Usha Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA** **FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2013/10TH JYAISHTA 1935** **CRL.A.No. 305 of 2009 (C) --------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 344/2007 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM DATED 27-01-2009 APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED: -------------------------** **USHA RADHAKRISHNAN D/O.SAROJINI AMMA, KRISHNAKRIPAYIL VEEDU KANNIMEL CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.VARGHESE SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.M.N.MAYA** **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE** **P.PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE** **THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **[CR]** ## **K.T. SANKARAN & B. KEMAL PASHA, JJ.** ## **------------------------------------------** Crl. Appeal No.305 of 2009 **------------------------------------------** Dated this the 31[st] day of May, 2013 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Kemal Pasha, J.** The appellant woman named Usha Radhakrishnan, is accused of _mariticide_ on the allegation that she has committed the murder of her husband Radhakrishna Pillai, and also _parricide_ on the allegation that she has committed the murder of one of her relatives Unnikrishna Pillai who is the son of the elder brother of Radhakrishna Pillai, on 12.2.2005 by administering Potassium Cyanide poison through liquor consumed by them. 2. Deceased Radhakrishna Pillai along with the accused and their daughter Asha Krishnan (PW2), were residing together at Krishna ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:2:- Kripa, Kannimel Cherry, Sakthikulangara Village, Kollam. Their son PW21, Arjun Krishnan was residing at the house of the elder sister of the accused during the relevant period. Deceased Radhakrishna Pillai was a military personnel, who after retirement has joined as peon in Kerala State Financial Enterprises. Deceased Unnikrishna Pillai residing in the neighbouring house, is the son of the elder brother of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. 3. As an Ex-service man, deceased Radhakrishna Pillai used to purchase his monthly quota of liquor from the military canteen at Thiruvananthapuram, on all second Saturdays. He lastly collected his quota of liquor, a total of 10 full bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, from the military canteen on 12.2.2005. After bringing it into his house, he consumed some portion of the liquor from one of the bottles. 4. The prosecution case is that on 12.2.2005, during some time in the afternoon the accused mixed potassium cyanide with the liquor in the said bottle from which the liquor was partly consumed. By about 6.30 p.m, both Radhakrishna Pillai and Unnikrishna Pillai consumed ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:3:- the said liquor contaminated with cyanide poison and thereby they breathed their last within a few minutes. Radhakrishna Pillai who was struggling and wriggling was taken to Upasana Hospital at Kollam where his death was confirmed. Likewise, Unnikrishna Pillai who was also struggling and wriggling was taken to the District Hospital, Kollam where his death was also confirmed. Initially, the relatives other than the accused were of the impression that the death had occurred due to the consumption of spurious liquor. 5. On the basis of Ext.P1 First Information Statement furnished by PW1 who is the elder brother of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai, residing in the neighbourhood, PW22 Sub Inspector of Police Sakthikulangara registered Crime No.41 of 2005 through Ext.P1(a) F.I.R. at 10.30 p.m. under the caption “unnatural death” under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. He conducted the inquest of the body of Radhakrishna Pillai and prepared Ext.P21 inquest report. He conducted the inquest of the body of deceased Unnikrishna Pillai and prepared Ext.P12 inquest report. Some material objects were also ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:4:- collected through the inquest. The bodies were sent for postmortem examination. 6. PW22 visited the scene of occurrence at 11.45 a.m. on 13.2.2005 and prepared Ext.P11 scene mahazar. Through Ext.P11 he seized, MO1 glass tumbler by which deceased Radhakrishna Pillai has allegedly consumed the poison contaminated liquor, and MO2 liquor bottle carrying the label “old smugglers rum” which contained very little liquor inside, and also some other material objects, including the remaining nine bottles of liquor. He seized Ext.P23 bill by which Radhakrishna Pillai has collected liquor from the military canteen on 12.2.2005. 7. CW27 who was the then Circle Inspector of Police, Chavara, took over the investigation and placed the accused under arrest on 16.2.2005. He prepared and furnished Ext.P30 remand application, which contains Ext.P30(a) information allegedly furnished by the accused, which led to the discovery of the shop of PW5 and the consequent seizure of Ext.P8 bill book which contains Ext.P8(a) ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:5:- counter foil, from the shop of PW5. After completing the investigation, PW23 who was the successor in office to CW27, filed the final report. 8. Charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. On the side of the prosecution, 23 witnesses were examined and Exts.P1 to P31 were marked. Mos 1 to 18 were identified. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has denied the entire incriminating circumstances brought out against her through the prosecution evidence. The contentions of the accused, in short, can be summarized as follows:- _Her husband, deceased Radhakrishna Pillai, was a spendthrift and he had spent all his money. Thereafter, he used to borrow money from other persons in the locality. According to her, he had spent the loan amount obtained for the construction of his residential building also. When she used to ask about the said transactions, he used to keep mum. Around three to four days prior to his death, he was in utter disappointment and he did not use to take food. He used to drink. On one day Unnikrishna Pillai also came to the house_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:6:- _while deceased Radhakrishna Pillai was engaged in consuming liquor. Unnikrishna Pillai went to the room and after some time Unnikrishna Pillai went out. When Radhakrishna Pillai exhibited some discomforts she went to the room and when asked, he told her that he had chest pain. Immediately, she procured a car and took him to the Upasana Hospital. On reaching there the doctor confirmed his death. After two days she was informed by the police that Radhakrishna Pillai and Unnikrishna Pillai died on consuming liquor contaminated with poison. Deceased Radhakrishna Pillai committed suicide by consuming liquor mixed with poison and while so after its consumption, Unnikrishna Pillai also came over there and without knowing the impending danger, he also consumed the balance liquor contaminated with poison. Her further case is that PW1 who is a political leader took this opportunity to wreak vengeance against her and thereby cooked up the present false case._ 9. No defence evidence was adduced. The court below found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, convicted her thereunder and sentenced her. 10. The first point to be decided in this appeal is regarding the ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:7:- cause of death of the deceased. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the death can be, either suicidal, accidental or homicidal. In this particular case, even after ascertaining the cause of death, we have to proceed to decide further on the basis of the remaining evidence as to whether the death is suicidal, accidental or homicidal, especially when the appellant claims that the death of Unnikrishna Pillai is accidental as he consumed without the knowledge of the impending danger that the liquor is contaminated with poison. Her further claim is that deceased Radhakrishna Pillai has committed suicide by consuming liquor mixed with poison. 