REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 2152 of 2010

RAJBIR SINGH              …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB     …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Vikram Nath, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment

and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court

dated 29.10.2009 whereby the appeal filed by the

appellant was dismissed, confirming the judgment

of   the   Sessions   Judge,   Bathinda   dated

08.04.2005   convicting   the   appellant   under

1

Section   302   of   Indian   Penal   Code   1860

1

  and

sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/­, in default of

payment   of   fine,   to   further   undergo   rigorous

imprisonment for three months.

2.The prosecution story begins with the lodging

of the First Information Report by Joginder Singh

(PW 1­ husband of the deceased) at Police Station

Kotwali,   District   Bathinda   on   18

th

  September,

2000 at 7 PM. According to the complainant, his

son Gursharan Singh in the morning at around

07.45 am brought 1 kg of milk from the house of

Rajbir Singh (appellant) who used to reside in the

neighbourhood and was carrying on business of

dairy farm and selling milk with the help of his

wife   Sheela.   The   appellant   was   known   to   the

1 In short “IPC”

2

complainant being resident of the neighbourhood.

To help the appellant purchase buffaloes and for

domestic needs, he had borrowed Rs.1 lakh from

the informant about 7/8 months before. He had

also executed a pronote in that respect.  The milk

as brought by Gursharan Singh (PW­2) was kept

in the refrigerator. At about 12.30 PM his wife

Kuldeep Kaur @ Bhajno felt hungry and as she

was   resting   due   to   some   uneasiness,   the

informant himself took out some milk from the

jug kept in the refrigerator and after boiling the

same gave it to her. After sipping the milk once,

she remarked that the milk was bitter in taste

and after sipping further, she further remarked

that there was some defect with the milk. Then he

also smelled the milk lying in the jug from which

3

a pungent smell was coming.  In the meantime,

his wife felt irritation on her lips and also became

restless.  He called his son Gursharan Singh(PW­

2), who took his mother on his scooter to the

Children and General Hospital.  He also followed.

As the condition of his wife had deteriorated, she

was referred to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda where

she breathed her last after some time.  He further

stated in his complaint that he was of the firm

belief that Rajbir Singh and his wife Sheela had

mixed some poisonous substance in the milk in

order   to   eliminate   his   family.   His   wife   died

because of the poisonous milk.  He and his wife

were demanding their money from Rajbir Singh

but he was making excuses and on account of

this grudge he poisoned the milk and hence a

4

report be registered and appropriate action be

taken. 

3.Dr. K.S. Brar (PW­12), Emergency Medical

Officer at Children and General Hospital   after

examining Kuldeep Kaur referred her to the Civil

Hospital considering her serious condition, and

also sent information to the police. SI Balwant

Singh (PW­7) who was in­charge of the Canal

Colony Police Post, Bathinda, left for the Children

and General Hospital and from there proceeded to

the Civil Hospital where the doctor informed him

about   the   death   of   Kuldeep   Kaur.   He   met

Joginder Singh (PW1) at the Hospital, he gave his

statement which was recorded and which after

being read over was signed by Joginder Singh

(PW­1).   SI   Balwant   Singh   (PW­7)   made   an

endorsement   on   the   same   (Ex­PA/1)   for

5

registering the case.  On its basis formal FIR (Ex­

PA/2) was registered.

4.The inquest report (Ex­PE) was prepared by

the Investigating Officer.  The dead body was sent

for post­mortem examination in the custody of

Head   Constable   Kapur   Chand   (PW­5)   and

Constable   Satpal   (PW­10).     Necessary   police

papers were prepared.   The Investigating Officer

on the next day inspected the place of occurrence,

prepared the site plan (Ex­PK).  He also collected

the sample of milk lying in the jug as also the

boiled milk which was lying in the glass.   They

were packed and sealed. The utensils in which the

milk was kept were also taken into custody and a

recovery memo (Ex­PM) was prepared of all the

recovered items.  The statement of witnesses was

6

recorded   under   Section   161   of   the   Code   of

Criminal   Procedure,   1973

2

.     Charge­sheet   was

submitted against Rajbir Singh – the appellant

only.  

5.Cognizance was taken. Magistrate committed

the case for trial to the Sessions Court. The Trial

Judge on 22.01.2002 read out the charge under

Section 302 of IPC to the appellant who denied

the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.   Thereafter,   the   trial   proceeded,   and   five

witnesses were examined. Dr. K.S. Brar who had

first examined the deceased at the Children and

General   Hospital   was   examined   as   PW­1;   Dr.

