Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on November 7, 2023 set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment which upheld the conviction of a man in a case of murder by administering poisonous substance in drinks of the deceased, as the evidence was scanty and there was no final medical expert opinion on chemical analyser report about the presence of organophosphorous insecticide and Quinolphos in Viscera of the deceased.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Dipankar Datta said the appellant Hariprasad alias Kishan Sahu deserved to be set free while acknowledging that the Supreme Court should be slow in reappreciating evidence in its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution but it is not prohibited when the findings of the courts below are afflicted with ex facie infirmities.

On July 23, 2003, one Bisahu Singh died during treatment at the hospital in Bilaspur. Before his death, he told his wife and others, that a day before, when on the way to the forest, the accused called him to his house and offered him drinks. In the third glass, he mixed some 'jadi buti' (herbs). After his death, the viscera was sent for chemical analysis.

The FIR in the case was lodged on November 3, 2004, more than one year after the incident.

"The delay in lodging an FIR by itself cannot be regarded as sufficient ground to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution case, nor could it be treated as fatal to the case of the prosecution. The court has to ascertain the causes for the delay, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. If the causes are not attributable to any effort to concoct a version, mere delay by itself would not be fatal to the case of prosecution," the bench said.

In the case, the court noted that the entire delay could be attributed to the FSL, Raipur, which took almost one year to give the report of the Chemical examination of Viscera of the deceased. As such, there is no allegation on concoction of false version made against the prosecution, it said.

The bench also referred to the Supreme Court's decision way back in 1984, in 'Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra' which laid down that in the case of murder by poison, the prosecution must prove the following four circumstances: 

(1) that there is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased,

(2) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered,

(3) that the accused had the poison in his possession,

(4) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased.

So far as motive was concerned, the bench said that there was hardly any evidence by the prosecution to show that there was any motive for the appellant to administer poison to the deceased.

The bench also noted that there was no evidence on record to show as to what kind of herb was allegedly mixed by the accused, and whether such herb was poisonous or not. 

"The prosecution had failed to conclusively prove that the substances found in the Viscera of the deceased were poisonous and the final cause of death of the deceased was due to the administration of poison to the deceased," it said.

The bench concluded that it could not be said that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of death of the deceased was due to the administration of poison. 

"Having regard to such scanty evidence, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution had proved the four important propositions laid down by this Court in case of allegation of murder by poisoning... It is also pertinent to note that the Chemical examination report though was an incriminating piece of evidence, was not brought to the notice of the appellant during the course of his examination under Section 313 of CrPC. All these circumstances put together, have made the case of prosecution very vulnerable," the bench said, acquitting the accused.

Case Title: Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh