http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13

PETITIONER:

BHUPINDER SINGH

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/04/1988

BENCH:

SHETTY, K.J. (J)

BENCH:

SHETTY, K.J. (J)

DUTT, M.M. (J)

CITATION:

1988 AIR 1011 1988 SCR (3) 409

1988 SCC (3) 513 JT 1988 (2) 23

1988 SCALE (1)678

ACT:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973/1898-Section 293-Chemical

Examiner-Report of-A piece of evidence-Does not require

formal proof-Should normally be forwarded to the doctor who

performed autopsy report.

Criminal Trial-Poison murder cases-Invariably committed

under cover and cloak of secrecy-Prosecution entitled to

establish circumstances consistent with the hypothesis of

the guilt of the accused.

HEADNOTE:

%

Bhupinder Singh, appellant, his father Sher Singh and

his mother Mukhtiar Kaur, were tried for committing the

murder of Bhupinder Singh's wife, Gian Kaur, by

administering poison. The Trial Court held that the accused

had strong motive for the murder as the deceased was unable

to satisfy their demand for dowry for which she was being

constantly harassed. The Trial Court further held that the

death of Gian Kaur was not accidental or suicidal or by food

poisoning. The Trial Court held that the accused had the

opportunity to accomplish their design, and they did

administer poison which the deceased must have resisted and

thereby suffered injuries on her body. The Trial Court found

all the three accused guilty of the offence under section

302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to

imprisonment for life.

It was urged before the High Court that the prosecution

has failed to establish by evidence the necessary conditions

for the proof of murder by poisoning. Disagreeing with the

contentions and the theory of suicide put forth by the

appellant, the High Court confirmed the conviction and

sentence on Bhupinder Singh and Sher Singh while acquitting

Mukhtiar Kaur.

The present appeal by special leave is only by

Bhupinder Singh.

The main contention of the appellant is that in a case

of murder by poison there are three main points to be

proved; firstly, did the deceased die of the poison in

question; secondly, had the accused got the

410

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13

poison in question in his or her possession, and thirdly,

had the accused an opportunity to administer the poison in

question to the deceased. It is contended that the evidence

falls short of these requirements, and in particular, as to

the question of proof of possession of the poison with the

accused.

The second contention of the appellant is that it is

not enough for the chemical examiner merely to state in his

report that the poison-Organo phosphorus compound was

present in the substance sent for examination; he should

have also stated that a lethal dose of the poison was

detected. It is submitted that his report should be full and

complete to take the place of evidence which he would have

given if he were called to Court as witness.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

^

HELD: (1) Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

provides that the report of scientific experts may be used

as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings of

the Court. [416D]

(2) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards

the value to be attached to the report of the chemical

examiner. [416D]

(3) The chemical examiner does not, as a rule, give an

opinion as to the cause of death but merely gives report of

the chemical examination. The report itself is not crucial.

It is a place of evidece. The only protection to it is that

it does not require any formal proof. It is, however, open

to the Court, if it thinks fit, to call the chemical

examiner and examine him as to the subject matter of the

report. The report should normally be forwarded to the

doctor who conducted the autopsy. [416D-F]

(4) In poison murder cases, the accused are not

acquitted solely on the failure of the prosecution to

establish one or the other requirement. They are not to be

acquitted solely on the ground that the prosecution has

failed to prove that the accused had the poison in his

possession, and are to be acquitted by the Court taking into

account the totality of the circumstances including

insufficient motive, weakness in the chain of circumstantial

evidence and likelihood of the deceased committing suicide.

[421C-E]

(5) Murder by poisoning is run like any other murder

and the accused cannot have a better chance of being

exempted from sanctions

411

than in other kinds of murders. [422B-C]

(6) The poison murder cases are not to be put outside

the rule of circumstantial evidence. There may be obvious

very many facts and circumstances out of which the Court may

be justified in drawing permissible inference that the

accused was in possession of the poison in question.

[421H; 422A]

(7) The insistence on proof of possession of poison

with the accused invariably in every case is neither

desirable nor permissible. It would mean to introduce an

extraneous ingredient to the offence of murder by poisoning.

[422B]

(8) Murder by poison is invariably committed under the

cover and cloak of secrecy. Nobody will administer poison to

another in the presence of others. The person who

administers poison to another in secrecy will not keep a

portion of it for the investigating officer to come and

collect it. The person who commits such murder would

naturally take care to eliminate and destroy the evidence

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13

against him. In such case, it would be impossible for the

prosecution to prove possession of poison with the accused.

