LexAMMINI AND ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
AMMINI AND ORS. A v. STATE OF KERALA NOVEMBER 18, 1997 [G.T. NANA YA TI AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] B Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 300 & 120 B (1)-Murder- Circumstantial evidence-Sufficient evidence lo prove that accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy to Murder 'M' and her children-Accused C administered poison and caused death of 'M' and her two children-Evidence regarding movements of accused persons at relevant time near house of deceased, finding of finger prints of one of the accused on one of the glasses seized from the house of deceased, confession of one of the accused & other circumstances prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt-Held, the conviction of accused by the High Court justified. D Murder-Appreciation of evidence-Death caused by adiministering potassium cyanide-Evidence of prosecution witness, Goldsmith from whom poison was obtained by accused rejected on ground that he had no licence to possess potassium cyanide and he had not disclosed the fact of giving potassium cyanide to accused or to any person-Held, not proper. E Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 164-Confession before Magistrate-Reliab/ity and Voluntariness-Comparison with record in case diary by trial court is illegal-Direction by Magistrate, to keep away the accused from police does not mean that confession was made involuntarily- F Merely because the Magistrate started recording the confession after the accused was produced before him does not mean that confession was not voluntary-Merely because the accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. alleged that he had made the confession under pressure and force from the police does not mean that confession was not voluntary-Trial Court not justified in considering the length of confession as a suspicious G circumstance-Accused clearly warned that his confession was likely to be used against him-Omission to inquire from the accused as to whether he was promised to be made an approver if he made confession does not mean that confession was not voluntary-Held, the High Court was justified in . placing reliance upon the confession made by the accused. 181 H 182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A Section 293(4)-Report signed by joint Director of Forensic Science laboratory-Held, expression 'Director' includes 'Joint Director' and hence report is admissible in evidence. Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 10 and 24-Criminal conspiracy- Confession by one of the accused-Reasonable ground to believe that other B accused had conspired together in committing murder-Confession made by accused can be used against other accused also. Section 17-Evidence-Admissibility-Medical examination of injuries sustained by the accused-Statement given by the accused to doctor as to C cause of injuries-Held, statement of the accused amounts to an admission and therefore, admissible in evidence. Section 45-Medical Evidence-Certificate issued by doctor regarding injuries caused to accused persons rejected on ground that they were on plain piece of paper and not on printed form-Held, not proper when it was D shown that printed forms were in short supply in Government Hospitals in that district. Section 45-Evidence regarding finger prints-Impressions of earlier photographs not clear enough to enable expert to come to any definite conclusion-Second impression taken by the photographer-Held, in absence E of any effective cross-examination of the photographer his evidence that he could take better photographs on the second occasion could not be rejected by the court. The four accused persons, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder one 'T' and his family due to animosity of A-I toward F 'T' and his wife 'M'. The accused administered poison to 'M' and her two children which resulted in their death. The accused persons were then charge-sheeted and tried for the offence. As there were no eye-witnesses, the prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence. The trial court acquitted the accused disbelieving the prosecution evidence of accused person and G confession made by A-4. In appeal, the High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence held that most of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were proved beyond reasonable doubt. They formed a complete chain and in absence of any valid explanation by the accused, circumstances were sufficient to lead to a conclusion that all
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.