Avtar Singh who had conducted the autopsy was

examined as PW­2; Head Constable Satpal who

had accompanied the dead body for autopsy and

2 Hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”

7

had carried the sealed samples to the laboratory

was examined as PW­3; Head Constable Kapur

Chand who had taken the dead body for post­

mortem was examined as PW­4 and Gursharan

Singh son of the deceased was examined as PW­5

on 14.03.2003.

6.At   this   stage,   Sheela   Devi   wife   of   the

appellant was summoned under Section 319 of

CrPC   vide   order   dated   08.04.2003.   Thereafter,

both   the   accused   were   again   read   out   fresh

charge under section 302 read with Section 34 of

IPC on 08.07.2003. Both the accused denied the

charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

They also stated that they would cross­examine

all the witnesses who had already been examined.

7.From the record it appears that the witnesses

already examined were re­examined before the

8

Trial   Court   by   the   prosecution   although   in   a

different   sequence.   In   all   12   witnesses   were

examined by the prosecution as follows ­

i.PW­1 ­ Joginder Singh, informant.

ii.PW­2   ­   Gursharan   Singh,   son   of   the

deceased.

iii.PW­3   ­   Balwinder   Singh,   brother   of

informant, to prove the pro note.

iv.PW­4 ­ Dr. Avtar Singh, who conducted the

autopsy.

v.PW­5 ­ Head Constable Kapur Chand, who

had carried the body of the deceased for post­

mortem.

vi.PW­6 ­ Head Constable Darshan Singh, with

whom the articles of post­ mortem report and

9

the parcel containing clothes of the deceased

were deposited.

vii.PW­7 ­ Sub Inspector Balwant Singh, the

Investigating Officer.

viii.PW­8 ­ Sub Inspector Manjeet Singh, who

had arrested Rajbir Singh on 12.06.2001.

ix.PW­9 – A.S.I Kuldeep Singh, who had taken

into possession the pronote (Ex­PB) and had

also   recorded   the   statements   of   marginal

witness of pronote.

(At  this   stage,   statement  of   both   the   accused

under   Section   313   of   CrPC   was   recorded   on

10.11.2004   by   putting   all   the   incriminating

material   to   them.     Thereafter,   three   more

witnesses were examined.)

10

x.PW­10 ­ Head Constable Satpal Singh who

had   carried   the   recovered   material   and

viscera to the laboratory.

xi.PW­11 ­ Constable Paramjeet Singh, who had

delivered the Special Reports to the Judicial

Magistrate.

xii.PW­12   ­   Dr.   K.S.   Brar,   who   had   first

examined the deceased at the Children and

General Hospital. 

After the above three witnesses were examined

the additional incriminating material was put to

both   the   accused   and   their   supplementary

statement   was   recorded   under   Section   313   of

CrPC on 09.03.2005.

8.Both the accused were examined twice under

Section 313 CrPC and the entire incriminating

11

material   was   put   to   them.     They   denied   the

prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence and

stated that they were falsely implicated.   It was

further stated by them that the complainant was

running the business of Committees in which the

appellant   was   also   a   member   of   the   said

Committees; that he had made payment for the

Committees but some members of the Committees

had   refused   to   make   the   payment   of   the

remaining   instalments,   although   they   had

received full amount from the Committees; due to

this   reason   the   financial   position   of   the

complainant had become very weak; the appellant

had not received the due amount of Committees

and was demanding the same from the informant;

it is for this reason that he has been falsely

implicated so that the complainant may get rid of

12

the   said   burden;   the   deceased   might   have

committed suicide due to her family’s financial

crisis. The accused did not lead any oral evidence

in defence, however, he filed one document (Ex­

D1) copy of the order dated 22.11.2004 of the

Civil Court. 

9.The samples of milk and the utensils which

were seized by the Investigating Officer along with

viscera were sent for chemical examination. Two

reports were received from the laboratory – one is

dated 31.1.2001 (Ex­PF) and the other is dated

5.2.2001 (Ex­PG).  

10.According   to   Ex­PF,   the   sealed   packet

contained – 

i.A sealed jar said to contain brain, heart and

lung parts;

13

ii.A sealed jar said to contain parts of liver,

spleen   and kidney;

iii.A sealed jar said to contain parts of large

intestine with stomach; 

11.In   the   analysis   an   organophosphorus

compound, a group of insecticides was found in

the contents of samples (i) to (iii). No poison was

found in the contents of sample (iv).  In the report

of Ex­PF there is no mention of sample (iv).  There

is description of only three samples of the organs

of the body.  There is also cutting on the report

which would be discussed at a later stage.