11. In fact, there is no challenge at all regarding the actual cause of death of both the deceased in this case. PW2, who is the daughter of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai and the accused, has given evidence that deceased Radhakrishna Pillai after consuming a portion of the liquor, came out of his room with MO1 glass containing little bit of liquor and complained that it had a bitter taste of soap and enquired the accused whether soap was used to wash MO1. The deceased quickly answered ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:8:- that she had washed it with water. Soon after that, deceased Radhakrishna Pillai became restless and he exhibited utter discomforts. 12. PW6, who is the wife of the deceased Unnikrishna Pillai has given evidence that Unnikrishna Pillai had gone out of their house by the evening to the place where children were playing and at that time she could see Radhakrishna Pillai also there. After a little bit of conversation between Radhakrishna Pillai and Unnikrishna Pillai, both of them went to the house of Radhakrishna Pillai. After some time Unnikrishna Pillai returned to the house and he became restless. He also exhibited utter discomforts and uneasiness. The lady who became worried and frightened cried aloud which invited the attention of the neighbours and immediately Unnikrishna Pillai was taken to the Kumar Hospital, Kollam, from where he was referred to the District Hospital, Kollam for better management. 13. When deceased Radhakrishna Pillai exhibited uneasiness and discomforts, the first advise given by the accused to him was to go to bed and lie down. Complying with the direction, he went inside the ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:9:- room. When he was utterly struggling and wriggling, PW2 wanted the accused to take him to the hospital. The sudden reaction of the accused was that it would be better to bring a Homeo doctor. Disregarding the words of the accused, PW2 went to the house of PW8 and invited him to help her. PW2 telephoned from there for a car. Then Radhakrishna Pillai was immediately taken to Upasana Hospital, where his death was confirmed. 14. PW18, who was the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Radhakrishna Pillai as well as Unnikrishna Pillai and prepared Exts.P14 and P16 postmortem certificates respectively. Even in Exts.P14 and P16, his opinion as to the cause of death was that the _“postmortem findings are consistent with death due to poisoning”_ . He reserved his final opinion pending the report of chemical examination. On obtaining chemical examination report, he prepared and furnished Exts.P15 and P17 final postmortem certificates in respect of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai and ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:10:- deceased Unnikrishna Pillai respectively. In Ext.P15 as well as Ext.P17, PW18 has clearly reported that the _“death was due to cyanide poisoning”_ . It has to be noted that there is absolutely no challenge with regard to his opinion as to the cause of death in the crossexamination by the learned counsel for the accused. In fact, there is no reason to have a different opinion as to the cause of death of either Radhakrishna Pillai or Unnikrishna Pillai, than the one expressed by PW18. 15. PW4 is the Joint Chemical Examiner and Chief Chemical Examiner of Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. She received the viscera and contents collected and sent by PW18 from the postmortem examination of Radhakrishna Pillai and Unnikrishna Pillai. Exts.P4 and P5 are the reports of such chemical examination. PW4 has clearly proved Exts.P4 and P5. As per Ext.P4, item No.1 is the part of stomach and intestine, item No.2 is the part of liver and kidney, item No.3 is blood, item No.4 is urine and item No.6 is the spleen of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. In Clause II in Ext.P4 regarding ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:11:- volatile poisons, it has been reported that item Nos.1 to 4 and 6 noted above were found to be positive for the test of ethyl alcohol. Likewise, the Guiacum resin test and Prussian blue test for cyanide poison also was positive in respect of the aforesaid item Nos.1 to 4 and 6. Therefore, it has clearly come out that the death of Radhakrishna Pillai was due to cyanide poisoning. 16. Similarly, as per Ext.P5, item No.1 is the part of stomach and intestine, item No.2 is the part of liver and kidney, item No.3 is blood, item No.4 is urine and item No.6 is the spleen of deceased Unnikrishna Pillai. In Clause II in Ext.P5 regarding volatile poisons, it has been reported that item Nos.1 to 4 and 6 noted above were found to be positive for the test of ethyl alcohol. Likewise, the Guiacum resin test and Prussian blue for cyanide poison also was positive in respect of the aforesaid item Nos.1 to 4 and 6. Therefore, it has clearly come out that the death of Unnikrishna Pillai also was due to cyanide poisoning. 17. It has been reported by PW4 in Exts.P4 and P5 that hydrocyanic acid together with ethyl alcohol was detected in item ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:12:- Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. Hydrocyanic acid and its alkali metal salts are highly poisonous. PW4 has reported in Ext.P4 that item No.3 blood of Radhakrishna Pillai contained 2.16 milligrams of hydrocyanic acid and 57.5 milligrams of ethyl alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Similarly, PW4 has reported in Ext.P5 that item No.3 blood of Unnikrishna Pillai contained 1.62 milligrams of hydrocyanic acid and 46 milligrams of ethyl alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. 18. From all the evidence discussed above, there cannot be any quarrel with the findings entered by the court below regarding the cause of death of both the deceased. It clearly stands proved that both Radhakrishna Pillai and Unnikrishna Pillai suffered an unnatural death due to cynide poisoning. Whether it was suicidal, accidental or homicidal, can be decided only after the appreciation of other evidences adduced by the prosecution. 19. The case entirely rests upon circumstantial evidence. It is trite law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the court has to analyze and scrutinize the following points, viz.:- ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:13:- _(1) Whether the prosecution has made out definite circumstances clearly and cogently?_ _(2) Whether such circumstances form a complete chain without any missing link?_ _(3) Whether such circumstances cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused and none else?_ _(4) Is there is any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused?_ _(5) Whether the inculpatory circumstances are incompatible with the innocence of the accused?_ In the light of these legal propositions, we are examining the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case. 20. PW1 is the elder brother of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. According to him, Radhakrishna Pillai used to purchase his usual quota of liquor every month. On 12.2.2005 also Radhakrishna Pillai brought his military quota of liquor. The deceased used to supply a portion of such liquor to his friends and relatives. On that day, by about noon, Radhakrishna Pillai consumed a portion of the liquor from MO2 bottle and went out for inviting his friends. In the afternoon, the ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:14:- deceased went out to purchase garland for decorating the pictures at his house as the next day being the first day of Malayalam month. In the evening, Unnikrishna Pillai came over there and requested his usual quota separately in another bottle. Radhakrishna Pillai refused to part with liquor in a separate bottle whereas agreed to give some liquor for consumption. Radhakrishna Pillai supplied a glass of liquor to Unnikrishna Pillai, who consumed it by standing outside the compound wall and then returned to his house. Again Radhakrishna Pillai came back and started consuming the balance liquor in the bottle. When Radhakrishna Pillai exhibited uneasiness and discomforts, PW2 who was there in the house came out and cried aloud and thereafter took Radhakrishna Pillai to the Upasana