Baljit Kaur And Ors. vs State Of Punjab

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 1
109


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 02.09.2026

BALJIT KAUR
.....APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present: Mr. Keshavam Chaudhri and Mr. Mudit Vohra, Advocates for
Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2005, whereby
appellant Baljit Kaur has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC and sentenced as under:-
Under Section Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in
awarded default of payment
of fine
Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 02 months
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that appellant Baljit
Kaur, daughter of Kashmir Singh, was married to Sarmukh Singh, deceased,
Head Constable No. 1677, Police Station Majitha. Two sons were born out
of the wedlock, who were aged about 9 and 7 years, respectively, at the time
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 2
of the occurrence. On the intervening night of 08/09.08.2003, Sarmukh
Singh returned to his quarter No. 31, Police Lines, Dobarjee, Amritsar, at
about 8.00 p.m. after performing his duty, having already consumed liquor.
The family took meals together and thereafter retired to sleep at about 11.00
p.m. On the following morning, at about 6.00 a.m., Sarmukh Singh was
found lying dead in the house. At that stage, no suspicion of any foul play
was entertained and the cause of death was believed to be heart failure. On
09.08.2003, ASI Baj Singh of Police Station Sultanwind, along with other
police officials, was present at Bus Stand Dobarjee, where Satnam Singh,
son of Gajjan Singh and brother of the deceased Sarmukh Singh, met him.
Satnam Singh got his statement Ex. PA recorded, which was signed by him
in token of its correctness. In his statement, he disclosed that on 08.08.2003,
he and his father Gajjan Singh had gone to the house of Sarmukh Singh,
deceased, in Police Lines, Dobarjee, to meet him. Sarmukh Singh came to
the house at about 8.00 p.m. after performing his duty. At that time, Baljit
Kaur, wife of the deceased, and their children were present in the house.
After taking their meals, they retired to sleep at about 11.00 p.m. On the
following morning, at about 6.00 a.m., they found Sarmukh Singh lying
dead. At that time, neither Satnam Singh nor his father suspected any foul
play and they believed that the deceased had died due to heart failure.
Consequently, no case was registered on the basis of the statement of
Satnam Singh and only Daily Diary Report No. 11 was entered at the police
station. The dead body was thereafter taken for post-mortem examination.
The ASI conducted the inquest proceedings and prepared report Ex. PB. The
dead body was entrusted to HC Avtar Singh and LC Manjit Singh for the
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 3
purpose of post-mortem. After the post-mortem examination, the clothes of
the deceased were taken into possession and his viscera was preserved by
the doctor and sent to the Chemical Examiner. As per report Ex. PW16/B of
the Chemical Examiner, ethyl alcohol and chloro-compound group of
insecticide were detected in the viscera. On the basis of the said report, Dr.
Ranjit Joshi gave his opinion Ex. PW16/C on 07.10.2003, that the cause of
death was the cumulative effect of ethyl alcohol and chloro-compound group
of insecticide, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature.
3. Thereafter, the case was registered on 22.10.2003, at Police
Station Sultanwind, Amritsar, on the statement of Gajjan Singh, son of
Makhan Singh, which was recorded by SHO Gian Singh. It was stated by
Gajjan Singh that his son Sarmukh Singh, deceased, who at the time of the
occurrence was working as a Head Constable in the Police Department and
was posted in Police Lines, Majitha, was married to Baljit Kaur. About six
months prior to the occurrence, Daljit Kaur, the co-accused and sister of the
maternal uncle of Baljit Kaur, had started living with them in their quarter
No. 31, Police Lines, Dobarjee, as she was undergoing a DMLT course at
Amritsar. According to Gajjan Singh, after Daljit Kaur started residing with
Sarmukh Singh and Baljit Kaur, Sarmukh Singh used to complain to him
that Baljit Kaur no longer cared for him and that both Baljit Kaur and Daljit
Kaur used to remain away from the house for several nights. Whenever he
objected to their conduct, they allegedly extended threats to him. Sarmukh
Singh further told Gajjan Singh that he suspected that Baljit Kaur and Daljit
Kaur had illicit relations with Manjit Singh @ Manna, a resident of Wadala
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 4
and son of the sister of the mother of Baljit Kaur. He also expressed his
apprehension that he might be poisoned to death or might otherwise be got