12.Ex­PG   consisted   of   six   sealed   parcels   as

follows:

i.Plastic   shishi   duly   sealed   said   to   contain

unboiled milk;

14

ii.One   sealed   plastic   shishi   said   to   contain

boiled milk given to the deceased;

iii.One sealed plastic shishi said to contain milk

taken from unboiled milk;

iv.One sealed steel jug empty with glass stained

with milk;              

v.One sealed Dolu and glass;

vi.One aluminium frying pan.

In this report also there is a cutting of similar

nature as Ex­PF.  The result of the analysis was

an   organophosphorus   compound,   a   group   of

insecticides, was found in the contents of samples

(i) to (vi).  

13.Both the reports Ex­PF and Ex­PG mention

that open case was received by the signatory from

15

Dr.   O.P.   Goyal   on   22.11.2000   after   his

suspension. 

14.It would also be relevant to refer to the post­

mortem report at this stage. According to the

post­mortem report (Ex­PD) it was conducted on

19.09.2000 at 11.10 AM.   With respect to the

cause of death it was stated in the report that the

same would be declared after receiving the report

of the Chemical Examiner. No external or internal

injury was noticed on the body of the deceased.

All the organs inside the body were reported to be

healthy.   It was also reported that the probable

time that had lapsed between death and the post­

mortem   was   within   24   hours.   Viscera   was

preserved and handed over to the police.

15.The   Trial   Court   vide   judgment   dated

08.04.2005 found that all the ingredients which

16

proved the death by poisoning were present and

charge was proved by the prosecution. It also

found   that   there   was   no   clinching   evidence

against   Sheela,   wife   of   the   appellant   and

accordingly acquitted her giving benefit of doubt.

However, the evidence established the charge of

murder   against   the   appellant   and   he   was

convicted under Section 302 of IPC.   The Trial

Court did not find the offence to be in the ambit of

rarest of rare cases and accordingly sentenced

him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a

fine of Rs.1,000/­ and in default thereof to further

undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

16.The   appellant   preferred   appeal   before   the

High   Court,   registered   as   Criminal   Appeal

No.355/2005.   The   High   Court,   vide   impugned

judgment and order dated 29

th

 October, 2009 did

17

not find any infirmity in the judgment of the Trial

Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal. This

has given rise to the present appeal.

17.The Trial Court as well as the High Court

found   that   the   chain   of   circumstances   was

complete in order to establish the guilt of the

appellant.   According   to   both   the   Courts,   the

prosecution   had   fully   established   the   charge

against the appellant of adding poison to the milk

supplied to the son of the informant, and the

same having been consumed by the deceased,

resulted in her death.  The finding is that there

was a motive to commit the said offence in order

to save the appellant from returning the loan of

Rs.   1   lakh   taken   from   the   informant.     The

chemical analysis of the boiled milk consumed by

the deceased, the unboiled milk, the container

18

(dolu) in which the milk was kept and the glass in

which   the   milk   was   tendered,   all   contained

organophosphorus,   the   poisonous   substance.

The second chemical report also reflected that

there was the same substance organophosphorus

in the parts of the organs (viscera) of the deceased

sent for analysis. Both the Courts below relied on

the chemical analysis reports (Ex­PF and PG). 

18.Having considered the submissions advanced

by the learned counsel for the parties and having

perused not only the material on record of the

appeal but also the original record of the trial, we

are   of   the   view   that   both   the   courts   below

committed an error in recording conviction for the

reasons detailed hereinafter. 

19.We will first briefly refer to the evidence led

by the prosecution. 

19

20.PW­1   Joginder   Singh   in   his   statement

supported the prosecution story as narrated by

him.  He has also given details of the recovery of

the milk and utensils from his residence.  In his

cross­examination he has admitted that he was

running   business   of   Committees   of   which   the

appellant was member in five Committees. The

members of the Committees paid instalments. The

appellant Rajbir Singh was not making regular

payments towards the Committees; that he was

not   maintaining   the   record   regarding   the

Committees.  He denied that the alleged pronote

and the receipt were executed in connection with

the account of the Committees.   He also stated

that when he smelled the milk in the glass or the

jug, he did not find any difference in the odour of

the milk and both the utensils.  He also denied

20

that he had kept rat killer poison in his house.

