A negative viscera report does not preclude liability for poisoning if other evidence establishes the accused's guilt.

JUDGMENT :

R.POORNIMA, J.

This Criminal Appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.17 of 2019, dated 06.08.2022, on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused are husband and wife. They gave birth to a female child on 25.05.2009 and named her Sadhana. From the date of her birth, the child was suffering from a mental disorder, and as such, she was unable to maintain herself. The second accused resigned from her position as a professor at a private college in order to look after her daughter. However, she was unable to maintain the child, and the family suffered from mental distress and lack of peace of mind. Consequently, they decided to murder their mentally disordered child. While being so, on 01.10.2018, at about 6.00 p.m., they went to Kathappasamy Temple and, behind the temple, administered Tafgor to the deceased. On hearing the noise raised by the deceased, members of the public intervened and prevented the accused from administering further poison. Immediately thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur, for treatment. Subsequently, she was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for higher medical care. However, on 06.10.2018, at about 9.00 a.m., she died. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered by the Malli Police Station, Virudhunagar District in Cr.No.134 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 307 of IPC and thereafter, the charges were altered into Sections 342 and 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

3. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.

4.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found both the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 302 of IPC. They were sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 342 of IPC; they were sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default, to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the eye witnesses to the occurrence had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Despite this, the Trial Court, relying solely on circumstantial evidence, failed to properly connect the appellants with the alleged crime and mechanically convicted them. Even the post-mortem report did not support the case of the prosecution. The cause of death was not due to poisoning. There was no material to show that the deceased had been administered Organophosphorus poison. In order to prove that the poison was purchased by the accused, the prosecution examined the fertilizer shop owner as P.W.13. He deposed that the first accused had purchased the said pesticide and also issued receipt. The photo copy of the receipt was marked as Ex.P3, however, it does not even contain the signature of the P.W.13. Hence, it is not an admissible document under the Indian Evidence Act, as it is a secondary evidence, which requires corroboration. Further, though the Village Administrative Officer was allegedly informed about the occurrence on 01.10.2018 at about 06.00 p.m., the complaint was