The prosecution may, however, establish other circumstances

consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the

accused. The Court then would not be justified in acquitting

the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to

prove possession of the poison with the accused. [421E-G]

Mt. Gajrani and another v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1933 All

394; State v. Fateh Bahadur, A.I.R. 1958 All 1; Chandra Kant

Myalchand Seth's case, (Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1957

decided on 19.2.1958): Dharambir Singh v. The State of

Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1958 decided on 4.11.1958;

Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1960 SC 669; Ram

Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 656; Sharda

B. Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, [1985] 1 SCR 88 and

Ananth Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1960

S.C. 500, referred to.

JUDGMENT:

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.

379 of 1986.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.7.1984 of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 82 D.B. of

1984.

R.L. Kohli and R.C. Kohli for the Appellant.

412

R.S. Suri for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. One may ask the question whether

murder by poisoning is not run like any other murder? The

learned counsel for the appellant purports to state that it

is not. He relies upon the judicial prescriptions as to the

burden of proof in "poison-murder" cases. He contends that

the prosecution must prove "that the accused had the poison

in his possession". He asserts that failure to establish

that factor should entail the acquittal of the accused. This

is a vital question which goes far beyond the case and it,

therefore, requires careful consideration.

Bhupinder Singh-Appellant was prosecuted for the murder

of his wife by poisoning. He was sentenced for life

imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot in

Session Case No. 86 of 1983. His conviction and sentence

have been affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in

criminal appeal No. 82-DB of 1984. He has preferred this

appeal by special leave challenging the conviction and

sentence.

We may first advert to the prosecution case. It reveals

a sad story. It runs like this: Gian Kaur, the victim in

this case is the only daughter of Baltej Singh. Baltej Singh

like many other parents thought that his problems would be

solved by the marriage of his daughter. He got her married

to Bhupinder Singh by spending all his savings. His

relatives also contributed for the marriage. But ill-luck

would have it, his problems started immediately after the

marriage. Bhupinder Singh and his parents wanted Gian Kaur

to bring Rs. 10,000 from her father. It was nothing but a

demand for dowry. They stopped up their demand with

harassment to Gian Kaur. Gian Kaur informed her father. The

father could not arrange that much of amount. He had already

spent all that he had in connection with her marriage. He

had also then given presents in cash and kind to Bhupinder

Singh. So he felt helpless. Unmerciful, Bhupinder Singh

asked his wife to go back to her parents' house. So she left

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13

to seek shelter with her parents. She remained with them for

about eight months. But how long the father could keep his

married daughter away from her husband. Some parents think

that it is a reflection upon them. Baltej Singh also must

have thought like that. He somehow arranged Rs.6,000 and

sent Gian Kaur to her husband's house. Gian Kaur rejoined

her husband upon making the payment of Rs.6,000. That

appears to have satisfied Bhupinder Singh for about

413

one year. In the meantime, Gian Kaur had a male child.

Naturally there was jubilation for Baltej Singh. He

performed the customary Chuchhak ceremony and again gave

Rs.4,000 and a buffalo as presents to Bhupinder Singh.

Bhupinder Singh ought to have been happy and satisfied. But

he was not. It was alleged by the prosecution that this time

he demanded a motorcycle. Baltej Singh could not give it.

Gian Kaur, as usual, was again the target. It was further

alleged by the prosecution that Bhupinder Singh threatened

to kill his wife if motorcycle was not given to him. Gian

Kaur had kept her father informed about the said demand and

the threat.

On July 13, 1983, Gian Kaur died under mysterious

circumstances. Upon receiving that information, Baltej Singh

with his brother Baldev Singh reached the place in the

evening of that day. They saw Gian Kaur, lying dead on a

charpai. They suspected foul play. Baltej Singh gave the

information to the police narrating all the above events. He

informed the police that his daughter was killed by

Bhupinder Singh and his parents by administering something

to her. On the basis of that information, the F.I.R. was

issued. The investigation of the case was taken by A.S.I.

(PW 4). The body of Gian Kaur was sent to Dr. Sant Prakash

Singh (PW 6) for post-mortem. The Doctor Prakash Singh

noticed five minor injuries on the body of the deceased. The

brain and other vital organs were also found to be

congested. The Doctor sent stomach contents, portions of

small intestine, liver, spleen and kidney to the chemical

examiner for the purpose of analysis.