He   further   denied   that   some   members   of   the

Committee who had received the amount of the

Committee had become defaulters and that they

did   not   pay   the   amount   due   towards   the

Committees.     He   denied   his   relations   being

strained with them.  He also denied that there is

any quarrel with his wife and he also denied that

the facts of financial crisis and quarrel between

the husband and wife and she had committed

suicide.  It was also put to him that the witnesses

of the pronote were residents of Kaliawali Mandi

where he used to reside earlier.  He accepted that

the pronote and receipt were not got attested from

any resident of the locality where he and the

appellant were staying at the time of execution of

the pronote. It was also suggested to him that the

21

witnesses of the pronote and the receipt did not

know Rajbir Singh.  He states that his wife did not

vomit at both the hospitals and she had only one

motion at the Children and General Hospital.  It

was suggested to him that his wife did not die due

to poisoning but because of tension and stress

which was denied by him.

21.PW­2 Gursharan Singh, son of the deceased,

has also supported the prosecution story in his

examination­in­chief.   In   his   cross­examination,

he has admitted that Rajbir Singh was a member

of the Committees run by his father.   He was

confronted with his statement recorded in Ex­DA

that he had stated that his father owed money

from   Rajbir   Singh   in   connection   with   the

committees and had executed pronote for Rs.1

lakh.   He, however, reiterated the prosecution

22

case that Rajbir Singh (appellant) had received

Rs.1 lakh from his father and had executed the

pronote.   He   was   then   confronted   with   the

statement Ex­DA where he had not mentioned

about Sheela taking a jug from him, both the

accused inside the room and then the appellant

coming out with the jug and handing it over to

him.  He stated that he had recorded this fact in

the statement Ex­DA before the police but the

same was not recorded.  He also denied of keeping

poison in his house to kill rats.  He then admits

that some members of the Committees had taken

away the amount of the Committees and had not

returned   the   amount   to   his   father.   He   also

admitted that other members of the Committees

who   were   paying   instalments   regularly   were

demanding the amount from his father.   It was

23

also   suggested   to   him   that   they   were   facing

financial  crisis;  that  there  used  to   be  quarrel

between   his   father   and   mother   due   to   the

financial   problems   and   that   his   mother   had

committed   suicide.   All   three   suggestions   were

denied by him. 

22.The   pronote   has   been   proved   by   PW­3

Balwinder   Singh,   who   is   real   brother   of   the

informant.  He admits that he had never seen the

original pronote and receipt.

23.PW­4  Dr.   Avtar  Singh   had  conducted  the

autopsy.  He proved the post­mortem report and

its contents.  He has further stated that he had

prepared the four jars out of which three jars

contain the viscera and the fourth jar contained

saturated   saline.   He   also   stated   that   he   has

received all the police papers before conducting

24

the autopsy.  He also stated that after receiving

the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex­PF he

had   declared   the   cause   of   death   was   due   to

poisonous compound found in the viscera. In his

cross­examination he stated that in the case of

poison   the   colours   of   nail   turn   into   a   bluish

colour  and the colour of the body also turns

bluish.  He stated that the body was not bluish

and, therefore, he had not mentioned it in the

post­mortem   report.     He   further   stated   that

remaining viscera’s poison gives a foul smell. He

was asked whether he observed or felt the foul

smell to which he stated that he neither observed

such   smell   nor   he   felt   the   foul   smell   while

conducting   the   post­mortem   examination.     He

also stated that upon opening the stomach a foul

smell   will   come   in   case   it   is   a   case   of

25

organophosphorus poison.  He further stated that

he did not experience any foul smell after opening

the stomach and as such did not mention it in the

post­mortem   report.     He   was   then   suggested

whether the muscles of the body shrink in case of

poisoning which he denied but he clearly said

that he did not observe symptoms of poisoning

and on that account he did not mention it in the

post­mortem report. He further stated that in case

organophosphorus poison is put in the milk it will

give smell even to a person who is standing at

some distance from the utensil in which milk with

such poison is kept.

24.PW­5   Head   Constable   Kapur   Chand   is   a

formal witness who had carried the body of the

deceased for post­mortem and he affirmed the

contents of his affidavit (Ex­PH).

26

25.PW­6 Head Constable Darshan Singh is also

a formal witness with whom the articles of post­

mortem report and the parcel containing clothes

of the deceased were deposited.  He affirmed the

contents of his affidavit (Ex­PJ).

