P. Bhavadasan, J.
1. The appellant, accused, who was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 Indian Penal Code were found guilty of all the offences. She was therefore convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. She was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six moths for the offence punishable under Section 309 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The accused, who was an orphan, was married by P.W.2. They had three children aged four and a half years, two and a half years and three months respectively. The prosecution allegation is that the children were suffering from continuous illness and that had worried the mother. Unable to put up with the trauma, the prosecution would say that she administered poison to two of her children and consumed poison herself. Except her younger child, who was only two and a half years at the relevant time, the appellant and her daughter survived. P.W.1, who had come to know about the incident had occasion to take the children to the hospital. When he reached the house of P.W.2 and the accused, he found that several women had already gathered there. He says that when he took the child to the hospital, he felt smell of acid. He laid Ext.P1 first information statement. P.W.9, the Sub Inspector of Police recorded Ext.P1 first information statement and registered Ext.P1(a) FIR. Investigation was taken over by the Sub Inspector of Police concerned. He went to the place of occurrence and had Ext.P6 scene mahazar prepared. He conducted inquest over the body of the younger child and prepared Ext.P7 inquest report. He had the body sent for postmortem examination. P.W.5, the Forensic Surgeon conducted autopsy over the body of the younger child and prepared Ext.P4 postmortem certificate. He had the internal organs sent for chemical examination and obtained Ext.P9 certificate. He completed investigation and laid charge before court.
3. JFCM, Mannarkkad, before whom final report was laid took cognizance of the offences. On appearance of the accused before the said court, all legal formalities were complied with. The learned Magistrate found that the offences are exclusively triable by a court of Sessions and accordingly committed the case to Sessions Court, Palakkad. The said court made over the case to Additional Sessions Court Fast Track No. III, Palakkad for trial and disposal.
4. The latter court, on receipt of records, issued summons to the accused and she entered appearance. After hearing both sides, charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 IPC. To the charge the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution therefore had P.Ws. 1 to 11 examined Exts.P1 to P10 marked. Exts. X1 and X2 were marked as court exhibits. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. She denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against her and maintained that she is innocent. Finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C., she was asked to enter on her defence. The accused chose to adduce no evidence. On a consideration of the evidence before it, the trial court found that the offences have been established against the accused. She was convicted and sentenced as already mentioned. The said conviction and sentence are assailed in this appeal.
5. The question that arises for consideration is whether the court below was justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused.
6. The short allegation is that the accused, unable to put up with the illness of her children, which was very frequent, administered poison to two of her own children and then consumed poison herself. The younger child died, while the youngest and the mother survived. The court below found that the youngest child, who was only aged three months could not have consumed poison by herself. So also the case of two and a half year old son, who died. The medical records of the accused showed that she was treated for acid poisoning. The court below then went on to hold that it was for the accused to explain how the incident had occurred and in the absence of any explanation, she is to be found guilty.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant very vehemently criticised the judgment of the court below. Learned Counsel was of the opinion that the court below has not adverted to the basic principles of death by poisoning and that had resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to learned Counsel, the prosecution has not been able to prove that acid was administered to the children by the accused and that she had consumed it herself. Learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court in paragraph 27 of the judgment, wherein it is seen mentioned that the accused might have taken poison and she might have administered poison to her children. According to learned Counsel, that, at best, creates a suspicion against the accused, but that is not sufficient to hold her guilty. According to learned Counsel, the burden is on the prosecution to show that it was the accused who had administered poison to her children and had consumed herself and is not a matter for presumption.
8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor points out that at the relevant time only the mother and two children were at home. Under such circumstances, it was for her to explain as to how the incident had occurred. The chemical analysis report viscera, blood etc. collected at the time of postmortem of the younger child, who was aged two and a half years showed that the child had been poisoned and the final opinion drawn was that the child died due to acid poisoning. It is inconceivable that children aged two and a half years and ninety days could have consumed poison by themselves and the only possible conclusion is that it was the mother, who had administered poison to the children. Learned Public Prosecutor points out that no grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment of the court below.