hospital. The accused was also present at the hospital. According to PW1, the accused told him that Radhakrishna Pillai has suffered a heart attack. The nurse at the hospital told them that the death being one due to heart attack, the body of Radhakrishna Pillai could be taken back to his house. By that time, the news regarding the death of Unnikrishna Pillai at the District ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:15:- Hospital, Kollam also came out. PW1 was enquired from the office of the Mathrubhoomi News Daily as to whether anybody was taken to the Upasana Hospital due to the consumption of spurious liquor. Immediately the body of Radhakrishna Pillai was removed to the mortuary, and postmortem examination was conducted at the Medical College on the next day. 21. PW1 has made some revelations regarding the on-going quarrel and disputes between the accused and deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. According to him, Radhakrishna Pillai had 16 cents of land in his name. Accused caused the sale of the said property and by investing some more funds of Radhakrishna Pillai, he purchased a property at Myannad, in the name of the accused. Subsequently, without informing him and seeking his permission, the accused disposed of the said property and misappropriated the money. When Radhakrishna Pillai retired from military service, he constructed the present residential building in the 5 cents of property at the roadside. The accused disliked the construction of the said building at the said ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:16:- property. Apart from the above, the accused had disposed of her gold ornaments and also spent the money obtained as dowry, without the knowledge and consent of Radhakrishna Pillai. There occurred frequent quarrels between Radhakrishna Pillai and the accused in respect of the aforesaid transactions. According to PW1, both the deceased died on account of consumption of liquor contaminated with poison. On the same night, at 10 p.m. he reached Sakthikulangara Police Station and furnished Ext.P1 First Information Statement before PW22, Sub Inspector of Police. He has also revealed that the accused had obtained the five cents of property and building in her name from Radhakrishna Pillai. 22. PW2 is none other than the daughter of the accused and deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. During the course of investigation, she has voluntarily turned up to furnish Ext.P3 statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before PW3, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally. On a perusal of Ext.P3 which clearly stands proved by PW2 and PW3, it seems that PW2 has a specific case that the entire ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:17:- financial management at the house was being done by the accused and not by deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. According to her, the deceased used to entrust all the monies with the accused. The accused had spent the entire amounts procured through the sale of the family property of Radhakrishna Pillai, and also his entire retirement benefits from the military. There occurred frequent quarrels at the house between Radhakrishna Pillai and the accused, by raising the question as to how such amounts were spent. PW2 stated in Ext.P3 statement that the accused had spent the entire amounts received by her by way of dowry and also the gold ornaments and properties. Raising this point also there occurred frequent quarrels between deceased Radhakrishna Pillai and the accused. According to her, in spite of all the above, deceased Radhakrishna Pillai had utmost love and affection towards the accused. In Ext.P3, PW2 has described the incident occurred at the house on the fateful day just as a caricature. In the evening when the deceased Radhakrishna Pillai had returned to the house after he had gone out for the purchase of garland, PW2 was watching the T.V. programmes. ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:18:- While so, her father came out of his room by holding MO1 glass tumbler and enquired the accused whether it was washed by using soap, by complaining that it had a taste of soap. The accused suddenly replied that she had used only water for washing the same. 23. According to PW2, her father usually used to consume liquor by sitting alone inside the room and he did never use to consume liquor in the vicinity of the other members of the family. After making such an enquiry, deceased Radhakrishna Pillai went to the washbasin and emptied MO1 glass tumbler by pouring the balance liquor into it and thereafter, he washed his mouth well by using water. Immediately, the accused told him to go and lie down. He went inside and lay down as directed. All of a sudden, the accused went inside and took the bottle containing liquor from the room, went to the kitchen sink, and poured the remaining liquor in the bottle into it. On seeing such an unusual act of the accused, PW2 asked her as to why she had poured out the liquor from the bottle. The accused replied that, if not, the same would again be consumed by Radhakrishna Pillai. Thereafter, PW2 ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:19:- returned to her father. She could see him in a miserable state with utter discomforts. The accused also came over there. When PW2 told the accused that immediately the deceased should be taken to the hospital, the accused casually replied that they could call a Homoeo Doctor. PW2 insisted that her father should be taken immediately to the hospital. Thereafter, PW2 called one Sasi from the neighbourhood. Other neighbours also came over there and the deceased was taken to the hospital. On a close scrutiny of the versions of PW2 in Ext.P3, it seems that all the versions are quite natural. 24. Now, coming to the evidence of PW2 before the court below also, it seems that her versions regarding the incident are consistent with the versions in Ext.P3. It seems that even without purchasing garland, deceased Radhakrishna Pillai returned to the house, after making arrangements with somebody to bring the garland. It has clearly come out from the evidence of PW2 and the contents of Ext.P3 that, apart from the accused, PW2 and the deceased, no others were present at the house. Even though the accused has attempted to make ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:20:- out a case that Unnikrishna Pillai had visited the room of the accused, the evidence of PW2 clearly brushes aside such an argument raised by the accused. It has also come out from the evidence of PW2 that, whenever the accused or PW2 was present at the house, the deceased was not in the habit of permitting any outsider to have a company with him for consuming liquor. Only in their absence, the deceased used to entertain others for consumption of liquor in company with him. 25. It has to be noted that the accused was working as a Lab Technician and it cannot be imagined that she did not know the seriousness of the discomforts and uneasiness shown by deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. She had made a casual approach to the request of PW2 even when PW2 clamoured that her father had to be taken to the hospital. The accused very casually replied that they could procure a Homoeo Doctor. 26. In cross examination, PW2 has deposed that, after the death of her father, she has detached all her connections with the accused, and she has never resumed contacts with the accused. According to PW2, ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:21:- after the incident, she has never talked to the accused. The evidence of PW2, as a whole, clearly reveals that PW2 had, in fact, realised the foul play staged by the accused in the matter and that was why the accused had immediately taken away the bottle and poured out its contents. It is pertinent to note that PW2 had questioned the said act of the accused. The explanation offered by the accused to PW2 to such query that it was for disabling her husband to consume more liquor that she had poured it into the sink, is devoid of any _bonafides._ Even the accused was aware that other nine bottles of liquor were there in the room of the deceased. If as a matter of fact, she wanted to restrain the deceased from consuming more liquor, she would have thrown away those nine bottles of liquor also. The words of PW2 in her deposition in cross examination that _'after the incident, I have never cared to talk to my mother'_ clearly reveals that PW2 could then and there realise the foul play on the part of her mother, in causing the death of her father. 