26.PW­7 Sub­Inspector, Balwinder Singh is the

Investigating Officer. He stated that he received

the   information   about   the   poisoning   from   the

Children   and   General   Hospital   whereupon   he

went there and later went to the Civil Hospital

where the deceased had been shifted.  At the Civil

Hospital   he   was   informed   by   the   doctor   that

Kuldeep Kaur had already died. There he recorded

the statement of the informant, got his signatures

made thereon and himself made endorsement for

registering   the   case   (Ex­PA/1)   which   he   duly

proved and also proved the formal FIR (Ex­PA/2)

27

recorded by ASI Harbans Singh.   He thereafter

prepared the inquest report and sent the dead

body   for   autopsy   in   the   custody   of   Head

Constable–Kapur   Chand   (PW­5)   and   Constable

Satpal (PW­10) along with request memo (Ex­PD).

He then states that on the next day he visited the

house of the deceased, prepared the rough site

plan (Ex­PK).  He collected the utensils and milk

and   prepared   the   recovery   memo   (Ex­PL).

Thereafter, he went to the Civil Hospital where he

was   handed   over   the   parcel   of   viscera   by

constable Satpal along with other papers given by

PW­4 conducting the post­mortem and also the

other articles and clothes returned by PW­4. He

deposited the case property with Head Constable

Darshan Singh at police station Kotwali.  In his

cross­examination, the Investigating Officer states

28

that he did not go to the house of the appellant

Rajbir Singh for house search on the same day

but visited there later on. He states that he did

not   find   any   container   in   the   house   of   the

appellant.   He   also   admits   that   he   did   not

investigate regarding purchase of poison by the

appellant.  He also admits that he did not make

any house search of the house of the informant.

He then states that Gursharan Singh (PW­2) had

not   stated   the   presence   of   Sheela   along   with

Rajbir and that they had taken the container

inside the room and that both of them had poured

the milk.   He then states that he cannot say

whether anyone can tamper with the milk during

the intervening period of 18

th

 to 19

th

 September. It

is interesting to note that the Investigating Officer

says that when milk was boiled in his presence on

29

19.09.2000   when   he   visited   the   house   of   the

informant,  it  was  emitting  foul  smell   in   great

extent.     He   also   stated   that   even   the   two

witnesses   Manjit   Singh   and   Harbans   Singh

(witnesses   of   recovery)   stated   that   there   was

pungent smell to a great extent.  He also states

that many other persons were purchasing milk

from   Rajbir   Singh   but   none   of   them   had

complained about the quality of the milk.  He also

states that he did not arrest Rajbir Singh during

investigation.  He, however, denied that he did not

arrest   Rajbir   Singh   as   there   was   no   evidence

against him. He also stated that the doctors in

both the hospitals did not disclose to him that the

deceased   had   vomited   or   was   having   loose

motions.   

30

27.PW   8   Sub­Inspector   Manjit   Singh   had

arrested the appellant on 12.06.2001. 

28.PW­9 ASI Kuldeep Singh stated that he had

taken into possession the pronote (marked ‘X’) on

16.07.2001   and   that   he   had   recorded   the

statements of the marginal witnesses.   In the

cross­examination he states that he had not seen

the original pronote and receipt; that he had no

knowledge   whether   the   payment   had   actually

been made or not. 

29.PW­10 Satpal was accompanying the dead

body for post­mortem and also had delivered the

viscera and parcel of the recovered utensils and

milk to the chemical laboratory. In his cross­

examination   he   had   stated   that   he   did   not

remember how many seals were affixed on the

parcel.   He further states that the parcel was

31

received on 21.09.2000 at 10­11 AM which he

kept with him.   In the night it was kept in the

police station and that he had stayed at the police

station overnight.  It was on 22.09.2000 that the

parcels were delivered at the laboratory. 

30.PW­11 Constable Paramjit Singh has stated

that he received a special report at 9.15 PM dated

18.09.2000 and on the next morning at 07.00 AM

he   gave   the   special   report   to   the   Judicial

Magistrate, Bathinda. 

31.PW­12 Dr K.S.Brar, on the relevant date was

posted as an Emergency Officer at the Children

and General Hospital, Bathinda.  He states that

on the said day the deceased had come to the

hospital with suspected case of poisoning.   He

informed the police and thereafter referred her to

the   Civil   Hospital   considering   her   serious

32

condition.     In   the   cross­examination   he   had

stated that the phosgene gas smell was coming

from the mouth of the patient and he had given

treatment   to   the   patient   regarding   aluminium

phosphide poisoning.  He further states that the

patient was vomiting but he did not remember

whether she had passed motion or not. It was

suggested to him that the deceased was never

admitted to the hospital for treatment and that he

was deposing falsely for covering up the delay at

the instance of the police, which he denied.  He

also stated that he did not know about the body

temperature of the patient at the time of her

arrival.  He also did not produce the OPD register

as it was not summoned.  

