Chandraraj alias Chandran v. State of Kerala — 2003 DIGILAW 936 (SC)

ORDER : N. Santosh Kegde, J. - Crl. A. No. 371 of 2003 1. The appellant before us was charged for and convicted by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in Sessions Case No. 105 of 1995 for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to death. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter referred the sentence for confirmation to the High Court of Kerala in Crl. RT No. 1 of 2000. The appellant also preferred a separate appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 28 of 2000 before the said High Court as against the judgment and conviction by the trial court. The High Court while agreeing with the Sessions Court in regard to conviction of the appellant under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, reduced the sentence of death imposed by the Sessions Court to one of imprisonment for life. It is against the said judgment of the High Court that the appellant is in appeal before us. 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for the disposal of this case are that the appellant was married to the deceased, Syamalakumari and had a child from the said marriage. The marriage was solemnised on 23-8-1989 and after the marriage they were living separately from the other members of the family. It is the prosecution case that at the time of marriage Syamalakumari was given 65 cents of land by her brother, in which there were yielding coconut trees. The prosecution alleged that the appellant wanted to sell the said property for the purpose of raising money for his business in herbal medicine but his wife was opposing the same. It is also the prosecution case that the appellant was a pastor in a church because of which he had come in contact with certain ladies with whom he was having extramarital affairs; due to these facts there was constant quarrel between the couple. The appellant had also demanded ten thousand rupees from the brother of the deceased for the purpose of purchasing his brother?s share in the ancestral property. PW 1 for this purpose had raised a loan of Rs 10,000 by way of pronote and had given the said sum to the appellant on 28-11-1990, but the appellant had not purchased his brother?s share, because of this there was constant fight between the husband and wife. For all these reasons the appellant wanted to kill his wife. PW 1 for this purpose had raised a loan of Rs 10,000 by way of pronote and had given the said sum to the appellant on 28-11-1990, but the appellant had not purchased his brother?s share, because of this there was constant fight between the husband and wife. For all these reasons the appellant wanted to kill his wife. For the said purpose the appellant had purchased cyanide from PW 36 about three months prior to the incident in question and administered the same to the deceased in the morning of 3-12-1990. 3. The fact that Syamalakumari died due to cyanide poisoning is not disputed. To prove that the appellant had motive to kill the deceased the prosecution had examined PW 1, the brother of the deceased and PW 27, the sister-in-law of the deceased who in their evidence had stated that the appellant was planning to sell the property given to his wife which was being opposed by her. They in their evidence also stated that the appellant was in need of money for which they had arranged a loan of rupees ten thousand which was given to him on 28-11-1990. 4. From the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 the prosecution had tried to establish the fact that on 3-12-1990, the deceased Syamalakumari was in the company of the appellant in their house. From the evidence of PW 19 the prosecution had tried to establish the fact that on 3-12-1990 she had a programme to meet the appellant but he came late at about 10.30 a.m. and when asked about the delay he was unable to explain the same. The trial court and the High Court accepting the evidence of these witnesses came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established that the appellant had killed the deceased hence the appellant was found guilty of the offence as stated above. 5. Shri J.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant had any motive to administer poison to the deceased. 5. Shri J.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant had any motive to administer poison to the deceased. He also contended that though the appellant had admitted having purchased the cyanide in question three to four months earlier, the same was done for the purpose of getting rid of the rats in his herbal medicine store at Panchamoodu and after that the said poison was not in his possession because he had handed over the leftover poison to the deceased to get rid of a cat which was creating a nuisance in the house. The learned counsel also pointed out that from the evidence of PW 8 and PW 9, it is clear that the appellant had no opportunity to administer poison because as per their evidence the appellant had left the house at about 10 a.m. on 3-12-1990 when the deceased was still alive in the house, therefore, in all probabilities the deceased had committed suicide. 6. Mr Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that it is the appellant who had administered the poison to his wife, therefore, the judgment under appeal should not be interfered with. 7. The courts below have relied upon the judgments in Gajrani v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Allahabad 394 : 34 Cri LJ 754, Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, (1972)4 SCC 625 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984)4 SCC 116 . In all these judgments it is held that the prosecution has to establish the following facts before coming to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence charged with: 1. There is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased. 2. That the deceased died of poison said to have been administered. 