Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) There is clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased.
(ii) That the deceased died of poison said to have been administered.
(iii) That the accused had the poison in his possession and
(iv) That he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased.

In Thurumella Ramesh Babu (2 supra) the deceased died of nitrate poison. The prosecution alleged that the accused went to P.W.5s house at about 10.45 p.m., and gave a brandy bottle along with two disposable glasses to the latter requesting him and the deceased to consume it. P.W.10 Doctor opined that the death must have taken place prior to 10.00 p.m. The two disposable glasses were sent for chemical examination and they were not found to contain any nitrate poison substance. The Investigating Officer has not sent the empty brandy bottle for chemical examination. The prosecution failed to prove the purchase of nitrate poison by the accused. On those facts, the Division Bench of this Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused has mixed the poison in the brandy. The facts of the present case have no similarity to that in Thurumella Ramesh Babu (2 supra). In the present case, both the deceased were no other than the children of the accused and they were in the latters exclusive custody. As observed hereinbefore, she failed to probablize poisoning of the deceased by any other person and in any other manner than that pleaded by the prosecution.