the version of the witness to the recovery mahazar disowning having witnessed the recovery unreliable.

36. On the whole, we see no reason why we should not support the finding of the trial court that MO 2 was recovered on  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 80 the basis of the information provided by the accused. We must also bear in mind that the Investigating Officer has deposed that he has, on investigation, not found the possibility of the deceased or her sister procuring poison. The poison in question is not readily available in the market.

37. Another aspect which is projected by the learned counsel for the appellant is the evidence of PW 20 Doctor to the effect that tender tissue was noted indicating possibility of pregnancy. Learned counsel also relies on the testimony of PW 19 Investigating Officer to the effect that he learnt from the doctor that the lady was pregnant. From this, the learned counsel for the appellant would raise two contentions:

Firstly, it is contended that this vital aspect has not been borne in mind while the investigation was conducted. It was further contended that this was not disclosed by the prosecution. Furthermore, it is contended that the distinct possibility exists that the deceased became pregnant in an illicit affair and as she might  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 81 have been overcome by shame, she must have committed suicide. In fact, a suggestion is also made in evidence to this effect. The suggestion to the doctor was that if an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, it may provide a reason to commit suicide, which is not denied.

38. We are not very impressed by this contention. In the first place, the deceased was a married person. Her becoming pergnant was neither ill-legitimate, nor could have been the cause of any shame. Furthermore, actually, the doctor has opined that he has not confirmed whether it was a real pregnancy.

39. PW10 who is the sister of the deceased, has stated in her evidence that the deceased had told her a few days back that a hen had been found dead and the accused asked her not to touch it. PW 6 has also mentioned that the deceased had mentioned this to him personally when she had come to his house.

40. To sum up, we are not prepared to hold that the fact that the case of the prosecution was that the accused murdered his wife  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 82 by administering potassium cyanide, but MO 2 was found to be sodium cyanide, cannot be found to be fatal to the prosecution case. Ext.P16 report, as already noted, finding MO 2 to be sodium cyanide, would come only much after the charge was laid. As already noted, the distinguishing features of potassium cynaide and sodium cyanide have not been brought on record. Apparently, the police proceeded on the basis of the statements made to them by witnesses including also the accused. Both cyanides are powerful poisons and capable of causing death.

41. The fact that the deceased was a Muslim woman living in a rural area, the relationship with the accused having been spoken to by the witnesses as normal, her not having any mental illness or physical illness for that matter, being the mother of a child which was born after 3 to 4 abortions (as spoken to by PW 10, her sister) are factors which advance the case of the prosecution that there was no reason for her to commit suicide. It is, no doubt, true that PW 19 Circle Inspector has stated that PW 20 Doctor told him that  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 83 she was pregnant. As already noted, the pregnancy was within marriage. PW10 having given evidence that there were 3 to 4 abortions, there is nothing abnormal in the parties being desirous to have more children. Further, as already noted, again, going by the evidence of PW 20, he has not categorically found that it was a case of pregnancy. It is true that there are contradictions. PW 10, sister of the deceased has said that the hen was dug out, but, the Police Officers, for example, do not have any such case. Her statements about the hen which the deceased allegedly made and also about the marriage proposal from the 'Kadiyani' faction are conspicuous by their absence in the statement to the police. In this connection, we must recall the evidence of PW 18, the Sub Inspector of Police who would say in his evidence that he has not recorded the statement of PW 10 that the hen died. But he says that the child (must be PW 10) had said many things. Hehad written down the things which are connected with the case. He, no doubt, denies that he has dug out the hen and that to his knowledge  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 84 it was not done. He would say that he has not recorded the statements about the marriage proposal from 'Kadiyani' faction or about the necklace of the child being pawned. In regard to the incident about the hen we must also remember that PW 6 has also spoken about the dead hen. While it is true that the relationship between the deceased and the accused was cordial and normal, there was disharmony introduced apparently by reason of the marriage proposal from a rich family. No doubt, it could be said that the deceased was hereself disturbed (see the evidence of PW 10, her own sister, in this regard), but could it be argued that this would be a sufficient ground for a person who was otherwise leading a happy life to immediately commit suicide ? We find it difficult to believe that, accepting the evidence of PW 10 that the accused did tell the deceased about the marriage proposal, that by itself, would have impelled her to end her life. We must also keep in mind that after 3 to 4 abortions the deceased had given birth to a child and as again, already noted, there was no case of any mental  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 85 illness or earlier attempt to commit suicide.