murdered by them. Gajjan Singh further stated that, on several occasions, he
had gone to the house of Sarmukh Singh, where Kashmir Singh, father of
Baljit Kaur, and Kulbir Singh, her maternal uncle, were called to make Baljit
Kaur understand and to advise her regarding her conduct. On such
occasions, Baljit Kaur allegedly sought pardon from Sarmukh Singh and
promised to behave properly in future. Sarmukh Singh had also informed
₹
Gajjan Singh that in April, 2003, he had taken a loan of 4,18,000/- from the
bank for construction of a house and that a sufficient amount out of the said
money had been given by Baljit Kaur to her father Kashmir Singh, who was
not returning the same. According to Sarmukh Singh, this had resulted in
continuing disputes and discord in the family. Gajjan Singh further stated
that his daughter Sukhwant Kaur had also told him about the aforesaid
circumstances and that Sarmukh Singh had spoken to her in this regard. On
09.08.2003, at about 8.00 a.m., a telephone call was received at his house
from Kashmir Singh informing him about the death of Sarmukh Singh
during the preceding night. Thereafter, Gajjan Singh and other family
members went to the Government Quarter of Sarmukh Singh in Police
Lines, Dobarjee, where the post-mortem examination was conducted and,
subsequently, the dead body was cremated. It was thereafter, on 22.10.2003,
that Gajjan Singh made his statement Ex. PW7/A before SHO Gian Singh,
on the basis of which the formal FIR Ex. PW9/A came to be registered.
4. On 27.10.2003, accused Kashmir Singh, Daljit Kaur and Baljit
Kaur were arrested. During investigation, ASI Harvinder Singh recorded the
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 5
statements of Paramjit Kaur, Sarbjit Kaur, Parminder Kaur, Sarabjit Kaur,
Kashmir Singh, Bir Singh, Nishan Singh. Gurpreet Singh, resident of Koha,
District Gurdaspur, was also joined in the investigation. It was revealed by
him that after the bhog ceremony of Sarmukh Singh, Baljit Kaur and Daljit
Kaur had approached him at his house and admitted before him that they had
administered poisonous medicine to the deceased with the intention of
causing his death. They requested him to help them in effecting a
compromise with Gajjan Singh, he being his relative. Thereafter, he
contacted Gajjan Singh, but Baljit Kaur and Daljit Kaur did not turn up.
After completion of investigation, challan was presented before the
competent Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions,
wherein all the three accused were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW1 ASI
Baj Singh, who recorded the inquest proceedings and the statements under
Section 175 Cr.P.C. on 09.08.2003. PW2 Paramjit Kaur, PW3 Parminder
Kaur, PW4 Sarabjit Kaur and PW5 C. Kashmir Singh, all neighbours, were
examined to prove the alleged illicit relations of the appellant with Manjit
Singh alias Manna, as also the alleged quarrels, and thus to establish the
motive. PW6 C. Manjit Singh, another neighbour, was examined as a formal
witness and as the custodian of the sealed viscera between the post-mortem
examination and its deposit with the Chemical Examiner. PW7 Gajjan
Singh, father of the deceased, lodged the FIR and sought to prove the
alleged motive and conspiracy. PW8 Kishan Singh, brother of the deceased,
was examined to corroborate the version of PW7. PW9 is a formal witness
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 6
who proved the FIR. PW10 ASI Harvinder Singh deposed regarding the
arrest of the appellant. PW11 Jaswant Singh, Cashier, Punjab & Sind Bank,
proved on record the statement of the bank account of the deceased as
Ex.PW11/A. PW12 Gurpreet Singh, brother of the deceased, was examined
to prove the alleged motive relating to the money/loan amount withdrawn by
the deceased. PW13 Inspector Gian Singh, the Investigating Officer,
deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him and proved the
relevant documents prepared during the course of investigation. PW14
Darshan Singh is the alleged recipient of the extra-judicial confession
purportedly made by the appellant and the co-accused. PW15 C. Bir Singh, a
neighbour, was examined to prove the alleged telephonic conversation
overheard by him between the appellant and Manjit Singh alias Manna, with
whom she was allegedly having illicit relations. PW16 Dr. Rajiv Joshi,
Medical Officer, was examined to prove the post-mortem examination and
the cause of death. He proved the post-mortem report as Ex.PW/16/A, the
report of the Chemical Examiner as Ex.PW/16/B and his subsequent opinion
regarding the cause of death as Ex.PW/16/C. As per the said opinion, the
cause of death was the cumulative effect of ethyl alcohol and chloro-
compound group of insecticide, which was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature.