3. That the accused had the poison in his possession. 4. That he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. 8. Having heard the arguments of the parties and on perusing the records of the case, we are of the opinion that the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has caused the death of Syamalakumari by administering cyanide. 8. Having heard the arguments of the parties and on perusing the records of the case, we are of the opinion that the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has caused the death of Syamalakumari by administering cyanide. So far as the motive is concerned, it is clear from the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 that the appellant wanted to sell the property which was given to the deceased at the time of her marriage which was being opposed by the deceased. It is also clear from the evidence of these two witnesses that to satisfy the monetary need of the appellant they had arranged a loan of rupees ten thousand a few days before the incident for the purpose of purchasing the share of his brother from the ancestral property which was never done by the appellant in spite of getting the money. It is also the prosecution case that the appellant was in the habit of having extramarital relationships with some lady members of the church and there was constant quarrel between the husband and wife. Therefore, in our opinion, the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had sufficient motive to kill the deceased. 9. The factum that the appellant had purchased sodium cyanide from PW 36 and that his wife had died of cyanide poisoning on 3-12-1990 is not disputed. Though the cyanide was purchased about 3 months prior to the incident in question, from the evidence it is clear that the appellant did not have an opportunity to administer the same to his wife prior to 3-12-1990 because during that period for most part of the time she was in her brother?s house. The case of the appellant that after purchasing the same and using it for eliminating the rats he gave rest of the cyanide to his wife to kill a cat is unbelievable because it has come in evidence that the cat in question had gone missing nearly 7 months before the incident. Therefore, it is established that the appellant who purchased the cyanide was in possession of the same. 10. Therefore, it is established that the appellant who purchased the cyanide was in possession of the same. 10. Having come to the conclusion that the appellant had poison in his possession, having purchased the same, we will now consider whether he did have an opportunity of administering the same to the deceased. In this regard, we notice from the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, who were his neighbours, that on 3-12-1990 the appellant was in the company of his wife in his house. When he came to know that PW 1 was going to the market, the accused gave her a ten-rupee note and asked her to bring some fish and a dosa. At that point of time, these witnesses did not notice any injury on the face of the deceased. Later on, it is the prosecution case that the deceased was taken to the hospital and at that time, the appellant did not accompany her to the hospital. At the hospital on the face of the deceased, certain injuries were noticed near her lips. At the time of post-mortem nearabout 12 other injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased. This indicates the fact that prior to her death, the deceased had a quarrel and it could not have been with anybody other than the appellant. The nature of facial injuries also indicates that the deceased was forced to consume something against her will. It is the case of the appellant that after PWs 1 and 2 came to his house, he left the place and went to the church. In support of this statement of his, he relied upon the evidence of PWs 8 and 9 who are none other than his close relatives who, as observed by the courts below, have tried to help the appellant before the court. 11. The courts below have come to the conclusion that immediately after meeting PWs 2 and 3, the deceased did not leave the house but was still in the house, therefore, as found by the courts below, it was most probable that the appellant had administered the poison to the deceased. In such circumstances, we find no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of the two courts below. In such circumstances, we find no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of the two courts below. The guilty conscience of the appellant is also noticed from the fact that though he had an appointment with PW 19 at 10 a.m., he was late for the said appointment and when asked by PW 19, he was not able to give any explanation. It is further to be noticed that, according to the prosecution, as accepted by the two courts below, the appellant was not found at the hospital when his wife was brought to the hospital or at her funeral. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant did visit the hospital but could not go for the funeral because he was threatened, cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Crl. Appeal No. 372 of 2003 13. The appeal is dismissed.