Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.10.Pari (P.W.10), Scientific Assistant and Chemical Examiner, TNFSL examined the visceral samples and submitted his reports to the post-mortem doctors. Viscera reports were marked as Exs.P32 to P36 and the post-mortem reports were marked as Exs.P27 to P30 and P40 & P41 (final opinion). The viscera report (Ex.P32) relating to Subramani (D1) alone shows that “monocrotophos and diazepam” were detected in the visceral samples.

Whereas, in the viscera reports in respect of D2 to D5, only “diazepam” was detected and “monocrotophos or lambda cyhalothrin” was not detected. As regards Subramani (D1), the post-mortem doctor has opined that, “ Death is due to insecticide poisoning (organo phosphorus) and diazepam”. No external injury was found on any of the bodies. The final opinion given by the post- mortem doctor as to the cause of death of D2 to D5 was “Death is due to diazepam”.

v. The fact that the Subramani (D1) had consumed diazepam, a http://www.judis.nic.in  CRL.A.Nos.577, 578, 579, 596 and 600 of 2012 psychotropic substance, which is normally prescribed for mentally ill patients, shows that Subramani (D1) was suffering from such illness; vi. Police have not conducted any investigation as to how, diazepam came into the possession of Subramani (D1);

27.Mr.Karthic's contention that use of diazepam by Subramani (D1) shows that he must have been suffering from mental depression, since diazepam is an anti-depressant requires to be addressed now. Mr.Karthic took this Court through the evidence of Dr.Parameswari (P.W.9), the post-mortem doctor, who in the cross-examination, has stated that diazepam is an anti-depressant and can be sold only on prescription. Mr.Karthic submitted that in the absence of the police finding out the source of diazepam for Subrmani (D1), it should be inferred that he was taking that medicine as he was suffering from mental depression.