1993 Supreme(AP) 470

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : BHASKAR RAO, RANGA REDDY
Barthu Srinivasa Rao - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 10-08-93

In cases of murder by poisoning, the prosecution has to prove three important facts that the death took place by poisoning, that the accused had the poison in his possession and that the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION] 302, 392 IPC - [ACT] - [SUBJECT] MURDER, ROBBERY - [KEYWORD] POTASSIUM CYANIDE - INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH - POSSESSION OF POISON - KNOWLEDGE OF POISON - BURDEN OF PROOF - SECTION 328 IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the murder of the deceased, and under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced to 10 years of R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for robbery. The deceased was a Sales Representative of Messrs Vijaya Beer and wines and used to collect monies due from the wholesale shops owners. The appellant gained acquaintance with the deceased during his tours and had an eye over the collection of monies by the deceased. He wanted to rob that amount by causing his death. So, he secured poison. On the day of the incident, the appellant and the deceased were travelling in the same compartment of a train. The appellant went inside the lavatory and placed the poison powder in one of the steel glasses. The appellant and the deceased got down from the train and sat on a bench on the platform. There the appellant poured the drink from the bottle into two tumblers and gave the tumbler containing poison to the deceased. When the deceased refused to take, the appellant insisted him and the deceased has taken the drink. Immediately after taking the drink, the deceased fell down and started struggling complaining pain. The appellant took away the brief case of the deceased, which contained cash of Rs. 1,01,200/-. The deceased was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellant did not have the intention to cause the death of the deceased or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or had the knowledge that the act done by him is likely to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, the offence would not amount to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The offence committed by the appellant squarely falls under Section 328 IPC.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had the intention to cause the death of the deceased? 2. Whether the appellant had the knowledge that the act done by him is likely to cause death of the deceased?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. In cases of murder by poisoning, the prosecution has to prove three important facts that the death took place by poisoning, that the accused had the poison in his possession and that the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. 2. With regard to second principle, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was in possession of poison and had the knowledge that if it is administered to the victim, it would result in his death (either by direct or circumustantial evidence ). 3. In case where there is direct evidence, the prosecution has to establish that the accused purchased some poisonous substance which, if administered, causes death. 4. In cases where there is circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was in possession of poison and had the knowledge that if it is applied, it would result in death of the deceased. 5. In cases where, the substance is applied as love potion by the wife to her husband or by a thief to make the deceased unconscious to commit theft of articles or by a robber to facilitate commission of the offence, then there is no intention to cause the death when they have no knowledge that the substance, which they have, if applied or administered, will result in death of the deceased. 6. Though administration of poison with the intention to commit an offence is done, by that itself, it cannot be inferred that the accused had intention to cause death. 7. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was not only possessing the poison but he administered it with the intention to cause death of deceased. 8. In the absence of such proof, it cannot be held that he administered poison to cause death of the deceased.

Final Decision: The conviction and sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC on the appellant are set aside. The appellant is convicted under Section. 328 IPC and is sentenced to suffer R.I for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer S.I for six months. The sentences of imprisonment imposed for both the offences shall run concurrently.