The chemical examiner in his report dated September 14,

1983 has stated that an Organo phosphorus compound was found

in the substance sent to him for analysis. The investigating

officer sent that report for opinion of the Doctor Prakash

Singh as to the cause of death of Gian Kaur. The Doctor gave

his opinion that the death of Gian Kaur was due to organo

phosphorus compound poisoning.

Bhupinder Singh, his father Sher Singh and his mother

Mukhtiar Kaur were tried for committing the murder of Gian

kaur by administering poison.

The prosecution examined six witnesses and the accused

in turn examined one. The trial court after considering the

evidence and other material on record held as follows:

The accused had strong motive to get rid of Gian

Kaur. Apparently motive for the murder was the

inability of Gian Kaur

414

to satisfy the demand for dowry. The death of Gian Kaur

was not accidental or suicidal. There was no reason for

her to commit suicide. It was also not a death by food

poisoning since the accused and deceased shared common

food on the fateful night. There was none else in the

house on that night except Gian Kaur and the accused.

The accused had an opportunity to accomplish their

design. The accused must have administered the poison

to the victim. The injuries found on the body of the

deceased indicated the resistence she must have offered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13

when the poison was administered to her. With these and

other conclusions, the trial court finally said:

"In the background of the circumstances and

evidence discussed above, the only conclusion

possible is that Bhupinder Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur

did administer poison organo phosphorus compound

to Gian Kaur and did cause her death with common

intention, which was to get rid of her as she had

not been able to persuade his father to meet their

demand for motorcycle so as to clear way for

another marriage of Bhupinder Singh in his

youthful years in order to get more and more of

dowry."

Accordingly, the trial court found all the three

accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with

Section 34 I.P.C. They were sentenced to imprisonment for

life.

Challenging the legality of the conviction and sentence

the accused appealed to the High Court. It was urged before

the High Court that the death of Gian Kaur was not

homicidal. She must have in all probability committed

suicide since she was suffering from tuberculosis. It was

also urged that the prosecution has failed to establish by

evidence the necessary conditions for the proof of murder by

poisoning. The High Court did not agree with those

contentions. The High Court ruled out the theory of suicide.

It was observed that there was no evidence to show that Gian

Kaur was suffering from tuberculosis or ever treated for

that disease. The High Court observed:

"Case of murder by poisoning is always one of

secrecy. Almost in every such case one has to

depend on circumstances. Doubtless, before a

person can be convicted on the strength of

circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in

question must be satisfactorily established

415

and the proved circumstances must bring home the

offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If

those circumstances or some of them can be

explained by any reasonable hypothesis then the

accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis.

But in assessing the evidence imaginary

possibility has no place. What has to be

considered are ordinary human probabilities. We

have already referred to some important

circumstances which in our opinion point out to

the guilt of Bhupinder Singh and Sher Singh

appellants. In the well-known case of Anant

Chantman Lagu v. The State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1960

S.C. 500 their Lordships held that in a cause of

poisoning, the prosecution must establish: (a)

that the death took place by poisoning; (b) that

the accused had the poison in his possession; and

(c) that the accused had an opportunity to

administer the poison to the deceased. All the

three requirements are satisfied in this case.

There is no dispute that the death of the deceased

was caused by poisoning. It has been established

by the chemical examiner's report, that the

viscera contained organo phosphorus compound

poison. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses

has established that the aforesaid two appellants

had the opportunity to administer poison to the

deceased and that they had the motive to commit

the crime. Their running away from the house at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13

the time when the Investigating Officer visited

their house is also consistent with their guilt

and not with their innocence."

With these observations, the High Court confirmed the

conviction and sentence on Sher Singh and Bhupinder Singh

while acquitting Mukhtiar Kaur.

The present appeal is only by Bhupinder Singh.

Before embarking on the validity of the main submission

made in this appeal, we may first dispose of one other

contention urged for the appellant. Mr. R.N. Kohli, learned

counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not enough

for the chemical examiner merely to state in his report that

the organo phosphorus compound was present in the substance

sent to him for examination. He should have also stated that

a lethal dose of the organo phosphorus compound was

detected in the substance sent to him. His report should be

full and complete to take the place of evidence which he

would have given if he were called to Court as witness. In

the absence of such particulars, the death by

416

poisoning cannot be inferred. In support of this contention,

learned counsel relied upon two decisions of the Allahabad

High Court viz. (i) Mt. Gajrani and Anr. v. Emperor, [A.I.R.

