Back
High Court of Kerala
K. HEMA
Joseph
Versus
Antony & Others
Crl. Appeal No. 430 of 2007, Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 3094 of 2005 & Crl.M. Appl. No. 1099 of 2011
Decided On : 12-04-2011
Penal Code 1860 - Section.306 - Suicide - Essentials - Whether proved - Appeal against conviction - Whether Commission of suicide is an inevitable ingredient to be proved in an offence under S.306 - unnatural death - Charge can be framed only if Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that accused committed an offence, after consideration of records and documents submitted before Court - Whether prosecution reveal any offence for want of effective investigation, proper course would be to order further investigation under S.156(3) - Order under challenged - Held, Offence under S.306 IPC is that the victim committed suicide. Offence under S.306 IPC will be attracted only if a person commits suicide and accused abets commission of such suicide. Commission of suicide is an inevitable ingredient to be proved in an offence under S.306 IPC and it is not sufficient if there is only an unnatural death - Charge can be framed only if Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that accused committed an offence, after consideration of the records of the case and documents submitted before the court. The records and documents produced by prosecution must contain facts from which the court can presume commission of the alleged offence or offences. Presume means, reasonably presume on the basis of the prosecution records and not on any conjectures or surmises - It is also true that if any doubt arises on the guilt of the accused, the benefit must ordinarily go to the accused. But, benefit of doubt can be extended only in a case where prosecution records and documents prima facie disclose that accused committed a particular offence and charge is framed for such offence and prosecution fails to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. A criminal trial will be nothing but a farce if the court acquits an accused by extending benefit of doubt in a case in which records produced by prosecution do not even prima facie reveal necessary facts to constitute any offence. In a fit case in which court finds that the records produced by prosecution do not reveal any offence for want of effective investigation, the proper course would be to order further investigation. If the court fails to adopt such a course and wrongly frames charge against an accused for an offence which is not disclosed from the records and thereafter acquits the accused by extending the benefit of doubt, the court would be committing mainly four mistakes: (i) in not directing proper investigation under S.156(3) of the Code, (ii) in wrongly taking cognizance of the offences, (iii) in wrongly framing the charge and (iv) in wrongly extending the benefit of doubt - Court satisfied that this is fit a case to order further investigation and it is absolutely essential to render real and substantial justice in this case and order of acquittal and various other orders referred above are to be set aside and further investigation be ordered. And The impugned order of acquittal is set aside - The Committal order and the charge framed by the trial court are hereby quashed - The respondent-police is directed to conduct such further investigation as may be necessary, with respect to cause of death and other related matters, in accordance with law - Revision Petition disposed of - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections.227, 228 , 156( 3) and 173( 8)
1. Jessy died in the early morning of 26.09.1998 in her matrimonial house. Her daughter, aged 1½ years, was also found dead by her side. Jessy’s father, PW1, lodged First information Statement, Ext.P1 before local police and Ext.P1(a) – FIR was registered under the caption “Unnatural death” in Ext.P1, PW1 stated that there is no possibility for Jessy to Commit suicide and that the child was murdered by somebody. During investigation, Jessy’s husband, his parents and sisters were brought to the array of accused. Charge sheet was laid against them as accused 1 to 8, alleging offences under Sections 304B, 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’, for short).
2. According to prosecution, deceased Jessy Committed suicide by consuming Sodium Cyanide, which is a poisonous substance. She administered the same substance to her child also. The commission of suicide was allegedly abetted by accused nos.1 to 8, who subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with unlawful demand of dowry, during her life time. The marriage of Jessy and first accused took place on 02.08.1995 and she died within seven years of marriage, under suspicious circumstances, on 26.09.1998. Cruelty inflicted on deceased Jessy by the accused drove her to commit suicide by poisoning.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid before Magistrate Court under Sections 304B, 498A and 306 IPC. The case was committed to Court of Session and charge was framed by that court against accused nos.1 to 8 under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A IPC. To prove the case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW17 and marked Exts. P1 to P37 and MO1 to MO22. The accused marked Exts. D1 to D3 on their side. The accused pleaded not guilty.
4. On an analysis of evidence, trial court held that prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the alleged offences and all accused were acquitted, extending benefit of doubt. The order of acquittal is challenged in appeal filed by the state and in a revision filed by PW1 – defacto complainant. The appeal and revision are being disposed of by this common judgment.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records. As per the allegations made by prosecution, deceased Jessy committed suicide by consuming Sodium Cyanide. She administered the same poison to her daughter also and caused her death. She procured the poison which was kept in the provision store run by her husband (A1) in a portion of the house where deceased Jessy lived with her husband. The records, evidence and impugned order in this case reveal that the case was proceeded with on the assumption that deceased Jessy and the child died due to Sodium Cyanide poisoning and arguments were also advanced accordingly.
6. Before this Court also, both sides made their Submissions admitting that this is a case of suicide by poisoning. But, the prosecution records rule out the possibility of death by poisoning. No poison was detected in the blood and viscera of the deceased, as per the Chemical analysis reports. Ext.P34-Chemical analysis report relates to the daughter and Ext.P36 relates to the mother. It is specifically reported in those reports that ‘no poison was detected’ in any of the items collected from the body of both the deceased.
7. Ext.P33 series, Chemical Analysis Reports, reveal the there was no poison in the various in the various articles seized from the scene of occurrence. A steel vessel and a teaspoon were seized by the investigating officer from the bed room where the incident allegedly occurred. Some powder was also found smeared on both the steel vessel and teaspoon. According to prosecution, the steel vessel and teaspoon might have been used for dissolving the poison, for administering to the child and also for consumption by deceased Jessy. But no poison was detected either in the steel vessel or in the teaspoon as per Chemical Analysis Reports Ext.P33 series.
8. Milk found on a desk in the scene was also seized and it was also s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