42. 09.11.1996 was a Saturday. Normally, for persons carrying on tailoring shops or other business, Saturdays would not be holidays. Evidence of Pws. 3 and 5 which are corroborated by Ext.P1 FI Statement would tend to show that the version of the accused in his 313 statement that he called out PW 5 at about 9'O clock and that he reached the hospital at 11:30 cannot be believed. No doubt, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sense of time of PW 5 who is doing dairying should not be accepted in preference to the sense of time of PW 11 who was the driver of the jeep engaged by the society to deliver milk. PW 11 has deposed that milk isto be delviered before nine and it was while so, he was called for a medical case and, therefore, he came about nine. The milk was on the back side. PW1 who gave Ext.P1 FI Statement, who is a close relative of the accused being his nephew, no doubt, would appear to not unnaturally depose to not remembering the statement he made in Ext.P1, it was at about  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 86 11:30 the deceased fell unconsious and she wastaken to hospital and the body reached the hospital at 1'O clock in the Afternoon. If we believe Pws. 3 and 5, who were the neighbours and who were on good terms with the accused and his wife, then we must also hold that the accused called out only after 10 in the morning. His version that he called out about 9 must be found to be false. In this connection, it must be noted that, apart from the deceased andthe child, only the accused was there in the house. He would, therefore, be the only person to say as to what transpired in the house. There is evidence to show that the accused had stated that the deceased had chest pain. The evidence of Pws. 3 and 5 would show that when they reached the house, they found the deceased unconsious. No doubt, it could be argued that the accused had to give an explanation to the outside world. But, we are convinced that the statement made by the accused that the deceased complained of chest pain is palpably false and is a conduct of the accused which tends to advance the prosecution case. No doubt,  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 87 the Court below has believed the evidence of PW 3 to hold that the accused did not accompany them to the hospital. But, PW 5 has given evidence that the accused was present and his evidence was found acceptable. We also would think that it is quite possible that the accused may have gone to call for a taxi. In fact, the absence of the accused would have only strengthened the case against him and if he had committed the murder, it is not unlikely that he would have acted in a manner to remove suspicion from the mind of the people i.e. by being making it appear as if he was concerned about it. But, this may not advance the case of the accused having regard to other aspects.

43. PW20 Doctor has said in Chief Examination that the right side of the face of the deceased appeared somewhat oedemendation ( ) with shades of redness on the skin there. He has opined that this possibly indicates physical assault on the face. He has also said that possibility cannot be ruled out that the oedeamatus with streaks of grey would be caused, if force  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 88 is applied with the hands of the assailant to open the mouth of the deceased. He has also said that assault on the right side of the face may cause redness of the face and conjunctival congestion on the right side. In Cross Examination, PW20 has also said that the redness of the face cannot be caused simply by poisoning, and that streaks of redness noted by him could be noticed only by close watch. No doubt, he says that if the victim lies on a cot, by touching that portion of the face with the cot for some time, the redness on the face and oedema can occur. In Re-Examination, PW20, the Doctor has said that the streaks of redness found on the face, the possibility is more for application of force on the face, like beating or pressing with hands. He further says in further Cross that if beaten with hands, signs of fingers will be there, and added that is the streaks of redness noted by him.

44. We have already found that the evidence as to recovery of MO 2 can be believed. This vital piece of evidence would, in our view, go a long way in the circumstances of this case,  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 89 establishing the real guilt of the accused, as it rules out both suicide and any other person being the murderer. It also shows that the appellant had possession of poison.

45. Having regard to the above discussion, we are of the view that the appellant has not made out a case for acquittal. The conviction under section 302 IPC cannot be found to be illegal or erroneous. The accused is awarded only the minimum sentence. We see no merit in the Appeal and it is dismissed.

Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk.

//True Copy// PS to Judge  CRL.APPEAL.1380 OF 2006 C 90