1933 Allahabad 394] and (ii) State v. Fateh Bahadur & Ors.,

[A.I.R. 1958, Allahabad 1]. In the first case, it was

observed that it was not enough for the chemical examiner

merely to state his opinion. He must also state the grounds

which formed the basis of his opinion. The second case was a

case of death by arsenic poisoning. The chemical examiner

did not state the quantity of arsenic poison found in the

viscera of the deceased. He did not state whether it was a

fatal dose or not. The High Court pointed out that it would

be of the utmost importance before a Court could find any

individual guilty of murder by arsenic poison that its

complete analysis should be made. It is not enough to state

that arsenic was detected in the body of the deceased.

In our opinion, these observations cannot be taken as a

rigid statement of law. (No hard and fast rule can be laid

down as regards the value to be attached to the report of

the chemical examiner. Section 293 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure provides that the report ofscientific experts may

be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other

proceedings of the court. The chemical examiner does not, as

a rule, give an opinion as to the cause of death but merely

gives report of the chemical examination of the substance

sent to him. The report by itself is not crucial. It is a

piece of evidence. The only protection to it is that it does

not require any formal proof. It is, however, open to the

Court if it thinks fit to call the chemical examiner and

examine him as to the subject matter of the report. The

report should normally be forwarded to the Doctor who

conducted the autopsy. In the instant case, that was done.

The Doctor who conducted the autopsy was given a copy of the

report of the chemical examiner. The Doctor in the light of

the report gave his opinion that the death of Gian Kaur was

by poisoning i.e. organo phosphorus compound. The report of

the chemical examiner coupled with the opinion of the Doctor

is, therefore, sufficient to hold that it was a death by

poisoning.

This takes us to the main contention urged for the

appellant. It was urged that in a case of murder by poison

there are three main points to be proved, firstly did the

deceased die of the poison in question; secondly, had the

accused got the poison in question in his or her possession;

and thirdly, had the accused an opportunity to administer

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13

the poison in question to the deceased. It was also urged

that if the prosecution fails to prove these factors, then

the accused cannot be convicted. The evidence in the case,

according to learned counsel falls

417

short of these requirements and, in particular, as to the

question of proof of possession of the poison with the

accused and therefore the accused is entitled to acquittal.

We have been referred to some decisions of this Court

in support of the contention urged. We have also examined

some other cases bearing on the question raised. A brief

survey of these cases would be useful to appreciate the

contention urged for the appellant. There are two unreported

decisions of this Court of the year 1958. The first one is

in Chandra Kant Myalchand Seth's case [Criminal Appeal No.

120 of 1957 decided on 19.2.1958]. There a woman died of

alkali cyanide. The husband of the deceased was tried and

convicted by the trial court for the offence of murder. The

conviction was set aside by this Court. In the course of the

judgment, it was observed:

"Before a person can be convicted of murder by

poisoning, it is necessary to prove that the death

of the deceased was caused by poison, that the

poison in question was in possession of the

accused and that poison was administered by the

accused to the deceased."

The acquittal, however, was based on the consideration

of the entire facts and circumstances of the case. It was

found that there was a greater motive to the deceased to

commit suicide than to the accused to commit murder. This

Court also took note of the concern and conduct of the

accused when he found his wife lying unconscious. The

accused ran to the house of his friend and returned with a

Doctor to render assistance to the victim. The accused

called another Doctor for the same purpose. He was also

found weeping all the while. Taking into consideration of

all these factors, this Court found no justification to

sustain the conviction of the accused.

Dharambir Singh v. State of Punjab, (Criminal Appeal

No. 98 of 1958 decided on 4.11.1958) is another case of

homicidal action by cyanide poisoning. It was perhaps in

this case, the guidelines as to the proof of certain facts

in "poison murder cases" were laid down by this Court. It

was observed:

"Where the evidence is circumstantial the

fact that the accused had motive to cause death of

the deceased, though relevant, is not enough to

dispense with the proof of certain facts which are

essential to be proved in such cases, namely

(firstly) did the deceased die of poison in

418

question? (secondly) had the accused the poison in

his possession? and (thirdly) had the accused an

opportunity to administer the poison in question

to the deceased? It is only when the motive is

there and these facts are all proved that the

court may be able to draw the inference, that the

poison was administered by the accused to the

deceased resulting in his death."

