SHANMUGHAN versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 19-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 1 S.C.R. 411 
SHANMUGHAN 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 2007) 
JANUARY 19, 2012 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3231302 - Conviction and 
sentence under - Death of appellant's wife as a result of 
poisoning on having been administered cyanide - Conviction C 
of appellant u/ss. 3231302 alongwith imposition of life 
imprisonment by courts below - lnterlerence with - Held: Not 
called for - Prosecution succeeded in proving the motive of 
the appellant - Entire chain of circumstances is consistent with 
the guilt of the appellant - There were clear injuries on the 
D 
deceased which show that some force was used while 
administering the poison - Without any force these injuries 
could not be there in a case of suicidal poisoning - Evidence 
of doctor who conducted post mortem confirmed the same -
Appellant and the deceased admittedly slept together on the. 
E 
night of occurrence inside a bed room and no third person 
was there to apply force on the victim - Administration of 
poison took place inside the bed room which could only be 
administered by the appellant - Thus, prosecution rightly 
proved that it was a case of murder. 
F 
'R'-wife of appellant died as a result of poisoning on 
having been administered cyanide. The relationship 
between 'R' and the appellant were strained. There was 
evidence of mal-treatment of 'R' by the appellant. Also few 
weeks prior to the death of 'R', there was some quarrel 
G 
between the parties. The trial court convicted the 
appellant under Sections 3231302 IPC and sentenced him 
to life imprisonment The High Court upheld the order of 
411 
H 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012) 1 S.C.R. 
A the trial court. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant 
appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 When a case is sought to be proved by 
B the prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence, 
the burden on the prosecution is that it must prove each 
circumstance in such a way as to complete the chain and 
at the same time it should be consistent with the guilt of 
the accused. Any reasonable doubt in proving the 
C circumstances must be resolved in favour of the accused. 
The accused must be given the benefit of any fact or 
circumstance which is consistent with his innocence, 
which is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved 
by chain of circumstances. In the instant case, the 
D prosecution succeeded in proving the motive of the 
appellant and the entire chain of circumstances is 
consistent with the guilt of the appellant. On the fateful 
night, admittedly nobody was present in the bed room 
where the appellant and the deceased were sleeping as 
E husband and wife. The victim admittedly screamed at 
about 2 a.m. This attracted the inmates of the house to 
rush to the bed room to find the victim dead as a result 
of administering of poison. This is not disputed. [Paras 
7, 8 and 9) [417-A-E] 
F 
1.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim 
diet! of cya[lide poison which is a highly corrosive poison 
and is obtained by distilling potassium cyanide or 
potassium ferrocyanide with dilute sulphuric acid. The 
post mortem exar_nination in cases of death by 
G administering such corrosive poison,would show that the 
mouth, lips, skin and mucous membrane are corroded in 
patches and in acute cases, the same may be charred. 
[Paras 10 and 11) [417-F-G; 418-A] 
H 
Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi 24th 
SHANMUGHAN v. STATE OF KERALA 
413 
Edition Year 2011 Page 260, Chapter 12, Section 2 -
A 
referred to. 
1.3. In the instant case, it is found from the injuries 
· that there is presence of lacerated wounds on the lips, 
contusions in the ear and abrasions in the chest. These 
8 
injuries clearly show that some force was used while 
administering the poison. Without any force these injuries 
could not be there in a case of suicidal poisoning. Apart 
from the appellant no one was there in bed room to apply 
force on the victim. That apart the evidence of PW 7, 
C 
doctor who conducted post mortem also showed that all 
the injuries were fresh injuries and cannot be sustained 
by fall on a hard substance. PW 7 also deposed that the 
injuries could be because of forcible administration of 
poison. Thus, the prosecution rightly proved that it was 
a case of murder. [Para 12) [418-B-D] 
D 
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra 
(1984) 4 SCC116: 1985 (1) SCR 88 - referred to. 
1.4. The

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.