SARASAMMA @ SARASWATHIYAMMA v. THE STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE INSC 445

NAME OF THE CASE Sarasamma @ Saraswathiyamma v. The State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police INSC 445

FACTS Sarasamma, or Saraswathiyamma, was charged with poisoning her husband, Rajan, to death. The prosecution claimed that she had an extra marital affair and worked with her boyfriend to kill her husband. A post-mortem showed that Rajan had died due to poison while his death was in very suspicious circumstances. The trial court convicted Sarasamma under IPC Section 302 for murder and she was given life imprisonment. The women was convicted through hearsay evidence regarding her immoral conduct and the fact that poison was found in the house. In protest, Sarasamma further sought a new trial alleging that the evidence presented in court unable to nail her and now she was falsely implicated.

ISSUE If the conviction of Sarasamma under Section 302 of the IPC for murdering her husband relying on mere presumption of facts was proper.

HOLDING Yes, because those thereby making up the circumstantial evidence were capable of providing a chain of evidence that would give a reasonable doubt that Sarasamma was guilty.

RATIONALE Common law established that in whichever case the evidence is and circumstances must be such that only the inference of guilt of the accused is possible. In this case, the Court noted several key factors:

Motive: Sarasamma’s adulterous affair gave a logical reason for getting rid of her husband.

Opportunity: It was also apparent that she had the chance of administering the poison to him.

Conduct: Some of the acts that she was involved in immediately after her husband’s death were rather inexplicable of an innocent woman.

His Lordship noted that Given these circumstances it was impossible not to conclude that she was guilty of the offenses as charged. Hence, to leave no room for any weird judgment, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was maintained.