27. PW6 is the wife of deceased Unnikrishna Pillai. According to her, when she returned to her house after her job, her husband ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:22:- Unnikrishna Pillai was engaged in watering the plants at their courtyard by about 5-5.30 p.m. on 12.02.2005. Their children were playing ball in the neighbouring property. Unnikrishna Pillai went over there and she also accompanied him. They could see deceased Radhakrishna Pillai standing there. Unnikrishna Pillai and Radhakrishna Pillai talked something together. According to her, Radhakrishna Pillai used to get liquor quota from Military canteen every month, from which he used to give a portion to her husband also. After talking together, Radhakrishna Pillai and Unnikrishna Pillai were seen walking to the house of Radhakrishna Pillai. She returned to her house. After some time, her husband returned to the house. She teased him by asking whether he had gone to the house of Radhakrishna Pillai to consume his quota. Her husband went inside the house and drank water. He switched on the T.V. and sat there. After some time, when she looked, she could see him beating his hands and legs violently by complaining of chest pain. She shook him and called him. He could not respond. She became frightened and she cried aloud. On hearing it, their children and ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:23:- neighbours rushed to the spot. He was taken to the hospital in an autorickshaw. According to her, he developed discomforts only after his coming back from the house of Radhakrishna Pillai. At first, he was taken to Kumar Hospital, Kollam, from where he was referred to the District Hospital, Kollam for better management. The Doctor declared his death. Then, she came to know that Radhakrishna Pillai also died. At that time, she developed a suspicion that it might have occurred from the liquor consumed by them. According to her, there were intermittent quarrels between the accused and deceased Radhakrishna Pillai regarding the financial transactions of the accused. 28. PW7 is one of the neighbours of both the deceased. On 12.02.2005 by 6.30 p.m, while she was going to her daughter's house situated nearby, she saw both the deceased talking together by standing near the compound wall of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. She heard Unnikrishna Pillai requesting Radhakrishna Pillai to give his quota in a separate bottle. Then, she heard Radhakrishna Pillai replying that there was nothing to be given in a bottle, whereas, something could be given ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:24:- for drinking. While she was returning from her daughter's house immediately, she could see Radhakrishna Pillai giving a glass tumbler containing red liquid to Unnikrishna Pillai standing near the compound wall. By standing outside the compound wall, Unnikrishna Pillai obtained the liquid and consumed it. Just after she reached her house, she heard that Radhakrishna Pillai was taken to the hospital. Just after that, she heard that Unnikrishna Pillai was also taken to the hospital. By 10 p.m. she heard about the death of both the deceased. After two days, she learned that their death was due to poisoning through liquor and that it was the accused who had done it. According to her, police came and asked the accused to tell the truth. Then, the accused revealed that, while she was coming from the clinic, she purchased poison and mixed it with liquor. 29. PW8 is one of the neighbours of both the deceased, whose house is situated just opposite to the house of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai, at the opposite side of the road. According to him, on 12.02.2005, by about 6.30 p.m., PW2 came running to his house by ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:25:- crying aloud stating that her father was not well and had to be taken to the hospital and she wanted to telephone. He pointed out the telephone to her and immediately went to the house of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. He went the room of Radhakrishna Pillai and asked him as to what had happened. Even though he shook him, he did not tell anything. He saw saliva and froth oozing out of his mouth. PW8 called the accused and asked as to what had happened. She replied that he had consumed liquor earlier and then again came and consumed liquor. PW8 asked her to bring the balance liquor, if any, in the bottle from which he had consumed liquor. Then, she told him that she had poured it away immediately and had washed the bottle and the glass tumbler. On hearing it, he became angry. He scolded her and came out of the room. By about that time, the neighbours had gathered there. At that time, he heard that Unnikrishna Pillai was also taken to the hospital. A car was brought, and Radhakrishna Pillai was taken to the hospital. After one or two hours, he heard that both of them died. According to PW8, he heard the accused telling the police after 2-3 days that when ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:26:- she came back, she had purchased cyanide from the shop and mixed it in the liquor. 30. PW14 is one of the neighbours of deceased Unnikrishna Pillai. He had also accompanied Unnikrishna Pillai when he was taken to the hospital. According to him, Unnikrishna Pillai had died even prior to his reaching the District Hospital. According to him, the accused had mixed poison in the liquor consumed by Radhakrishna Pillai and Unnikrishna Pillai and thereby they died. He has not stated as to how he came to know about it. At the same time, his said versions are not seen challenged in cross examination. 31. PW9 is another neighbour of both the deceased. According to him, the incident had occurred in the evening on 12.02.2005. On all months, Radhakrishna Pillai used to get Military quota of liquor and he used to supply a portion of it to some of his friends, free of cost. In the evening, by about 6.30 p.m., he saw deceased Radhakrishna Pillai was being taken to the hospital in a car. After some time, he heard that Unnikrishna Pillai was also taken to the hospital due to heart attack. ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:27:- After some time, he heard that both of them died. Then, he felt a suspicion that there might have been poison in the liquor consumed by them. According to him, on 11.02.2005 there had occurred a quarrel in between the accused and deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. 32. PW11 was the Doctor attached to the casualty of Upasana Hospital, Kollam on 12.02.2005. He identified the accused and deposed that the accused had brought a patient by name Radhakrishna Pillai dead, to the hospital by about 7.30 p.m. on that day. He gave requisition for postmortem examination. According to him, the accused brought the deceased to the hospital by stating that the deceased was suffering from chest pain. 33. PW12 is a Doctor, who is conducting 'Senan's Poly Clinic and Day Care'. From 17.03.2004 onwards, the accused was working there as Lab Assistant. According to him, on 12.02.2005, the clinic as well as the lab was closed at 1 p.m. as usual. On Saturdays and Sundays, there was only a half day duty for the accused. 