The judgment establishes the importance of proving clear motive, possession, administration, and opportunity in cases involving poisoning.

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. 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. He also contended that though the appellant had admitted having purchased the cyanide in question three to four months ea