6. Thereafter, statements of the accused were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant, in her defence, examined DW1 Kanwaljit
Singh, son of the deceased and the appellant, who sought to establish that his
father was addicted to liquor and had consumed liquor on the day of the
occurrence; that he had returned home on a rickshaw and slept beside his
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 7
father on that night. His parents never had any dispute. The appellant also
examined DW2 Makhan Singh, SP(D), Amritsar, who had conducted the
departmental inquiry entrusted to him by the DIG, Amritsar. He deposed
that, as per the inquiry, Kashmir Singh, Gurmit Singh and Manjit Singh were
found innocent and that Gajjan Singh and Satnam Singh had made
statements before him which differed from their earlier versions.
7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the learned APP for the State
and the learned defence counsel, convicted appellant Baljit Kaur for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, whereas the other two accused,
namely Kashmir Singh and Daljit Kaur, were acquitted. The trial Court
mainly relied upon the medical and chemical evidence establishing that the
deceased had died due to the cumulative effect of ethyl alcohol and chloro-
compound insecticide and the presence of Baljit Kaur in the house on the
night of the occurrence in establishing that it was Baljit Kaur who
administered poison. It also held that the evidence regarding the illicit
relationship and the resulting disputes, coupled with the financial dispute
concerning the loan amount, furnished the motive against Baljit Kaur. The
learned trial Court further dealt with the delay in registration of the FIR and
held that the same was not material in the facts and circumstances of the
case. It noticed that, initially, the death was believed to be natural and
Satnam Singh had stated on 09.08.2003 that he suspected no foul play. After
receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner and the medical opinion
regarding the cause of death, the statement of Gajjan Singh was recorded, on
the basis of which the FIR was registered on 22.10.2003. The trial Court,
therefore, held that the delay stood sufficiently explained and could not by
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 8
itself discredit the prosecution case. At the same time, the alleged extra-
judicial confession and the contradictory testimony of C. Bir Singh were not
found worthy of reliance.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by Baljit Kaur, as detailed
above.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, argued that
the death of the deceased in the present case has not been proved to be
homicidal. It was submitted that the medical and chemical evidence merely
establishes the presence of ethyl alcohol and chloro-compound group of
insecticide, but does not establish that the same was administered by the
appellant or that the death was necessarily homicidal. Learned counsel
further argued that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of 74
days. Even if the receipt of the chemical examiner’s report is taken as the
trigger for registration of the case, the FIR was still lodged about 15 days
thereafter, without any satisfactory explanation. Such unexplained delay,
according to learned counsel, provided sufficient opportunity for
deliberation and introduction of an entirely new and contradictory version,
different from the version given by the same persons on the very first date.
10. It was next argued that the foundational facts necessary for
invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act were never established by the
prosecution and that the entire burden of proving the manner in which the
deceased came to consume the poisonous substance has impermissibly been
shifted upon the appellant. Learned counsel pointed out that the earliest
statements, including the inquest proceedings and statements recorded under
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 9
Section 175 Cr.P.C., materially contradict the subsequent prosecution
version regarding the persons present in the house during the relevant night.
It was further submitted that PW2 to PW6, who were independent
neighbours/formal witnesses, did not support the prosecution case and were
declared hostile, whereas PW7 Gajjan Singh, PW8 Kishan Singh and PW12
Gurpreet Singh, being close relatives of the deceased, alone attempted to
support the prosecution case. Their testimony, however, suffers from
material inconsistencies, omissions and improvements, particularly with
regard to the alleged motive, the presence of the accused and the
circumstances surrounding the death. Learned counsel also relied upon the
testimony of DW1 Kanwaljit Singh, son of the deceased and the appellant,
who specifically stated that there was no dispute between his parents and
that the deceased had consumed liquor on the day of occurrence and had
returned home on a rickshaw. It was argued that this material defence
evidence was brushed aside without proper consideration. Learned counsel
further contended that the alleged extra-judicial confession and other
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are wholly unreliable and
insufficient to complete the chain of circumstances. It was lastly argued that
the charge against the appellant was one under Section 302 read with
Section 120-B IPC, and the two alleged co-conspirators having been
acquitted on the same evidence, the conviction of the appellant on the very
same evidence cannot be sustained. According to learned counsel, at the
highest, the evidence gives rise to two reasonably possible views, one
pointing towards homicide and the other towards accidental ingestion or
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 10
some other possibility, and in such circumstances the view favourable to the
accused must necessarily prevail.
11. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposed the appeal
and supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
the learned trial Court. It was argued that the death of the deceased due to
poisoning stands established from the medical and chemical evidence on
record. The learned State counsel submitted that the initial proceedings
treated the death as natural only because there were no visible external
injuries and the family had no immediate reason to suspect foul play. The
true nature of the death came to light upon receipt of the report of the
Chemical Examiner, which detected the presence of insecticide poison,
whereafter the medical opinion of PW16 Dr. Rajiv Joshi confirmed that the
cause of death was the cumulative effect of ethyl alcohol and chloro-
compound group of insecticide. Thus, the delay in registration of the FIR
was bona fide and stood satisfactorily explained by the subsequent discovery
of the poisoning.
12. It was further argued that the deceased died of poisoning inside
his house during the night and the appellant, being his wife, was admittedly
present in the house and was in a position to explain the circumstances in
which the poisonous substance entered the deceased’s system. Learned State
counsel invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act and submitted that, once
the prosecution had established the foundational facts, the circumstances
relating to the administration of poison were especially within the
knowledge of the appellant. However, she had failed to furnish any plausible
explanation in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to how the
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 11
insecticide entered the deceased’s system. Her silence and failure to explain
the incriminating circumstances, according to learned State counsel,
furnished an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
13. Learned State counsel further contended that the motive stood
established from the evidence of PW7 Gajjan Singh and PW12 Gurpreet
Singh, coupled with the documentary evidence produced through PW11
Jaswant Singh, Cashier, Punjab and Sind Bank. It was submitted that the
deceased had withdrawn a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- on 02.07.2003 and the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses established that the said amount was
handed over by the appellant to her father Kashmir Singh, which resulted in
serious tension, disputes and quarrels between the deceased and the
appellant. The alleged illicit relationship and consequent matrimonial
discord were also sought to be established through the prosecution evidence.
14. As regards the defence evidence, learned State counsel argued
that the testimony of DW1 Kanwaljit Singh, the minor son of the deceased
and the appellant, was not reliable, being that of a child who was residing
under the continuous care and influence of the appellant. His statement
regarding the deceased having consumed liquor could not explain the
presence of the chloro-compound insecticide detected by the Chemical
Examiner. The evidence of DW2 Makhan Singh, SP(D), who had conducted
a departmental enquiry, was also contended to be of no assistance to the
appellant, as the opinion expressed in such departmental enquiry could not
prevail over the cogent medical, scientific and other evidence led before the
trial Court.
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 12
15. Learned State counsel lastly submitted that the alleged co-
conspirators having been acquitted would not, by itself, entitle the appellant
to acquittal, as the evidence against each accused had to be assessed
independently. According to the learned State counsel, the circumstances
proved on record, when considered cumulatively, form a complete chain
pointing towards the guilt of the appellant and exclude the hypothesis of her
innocence. The learned trial Court had, therefore, rightly appreciated the
evidence and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, and no
interference was warranted in appeal.
16. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
State counsel and have gone through the record carefully.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, assailed the
finding of the learned trial Court regarding the nature and cause of death and
submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish that the death of
Sarmukh Singh was homicidal. It was argued that merely because ethyl
alcohol and a chloro-compound group of insecticide were detected in the
viscera, it cannot, by itself, be concluded that the deceased was administered
poison by the appellant. It was further submitted that the initial version of
the prosecution itself was that the deceased had died a natural death due to
heart failure and that the statements recorded during the initial proceedings
under Section 174 Cr.P.C. did not disclose any suspicion of foul play.
Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the subsequent medical opinion
could at best establish the presence of certain substances in the body, but
could not establish the manner in which they came to be consumed or that
the death was homicidal.
