Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. PW9 is owner of the Karthik medical store and he deposed that the accused was frequently purchasing medicine and accused also residing at Moolegadde Mutt. He deposed that police visited to his shop on 13.04.2017 along with accused and he confirmed that he gave the Clonazepam 0.5 mg tablets based on a doctor's prescription. 30 tablets were given to the accused on 20.03.2017 and copy of the receipt of the same was marked as Ex.P31. Those tablets were sleeping tablets and police have conducted the mahazar and took the photographs in terms of Ex.P30 and Ex.P32 is the photograph of receipt register and document of ownership of the medical store was marked as Ex.P33 and P34 and MO3 medicine sheet of Clonazepam tablets was identified. In the cross-examination, he admits that he did not instruct the police how to write the mahazar. The medicines were given only with a doctor's prescription specifically, from Dr.Lingaraju, a Government Doctor. He did not know the name of the photographer who took the photo as per Ex.P29 and could not recall names in the bill book.

Analysis of evidence for homicidal

51. It is the case of the prosecution that accused kidnapped the child and committed the murder. It is their case that Clonazepam was administered to the child and also to the sambar which was seized.

52. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.14-Doctor. In his evidence, he says that he is working in the Hosanagara Public Hospital from last 9 years and that on 11.04.2017, Gowramma, Mahadevamma, Ashwini, Shankaraiah and Chaitra came to hospital and admitted and they took the treatment and one Shankaraiah given the letter in terms of Ex.P.36 and seized the sambar when the same is produced and sent the same to the Police for chemical examination and Ex.P.37 is the document to that effect. The other evidence is that on 12.04.2017 he conducted post mortem in the early morning 7:30 a.m., to 8:30 a.m., and also collected the viscera and the same was sent to chemical examination and reserved the opinion and having received the opinion from the FSL, found Article 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 Clonazepam and hence, gave the report that child died due to consumption of Clonazepam medicine tablet and also drowning. He gave the P.M report in terms of Ex.P.38 and also identifies his signature as Ex.P.38(a). He also identifies MO.3-tablets and in that tablets Clonazepam is there and the same is given for insomnia and anxiety and in case of Fits, the same will be given. This witness was subjected to cross- examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that relatives of the patients only brought the sambar, but he did not instruct the same and relatives of the patients only brought them to the Hospital and also admits that if there was a seriousness of health used to advise to go to higher hospital. It is elicited that blood was not found in the mouth of the deceased, but there was a froth in the mouth of the deceased and also there was a swelling in the stomach. He admits that he did not mention the timings of death. In order to digest the food, it requires 4 hours. It is suggested that MO.3 is effective tablets and the same was denied, but says that by giving 0.5 mg dose, child will not die, but it is suggested that child was not died on account of drowning and the same was denied. He categorically says that the child was not died while drowning him and when the child was alive, by that time only thrown into the water. However, he admits that he has not mentioned the same in the report. It is suggested that whether accused had purchased sleeping tablets from him, but, he says he does not remember the same. It is suggested that he has not given the report and the same is denied.

86. Now, the question before this Court is with regard to the medical evidence to which this Court already comes to the conclusion by relying upon the evidence of the doctor PW14 that it is a case of homicidal.

87. Now, this Court has to examine the scientific officer evidence who has been examined as PW18 and his evidence is very clear that he had received the sealed packet from the IO for examination and it contains 12 items. He found the Clonazepam contents in Article 1, 3 and 6 and so also in Item No.12 but not found the clonazepam contents in Item Nos.2, 4, 5, 7 to 11 and he gave the report in terms of Ex.P41 and he identifies his signature at Ex.P41(a). He also identifies MO3-tablets. It is his evidence that the clonazepam was not found in the blood of Gowramma, Mahadevamma, Ashwini, Shankaraiah and Chaitra. But reason is given that they were taking medicine immediately. But blood sample was collected on the next day. In view of taking of treatment and delay in taking the blood sample, the same was not found as deposed. It is also explained that the blood sample should have been taken within 4 hours and then clonazepam contents will be more. It is also clarified that in the blood of the child, clonazepam was found as the body was not working in view of blood circulation was stopped and hence the same was found. But in the cross-examination, nothing is elicited from the mouth of this witness except eliciting that in Article 2, 4, 5, 7 to 11 clonazepam contents were not found. Even the same is also spoken by the witness in the chief evidence itself. It is also elicited that if sambar was eaten, the same would found or otherwise it will not found.

89. Having considered the evidence of PW18 and PW19, it is very clear that the body of the boy found the clonazepam contents but not found in the body of others. The reason also assigned that the blood was collected on the next day but prior to that, they took the treatment. The evidence is very clear that on the very next day, when they found dizziness, they all went to the hospital and they were under medication. Thus, the evidence of PW18 and PW19 is very clear with regard to the presence of clonazepam in the body of the child. The very contention of the counsel appearing for the accused that the same was not found in the witnesses who went and took the treatment and only found in the body of the deceased is doubtful and the said contention cannot be accepted since the same is explained by the PW18 clearly and nothing is elicited in the cross examination of PW18 with regard to the explanation offered by the PW18 regarding non-presence of clonazepam in the body of these witnesses. Hence, it is clear that the boy was died on account of consumption of clonazepam contents as well as drowning.