Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Poisoning Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Hariprasad vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 7th November 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 986
Judges: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Dipankar Datta
Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration, without corroborating medical and forensic evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused due to insufficient evidence. The court emphasized that in cases of alleged poisoning, the prosecution must establish a clear motive, prove the cause of death was indeed poison, and demonstrate the accused’s possession of and opportunity to administer the poison. The bench comprised of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Datta, with the judgment authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

On the evening of July 22, 2003, Bisahu Singh went to the forest to collect wood and did not return home that night. The next morning, July 23, 2003, his wife, Ganeshi Bai, found him in a semi-conscious state in their verandah. He was making wheezing sounds and had a strong smell of liquor coming from his mouth. Bisahu Singh, in slurred speech, told Ganeshi Bai and their daughter Anita that Hariprasad (the accused) had called him to his house, given him two glasses of liquor, and then mixed some “jadi-buti” (herb) in a third glass, which he also made him drink. Bisahu Singh’s health deteriorated, and he was taken to CIMS Bilaspur, where he died on July 23, 2003, at approximately 3:30 PM.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Hariprasad under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld this conviction. Hariprasad then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction. The primary grounds of appeal were the delay in filing the FIR, the lack of conclusive evidence that the deceased died of poisoning, and the failure to prove that Hariprasad administered the poison.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the punishment for murder. The section states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” The prosecution’s case also relied on the concept of a dying declaration, which is an exception to the hearsay rule under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. This section allows statements made by a person who is about to die to be admissible as evidence in court.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements for a conviction in a poisoning case, as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [1984] 4 SCC 116. These elements include:
  • A clear motive for the accused to administer poison.
  • Proof that the deceased died of poison.
  • The accused’s possession of the poison.
  • Opportunity for the accused to administer the poison.
• The appellant contended that there was a significant delay of over a year in filing the FIR, which casts doubt on the prosecution’s case.
• The dying declarations of the deceased were not reliable enough to form the basis of a conviction.
• The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was not brought to the notice of the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the lower courts had rightly convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented.
• The delay in filing the FIR was justified due to the time taken to obtain the chemical analysis report.
• All witnesses supported the prosecution’s case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the delay of about more than one year occurred in registering the FIR could be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution?
2. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had died due to administration of poison?
3. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant accused had administered the poison in the liquor and made the deceased to drink it on 22.07.2003 i.e., on the previous date of his death?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [1984] 4 SCC 116 – Supreme Court of India: This case laid down the four circumstances that the prosecution must prove in cases of murder by poisoning.
• Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu; 1972 (3) SCC 393 – Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the importance of prompt lodging of an FIR.
• The King Emperor vs. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad; AIR 1945 PC 18 – Privy Council: This case held that the recording of an FIR is not a condition precedent to set into motion a criminal investigation.
• Apren Joseph alias current Kunjukunju & Ors. Vs. State of Kerela ; 1973 (3) SCC 114 – Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the importance of an FIR recorded before there is time to embellish.
• Ravinder Kumar and An other Vs. State of Punjab; 2001 (7) SCC 690 – Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the issue of delay in lodging an FIR and its impact on the prosecution’s case.
• Zahoor v. State of U.P. [1991 Supp (1) SCC 372 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 678] – Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the effect of delay in lodging an FIR.
• Tara Singh v. State of Punjab [1991 Supp (1) SCC 536 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 710] – Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the delay in giving the FIR and the circumstances of Indian conditions.
• Jamna v. State of U.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 185 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 348] – Supreme Court of India: This case also discussed the delay in lodging an FIR.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court heavily relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [1984] 4 SCC 116* to establish the four essential circumstances that the prosecution must prove in a poisoning case, finding that the prosecution failed to meet these criteria.
• The Court cited Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu; 1972 (3) SCC 393, The King Emperor vs. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad; AIR 1945 PC 18, Apren Joseph alias current Kunjukunju & Ors. Vs. State of Kerela ; 1973 (3) SCC 114, Ravinder Kumar and An other Vs. State of Punjab; 2001 (7) SCC 690, Zahoor v. State of U.P. [1991 Supp (1) SCC 372 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 678], Tara Singh v. State of Punjab [1991 Supp (1) SCC 536 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 710] and Jamna v. State of U.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 185 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 348] to discuss the issue of delay in lodging the FIR, concluding that the delay in this case was not fatal to the prosecution.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused was primarily driven by the lack of concrete evidence to support the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that in cases of alleged poisoning, the prosecution must prove several key elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court was particularly concerned about the lack of a clear motive, the absence of conclusive evidence that the deceased died from poison, and the failure to establish that the accused had the poison in his possession and had the opportunity to administer it. The Court also noted that the dying declaration, while admissible, was not sufficient on its own to sustain a conviction without corroborating evidence. The delay in filing the FIR was explained, but the lack of medical evidence and the failure to examine the accused on the FSL report were critical factors in the Court’s decision.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The “Fact” percentage represents the consideration of the factual aspects of the case, such as the circumstances of the deceased’s death and the evidence presented by witnesses. The “Law” percentage represents the legal considerations, including the application of legal principles, precedents, and statutory provisions. In this case, the court was more influenced by the legal principles and the lack of evidence to satisfy those principles.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Hariprasad, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential elements of the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in cases of murder by poisoning, the prosecution must establish a clear motive, prove that the deceased died of poison, show that the accused had the poison in their possession, and demonstrate that the accused had the opportunity to administer the poison. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to meet these criteria.

The Court noted, “There is nothing on record to suggest about the effect of mixture of liquor with Organophosphorous insecticide and Quinolphos, the substances found contained in the Viscera of the deceased.” It further stated, “Under the circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that 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.” The court also observed, “All these circumstances put together, have made the case of prosecution very vulnerable.”

The Court concluded that the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court were afflicted with ex-facie infirmities. The Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

Key Takeaways

• In cases of alleged poisoning, the prosecution must prove motive, means, and opportunity beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Dying declarations, while admissible, cannot be the sole basis for a conviction without corroborating evidence.
• Delays in filing an FIR can be explained, but lack of substantive evidence is fatal to the prosecution’s case.
• Forensic evidence and medical opinions are crucial in establishing the cause of death in poisoning cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, Hariprasad, be released from custody as he was on bail, and his bail bonds were cancelled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of alleged murder by poisoning, the prosecution must prove the four circumstances laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [1984] 4 SCC 116 beyond a reasonable doubt: motive, death due to poison, possession of poison, and opportunity to administer it. This judgment reinforces the importance of concrete evidence and corroboration in criminal cases, particularly those involving circumstantial evidence. It also reiterates that dying declarations alone are not sufficient for conviction without supporting evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Hariprasad vs. State of Chhattisgarh highlights the necessity for the prosecution to establish all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving circumstantial evidence like poisoning. The court’s decision to acquit the accused underscores the importance of medical and forensic evidence, as well as a clear motive and opportunity, in securing a conviction. The judgment serves as a reminder that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any lapses in the evidence or procedure can be fatal to their case.