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 13
18. The submission, however, does not merit acceptance. The
nature and cause of death stands clearly established from the medical and
scientific evidence brought on record. The post-mortem examination of the
deceased was conducted by PW16 Dr. Rajiv Joshi, and the post-mortem
report was proved on record as Ex.PW16/A. At the time of post-mortem, the
viscera of the deceased was preserved and sealed and was thereafter sent for
chemical examination. The Chemical Examiner’s report, proved as
Ex.PW16/B, specifically recorded the presence of ethyl alcohol and a
chloro-compound group of insecticide in the viscera. Upon receipt of the
said report, PW16 Dr. Rajiv Joshi gave his subsequent opinion, proved on
record as Ex.PW16/C, regarding the cause of death. The doctor opined that
the death was due to the cumulative effect of ethyl alcohol and chloro-
compound group of insecticide, which was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. Thus, the final medical opinion was not based
upon a mere suspicion or conjecture but was rendered after consideration of
the post-mortem findings and the report of the Chemical Examiner.
19. Significantly, the evidence regarding preservation, sealing and
transmission of the viscera also lends assurance to the scientific conclusion.
PW6 C. Manjit Singh, who remained the custodian of the sealed viscera
after the post-mortem examination and till its deposit with the Chemical
Examiner, deposed regarding the safe custody and transmission of the sealed
parcels. There is no material on record to suggest any tampering with the
viscera or the sealed parcels. The scientific report, therefore, remains
unimpeached. The initial opinion of natural death, formed before the
availability of the chemical examination report, cannot prevail over the
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 14
subsequent scientific evidence which specifically established the presence of
insecticide in the body and was followed by the final medical opinion of the
doctor.
20. The fact that the deceased had consumed alcohol does not
furnish an alternative explanation for the death. The medical opinion
specifically attributes the death to the cumulative effect of ethyl alcohol and
the chloro-compound group of insecticide and records that the latter was
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Consequently, the
initial belief that the deceased had died a natural death due to heart failure
stood displaced by the subsequent scientific and medical evidence. The mere
absence of external injuries is also of no consequence in a case of poisoning,
where the fatal substance may cause death without leaving any external
mark of violence.
21. Thus, on a careful consideration of the post-mortem report
Ex.PW16/A, the Chemical Examiner’s report Ex.PW16/B, and the
subsequent opinion of PW16 Dr. Rajiv Joshi Ex.PW16/C, duly read with the
evidence concerning preservation and transmission of the viscera, this Court
has no hesitation in holding that the death of Sarmukh Singh was unnatural
and caused by poisoning, and the finding of the learned trial Court that the
death was homicidal is liable to be affirmed. The first contention of learned
counsel for the appellant, therefore, fails.
22. The next question which arises for determination is as to who
administered the poisonous substance to the deceased. The prosecution case
is that the appellant Baljit Kaur, being the wife of the deceased, in
connivance with the co-accused Kashmir Singh and Daljit Kaur,
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 15
administered the poisonous substance to Sarmukh Singh, resulting in his
death. Since there is no direct eyewitness to the alleged administration of
poison, the prosecution seeks to establish this circumstance through a chain
of circumstantial evidence, consisting principally of the alleged motive
arising out of the matrimonial discord and financial transactions, the
presence of the appellant in the house, the alleged illicit relationship, the
alleged extra-judicial confession and the conduct of the accused. It is,
therefore, necessary to examine whether these circumstances, individually or
cumulatively, are proved beyond reasonable doubt and form an unbroken
chain pointing only towards the guilt of the appellant.
23. The first and foremost circumstance relied upon by the
prosecution is the alleged motive. The prosecution has attempted to establish
that the deceased was suspicious of the character of Baljit Kaur and Daljit
Kaur and that there used to be quarrels between the deceased and the
appellant. However, the witnesses cited to establish this aspect do not
furnish dependable evidence. PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5, who were the
neighbours and were joined during investigation to ascertain the family
affairs of the deceased, did not support the prosecution version and were
declared hostile. Thus, the independent witnesses from the neighbourhood,
who would have been the natural persons to speak about the alleged
quarrels, suspicion regarding character or strained relations between the
spouses, have not corroborated the prosecution case. Their failure to support
the prosecution is significant because the prosecution case regarding motive
rests substantially upon what was allegedly known to persons residing in the
neighbourhood.