After laying down these principles, the court

considered the entire evidence on record which indicated the

likelihood of the deceased committing suicide or another

person to have administered the poison to the deceased. This

Court accordingly acquitted the accused by extending the

benefit of doubt.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13

If one prefers to go yet further back we find a

decision of the Allahabad High Court which is exactly on the

principles laid down in Dharambir Singh case. In Mt. Gajrani

v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1933 All. 394 Benett, J. speaking for the

Court observed (at p. 394):

"In a case of murder by poison there are three

main points to be proved: firstly, did the

deceased die of the poison in question; secondly,

had the accused got the poison in question in his

or her possession; and thirdly, had the accused an

opportunity to administer the poison in question

to the deceased. If these three points are proved,

a presumption may under certain circumstances be

drawn by the Court that the accused did administer

poison to the deceased and did cause the death of

the deceased. It is not usual that reliable direct

evidence is available to prove that the accused

did actually administer poison to the deceased.

The evidence of motive which is frequently given

in these cases is of subsidiary importance, and

the mere fact that the accused had a motive to

cause the death of the deceased is not a fact

which will dispense with the proof of the second

and third points that the accused had the poison

in his or her possession, and that the accused had

an opportunity to administer the poison."

The above proposition found its way into Mohan v. State

of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 669 and Ram Gopal v.

State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 656. In Mohan's case,

the death in question was by arsenic poisoning. In that

case, the prosecution was able to prove that the accused

gave 'peras' to the victim as 'pershad' and the victim

419

died after eating the 'pershad'. 'Pershad' contained

arsenic. There was thus direct evidence as to the possession

of the poison with the accused. This Court, therefore, had

no difficulty to sustain the conviction and sentence awarded

to the accused.

Ram Gopal's case was concerned with homicidal action by

administering a compound called "kerosene and orango choloro

compound". The High Court, relying upon the motive and other

circumstantial evidence convicted the accused for the

offence of murder although there was no evidence that the

accused was in possession of poison. This Court could not

agree with the view taken by the High Court. The analysis of

the evidence produced by the prosecution revealed that the

motive alleged against the accused was not fully

established. The incriminating circumstantial evidence

against the accused was also found to be insufficient. So

the conviction of the accused was set aside and the

acquittal was recorded.

Sharda E. Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, [1985] 1

SCR 88 A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1622 is yet another case of death by

cyanide poisoning for which the husband of the deceased was

tried for murder. There was no direct evidence to establish

that the accused was in possession of that poison. The High

Court, however, relied upon the circumstantial evidence and

convicted the accused. In the appeal preferred by the

accused, this Court did not agree with the reasoning of the

High Court. After referring to Ram Gopal's case. Fazal Ali,

J., focussed the attention on the following four factors:

The learned Judge observed (at p.167):

"So far as this matter is concerned, in such cases

the court must carefully scan the evidence and

determine the four important circumstances which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13

alone can justify a conviction:

(1) 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."

420

The learned Judge went on to state:

"In the instant case, while two ingredients have

been proved but two have not. In the first place,

it has no doubt been proved that Manju died of

potassium cyanide and secondly, it has also been

proved that there was an opportunity to administer

the poison. It has, however, not been proved by

any evidence that the appellant had the poison in

his possession. On the other hand, as indicated

above, there is clear evidence of PW 2 that

potassium cyanide could have been available to

Manju from the plastic factory of her mother, but

there is no evidence to show that the accused

could have procured potassium cyanide from any

available source. We might here extract a most

unintelligible and extra-ordinary finding of the

High Court:

"It is true that there is no direct evidence on

these two points, because the prosecution is not

able to lead evidence that the accused had secured

potassium cyanide poison from a particular source.

Similarly there is no direct evidence to prove

that he had administered poison to Manju. However,

it is not necessary to prove each and every fact

by a direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence can

be a basis for proving this fact."

The comment by the high Court appears to be

frightfully vague and absolutely unintelligible.

While holding in the clearest possible terms that

there is no evidence in this case to show that the

appellant was in possession of poison, the High

Court observes that this fact may prove either by

direct or indirect (circumstantial) evidence. But

it fails to indicate the nature of the

circumstantial or indirect evidence to show that

the appellant was in possession of poison. If the

Court seems to suggest that merely because the

appellant had the opportunity to administer poison

had the same was found in the body of the

deceased, it should be presumed that the appellant

was in possession of poison, then it has committed

a serious and gross error of law and has blatantly

violated the principles laid down by this Court.

