The Madras High Court Bench here has set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on a Chennai-based vegetable vendor for the charge of poisoning to death a 27-year-old woman who had eloped with him, at a lodge in Kumbakonam in Thanjavur district on September 24, 2010.
A Division Bench of Justices S. Nagamuthu and M.V. Muralidaran set aside the judgement passed by a Sessions Court in Thanjavur on April 23 last convicting the appellant Shaik alias Shaik Maracaiyar and said that the alternative theory of the deceased, Devika, having committed suicide could not be ruled out.
According to the Kumbakonam West Police Station, the deceased, employed in a leather company at Saidapet in Chennai, got acquainted with the appellant who was a vegetable vendor in the same locality. They fell in love and eloped in September 2010 only to return back to the girl’s maternal home within a week.
When the girl’s parents refused to let her inside their house, the couple travelled all the way to Kumbakonam and took a room on rent in a lodge on the false premise of being a married couple. After four days of stay, the appellant left the lodge after informing the manager that he was going to a nearby saloon for a shave.
A few moments later, an employee of the hotel found a foul smell emanating from the room and informed the manager who broke open the door to find Devika lying on the cot with froth in her mouth and a container of insecticide next to her. A post mortem of the body revealed multiple nail marks around the neck though the cause of death was found to be poisoning.
Hence, the police booked a murder case against the appellant who surrendered before a Metropolitan Magistrate court at Saidapet on September 30, 2010 and stated that the Devika had jumped the gun and consumed poison alone though they had actually planned to die together after consuming the insecticide purchased from a nearby store.
On the other hand, it was the case of the prosecution that the accused forced the deceased to consume poison. The judge also pointed out that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, it was absolutely necessary for the prosecution to prove the circumstances projected by it beyond reasonable doubts and such circumstances should form a complete chain so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any alternative hypothesis inconsistent with the guilt of the accused.