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 16
24. The prosecution has thereafter relied upon PW7 Gajjan Singh,
father of the deceased, PW8 Nishan Singh, brother of the deceased, and
PW12 Gurpreet Singh, also brother of the deceased. Their evidence has to be
examined with due caution, particularly when the independent neighbours
have not supported the prosecution. PW7 has attempted to attribute
matrimonial discord to the alleged relationship of Baljit Kaur with Manjit
Singh alias Manna. PW8 has sought to corroborate the version of his father,
while PW12 has been relied upon regarding the financial transaction.
However, their testimony does not furnish a consistent and convincing
account of any immediate motive for the deceased being poisoned by the
appellant.
25. The testimony of PW15 C. Bir Singh, who was projected as a
neighbour and an alleged witness of the telephonic conversations, also does
not advance the prosecution case. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that
the family of the deceased used to use his telephone and that Baljit Kaur
used to come to his house to use the telephone and talk with Manjit Singh
alias Manna. At the same time, he specifically stated that he had not heard
the telephonic conversation between Baljit Kaur and Manjit Singh and was
accordingly declared hostile. In cross-examination, although he stated that
Manjit Singh alias Manna used to visit the house of the deceased and that
Baljit Kaur and Daljit Kaur used to talk to him on his telephone, he also
admitted several facts which rendered his testimony contradictory. He
ultimately stated that he had not himself seen the deceased and Baljit Kaur
quarrelling and had only heard about such quarrels. Thus, his evidence
cannot be treated as establishing either the alleged illicit relationship or the
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 17
existence of such grave matrimonial discord as could furnish a motive for
murder.
26. The prosecution has also relied upon the bank account
statement proved through PW11 Jaswant Singh, Cashier, Punjab and Sind
Bank. The statement shows certain withdrawals from the account of the
deceased, including the withdrawal of Rs.2,20,000/- on 02.07.2003. Even
assuming that the amount was subsequently given by Baljit Kaur to her
father Kashmir Singh and that Kashmir Singh did not repay it, such evidence
at the highest establishes a financial transaction. It does not establish that the
transaction furnished the motive for administering poison nearly thereafter,
much less that the appellant actually administered the poison. The financial
evidence, therefore, cannot substitute the missing link between motive and
the commission of the offence.
27. The prosecution has further placed considerable reliance upon
the alleged extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant
and Daljit Kaur before PW14 Darshan Singh. According to PW14, after the
bhog ceremony of Sarmukh Singh, the accused approached him and
disclosed that they had caused the death of Sarmukh Singh by administering
poison and requested him to intervene with Gajjan Singh for a compromise.
This circumstance, however, suffers from serious infirmities. PW14 is
himself related to the family of the deceased, being the son of the sister of
the mother of the deceased. More importantly, the alleged confession is not
disclosed in the initial version given by Gajjan Singh to the police. The
statement of Gajjan Singh, Ex.PW7/A, was recorded on 22.10.2003, yet
there is no mention therein of any such disclosure having been made before
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 18
Darshan Singh after the bhog ceremony. If such a startling and incriminating
confession had in fact been made to PW14 shortly after the bhog ceremony,
there is no satisfactory explanation as to why this important fact was not
disclosed when the complainant’s statement was recorded and the FIR came
to be registered. The alleged extra-judicial confession, therefore, does not
inspire confidence and cannot safely be made the basis of conviction.
28. The prosecution case is further weakened by the initial version
furnished immediately after the death. On 09.08.2003, ASI Baj Singh
recorded the inquest proceedings and statements under Section 175 Cr.P.C.
The version then furnished was that the deceased had returned home, taken
his meal and gone to sleep, and was found dead in the morning, with no
suspicion of foul play and with the death being treated as natural.
Significantly, the subsequent prosecution story involving poisoning, motive,
conspiracy and the alleged participation of the appellant and the co-accused
does not find place in this earliest version. The statement of Satnam Singh,
Ex.PA, recorded on the same day, and the version of Gajjan Singh in the
inquest proceedings were consistent with the death having been considered
natural at that stage. The subsequent emergence of an altogether different
version assumes considerable significance in a case based entirely upon
circumstantial evidence.