32.It would be relevant to note that PWs 10, 11

and 12 were examined after the prosecution had

33

closed   its   evidence   on   27.10.2004   and   the

statements of both the accused under Section 313

CrPC were recorded on 10.11.2004.

33. The Trial Court proceeded on the premise that

the appellant had not denied the execution of the

pronote while discussing the motive. This fact is

apparently   not   correct   in   as   much   as   the

appellant   in   his   statement   under   section   313

CrPC   recorded   on   10.11.2004   had   specifically

denied not only borrowing of the money but also

that he never executed the pronote. The question

as framed and the answer is reproduced below:

“Q: It is further in evidence against

you that you had borrowed a sum of

Rs.  One   Lac  from   father  of   PW­5

Gursharan Singh and had executed

a pronote and receipt for the same

on   01.01.2000.   PW   Gursharan

singh was demanding amount from

you and putting of the matter and

agreed   to   pay   amount   on

34

18.09.2000. What have you to say

about it?

A: It is false evidence against me. I

had   never   borrowed   the   said

amount and I had never executed

the said pronote.”

34. Further the Trial Court did not take into

consideration the time gap from the alleged time

of collecting the milk from the appellant till the

time it was administered and further the time the

samples were collected. It also did not give any

importance to the post­mortem report and the

statement of Dr. Avtar Singh who had conducted

the   autopsy.   The   use   of   compound

organophosphorus   has   a   homicidal   purpose

because of its extremely strong pungent smell has

also not received due attention by the Trial Court.

The   High   Court   judgment   was   cryptic   and

evidence had been only cursorily dealt with. 

35

35.   This   is   a   murder   case   of   circumstantial

evidence by poisoning. In a case of circumstantial

evidence, the five golden principles as laid down

by this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand

Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra

3

   as stated in

paragraph 153 of the report read as follows:

“A   close   analysis   of   this   decision

would   show   that   the   following

conditions must be fulfilled before a

case against an accused can be said

to be fully established:

(1)   the   circumstances   from   which

the   conclusion   of   guilt   is   to   be

drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court

indicated   that   the   circumstances

concerned 'must or should' and not

'may be' established. There is not

only   a   grammatical   but   a   legal

distinction between 'may be proved'

and 'must be or should be proved'

as was held by this Court in Shivaji

Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of

Maharashtra,   (1973)   2   SCC   793,

where   the   following   observations

were made:

3 (1984) 4 SCC 116

36

"Certainly,   it   is   a   primary

principle   that   the   accused

must be and not merely may

be   guilty   before   a   court   can

convict   and   the   mental

distance between 'may be' and

'must be' is long and divides

vague   conjectures   from   sure

conclusions."

(2) The facts so established should

be   consistent   only   with   the

hypothesis   of   the   guilt   of   the

accused, that is to say, they should

not   be   explainable   on   any   other

hypothesis except that the accused

is guilty, 

(3) the circumstances should be of a

conclusive nature and tendency.

(4)   they   should   exclude   every

possible hypothesis except the one

to be proved, and 

(5)   there   must   be   a   chain   of

evidence so complete as not to leave

any   reasonable   ground   for   the

conclusion   consistent   with   the

innocence of the accused and must

show that in all human probability

the act must have been done by the

accused.”

36.   Before   laying   down   the   five   aforesaid

principles,  Justice  Fazal  Ali  speaking  for  the

37

Court in                     paragraph 152 extracted a

paragraph from the case of Hanumant vs. State of

Madhya   Pradesh   as   stated   by   Mahajan,   J.

Paragraph 152 is                                     reproduced

hereunder: 

“Before discussing the cases relied

upon by the High Court we would

like to cite a few decisions on the

nature,   character   and   essential

proof   required   in   a   criminal   case

which   rests   on   circumstantial

evidence   alone.   The   most

fundamental and basic decision of

this Court is Hanumant v. The State

of   Madhya   Pradesh,AIR   1952   SC

343,. This case has been uniformly

followed and applied by this Court

in a large number of later decisions

up­to­date, for instance, the cases

of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of

Uttar   Pradesh,(1969)   3   SCC   198

and   Ramgopal   v.   State   of

Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC 625. It

may   be   useful   to   extract   what

Mahajan,   J.   has   laid   down   in

Hanumant's case (supra): 

"It   is   well   to   remember

that   in   cases   where   the

evidence is of a circumstantial

nature,   the   circumstances

from which the conclusion of

38

guilt is to be drawn should in

the   first   instance   be   fully

established and all the facts so

established   should   be

consistent   only   with   the

hypothesis of the guilt of the

accused.   Again,   the

circumstances should be of a

conclusive   nature   and

tendency and they should be

such   as   to   exclude   every

hypothesis   but   the   one

proposed to be proved. In other

words, there must be a chain

of evidence so far complete as

not   to   leave   any   reasonable

ground   for   a   conclusion

consistent with the innocence

of the accused and it must be

such as to show that within all

human   probability   the   act

must have been done by the

accused."”

