"No Evidence That Accused Administred Poison To Deceased": Allahabad HC Upholds Trial Court's Acquittal Order In Murder Case

The Allahabad High Court recently upheld an acquittal order of a trial court in a murder case after concluding that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the accused persons had committed the murder of the deceased by administering poison to him.

With this, the Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi rejected the application filed by the State Government seeking leave to file an appeal against the acquittal order. The appeal was also dismissed summarily at the admission stage.

The case in brief

As per the prosecution's case, on August 16, 2014, one Ashok Kumar gave information to the police that his son (Sanna) had committed suicide at his home, however, he didn't implicate anyone, yet, to ascertain the cause of his death, he requested that a post-mortem examination be conducted.

However, on August 25, 2014, 9 days after the incident, he filed an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC implicating Brijesh and Praveen alleging that they are responsible for causing the death of the deceased.

In his application, he stated that one month prior to the date of the incident, his son Sanna (deceased) had told him on the phone that Brijesh/accused no. 1 (who used to work with the deceased in Gujarat) had 2 made illicit relations with a girl at Surat and upon being forbidden, Brijesh had threatened him of dire consequences. 

One month after that incident, the deceased and accused were visiting the village on the occasion of 'Rakshabandhan' and on the date of the incident, at 10:00 a.m. Brijesh and his relative, Praveen had come to the informant's home and had taken away the deceased to the tube-well of Praveen's uncle near the cremation ground in the village.

Allegedly, the accused persons put some poisonous substance in the liquor and made the deceased drink it and after killing him, causing injuries to his legs, they dropped him home on their motorcycle at about 4:00 p.m.

On the aforesaid application, an FIR was registered under Sections 302, 328 IPC against the accused/respondents. As per the Laboratory's report, Aluminium Phosphide, which is commonly known as Salphas, was found in the parts of the viscera.

The Trial court, after holding a trial and analyzing facts, evidence, and other circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the accused persons were not guilty of the offence they were charged with and were, therefore, acquitted.

Now, against the order and judgment passed by the Trial Court, the State of UP moved an application under Section 378 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking leave to file an appeal.

Court's order

At the outset, the Court took into account the statements of the Prosection witnesses that there were serious discrepancies in their statements regarding the presence of the deceased at the home or at the place of the incident.

Further, the Court also observed that the Trial Court had taken into consideration the fact that the informant had alleged that the accused-respondents dropped the deceased home after killing him. Calling this against normal human behavior, the Court added that if a person commits the murder of any other person, he would not take the dead body on the motorcycle to deliver it to the deceased's home.

The Court also stressed that there is no direct evidence of the incident and the case is based on the circumstantial evidence that the deceased had allegedly been last seen with the accused-persons drinking alcohol and thereafter he died and ALP (sulphas) was found in the examination of his viscera.

"In the present case, there is neither any clear motive for the accused to administer poison to the deceased, nor has it been proved that the accused had the poison in their possession and, therefore, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the accused persons committed the murder of the deceased by administering poison to him."

In view of this, taking into account the statement of witnesses as well as other material available on record, particularly the application given to the police on August 16, 2014, and the application filed by the informant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the Court concluded that the prosecution miserably failed to establish that the accused-respondents have committed the murder of the deceased by administering the poisonous substance.

Thus, finding no good ground for grant of leave to appeal to the State-appellant, the application seeking leave to file an appeal was rejected.

Case title - State of U. P. v. Brijesh and another
Case citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 106

Click Here To Read/Download Order