Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. As to Sunday, October 15, Alpina's evidence was that she woke at 6-0 a.m., saw the deceased sleeping, went to the bathroom, and when she came back, found that the lady had turned over on her side, with her head on one pillow and another pillow at her side near to the wall; that the lady was awake but neither of them spoke; that Alpina, leaving the door ajar and having dressed, went to do some cooking in a kitchen at the back of the house towards the western side; that fifteen or twenty minutes from the time when she had got up, Seelas, a servant boy of fifteen, came to her and told her that her mistress wanted her. The chauffeur Perera came into the kitchen at the same time and said the same. Alpina said she then washed her hands and went without hurry to her mistress's room, followed by Seelas, who was going to his pantry; that she then saw her lady lying across the bed, that is to say not in a recumbent or sleeping position but out of bed in the sense that she was lying across it with her head towards the wall and legs and feet hanging over the outer edge of the bed; that as she entered the room, she saw the appellant coming in from the child's nursery; that she noticed a smell which she describes as poisonous and oily; that the accused went to the bed, commenced fanning his wife with a book and sent her (Alpina) for brandy and afterwards on repeated errands for hot bottles, which he applied to his wife; Also that he attempted artificial respiration. She also said that there was a handkerchief on the bed, about a foot square in size, near to the lady's right hand. This handkerchief she said she put with some soiled linen on to the ressing-table after the doctor had come and she knew her mistress was dead. It appears to have gone to the Sundry and nothing further is known about it. A small green smelling salts bottle, marked P. 4, was on the teapoy upon which the deceased had kept her books. The stopper was out and it was empty. Alpina first saw it on October 16, when she had to clear the teapoy for some purpose, and put the books aside. She does not remember seeing such a bottle on the dressing-table. On the 16th she took the bottle and put it on a chair, on which she put the books. This is the bottle which, it was suggested, might have been filled with chloroform from some other container, and which the deceased might have used if she administered chloroform to herself.

17. Dr. S.C. Paul's evidence was that he arrived at 7-30 and that when he arrived, the appellant left the room. Dr. Paul found that the woman was dead and had probably been dead since about 6-30. He appears thereafter to have examined the room and finding a bottle of aspirin tablets, asked the accused about them. In addition to telling the doctor how he had heard the noise from his wife's room and how he thought that the boy had put his head between the rails of his cot, the appellant, in answer to the doctor's question said that his wife had the night before complained of headache, and he had given her the bottle of aspirin nearly full. It appears that the bottle, if full, would have contained twenty-five aspirins, and in the bottle there actually were nine remaining. Accordingly Dr. Paul thought that death was probably due to an overdose of aspirin, and that the marks which he had noticed on the face of the deceased were caused by rubbing of brandy and application of hot water bottles to the face. Dr. Paul was not content to certify death in the ordinary course but telephoned to the coroner and gave information to the police and to Mr. Leo de Alwis, the brother of the deceased. On learning from the police and coroner that they did not suspect. foul play or propose to take any proceedings, he gave a certificate that afternoon according to which death was due to syncope or heart failure.

22. It seems desirable to summarise the material expert evidence. The evidence of Dr. W.C. Hill was to the effect that death was due to asphyxia which he explained as meaning respiration being prevented and sufficient oxygen not coming in. There might also, he said, have been secondary syncope. The marks on the face were consistent with burns from chloroform. Dr. G. Cook stated that chloroform in a bottle or an ampoule which had been opened five years before would be useless. He had attended the deceased about eight years before in her confinement as an anaesthetist and she was "susceptible to chloroform." Dr. S.C. Paul who was F.R.C.S. arid Doctor of Medicine (Madras) and who as stated had been the medical attendant of the deceased for many years, testified that she had some symptoms of diabetes and also had a skin disease called Tina Nigrantes, a sort of fungus on the face, neck and body. When he saw the body at 7-30 a.m. on October 15, there was a slight discoloration of the face on the right side including the lips and just below them, tip of the nose and the eyelids but not on the chin. The face was placid and calm. The eyes were not protruding, there were no injuries to the tongue, no paleness, no lividity of nails, finger tips or lips. He thought she might have taken something, but the suggestion of chloroform did not then occur to him. At that time he thought that brandy and hot water bottles (which the appellant said he had used) might have produced the burns. He was present at the post mortem. The marks were then more visible on both sides of the face. He then did not doubt that the death wag due to chloroform. In his experience chloroform burns might be caused without pressure. He had on an average 2,000 cases a year of the administration of chloroform at his hospital and there were five or six cases of burns every year. If it was a case of suicide, whether a handkerchief saturated with chloroform remained on her face or not, death would have occurred within two or three minutes. In ten minutes or so the smell would have gone. (That is of course in the atmosphere of Ceylon.) He agreed with several statements in the text-books as to the great difficulty of causing death by the administration of chloroform by force (he cited the works of Taylor and Webster). He agreed with a statement in Webster (p. 706) : "It is probable however that no authentic case is on record in which chloroform has been successfully used on a sleeping person for criminal purposes. Cases of suicide by inhalation are rare though some are reported." He testified that the deceased was a robust woman. One of his remarks was that if a third person was applying a handkerchief or some like object soaked in chloroform to cause death, the natural impulse would be to close the mouth to prevent screaming and the burns would then be more on the lips and in the region of the mouth than elsewhere. He thought the deceased died of syncope and not of asphyxia.