37.   These   golden   principles   have   remained

unaltered and are still followed. One of the issues

to be considered in the present case would be as

to whether the chain of evidence was so complete

so as not to leave any reasonable ground that

39

there could be any other hypothesis except the

one put forward by the prosecution. 

38. With respect to the case of poisoning, this

Court in the case of  Sharad Birdichand Sarda

(supra)  further   laid   down   four   important

circumstances   for   recording   a   conviction   in

paragraph 165 which is reproduced hereunder: 

“165.   So   far   as   this   matter   is

concerned, in such cases the court

must   carefully   scan   the   evidence

and   determine   the   four   important

circumstances   which   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.”

40

39. The principles laid down in the case of Sharad

Birdichand   Sarda(supra)  have   remained

unaltered and even as recently as 11.08.2022 this

Court in    Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2012, Ram

Niwas vs. State of Haryana, has relied upon the

same with approval. It is also well settled that

suspicion,   howsoever strong it may be, cannot

replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

40. In the background of the above legal position

we now proceed to analyze the evidence and draw

our conclusions.

41.  The motive set up by the prosecution that

appellant had taken a loan of Rs. 1 lakh and had

executed a pronote as well as receipt is denied by

the appellant. In his statement under section 313

CrPC, there is specific denial of borrowing any

41

money   and   also   executing   of   pronote.     The

defence set up in the cross­examination of PW­1,

PW­2   and   PW­7   as   also   the   statement   under

section 313 of CrPC was that the informant was

carrying on a business of Committees of which

the appellant was a member and there was an

amount due from the informant to the appellant.

Running   of   business   of   Committees   by   the

informant;   there   being   defaulters;   there   being

financial   loss   is   admitted.     According   to   the

appellant,   amount   was   due   to   him   from   the

informant and that he had been falsely implicated

to deprive him from recovering the same from the

informant.  A case of false implication, therefore,

cannot be ruled out.

42

42.Reliance placed upon the pronote and the

receipt is also not proved in as much as the

original was not produced, rather a false plea was

raised that it was filed before the Civil Court,

which stands belied by the Ex­D/1 filed by the

appellant, and secondly, no attesting witness was

produced by the prosecution.

43.   The   next   question   which   arises   for

consideration   is   as   to   whether   mixing   of   the

poisonous compound in the milk was done by the

appellant or it could have been done by someone

else, and for the same there are two windows.

First, the time between the collection of milk from

the appellant on the morning of the fateful day,

till the time it was consumed by the deceased,

was about five hours. Second window being the

43

time after consumption of milk at around 12:30

PM on the fateful day, till the next day when the

Investigating   Officer   recovered   and   took   into

possession the sample of milk and the utensils,

which had a gap of about 20­24 hours.  Total time

gap   from   the   time   milk   was   collected   from

appellant till the samples were collected is more

than 24 hours.  Chances of mixing poison during

this period cannot be ruled out.   Defence had

cross­examined   both   PW­1   and   PW­2   on   this

aspect.

44.   The   next   question   which   arises   for

consideration is whether the death of deceased

was   caused   due   to   consumption   of

organophosphorus, a poisonous compound or for

any   other   reason.   Organophosphorus   has   a

44

strong pungent smell. This smell could not be

sensed by the informant, his son as also the

deceased.   The   milk   which   is   said   to   be

adulterated with the poison was taken out from

the refrigerator, transferred into a pan for boiling

and thereafter given to the deceased. If it actually

had organophosphorus in it the smell would have

filled up the room. The deceased being a healthy

woman aged 45 years would not have consumed

it if the pungent smell was coming from the milk.