29. Regarding delay in lodging the FIR, Hon’ble Supreme Court in
“State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Gian Chand” 2001(2) RCR(Criminal)
666 , has held that “ If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay
and there is possibility of embellishment in prosecution version on account
of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 19
delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the delay cannot by itself
be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case”. In
the present case, the delay of 74 days in registration of the FIR is, therefore,
not a mere technical circumstance. The death occurred on 09.08.2003
whereas the FIR was registered only on 22.10.2003. The explanation offered
by the prosecution is that the true nature of the death came to light after
receipt of the Chemical Examiner’s report. Even if the receipt of that report
on 07.10.2003 is taken as the point from which suspicion could reasonably
arise, the FIR was still registered about 15 days thereafter. There is no
satisfactory explanation for this further delay. More importantly, the delay is
accompanied by a material change in the prosecution version and what was
initially represented as a natural death, with no allegation of foul play, was
subsequently converted into a case of homicidal poisoning involving the
appellant and two other persons. The delay, in these circumstances, assumes
significance not because delay by itself is fatal, but because it creates a
reasonable possibility of deliberation, consultation and introduction of an
improved version.
30. The prosecution seeks to rely upon Section 106 of the Evidence
Act on the ground that the appellant, being the wife of the deceased and
allegedly present in the house during the relevant night, was specially in a
position to explain how the poison entered the deceased’s body. There can be
no quarrel with the proposition that facts especially within the knowledge of
an accused may require an explanation from him. However, Section 106
does not relieve the prosecution of its primary obligation to establish the
foundational facts constituting the offence. The burden of proving that the
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 20
appellant administered the poisonous substance cannot be shifted to her
merely because she happened to be present in the house. Before Section 106
of the Evidence Act can operate against an accused, the prosecution must
first establish circumstances from which a reasonable inference of her
involvement arises.
31. In the present case, the foundational circumstance itself is
seriously doubtful. The prosecution has not established by reliable evidence
that the appellant was the only person present with the deceased during the
relevant period. The earliest statements regarding the persons present in the
house are themselves inconsistent with the subsequent prosecution version.
The very fact which the prosecution seeks to place within the special
knowledge of the appellant, namely, the circumstances in which the
deceased consumed the poisonous substance, has not been preceded by
reliable evidence excluding other possibilities. Section 106 of the said Act
cannot be used to fill this fundamental gap in the prosecution case. An
accused cannot be convicted merely because she has not furnished an
explanation which the prosecution was itself required to establish through
affirmative evidence. For this reliance has been placed upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Dhanapal vs. State by Public Prosecutor,
Madras’, 2010 (5) RCR (Criminal) 353 , wherein it has been held in para
No.20 of the judgment that “ According to the fundamental principles of the
Evidence Act, it is for the prosecution to have proved its own case”.
32. The statement of DW1 Kanwaljit Singh, son of the deceased
and the appellant, also assumes relevance in this context. He stated that his
father was accustomed to consuming liquor, that he had taken liquor on the
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 21
day of occurrence, that he returned home on a rickshaw and that he slept
beside his father during the night. He further stated that there was no dispute
between his parents. The fact that the witness was a child at the relevant time
may require his evidence to be examined with caution, but that by itself is no
ground to discard it altogether. His testimony was required to be considered
along with the other evidence, particularly because it directly bears upon the
circumstances in which the deceased returned home and the nature of the
relationship between the deceased and the appellant. The mere presence of a
defence witness cannot be treated as an explanation invented by the accused
when the prosecution evidence itself suffers from material deficiencies.
33. Likewise, the evidence of DW2 Makhan Singh, SP(D),
Amritsar, regarding the departmental enquiry cannot by itself determine the
guilt or innocence of the appellant. Nevertheless, the enquiry material could
not simply be brushed aside without examining its relevance to the
contradictions in the prosecution version. DW2 deposed that, in the
departmental enquiry entrusted by the DIG, Amritsar, Kashmir Singh,
Gurmit Singh and Manjit Singh were found innocent and that Gajjan Singh
and Satnam Singh had made statements differing from their earlier versions.
Though the findings of such departmental enquiry are not binding upon a
criminal court, the evidence regarding the changing versions of the
witnesses is relevant insofar as it bears upon their credibility. The
prosecution was required to independently dispel those contradictions,
which it has failed to do satisfactorily.