The High Court has not indicated as to what was

the basis for coming to a finding that the accused

could have procured the cyanide. On the other

hand, in view of the

421

decision in Ram Gopal's case failure to prove

possession of the cyanide poison with the accused

by itself would result in failure of the

prosecution to prove its case."

This Court then went into the merits of the prosecution

case. It was observed that the deceased was of sensitive

mind. She had occasionally suffered mental depression due to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13

her inability to adjust herself to her husband's family. It

was also observed that the deceased had access to the poison

in question. She could have secured the poison from the

factory of her mother. Considering these and other

circumstances, it was held "that it might be a case of

suicide or murder and both were equally probable". So the

accused was given the benefit of doubt and he was acquitted.

From the foregoing cases, it will be seen that in

poison murder cases, the accused was not acquitted solely on

the failure of the prosecution to establish one or the other

requirement which this Court has laid down in Dharambir

Singh case. We do not also find any case where the accused

was acquitted solely on the ground that the prosecution has

failed to prove that the accused had the poison in his

possession. The accused in all the said cases came to be

acquitted by taking into consideration the totality of the

circumstances including insufficient motive, weakness in the

chain of circumstantial evidence and likelihood of the

deceased committing suicide.

We do not consider that there should be acquittal on

the failure of the prosecution to prove the possession of

poison with the accused. Murder by poison is invariably

committed under the cover and cloak of secrecy. Nobody will

administer poison to another in the presence of others. The

person who administers poison to another in secrecy will not

keep a portion of it for the investigating officer to come

and collect it. The person who commits such murder would

naturally take care to eliminate and destroy the evidence

against him. In such cases, it would be impossible for the

prosecution to prove possession of poison with the accused.

The prosecution may, however, establish other circumstances

consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the

accused. The court then would not be justified in acquitting

the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to

prove possession of the poison with the accused.

The poison murder cases are not to be put outside the

rule of circumstantial evidence. There may be obvious very

many facts and circumstances out of which the Court may be

justified in drawing

422

permissible inference that the accused was in possession of

the poison in question. There may be very many facts and

circumstances proved against the accused which may call for

tacit assumption of the factum of possession of poison with

the accused. The insistence on proof of possession of poison

with the accused invariably in every case is neither

desirable nor practicable. It would mean to introduce an

extraneous ingredient to the offence of murder by poisoning.

We cannot, therefore, accept the contention urged by the

learned counsel for the appellant. The accused in a case of

murder by poisoning cannot have a better chance of being

exempted from sanctions than in other kinds of murders.

Murder by poisoning is run like any other murder. In cases

where dependence is wholly on circumstantial evidence, and

direct evidence not being available, the Court can

legitimately draw from the circumstances an inference on any

matter one way or the other.

The view that we have taken gets support from the

decision of this Court in Ananth Chintaman Laguy v. The

State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 500 where Hidayatullah,

J., has given an anxious consideration to the three

propositions laid down in Dharambir Singh case. The learned

Judge did not consider them as invariable criteria of proof

to be established by the prosecution in every case of murder

by poisoning. The learned Judge said (at p. 519-520):

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13

"It is now necessary to consider the arguments

which have been advanced on behalf of the

appellant. The first contention is that the

essential ingredients required to be proved in all

cases of murder by poisoning were not proved by

the prosecution in this case. Reference in this

connection is made to a decision of the Allahabad

High Court in Mt. Gajrani v. Emperor. AIR 1933 All

394 and to two unreported decisions of this Court

in Chandrakant N Nyalchand Seth v. The State of

Bombay, Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1957 decided on

February 19, 1958 and Dharambir Singh v. The State

of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1958, decided

on 4.11.1958. In these cases, the Court referred

to three propositions which the prosecution must

establish in a case of poisoning; (a) that death

took place by poisoning; (b) that the accused had

the poison in his possession, and (c) that the

accused had an opportunity to administer the

poison to the deceased. The case in Cr. A. No. 98

of 1958 D/- 4.11.1958 (SC) turned upon these three

propositions. There, the deceased had died as a

result of poisoning by potassium cyanide, which

poison was also found in the

423

autopsy. The High Court had disbelieved the

evidence which sought to establish that the

accused had obtained potassium cyanide, but held,

nevertheless that the circumstantial evidence was

sufficient to convict the accused in that case.