Even the informant (PW­1) did not sense any foul

smell from the milk while boiling it. It would be

worthwhile to refer to a judgment of this Court in

Jaipal vs. State of Haryana

4

. It was a case of

aluminium phosphite (sulphas) which also has a

strong pungent smell. It is observed that such

4 (2003) 1 SCC 169

45

compounds are generally used for suicide rather

than in a case of homicide. Further, Dr. Avtar

Singh (PW­4) who had conducted the autopsy has

clearly stated in both his statements that he did

not find any smell of organophosphorus coming

out of the body. The first statement was recorded

on 08.04.2002 and the second statement was

recorded on 03.11.2003, in both the statements

he had stated that he had not seen any change in

colour of nails as also in the body, which would

have been a common symptom in the case of

poisoning.   He   had   also   deposed   that   all   the

organs of the body were healthy. Even though he

admits   in   the   case   of   poisoning   by

organophosphorus there would be shrinking of

the muscles, however, there was no squeezing or

shrinking in the outside muscles of the abdomen,

46

which were healthy.  According to him, there were

no   symptoms   of   poisoning   noticed   during   the

autopsy despite the fact that it was reported in all

police   papers   about   the   case   being   that   of

poisoning.   PW­4   must   have   been   careful   in

observing   whether   any   symptoms   of  poisoning

were present in the body.  This may lead to an

inference that death could have been caused by

some other reason but not poisoning.  In so far as

the chemical examination report is concerned it

could be a case of tampering with the samples for

the reasons discussed above and hereinafter.

45.   The   presence   of   organophosphorus   in   the

milk, utensils, and the viscera is proved by the

Reports of Chemical Examiner dated 31.01.2001

(Ex­PF) and 05.02.2001 (Ex­PG). The sample was

47

received in the laboratory on 22.09.2000, whereas

as per the two reports, it was received by the

Assistant   Chemical   Examiner,   Dr.   Sandeep

Kakkar, on 22.11.2000 from one Dr. O.P. Goel

after his suspension, not in a sealed form, but as

an   open   case.   This   note   “This   opened   case,

received by me from Dr. O.P. Goel on 22.11.2000

after his suspension.” is typed out in both the

reports after an overwriting /cutting is made by

using alphabet “X” continuously.  Ex­PF mentions

that there were three sealed jars in the sealed

parcel which contained parts of organs. This Ex­

PF does not mention of any fourth jar, whereas as

per the post­ mortem report and the statement of

Dr. Avtar Singh (PW­4), four sealed packets were

sent, three containing parts of organs, and one

containing the saline solution. The result refers to

48

presence of organophosphorus compound in the

three sealed jars and it also refers to no poison

found in the contents of fourth jar. The fourth jar

does   not   find   mention   in   the   description   of

contents in Ex­PF. The other report, Ex­PG of the

Assistant   Chemical   Examiner,   Dr.   Sandeep

Kakkar, is with respect to the recovery made by

the Investigating Officer on the next day of the

incident,   which   included   milk,   boiled   and

unboiled and the utensils. This also had a similar

cutting, and a note attached that it was received

as an open case from Dr. O.P. Goel on 22.11.2000

after his suspension. The result as reported is

that organophosphorus compound was found in

contents of all the Exhibit Nos. (i) to (vi).

46.The following doubts arise from the perusal

of the reports of the Chemical Examiner: 

49

i.That samples were not handed over to the

Assistant   Chemical   Examiner   who   had   to

conduct the analysis in a sealed form.

ii.The   cutting,   and   a   fresh   note   regarding

parcels being open also creates a doubt.

iii.Chances of tampering with the samples could

not be ruled out.

47.   The   Investigation   Officer   admits   of  having

made no effort to find out as to whether or not the

appellant   was   in   possession   of   the   poisonous

substance   said   to   be   mixed   in   the   milk.   The

Courts below have proceeded on the assumption

that organophosphorous was available in every

household.

48. From the above discussion, it is more than

evident that chain of evidence has many missing

50

and weak links. None of essential ingredients to

record   conviction   in   a   case   of   circumstantial

evidence and that of poisoning case are made out.

Prosecution has thus failed to bring home the

guilt.

49.Taking an overall view of the evidence on

record, we are of the firm view, that prosecution

has not established the charge beyond reasonable

doubt so as to record conviction under Section

302 of IPC. The appellant deserves to be extended

benefit   of   doubt.   Accordingly,   the   appeal   is

allowed, the judgments of the High Court and the

Trial   Court   are   set   aside,   the   appellant   is

acquitted. He is already on bail.  His bail bond is

cancelled and sureties are discharged.

…………..........................J.

51

[HEMANT GUPTA]

………….........................J.

[VIKRAM NATH]

NEW DELHI

AUGUST 24, 2022

52