9. P.W.1 is a neighbour of the accused. He would depose that the accused had three children. One of them died. He stated that he had given Ext.P1 first information statement to the police. According to him, he had occasion to go to the house of the accused hearing the cries of the children. When he reached the house of the accused, he found the children crying aloud and a few ladies standing nearby. He had taken the younger child first to the hospital. He would depose that he felt the smell of acid from the room. He took both the children to the hospital. He thereafter deviated from his previous statement and did not support the prosecution further. He denied of having stated to the police that the accused had consumed poison.
10. P.W.2 is the husband of the accused. He would say that they had three children, one of them died in July, 2001. He would say that the child died due to consumption of acid. According to him, somehow accidentally the acid fell on the child and he denied that his wife had consumed acid. He too turned hostile to the prosecution and the prosecution derived no help from his evidence.
11. P.W.3 is the mother-in-law of the accused. She too would say that she knows about the incident and one of the children had died due to consumption of acid. She however refused to support the prosecution and her evidence is of no use to the prosecution.
12. P.W.4 is the doctor, who had examined the baby child aged 90 days and she would say that the child shows the signs of Formic acid poisoning. Ext.P3 is the medical records maintained in the hospital. She was of the opinion that it is unlikely that a child aged 90 days would drink formic acid. It might only be an administered one. She was unable to say whether there was any medico-legal case. Ext.X1 series was the case sheet relating to the child. P.W.5 is the doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the body of the child Shinob @ Kannan aged two and a half years. Ext.P4 is the postmortem certificate submitted by him. His opinion is that the child died due to corrosive acid poisoning. In his evidence in chief examination itself he would depose that according to him, the suggestion of intake of formic acid happened in the lying down position of the child with face upwards is possible. His opinion regarding the death was as per Ext.P5 chemical analysis report. Ext.X2 series is the case sheet relating to the accused. P.W.6 is only an attestor to the scene mahazar. P.W.8 is a witness to the inquest report. P.W.9 was the Sub Inspector of Police, who recorded Ext.P1 first information statement and registered the crime. P.W.10 is the officer who laid charge before court. P.W.11 is the doctor, who had treated the accused when she was taken to the hospital and he had issued Ext.P10 certificate.
13. These are the items of evidence in this case. It was based on the above items of evidence the court below had come to the conclusion that the prosecution had established the case against the accused.
14. It is significant to notice that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 while giving evidence turned hostile and that they did not support the prosecution case at all. Their earlier statements were put to them and they denied the same. Surprisingly enough the investigating officer was not examined. He was the person, who had taken the statements of the above witnesses and therefore the earlier versions given by them remain not proved.
15. The question that arises is whether the medical evidence by itself is sufficient to hold the accused guilty. One cannot omit to note that the evidence of P.W.4, the doctor, who had treated the child is not definite regarding whether it was medico-legal case. Of course, it is true that one cannot conceive of a situation whether a 90 days old child had consumed poison by herself. So also is the case of the two and a half year old child. However, the question that would arise is whether the burden is on the accused to show that it was not she, who had administered poison to the victims. The issue regrading death by poisoning has come up for consideration before the Apex Court on several occasions. It is well settled that in a case of death by poisoning the prosecution has to establish the following four ingredients:
i) Clear motive for the accused to administer poison to the deceased.
ii) That the deceased died due to poison administration.
iii) The accused had poison in her possession
iv) She had the opportunity to administer poison to the deceased.
(See the decisions reported in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh : (1999) 4 SCC 370, Sharad v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1984 SC 1622, Anant Lagu v. State of Bombay : AIR 1960 SC 500, Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1972 SC 656 and : AIR 1988 SC 1011.
