Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A. R. Navkar, J.
Santoshkumar
v.
State of M. P.
Cr. A. No. 29 of 1977 against judgment passed by Shri K. S. Moghe, Additional Sessions Judge, Datia;
Decided on 28-11-1979
In a case of murder by poison there three are main points to be proved, firstly, did the deceased die of the poison in question, secondly, had the accused got the poison in question in his or her possession and thirdly had the accused an opportunity to administer the poison in question to the deceased. If these three paints are proved a presumtion may under certain circumstances be drawn by the Court that the accused did administer poison to the deceased and did cause the death of the deceased. The evidence of motive which is frequently given in these cases is of subsidiary importance and the mere fact that the accused had a motive to cause the death of the deceased is not a fact which will dispense with the proof of the second and third points that the accused had the poison in his or her possession, and that the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison AIR 1933 All 394 relied on. AIR 1960 SC 500, AIR 1972 SC 1331 & AIR 1954 SC 20 referred to. [Para 12 & 13
(2) Penal Code. 1860 - S. 304 - Endrine mixed in milk-whether offence committed.
In the present Case there are persons who showed signs that some unwholesome things were mixed in the milk which they swallowed There is other evidence also to show that there are other persons who, even after consuming the alleged milk, did not suffer Their condition did not indicate that anything unwholesome was mixed in the milk and that they swallowed it. The medical evidence and the opinion of the Doctor is not conclusive in the matter. It is inconclusive also to show that if Endrine is swallowed, death will be the definite result. The medical evidence does not show that Guddan died because of Endrine poison alone Added to this, the bed head ticket is not available, which could have indicated the condition of the patient when he was admitted to the hospital. From the postmortem examination also, the examination of the organs does not conclusively prove that death of Guddan occurred due to swallowing of poison. This the Doctor has admitted in his cross-examination. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspect of the case, it will be difficult for me to hold that the accused is guilty under section 304 IPC. [Para 12
Navkar, J.
1. This is an appeal against an order of conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Datia, in Sessions Trial No. 75 of 1976 convicting the appellant under section 304 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment on each count with the direction to run the sentences concurrently, given through judgment dated 22-1-1977.
2. This is a case causing the death of Guddan son of Mahabir Prasad and causing hurt of several persons by means of poisoning the milk. Accused Santosh Kumar and Shankar Prasad have been charged under section 304 read with section 34, I.P.C. and section 328 read with section 34, I.P.C. but only Santosh Kumar has been convicted as mentioned above, while the other accused has been acquitted of the charges.
3. The prosecution story in short is that Ramkishan alias Lalla of Kheri (PW 7) was, distributing the milk for the past 7 or 8 years, in the police Lines Datia and to the Hotels near the Octori post near the police lines He used to distribute his milk in the residential quarters of the police lines and he had a milk shop at Tegelia where he used to sell his milk to the public. At the relevant time accused Shankar was running a hotel opposite the Octori-post. Laxmibai Maton (PW 8) was running her tea stall just near Ramkishan (PW 7) used to collect the milk from Bajni village in two cans which is about 30 kilograms. and used to distribute it. On the date of incident, Ramkishan (PW 7) collected milk as usual from different persons belonging to village Bajni and came at the octori post near the police lines and the Circuit House with two milk cans on his bicycle. These facts are not disputed.
4 According to the prosecution on 20-11-1974, Ramkishan ( PW 7) came as usual with the two milk cans on his cycle at the Octroi post and gave the milk first to the daughter of Raghubir Sharan (PW 2) and then to Anwar son of Allu. The time of distributing milk was at about 7.00 am. Thereafter both the accused Santoshkumar and Shankar came with their servant to Ramkishan (PW 7) and asked for milk. But the mikman stated his inability to supply it due to shortage. Accused Shankar insisted that he will have to supply the milk. So, Ramkishan (PW 7) supplied him I kilogram of milk and in the meantime accused Santosh dipped his hand in the milk can, The accused thus got a chance to drop a small bottle containing Endrine poison, in the milk can. Therefore, Ramkishan (P W 7) distributed the milk to Luxmibai Maton (PW 8) and other persons in the Police Lines and at his Tigelia shop from the same milk can. Due to this milk poisoning, constable Suryanarayan Dubey, his daughter Manish Kumari, Babli daughter of Mahesh Singh, Constable Mahesh Singh, Munni, daughter of Mahavir Prasad of Holipura, Datia, Manoj son of Mahabir Prasad of Holipura, Datia, Shila Devi wife of Tulshidas Dubey, Holipura, Datia, Tulsidas son of Kalikaprasad of Holipura, Datia Ramsingh Raghubanshi c/o Police Prosecutor Datia and Guddan son of Mahabir Prasad fell seriously ill and Guddan died in the hospital. When so may persons were admitted in the hospital for treatment due to this poisoning, Dr. R. S Singh [PW 13] sent the report to S. O. Kotwali, Datia, Ex. P/6 report is written and signed by Dr. R S. Singh [P N 13]. Ramkumar Chansoriya, S. O. Kotwali, Datia [PW 10] received this report and he registered a case under section 326 and 328, I.P.C The first information report is Ex. P. 7. He entrusted the investigation of the case to Shri M. C. Mishra, Sub-Inspector [PW. 14]. After investigation R. K. Chansoriya, S O. (PW 10) challaned the accused persons under section 326, 328 and 302 read with section 34, I.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge, Gwalior transferred the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Datia who decided the matter.
5. The charges were read over to the accused persons but they claimed to be tried after denying the said charges. Their plea was that they have been falsely implicated. Accuse
SupremeToday
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
