4 Circumstances To Be Proved In Cases Of Murder By Poison : Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court recently exonerated an accused in a two-decade-old case involving alleged liquor poisoning which led to the death of a man. The Court invoked the landmark 1984 case of Sharad BirdhiChand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 to reiterate the circumstances to be proved in cases of murder by poison, namely underlining the importance of establishing a clear motive, cause of death due to poison, possession of poison by the accused, and the opportunity to administer poison.

The Court shed light on evidentiary gaps in the prosecution’s case which failed to obtain a definite medical opinion regarding the cause of death. This created doubt regarding the cause of death, particularly in light of the delay in receiving the chemical analyzer's report.

The Court observed “Though it may be a matter of common knowledge that the organophosphorus insecticides and Quinolphos are considered to be poisonous substances, nonetheless, the Court would loathe in imputing personal knowledge and conclude that such poisonous substances found in the Viscera of the deceased was the cause of death of the deceased, more so when the said opinion of Chemical analyzer was received after more than one year of sending the Viscera of the deceased to the FSL, Raipur. In the absence of a final opinion obtained from any medical expert, on the report of the Chemical analyzer as to the cause of death, it could not be said that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of death of the deceased was due to administration of poison.”

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Datta was hearing an appeal against the Chattisgarh HC judgment which confirmed the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment given by the trial court.

In a 20-year-old case, Bisahu Singh(deceased), who went to the forest one evening in July 2003 to collect wood, was found in a semi-conscious state the next morning. In his slurred speech, the deceased claimed that Hariprasad, the appellant-accused made him consume liquor and mixed some herbs into it. Alarmed by his deteriorating health, his wife took him to CIMS Bilaspur Hospital where he died during treatment in 2003. After the chemical examiner gave his report, an FIR was registered after a year in November 2004. Following a review of the evidence, the Trial Court convicted the appellant, a decision later upheld by the High Court.

FIR only corroborative not substantive evidence, mere delay won’t prove adverse to the case of the prosecution

The Court began by emphasizing the critical role played by FIR in criminal cases which act as crucial evidence to corroborate oral evidence during the trial. As highlighted in Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu 1972 (3) SCC 393, filing FIR early helps us gather early information about the incident, identify culprits, understand their roles, and record eyewitness names.

Noting that FIR is not a pre-requisite to begin a criminal investigation, the Court opined “First Information Report under Section 154 of Cr.PC, as such could not be treated as a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to corroborate or contradict the informant’s evidence in the Court.” Filing an FIR early also helps prevent distortion of facts later on, otherwise, undue delays may be deemed suspicious as laid down by a 3-Judge Bench decision in Apren Joseph Kunjukunju v. State of Kerala 1973 (3) SCC 114.

But in cases where there’s a delay in filing an FIR, the court said we can’t automatically draw an adverse inference or hold it to be fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Court has to evaluate the cause for delay and only if there’s an attempt to concoct a false version, it would be suspicious.

The Court relied on Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab 2001 (7) SCC 690 which held that although it's ideal to file an FIR early, there’s no time fixed by law for it. It recognized various factors including ignorance, lack of transport, emotional distress, or physical impediments.

In the present case, the court found that the delay was caused solely by FSL Raipur, which took 1 year to submit the report of the chemical examination of the viscera of the deceased.

SC reiterates circumstances to be proved in cases of murder by poison

Citing a landmark 1984 case, Sharad BirdhiChand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Court reiterated the 4 crucial circumstances to be proved in such cases-

• Clear Motive for the accused to give poison
• Death due to poison
• The accused should have the poison with him
• Opportunity to Administer Poison.

The Court observed that the evidence presented fell short in several key aspects. There was hardly any evidence to prove the motive nor did any of the witnesses have personal knowledge about the incident. The Court underlined that even if the statement of the deceased is treated as a dying declaration, one can only infer that he had drunk liquor with the appellant. It doesn’t prove which herb was allegedly mixed by the appellant and if at all it was poisonous or not.

It opined “Even if the said version of the deceased before his wife, his daughter, his brother, the Kotwar, and others is treated as his dying declaration, it would be very risky to convict the accused on such a weak piece of evidence.”

The court further pointed out that the prosecution had failed to identify the specific herb or jadi-buti mixed in the liquor, let alone demonstrate its toxicity. They also failed to present the incriminating chemical examination report to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 CrPC.

While it’s not the court’s duty to reappreciate evidence while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 136, the court deemed it fit to overturn the conviction “when confronted with glaring deficiencies in the case.”

Case title: Hariprasad @Kishan Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 968

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment