Insufficient evidence in criminal cases to connect the accused with the crime will lead to the courts extending the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. Even in a case of murder by administration of poison, the court will scan the evidence carefully and determine four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction. The circumstances are i) there is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased ii) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered iii) that the accused had the poison in his possession and iv) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased.
In one such a case before the Hyderabad High Court, the appellant-accused challenged the order of the trial court in Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh convicting and sentencing him to rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC for causing the death of his wife by administering poison forcibly into her mouth. The prosecution argued that prior to the marriage, the man had married another woman and begot two children. Due to differences, she deserted him and went back to her parents. When she refused to reunite with him, he attempted to commit suicide by consuming pesticide.
While taking treatment at a private hospital, he developed acquaintance with another woman (deceased), fell in love and married her without the consent of their parents. They set up their family and did coolie work. The first wife filed a maintenance case and the man was attending the court regularly. One day, she tried to prevent him from going to the court and that let to an altercation between them. After a few hours he told his boss that his wife consumed poison and asked him to arrange an autorickshaw to take her to hospital stating that her condition was very serious. Her parents were also informed of it. But she died on the way to hospital. Police registered a case on the basis of a complaint lodged by her father.
The autopsy report stated that the woman died due to poisoning which was found in the stomach, small intestine and other parts of the body. When the doctor opined that there were injuries on the body, police registered a murder case under Section 302 of IPC. Statements of the parents were recorded and witnesses were examined by the prosecution. A a charge sheet was filed.
The accused pleaded not guilty and preferred to be tried. The trial court convicted him of the crime and sentenced him. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the High Court. His counsel said there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and the entire case rested on circumstantial evidence. Due to ill health, the woman committed suicide by taking poison. Were he really responsible for her death, he would not have informed her parents and others of the incident and would not have stayed with her. As for the contusion on the neck, such injuries were possible due to a fall. Since there was doubt about the manner in which the incident happened, benefit of doubt should be given to him, the counsel pleaded.
The public prosecutor said it was highly improbable that the injuries on the neck were self-inflicted or caused by a fall from the auto. The accused failed to show that she suffered from ill health which made her to commit suicide. The judgement under challenge warranted no interference. Non-explanation of the cause of injuries on the neck was sufficient to hold that he alone was responsible for the death, he argued.
A division bench of High Court comprising justices C Praveen Kumar and P Keshava Rao found that the trial court had mainly relied on the failure of the accused to explain the cause of injuries on the neck of the deceased. Further, the evidence of the parents clearly established that their daughter suffered from ill health and took treatment at various hospitals.
The also admitted that he used to take her to hospital for treatment once in a month or fortnight. Therefore, the trial court’s finding and the argument of the public prosecutor that the woman did not suffer from any ill health was not acceptable. Besides, there was no evidence to show that the poison was available in the house and that the man had procured it. There was also no direct evidence of him putting pressure on her neck and forcibly administering poison to her, it opined. The bench allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered his release if he was not required in any other case.