The judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 1182 of 2012, delivered on November 7, 2023, pertains to an appeal against the conviction of Hariprasad alias Kishan Sahu. The appellant challenges the decision of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge in a case involving the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Legal Representatives: The appellant was represented by a team of advocates led by Dr. Rajesh Pandey, and the respondent State was represented by Mr. Gautam Narayan.
Background: The case revolves around the death of Bisahu Singh, who, according to the prosecution, was allegedly poisoned. The appellant, Hariprasad, was acquitted of the charge under the SC/ST Act but convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Trial Court. The High Court upheld this decision.
Key Issues: The judgment identifies three key questions for determination:
- Whether the delay in registering the FIR, more than one year after the incident, is fatal to the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the prosecution has proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that the deceased died due to the administration of poison.
- Whether the prosecution has established that the appellant administered the poison to the deceased.
Analysis:
1. Delay in Registering FIR: The court acknowledges that while a prompt FIR is ideal, undue delay alone is not fatal to the case. The reasons for delay must be considered, and in this case, the delay was attributed to the time taken by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to provide a chemical examination report. The court finds this explanation acceptable, and the delay is not deemed fatal.
2. Cause of Death: The court refers to the established criteria from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) for cases involving poisoning. It notes a lack of evidence regarding a clear motive for the appellant to administer poison and doubts about whether the deceased died due to poison. The court highlights the absence of conclusive proof that the substances found in the deceased’s viscera were poisonous. It criticizes the failure to obtain a medical expert’s opinion on the cause of death, rendering the prosecution’s case weak.
3. Lack of Motive and Inadequate Evidence: The court emphasizes the absence of evidence establishing a motive for the appellant to administer poison. The testimonies, treated as potential dying declarations, are considered weak and risky for conviction. The court points out the prosecution’s failure to identify the herb allegedly mixed with the liquor and its poisonous nature. The Chemical examination report is criticized for not being presented during the appellant’s examination under Section 313 of Cr. P.C.
Conclusion: In light of the weak evidence and the failure to meet the criteria established in previous judgments, the court sets aside the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The appellant is acquitted of all charges, and the judgment emphasizes the vulnerability of the prosecution’s case.
Significance: This judgment underscores the importance of establishing a clear motive and providing conclusive evidence in cases involving poisoning. It also highlights the need for a prompt and comprehensive investigation, including obtaining expert opinions, to support a robust prosecution case.
Hariprasad alias Kishan Sahu … Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh … Respondent
the Supreme Court of India