This Court, did not, however, accept the

circumstantial evidence as complete. It is to be

observed that the three propositions were laid

down not as the invariable criteria of proof by

direct evidence in a case of murder by poisoning,

because evidently if after poisoning the victim.

the accused destroyed all traces of the body, the

first proposition would be incapable of being

proved except by circumstantial evidence.

Similarly, if the accused gave a victim something

to eat and the victim died immediately on the

ingestion of that food with symptoms of poisoning

and poison, in fact, was found in the viscera, the

requirement of proving that the accused was

possessed of the poison would follow from the

circumstances that the accused gave the victim

something to eat and need not be separately

proved."

The learned Judge continued:

"The cases of this Court which were decided

proceeded upon their own facts, and though the

three propositions must be kept in mind always,

the sufficiency of the evidence, direct or

circumstantial? to establish murder by poisoning

will depend on the facts of each case. If the

evidence in a particular case does not justify the

inference that death is the result of poisoning

because of the failure of the prosecution to prove

the fact satisfactorily, either directly or by

circumstantial evidence, then the benefit of the

doubt will have to be given to the accused person.

But if circumstantial evidence, in the absence of

direct proof of the three elements, is so decisive

that the Court can unhesitatingly hold that the

death was a result of administration of poison

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13

(though not detected) and that the poison must

have been administered by the accused person, then

the conviction can be rested on it."

So much for the principles for which the learned

counsel for the appellant fought for. On the facts there is

concurrence of opinion between the two courts below. This

Court seldom re-examines the findings of fact reached by the

High Court. We may, however, out of

424

deference to the counsel briefly refer to the evidence. The

prosecution has established the motive for the murder. The

proof of motive goes a long way to tilt the scale against

the accused which provides a foundational material to

connect the chain of circumstances. The facts which hear on

motive are distressing. After the marriage, Gian Kaur was

subjected to repeated harassment for not satisfying the

demand for dowry made by Bhupinder Singh. Baltej Singh (PW2)

has stated that Bhupinder Singh asked Gian Kaur to bring Rs.

10,000. The parents of Bhupinder Singh were also parties to

that demand. Baltej Singh with all difficulties satisfied

that demand in part by payment of Rs.6,000. Bhupinder Singh

thereafter demanded a motorcycle. When that was not

immediately given Bhupinder Singh held out a threat to his

wife that she would be killed. This was conveyed to Baltej

Singh. Before he could take a decision in this regard he was

shocked to receive the news of death of Gian Kaur. This has

been proved by the testimony of Baltej Singh (PW 2) and

Nazir Singh (PW 3). The demand for dowry followed by

harassment to the deceased has been thus satisfactorily

proved.

The evidence of the Doctor and the report of the

chemical examiner has established beyond doubt that Gian

Kaur died of organo phosphorus compound poisoning. Bhupinder

Singh had an opportunity to administer that poison. There

was nobody else in the house. All the inmates had their

common food in the night. All of them slept in the same

place. Both the Courts have ruled out the theory of suicide

by Gian Kaur. We entirely agree with that finding. She could

not have thrown her child to the mercy of others by

committing suicide and indeed no mother would venture to do

that. The postmortem report giving the description of

injuries found on the body of the deceased would also defy

all doubts about the theory of suicide. She had contusion on

the front of right leg. Abrasion on the front of the left

leg just below the knee joint. Linear abrasion on the back

of the right hand. Linear abrasion on the antro-lateral

aspect of left fore-arm in its middle. And contusion on the

back of right elbow joint. These injuries, as the Courts

below have observed could have been caused while Gian Kaur

resisted the poison being administered to her.

The behaviour of Bhupinder Singh in the early hours of

that fateful day by going to his field as if nothing had

happened to his wife is apparently inconsistent with the

normal human behaviour. There was no attempt made by him or

other inmates of the house to look out for any Doctor to

give medical attention to the victim. The movement and

disposition of Bhupinder Singh towards the victim and

situations

425

are incompatible with his innocence. On the contrary, it

gives sustenance to his guilt.

The Courts below having considered all these facts and

circumstances had no difficulty to convict the accused for

murder and we see no good reason to interfere with that

conclusion.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

R.S.S. Appeal dismissed.

426