SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1940 Supreme(Mad) 484

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Burn, J.
In Re: Kuruva Nagamma and Anr.
Versus
Decided On : 04.12.1940

The presence of reasonable doubt and discrepancies in witness testimony can influence the court's decision and lead to the setting aside of a conviction.

Headnote:

Murder - Poisoning - S.O. No. 89 of 1940 - Section 420, Criminal P. C.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were accused of murdering Pedda Eangadu by means of poisoning. The prosecution alleged that accused 2 had supplied accused 1 with powdered root of aconite, which accused 1 mixed with the food served to her husband. Pedda Eangadu died of poisoning, and chemical examination revealed the presence of aconitine.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there were elements of reasonable doubt in the case, including discrepancies in witness testimony and the timing of symptoms of poisoning, leading to the setting aside of the conviction for murder and directing the release of the appellants.

Issues: The issues revolved around the evidence of poisoning, the reliability of witness testimony, and the presence of reasonable doubt in the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the discrepancies in witness testimony, the timing of symptoms of poisoning, and the presence of reasonable doubt, leading to the setting aside of the conviction for murder.

Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction of the appellants for the offence of murder and the sentences of death, directing their release.

JUDGMENT

Burn, J.

1. The appellant in Cr. Ap. No. 769 was accused 2 and the appellant in Cr. Ap. No. 772 was acoused 1 in S.O. No. 89 of 1940 tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Kurnool. The charge against the accused was that accused 1 at the instigation of accused 2 had murdered Pedda Eangadu, the husband of accused 1, by means of poisoning. The prosecution theory was that the two accused were on terms of illicit intimacy, and that Pedda Eangadu was also incensed against accused 2 because accused 2 was keeping as his concubine the aunt of accused 1. In these circumstances the case was that accused 2 had supplied accused 1 with powdered root of aconite which accused 1 had mixed with the food prepared and served by her to her husband on the evening of 3rd July last.

2. Pedda Eangadu died at about 10 P.M. on 3rd July and there is no reasonable doubt about the fact that he died of poisoning. The chemical examiner certified that "aconte" was found in some vomited matter sent to him for inspection. This was matter which Pedda Eangadu had vomited some time after he took his evening meal. "Aconitine" was also found by the ohemioal examiner on some bits of rag which were produced by accused 1 when the Police In-spector (P.W. 10) questioned her on 5th July. We experienced some difficulty over this "aconitine," because the works of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology to which we have access, state quite clearly that "aconitine" is an alkaloid extracted from the ropt of aconitum napellus. The root which accused 2 is said to have alleged that he had had in his possession and supplied to accused 1 was called in the vernacular "Vasanabhi" (Telugu) and this is undoubtedly aconitum ferox, Aconitum napellus is apparently rare in this country but aconitum ferox is said to be very common on the slopes of the Himalayas and in other hilly places. Aconitum ferox, according to the books, contains no "aconitine" but is the source of an alkaloid known as "pseudo aconitine." The treatises also show that these two alkaloids have different chemical compositions. If therefore the chemical examiners certificate that aconitine had been found in the vomit and on the rags were accurate, it seemed to us that there could be no case of any kind against either of the accused involved.

3. We thought it necessary therefore to take the evidence of the chemical examiner under Section 420, Criminal P. 0. He appeared before us today and gave evidence; and from his evidence it appears that by aconitine he only meant any alkaloid of the aconitine typo derived from any of the poisonous varieties of aconite. The books show that there are many varieties of the plant aconite, that a large number of them are poisonous and that some are not. The evidence of the chemical examiner is that from the roots of the poisonous varieties, alkaloids can be extracted which vary in their chemical composition but have certain toxilogical resemblances and which produce similar pharmacological results. The chemical examiner told us that the tests he is able to apply do not enable him to distinguish between the various alkaloids. They do enable him to say whether the matter submitted to him contains any of the alkaloids of the "aconitine" type, but the quantities available are so small that it is not possible to distinguish between, for instance, aconitine" and "pseudo-aconitine." The chemical examiner, we are glad to say, has undertaken for the future to word his certificates more accurately, so that there may be no danger of misunderstanding.

4. There was evidence given by the father and sister of the deceased (P.Ws. 5 and 6) that on 3rd July accused 1 served food to her husband. P.W. 5 says that his son complained of the taste of the food and then accused 1 said that the dholl had been burnt in cooking. She then, it is said, added milk to the food that she had offered to her husband and told him to get on with his meal. Her husband finished his meal and afterwards went out to listen to a st











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top