Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder by poisoning. Although the delay in registering the FIR was acceptably explained by the awaited chemical report, the prosecution failed to establish the necessary links between the alleged herb, the substances detected and the cause of death. The weak oral account, lack of proved motive and possession, absence of a final medical opinion and failure to put the chemical report to the accused under Section 313 cumulatively undermined the conviction.
Issues
- Whether the delayed FIR was fatal to the prosecution.
- Whether the evidence proved murder by poisoning beyond reasonable doubt.
Provisions considered
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The prosecution failed to establish the poisoning case beyond reasonable doubt, requiring reversal of the concurrent murder conviction. (¶ 19–28)
- Sections 154 and 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The explained delay in the corroborative FIR was not fatal; omission to confront the accused with the incriminating chemical report contributed to the evidentiary infirmities. (¶¶ 9–18, 26)
- Section 32, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Even treating the deceased’s reported statements as a dying declaration, the weak account did not reliably establish that the unspecified herb was poisonous or caused death. (¶ 22–25)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaConcurrent findings could be re-examined where afflicted by evident infirmities, notwithstanding the usual restraint. (¶ 27–28)
Held
- Delay in lodging an FIR is not automatically fatal. Its explanation and effect on reliability must be assessed; investigation had begun on the death intimation and awaiting the chemical report reasonably explained the delay here. (¶ 9–18)
- The poisoning case required proof of motive, death from the alleged poison, possession of that poison by the accused and opportunity to administer it. Those circumstances were not established on the scant evidence. (¶ 20–26)
- The reported oral statements identified no particular poisonous herb. Even if accepted as a dying declaration, this account was too weak on this record to support conviction. (¶ 22–25)
- The chemical findings were not followed by a medical opinion connecting the substances with the actual cause of death. The Court declined to supply that missing expert link from its own knowledge. (¶ 24–25)
- Failure to put the incriminating chemical report to the accused under Section 313 compounded the shortcomings. Together they justified interference with the concurrent findings and acquittal. (¶ 26–28)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside and appellant acquitted. As he was on bail, bail bonds cancelled forthwith.