34. PW19 is the son of PW1. According to him, Radhakrishna ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:28:- Pillai and Unnikrishna Pillai died on consumption of liquor contaminated with cyanide. He is residing just in the neighbourhood of Radhakrishna Pillai. According to him, he had affixed his signature in Ext.P18 mahazar prepared by the police, by which the police had seized Ext.P19, which is written as a suicide note in a single sheet of paper by the accused. He identified Ext.P19 letter as one in the handwriting of the accused. Further, he has stated that the accused and deceased Radhakrishna Pillai were not in good terms. According to him, Ext.P19 was seized through Ext.P18 about four days after the incident. Ext.P19 is addressed to the elder sister of the accused. A translation of its contents is as follows:- _“I am going. Manichi should bring up my daughter, and should maintain my son also. You should not give my children to anybody and you should maintain them as your own children. I am fed up with my life. I am doing this voluntarily according to my own will. No others are responsible for this. You should tell Vinod and Vimal that they should treat my daughter as their own younger sister,_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:29:- _Usha”._ Even though it has not been stated in Ext.P19 that the accused was not in good terms with her husband, from the statement that she was fed up with her life clearly reveals that her relationship with her husband was totally strained. 35. PW21 is the son of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. According to him, during the period of incident, he was residing at Mayyanad along with his mother's elder sister, Padmavathi Amma. The accused used to call Padmavathi Amma as 'Manichi'. On coming to know about the incident, he reached Upasana Hospital, Kollam, from where he came to know that his father was discharged from there. Immediately, he reached his house at Sakthikulangara. He saw many persons gathered there. It was then only he came to know that his father had died. He came to know about the death of Unnikrishna Pillai also. He came to know that both of them died on account of consumption of liquor, which was contaminated with poison. According to him, his father used to consume liquor occasionally. Whenever deceased ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:30:- Radhakrishna Pillai consumes liquor, he used to talk loudly and to raise his voice and used to quarrel with the accused. Occasionally on such occasions, deceased Radhakrishna Pillai used to assault the accused. The accused had told him that there occurred a quarrel between her and deceased Radhakrishan Pillai. He has deposed that, after the accused was questioned by the police, he had never visited his mother or talked to her. Further, according to him, when he came to know that it was his mother, who had mixed poison in the liquor consumed by Radhakrishna Pillai and Unnikrishna Pillai, at first, he could not believe it. 36. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Ext.P30 (a) cannot be treated as a statement admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Ext.P30 is the remand report dated 17.2.2005 prepared and filed by CW27. CW27 could not be examined before the court below as he was on deputation abroad. The circumstances in which CW27 could not be examined before the court below has been detailed in paragraph 33 of the impugned judgment, which is ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:31:- reproduced as follows: _“CW27 was not available to examine and he had done a major part of the investigation. Even though initially learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not necessary to examine CW27 as PW23 can speak about the step taken by CW27. However, after hearing PW21 the learned Public Prosecutor changed his stand and filed a petition requesting that summons be issued to CW27 who according to the records had carried out the major part of the investigation. This Court then came to know that CW27 was gone abroad on deputation and it is unlikely that he will return soon. Since the learned Public Prosecutor insisted that he should be examined, the learned Public Prosecutor was asked to furnish the correct address of CW27 and the trial was adjourned. The adjournment by this court of the trial of the case was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and after adverting to all the facts and circumstances of the case this court was directed to examine the available investigating officer who had laid the charge in case the presence_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:32:- _of CW27 could not be procured, provided the learned Public Prosecutor agreed for the same. Based on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, learned Public Prosecutor dispensed with the examination of CW27 and represented that since PW23 could speak about the steps taken by CW27, it is sufficient that PW23 be examined. Accordingly PW23 speak about the various steps taken by CW27.”_ 37. Therefore, it is evident that the court below has taken necessary steps for procuring the presence of CW27. Of course, those steps would have taken some more time. In order to cash that opportunity, the appellant had approached this Court against the adjournments granted by the court below for the examination of CW27. This Court directed the court below to examine the available Investigating Officer who had laid the charge in case the presence of CW27 could not be procured. It was based on the said direction of this Court, the learned Public Prosecutor had dispensed with the examination of CW27 before the court below and examined PW23 to ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:33:- speak about the steps taken by CW27 also. Therefore, there is no meaning in contending that the prosecution has failed to examine CW27 and that Ext.P30(a) could not be pressed into service. 38. Relating to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in _**Anter Singh v. State of Rajastan (AIR 2004 SC 2865)**_ it was held as follows:- _“The various requirements of the section can be summed up as follows: (1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescription relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible. (2) The fact must have been discovered. (3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by accused’s own act. (4) The person giving the information must be accused of any offence. (5) He must be in the custody of a police officer. (6) The discovery of a_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:34:- _fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to. (7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible.”_ 39. In the decision reported in _**Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mistra v. State of Kerala (AIR 2007 SC 2531)**_ it has been held in paragraph 44 as follows:- _“In his statements before the investigating officer, he made a confession; but what was admissible in evidence is only that part which would come within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and not the rest.”_ 40. In Ext.P30 remand report, CW27 has incorporated the information furnished by the accused, when she was interrogated. The said information referred within inverted commas in page No.5 of Ext.P30 was marked as Ext.P30(a) which reads as follows: _“I have purchased the potassium cyanide from a shop situated at the S.N. College Junction, Kollam. I will show the shop and the person who gave potassium cyanide, if I am taken there.”_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:35:- 41. The version of CW27 in Ext.P30 is that, he reached the shop named 'Veekey Scientific Traders' situated at S.N. College Junction, Kollam as led by the accused. Accused pointed out the shop as well as PW5 who was present at the shop. According to CW27, PW5 identified the accused as well as the accused identified PW5; and PW5 had admitted that on 11.2.2005, the accused had purchased potassium cyanide from his hop. It is true that the accused had led CW27 to that shop on 16.2.2005. Thereafter, he took the accused to her house, from where some more seizures were effected. Subsequently, by about 7 p.m. he along with the accused reached Chavara Police Station and the custody of the accused was entrusted with W.P.C. 5688. On 17.2.2005, he reached Veekey Scientific Traders again, from where he seized Ext.P8 bill book through Ext.P20 mahazar. Ext.P8(a) is the counter foil of Bill No.4238 by which 100 gms. of potassium cyanide was sold to Usha Radhakrishnan, Kannimel on 11.2.2005, for Rs.400/-. The said Usha Radhakrishnan is none other than the appellant. 