1942 Supreme(Mad) 387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
King, J.
In Re: Kuruba Chinna Hanumakka
Versus
Decided On : 06.11.1942
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the appellant's intention in administering poison, leading to the application of the relevant section of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Intent - Murder - Section 328, Indian Penal Code - The judgment discusses the appellant's intention in administering poison to her husband and concludes that she did not intend to cause his death but intended to cause bodily infirmity, leading to the application of Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murdering her husband by poisoning him. She denied the accusation but later admitted to introducing the poison into her husband's food, claiming she did not intend to kill him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to cause the death of her husband. Instead, she was found guilty of an offence under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The main issue was the appellant's intention in administering the poison to her husband, whether it was with the intent to cause death or bodily infirmity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the appellant did not intend to cause the death of her husband but intended to cause bodily infirmity, leading to the application of Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and found guilty of an offence under Section 328, Indian Penal Code. She was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment.
King, J.
1. This is an appeal from jail by one Chinna Hanumakka who has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Bellary of the murder of her husband and sentenced to transportation for life. Mr. Basi Reddi has very kindly consented to act as amicus curia and we are grateful to him for his presentation of the case.
2. The prosecution case was that the appellant murdered her husband Thippanna on the night of the 29th of January last by poisoning him, the method of poisoning being by putting aconite powder into his evening meal. There can be no doubt, as found by the learned Sessions Judge, that this powder was introduced into the deceaseds food on that occasion. Although the appellant denied everything in evidence against her at the trial, the evidence shows conclusively that she introduced the poison into her husbands food. She made a statement to that effect not only to several of the witnesses on the same night, but also in a formal statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, before the Sub-Magistrate of Adoni on the 3rd of February, and now in her petition from jail she has given up her futile attempt to maintain that the whole case against her is false, and she has reverted to her original plea. Her case however is that although she introduced the aconite powder into her husbands food she did so with no intention to kill him. In fact she did not know that the effect of the aconite powder would be to cause his death. She says that it was given her by her own sister and she used it in order to recapture her husbands failing affections. The further evidence in the case is that the husband and wife were not living happily together. In fact the husband suspected his wife of being fond of her maternal uncle one Bhimanna. The deceased in this case was a man considerably older than the appellant and in a weak state of health. As we have stated, there is really no doubt whatever in this case that the poison was administered by the appellant. The only difficulty in the case arises, and this was realised. by the learned Judge himself to be a serious difficulty, with regard to the intention of the appellant.
3. Mr. Basi Reddi asks us to take her statement before the Sub-Magistrate as the real truth in this case. There she says that her elder sister gave her a love potion and told her, that if she administered this to her husband he would be kind to her and subservient. She accordingly mixed it with his food. She did not know that her husband would die. This statement is, except in one important particular in conformity with what the witnesses say she told them. They agree that she told them that she did not expect her husband to die or know he would die, but that she gave the drug in order to make him " mad." There was no further investigation apparently at the time when the evidence was given as to what exactly the witnesses understood by the word " mad." It is now argued that what the appellant really must have meant at that time was only that she wanted to make her husband madly in love with her. The learned Judge discusses this matter in the final paragraph of his judgment. He points out that it is not easy to say that the appellant would be aware of the properties of the powder of which she had come into possession and that it might be possible that she did not know that it is so dangerous. However he seems to think that all possibility of accepting the view that she merely wished to use the powder as a love potion is ruled out by certain evidence given by P.W. 1. P.W. 1, it must be mentioned, is the wife of the deceaseds brother. She and her husband were living in the same house as the deceased and the appellant and the house had not been actually divided by any walls even though the deceased and his brother had become separated in status. Her evidence is that two years before this offence the deceased had brought to her husband and herself some powdered glass mixed with chilly powder and complained t