16. It is useful at this juncture to refer paragraph 27 of the impugned judgment, which reads as follows:
Thus, from the above, it is clear that the accused has administered formic acid to her two children, the deceased Shinob and the younger daughter aged 90 days old and the accused also consumed formic acid. The evidence would also show that the deceased Shinob died due to formic acid poisoning. The formic acid is a substance used for latex processing an is highly corrosive in nature. Administration of formic acid to a child of 90 days can only by with the intention of to do away with the child. Normally no mother will do such acts. The accused also was found to have consumed formic acid. So, the intention of the accused was to commit suicide after causing murder of her children. Thus, the administration of formic acid by the accused is for committing suicide. It appears from the circumstances that the accused might have administered formic acid to her son Shinob first. Due to corrosive and irritant action of formic acid, Shinob might have become violent and crying. Due to the said aspect, administration of formic acid the daughter aged 90 days might have been to such an extent, that she survived. Similarly, after administering poison to her two children and seeing them in trouble, the accused might have consumed formic acid of a less quantity, o that she also survived. Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution, according to me, is clear and sufficient to prove that the accused has administered formic acid to her children, out of whom one died and the other survived. So also the evidence would show that he accused had self administered formic acid with a view to commit suicide. Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to prove the above aspects. Thus, it is found that the accused has committed murder of her son Shinob aged two and a half years and attempted to murder her daughter 90 days and also attempted to commit suicide by consuming formic acid. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the accused has committed the offence Under Section 302, 307 and 309 IPC.
17. A reading of the above paragraph would show that the court below was not definite regarding the issue whether the accused had consumed acid by herself and administered it to the children. The court below held that as far as the two children are concerned, she might have administered poison to the children. It is well settled that the test is that 'it must be' and not 'it might be'. A long distance has to be covered between 'might' and 'must'.
18. It is to be noticed that when P.W.1 reached the house of the accused, he found a few ladies standing there. There is absolutely no evidence as to where the accused was at the relevant time and who had taken her to the hospital. The prosecution case is totally silent in this regard. Of course, the evidence is to the effect that P.W.2 was not in the house at the relevant time. One has to thus infer therefore that the accused and the children were alone at home. The evidence is also to the effect that the eldest child has gone along with his father. There is also no evidence to show that the accused was aware that the bottle from which the liquid was taken was containing formic acid. The prosecution adduced no evidence in this regard at all. There is also nothing to show that the accused was driven to administer poison to her children due to their continuous illness. To throw the burden on the accused to prove that she did not consume poison and that it was not she who had administered poison to the children is against the well settled principles of law. The prosecution cannot sit back and throw the burden on the accused. It has to initially discharge its burden and prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is thereafter the burden of the accused arise to disprove the prosecution case. In the case on hand none of the four ingredients are seen established by the prosecution. Of course, one may be driven to the inference that the mother might have done the objectionable act. But that is not sufficient in law. The four ingredients must be shown to exist. In fact there is no evidence to show that at the relevant time the mother and the two children were alone at home. Even P.W.2, the husband of the accused did not support the prosecution. He denied that his wife had consumed poison. There is nothing to show as to who had given the cause for the injury to the doctor at the time when the accused was admitted in the hospital. In fact the evidence is totally silent regarding the consumption of acid by accused and the way in which the accused had administered poison to her children. What the prosecution has to establish is that the younger child died due to acid poisoning and the youngest child had acid poisoning and it was the accused, who administered poison to them. It is difficult to accept the manner in which the court below has gone about to decide the case. Merely because the medical evidence suggests that there was acid poisoning, it does not follow that the poisoning must have been done by the mother herself. As already noticed, there is nothing to show that she knew that the bottle seized from the place contained acid and also to show that she and her children alone were at home at the relevant time. One has to say that the finding of the court below is based on conjunctures and surmises.
19. One has to notice that the label found on the bottle, which was seized from the place of incident. The label did not disclose that the bottle contained acid. As already noticed, it is not for the defence to explain as to how the incident had occurred. The initial burden is on the prosecution to prove the case. One fails to understand as to where the accused was when P.W.1 reached the house of the accused. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that when he reached the place of incident, a few women had already gathered at the place. None of them are seen examined. One is at a loss to understand the true genesis of the incident. Under such circumstances, it is extremely difficult to accept the finding of the court below that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. As rightly noticed by the court below, it might have been the accused who did the obnoxious act. But that is not sufficient.
In the result, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the court below are set aside and it is held that the accused is not proved to be guilty of the offences alleged against her. She stands acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 Indian Penal Code. Her bail bonds shall stand cancelled and she is set at liberty.