42. It has clearly come out that PW5 had acted in a most ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:36:- negligent manner in giving that much quantity of potassium cyanide. PW5 had attempted to make out a case that it was deceased Radhakrishna Pillai who purchased the said quantity of potassium cyanide by representing that it was for his daughter for her laboratory works at the college. At the same time, it is a fact that it was the accused who led CW27 to the shop of PW5 after furnishing Ext.P30(a) information. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Ext.P30(a) is not admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as it has not been incorporated in Ext.P20 mahazar. The said argument is devoid of merits as no mahazar has been prepared by CW27 in respect of the pointing out of the shop of PW5 as well as PW5, by the appellant. Ext.P30 remand report clearly shows that the appellant had led CW27 to the shop of PW5 and she had pointed out PW5 who was present at the shop. She identified PW5, as well as PW5 identified the appellant. The discovery in respect of Ext.P30(a) information is the shop of PW5 as well as PW5 who supplied potassium cyanide to the appellant, and not the discovery of Ext.P8 or ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:37:- P8(a). It is true that on the next day CW27 reached the shop of PW5 and seized Ext.P8 through Ext.P20 mahazar. The said visit of CW27 to the shop of PW5 for effecting the seizure of Ext.P8 bill book which contains Ext.P8(a) counter foil on the next day, of course is a continuation of the discovery of the shop and PW5 consequent to Ext.P30(a) information. Matters being so, one cannot expect incorporation of Ext.P30(a) information in Ext.P20 mahazar. At the same time, all the course of events were correctly entered in Ext.P30 remand report. Hence, there is no meaning in contending that Ext.P30 (a) cannot be pressed into service as it has not been incorporated in Ext.P20 mahazar. We are of the considered view that Ext.P30(a) is clearly admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Over and above it, it is admissible in evidence under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act also. 43. PW5 has also admitted the seizure of Ext.P8 which contains Ext.P8(a). PW20 has admitted his signature in Ext.P20 mahazar through which Ext.P8 was seized. PW5 has turned hostile to ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:38:- the prosecution. When questions that could be put in cross-examination were put to him by the prosecution, he stated that he had admitted to the police that he had sold potassium cyanide to Usha Radhakrishna Pillai, when the police reached his shop with the accused and asked him whether he had sold potassium cyanide. He has admitted that he had committed a gross illegality in the matter. It seems that later his licence was cancelled. It clearly stands proved that it was the appellant who purchased 100 gms. of potassium cyanide on 11.2.2005 from the shop of PW5. 44. PW4 has proved Ext.P6 certificate of chemical analysis in respect of 10 items including MO1 glass tumbler, MO2 bottle containing 1 ml of colourless liquid, and the other nine bottles containing liquor. Item No.4 in Ext.P6 is MO2 bottle described as 'washed bottle' containing 1 ml of colourless liquid. Ext.P6 clearly shows that item No.4 was found positive to the test for cyanide, i.e., both Guiacum resin test and Prussian blue test. Likewise, item No.6 in Ext.P6 is MO1 glass tumbler which also was found positive to the test ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:39:- for cyanide, both Guiacum resin test and Prussian blue test. The chemical analysis of the contents of other nine bottles proved that the same contained ethyl alcohol, and it did not contain any cyanide poison. Therefore, it has come out that the remnants of the liquid in MO2 showed the presence of cyanide poison in it. MO1 glass tumbler also is proved to have been used for taking liquid containing cyanide poison. 45. From the discussions made above, the following circumstances have been clearly and cogently established in this case. (1) The accused had sold away the properties acquired in her name by using the funds obtained from the sale of the properties of Radhakrishna Pillai and also other amounts raised by him, without his knowledge and consent. (2) The appellant had sold away her gold ornaments and also money obtained as dowry from her house, that too without the knowledge and consent of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. (3) There were frequent quarrels between deceased ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:40:- Radhakrishna Pillai and the accused, as deceased Radhakrishna Pillai used to question the aforesaid acts of the accused. (4) Ext.P19, which was written as a suicide note by the accused clearly reveals that the accused was fed up with her life along with deceased Radhakrishna Pillai, and their relationship was totally strained. (5) On 11.2.2005, the accused purchased 100 gms. of potassium cyanide from the shop of PW5. (6) The accused has not explained regarding the purpose for which she purchased the said quantity of potassium cyanide or the manner in which she has made use of it. (7) On the date of incident, duty of the accused as lab technician at the laboratory and clinic was over by 1.30 pm. (8) On 12.2.2005, from 2.30 p.m. onwards the accused was present at the house. (9) The accused was aware of the fact that deceased Radhakrishna Pillai used to purchase his monthly quota of liquor from ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:41:- the military canteen on all second Saturdays, and that 12.2.2005 was a second Saturday. (10) After 2.30 p.m. PW2 went out for taking tuition classes and returned prior to 6 p.m. (11) On the date of incident, in the afternoon, deceased Radhakrishna Pillai consumed a portion of the liquor from MO2 bottle and thereafter he went out. (12) When PW2 returned prior to 6 p.m., the accused and deceased Radhakrishna Pillai were present at the house. (13) Then deceased Radhakrishna Pillai went out for purchasing garland, as the next day was the first day of the Malayalam month. (14) Immediately the accused also went out to give insulin injunction to a patient in the neighbourhood and then the accused came back. (15) After some time, deceased Radhakrishna Pillai came back. Deceased Unnikrishna Pillai who is the elder brother's son of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai also came over there and requested for his usual ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:42:- quota of liquor separately in a bottle. Then deceased Radhakrishna Pillai told him that there was no liquor to be provided in a separate bottle, whereas he would give some quantity of liquor to Unnikrishna Pillai for consumption, and thereafter deceased Radhakrishna Pillai gave a glass of liquor to Unnikrishna Pillai, which Unnikrishna Pillai consumed and went back to his house. (16) Decesed Radhakrishna Pillai went back to his room and started consuming liquor. (17) After some time, deceased Radhakrishna Pillai came out of the room with the liquor contained in MO1 glass tumbler and asked the accused whether the glass tumbler was washed by using soap, by complaining that it tasted soap. (18) The accused immediately answered that it was washed with water. (19) Then deceased Radhakrishna Pillai poured the liquor contained in MO1 to the washbasin and washed his mouth well with water. ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:43:- (20) At that time deceased Radhakrishna Pillai complained that there was burning sensation in his chest. (21) Immediately, the accused directed deceased Radhakrishna Pillai to go and lie down and deceased Radhakrishna Pillai went to his room. (22) Immediately the accused went inside the room of the deceased and took out MO2 bottle containing the balance liquor and poured the contents from it into the kitchen sink. (23) On seeing it, PW2 became suspicious in the said unusual conduct of the accused and questioned her as to why she was doing it. (24) The accused gave a false explanation that it was for avoiding further consumption of liquor by deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. (25) Nine more full bottles of liquor were available inside the room even at that time, which fact was known to the accused also. (26) When PW2 saw deceased Radhakrishna Pillai wriggling and struggling with utter discomforts, she asked the accused to take the ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:44:- deceased immediately to the hospital and on such request and demand, there was only a cold response from the accused. (27) Instead of taking the deceased immediately to the hospital, the accused suggested PW2 that they could procure the presence of a homeo doctor. (28) It was PW2 who took all the arrangements to take deceased Radhakrishna Pillai to the hospital. (29) On reaching the hospital with deceased Radhakrishna Pillai, the accused told the doctor at the Upasana Hospital that the deceased was suffering from chest pain. (30) By that time when deceased Radhakrishna Pillai exhibited discomforts and utter irritation, deceased Unnikrishna Pillai also exhibited utter discomforts and he was also wriggling and struggling. (31) Immediately the wife of Unnikrishna Pillai took him to the Kumar hospital, Kollam from where he was referred to the District Hospital, Kollam. (32) Both deceased Radhakrishna Pillai and deceased -:45:- ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** Unnikrishna Pillai died of cyanide poisoning. (33) Both the deceased had consumed the liquor from MO2 bottle by using MO1 glass tumbler. (34) Chemical analysis revealed that, the remnants in MO2 bottle and MO1 glass tumbler were contaminated with cyanide poison. (35) The accused furnished Ext.P30(a) information which is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. (36) The accused led CW27 to the shop of PW5 and pointed out the shop, as well as PW5 who supplied her 100 gms. of potassium cyanide on 11.2.2005. (37) CW27 seized MO8 bill book which contained MO8(a) counter foil showing the sale of 100 gms. of potassium cyanide to the accused on 11.2.2005 for an amount of Rs.400/-. (38) When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused has given a false version that deceased Radhakrishna Pillai was in utter disappointment, and he did not use to consume food around three to four days prior to his death. ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:46:- (39) Ext.P14 postmortem certificate of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai showed his stomach full of rice and other food materials. (40) When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has given a false version that deceased Radhakrishna Pillai has committed suicide, and unknowingly deceased Unnikrishna Pillai also consumed the balance liquor contaminated with potassium cyanide and thereby he also died. (41) After the incident, PW2 has severed all her connections with the accused who is her mother and has not even cared to talk to her afterwards. (42) Similar is the case with PW21 who is the son of the accused and he also has severed all his connections with his mother and has not even cared to talk to her afterwards. ## 46. In _**Manivel & Ors. V State of Tamil Nadu (2008 CRI. L.J.**_ _**4362)**_ it was held, _“The circumstances from which the inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:47:- _be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.”_ ## 47. In _**Kusuma Ankama Rao V State of A.P (2008 CRI. L.J.**_ _**3502)**_ it was held as follows: - _“The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are:_ _(1)the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’ established;_ _(2)the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3)The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;_ _(4)They should exclude every other hypothesis except the one to be proved; and_ _(5)There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:48:- _conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused an must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”_ These very same principles were enunciated in Paragraph 153 of the decision in _**Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V state of Maharashtra**_ . _**reported in 1984 SCC (Cri) 487 = AIR 1984 SC1622**_ 48. As held in _**Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh**_ ( _**AIR 1989 SC 1890)**_ , when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:- _1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;_ _2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;_ _3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and;_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:49:- _4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence._ ## In _**Vithal Tukaram Mure and others v. State of Maharashtra[(2002) 7**_ _**Supreme Court Cases 20]**_ it was held as follows: - _“The essential ingredients to prove the guilt of an accused by circumstantial evidence are:-_ _a) the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved;_ _b) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature;_ _c) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence;_ _d) the circumstances should to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused.”_ 49. In _**Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and another V State of**_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:50:- ## _**Maharashtra, reported in 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033**_ , it was held, _“Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” It was also held therein that “It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs.”_ 50. It is trite law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, such incriminating facts and circumstances should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. It is also the cardinal principle that suspicion however strong it be, will not take the place of proof. 51. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the case of an accusation of murder by administering poison, the prosecution is expected to prove certain materials as prescribed by the Apex Court. Our attention has been invited to the decisions reported in _**Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh**_ ( _**A.I.R. 1960 SC 659), Sharad**_ **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:51:- ## _**Birdhichand Sarda V state of Maharashtra (1984 SCC (Cri) 487) and Ramgopal V. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1972 SC 656)**_ . In _**Mohan's case**_ ( _**AIR 1960 SC 659)**_ (supra), it was held as follows:- _“In the case of a murder by administering poison, the prosecution has, along with the motive, also to establish that the deceased died of a particular poison said to have been administered, that the accused was in possession of that poison and that he had the opportunity to administer the same to the deceased”._ ## 52. In _**Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V state of Maharashtra 1984 SCC (Cri) 487**_ , it was held ; _“In case of death by poisoning the Court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction:_ _(1) there is a clear motive for the accused to administer poison to the deceased,_ _(2) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered,_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:52:- _(3) that the accused had the poison in his possession,_ _(4) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased”._ In _**Ramgopal's case (AIR 1972 SC 656)** (supra)_ , it was held as follows:- _“In a case of death by poisoning it is only when the motive is there and it is proved, that the deceased died of the poison in question, that the accused had that poison in his possession and that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased that the Court can infer that the accused administered the poison to the deceased resulting in his death”._ 53. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of the accused in this case. The prosecution has adduced evidence to prove that the accused had sold away the properties acquired in her name by using the funds obtained from the sale of the properties of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai and also other amounts raised by him, without the ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:53:- knowledge and consent of Radhakrishna Pillai. Further, the appellant had sold away her gold ornaments and spent the money obtained as dowry from her house, that too without the knowledge and consent of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. There were frequent quarrels between deceased Radhakrishna Pillai and the accused at the house, as deceased Radhakrishna Pillai used to question the aforesaid acts of the accused. The aforesaid circumstances proved by the prosecution clearly lend support to the existence of sufficient motive. Motive is something which always locks up in the mind of the accused and some times, it is difficult to unlock. When facts are clear, the absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime. ## 54. In _**Mulakh Raj and others v. Satish Kumar and others [ (1992) (3) SCC 43 at page 44]**_ it was held, _“In cases of circumstantial evidence motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of the accused and some time it is difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without motive._ ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:54:- _The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non existence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law. Proof of motive is never indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Therefore, absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case.”_ 55. It stands clearly proved that the contentions resorted to by the accused were false and such false contentions were deliberately resorted to by the accused. It has to be noted that when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has resorted to a false plea of total denial, and has also resorted to a false contention that deceased Radhakrishna Pillai has committed suicide. To all the questions relating to the aforementioned proved circumstances in this case, the accused has deliberately chosen to give the answer as, “It is not correct” or “false”. ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:55:- ## 56. In _**Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat**_ ## _**(1997 SCC(Cri) 1030)**_ , it was held in paragraph 44 as follows:- _“The Court has drawn adverse inference against the accused for making false statement as recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of our findings, it cannot be held that the accused made false statements. Even if it is assumed that the accused had made false statements when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the law is well settled that the falsity of the defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea may be considered as an additional circumstance if other circumstances proved and established point out the guilt of the accused._ ## 57. In _**Shankaralal v. Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1981 SC 765**_ ), it was held in Paragraph 30 as follows:- _“The last circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the total ignorance of the incident pleaded by_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:56:- _the appellant is false, and would itself furnish a link in the chain of causation. We have come to the conclusion that the appellant was not present in the house at the time when Sunita’s dead body was discovered. That makes it impossible to hold that the appellant’s plea is false. Besides, falsity of defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea can at best be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused”._ ## 58. In _**Geetha v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2000 SC 3475)**_ , it was held in paragraph No.8 as follows:- _“When all these incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant in her examination u/S. 313 Cr.P.C she merely stated that they were false and failed to give any other explanation. The prosecution evidence which has been found reliable proves that the answers given by the appellant in her 313 statement were really false. The appellant did not explain how the dead body and articles belonging to the deceased were found from her_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:57:- _house. She denied that they were found from her house. This being the case of circumstantial evidence, this false denial assumes importance as it would supply a missing link in the chain of circumstances.”_ 59. This being a case based on circumstantial evidence, the aforesaid false denials and false explanations resorted to by the accused assume much importance as the same would supply missing links, if any, in the chain of circumstances. Apart from the motive as aforesaid, it is proved, that the deceased died of the poison in question, that the accused had that poison in her possession, and that she had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. 60. All the aforesaid circumstances are clearly and cogently established by the prosecution. All the said circumstances form a complete chain. It stands proved that it was the accused who administered potassium cyanide poison to deceased Radhakrishna Pillai. Deceased Radhakrishna Pillai without the least knowledge of the impending danger, as he was unaware of the mixing of poison with ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:58:- the liquor, gave a portion of that poison contaminated liquor to deceased Unnikrishna Pillai. Both of them consumed the liquor and within no time met with their death. All the inculpatory circumstances are incompatible with the innocence of the accused. There is no other hypothesis than the guilt of the accused. All the proved circumstances clearly point towards the guilt of the accused, and none else. 61. Apart from all these, the false explanations by the accused also created additional links in the chain of circumstances. The cumulative effect of all such circumstances clearly prove that in all human probability, it was the accused and none else, who administered poison by name potassium cyanide to deceased Radhakrishna Pillai by mixing it in the liquor in MO2 bottle. 62. From all the above, it clearly stands proved that the accused has administered poison to deceased Radhakrishna Pillai intentionally in order to cause his death. As stated earlier, deceased Radhakrishna Pillai who was unaware of the presence of poison in the liquor, gave a portion of it to his brother's son late Unnikrishna Pillai, and both of ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** -:59:- them consumed the liquor and met with their death. The acts committed by the accused which have resulted in the death of Radhakrishna Pillai and Unnikrishna Pillai, clearly constitute the offence of murder as defined in Section 300 of the IPC, which is punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 63. Immediately on becoming aware that deceased Radhakrishna Pillai consumed the liquor in which she had mixed potassium cyanide, as Radhakrishna Pillai showed utter discomforts and uneasiness, the accused took out MO2 bottle containing poison contaminated liquor and poured out its contents to the kitchen sink. The act of the accused in draining out the balance liquor from the bottle in a hurry and hasty manner, clearly indicate the intention of the accused to destroy the evidence in order to screen her from legal punishment, which squarely falls within the ambit of S.201 IPC. 64. The discussions made above clearly reveal that the prosecution has proved the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against the appellant. The court below has carefully considered all the ## **Crl. Appeal No.305/09** ## -:60:- aspects and evidence in their correct perspective and has arrived at the correct conclusion. From the above, we have no hesitation to conclude that all the reasoning, observations and conclusions made by the court below are correct. There is absolutely nothing to interfere with the finding of guilt and conviction entered by the court below. 65. Similarly, regarding the sentence also we are satisfied that the sentences imposed by the court below are proportionate to the gravity of the offences proved against the appellant, and therefore, the sentences imposed by the court below are also not liable to be interfered with. This appeal is devoid of merits, and is only to be dismissed, and we do so. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed by the court below are confirmed. ## **K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE** ## **B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE** ul/-