34. The conduct attributed to the appellant also does not complete
the chain of circumstances. There is no recovery of the poisonous substance
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 22
from her possession, no evidence that she purchased or procured the
insecticide, no eyewitness to its administration and no scientific evidence
connecting the appellant with the poison detected in the viscera. The
chemical evidence establishes the cause of death, but it does not establish
the author of the poisoning. This distinction is crucial. Proof that the
deceased died of poisoning is one link and proof that the appellant
administered that poison is a separate and indispensable link which the
prosecution was required to establish beyond reasonable doubt.
35. It is also of considerable significance that the charge was
framed against the appellant along with Kashmir Singh and Daljit Kaur for
the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, alleging a
common conspiracy. The very evidence relied upon to establish the alleged
conspiracy and motive against the co-accused was not found sufficient by
the learned trial Court to convict them, and both were acquitted. Once the
alleged conspirators have been acquitted on the same set of circumstances,
the prosecution cannot selectively rely upon those very circumstances to
sustain the conviction of the appellant unless there is some distinct and
reliable evidence specifically connecting her with the homicidal act. No such
independent link has been established in the present case. The acquittal of
the co-accused does not mechanically entitle the appellant to acquittal, but it
certainly requires the Court to examine whether the remaining evidence
against her is capable of standing independently. On such examination, it is
not. Thus, when the evidence is considered cumulatively, the prosecution has
succeeded in proving that the death was an unnatural death caused by
poisoning, but it has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 23
poisonous substance was administered by the appellant. The alleged motive
is not proved through reliable independent evidence, the neighbours have
not supported the prosecution, the evidence of the close relatives contains
material infirmities and improvements, the alleged telephonic conversation
does not stand proved, the extra-judicial confession is surrounded by serious
doubt and is contradicted by the subsequent conduct and earliest version, the
unexplained delay in lodging the FIR assumes significance in the backdrop
of the changed prosecution story, and Section 106 of the Evidence Act
cannot be invoked to supply the missing link in the prosecution case. The
defence evidence, though not required to prove innocence, further renders
the prosecution hypothesis less certain.
36. The law is well settled that in a case resting upon circumstantial
evidence, every circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be firmly
established and all the circumstances taken together must form a complete
chain which excludes every reasonable hypothesis consistent with the
innocence of the accused. In the present case, the chain remains incomplete.
The circumstances proved on record are also reasonably capable of more
than one interpretation, and where two views are reasonably possible, the
one favourable to the accused must necessarily prevail.
37. The learned trial Court, in the considered view of this Court,
fell into error in treating the proof of the cause of death as proof of the
authorship of the crime. While the medical and chemical evidence
undoubtedly establish that Sarmukh died on account of the cumulative effect
of ethyl alcohol and chloro-compound group of insecticide, the said
evidence does not connect the appellant with the administration of the
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 24
poisonous substance. The learned trial Court further placed undue reliance
upon the evidence regarding the alleged motive, particularly the alleged
illicit relationship and the financial transaction, despite the fact that the
independent neighbours, PW2 to PW6, did not support the prosecution and
several of them were declared hostile. The portions of their testimony
elicited in cross-examination could not, without proper scrutiny, be treated
as substantive corroboration of the prosecution case. The testimony of PW7,
PW8 and PW12, being that of close relatives of the deceased, required
careful and cautious evaluation, particularly in view of the material
contradictions and omissions emerging from their earlier versions. The
learned trial Court also erred in drawing an adverse inference against the
appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act without first establishing
the foundational circumstances connecting her with the administration of
poison. The burden under Section 106 of the said Act could not be utilised to
fill the fundamental gap in the prosecution case. Further, the delay of 74
days in registration of the FIR, and even the unexplained period of about 15
days after receipt of the Chemical Examiner’s report, was not given its due
significance, particularly when the earliest version treated the death as
natural and the subsequent version introduced allegations of poisoning,
motive and conspiracy. The alleged extra-judicial confession was also
accepted without adequately considering the delay in its disclosure and the
contradictions surrounding the same. Most importantly, the learned trial
Court failed to appreciate that the very circumstances relied upon against the
appellant had not been found sufficient to establish the guilt of the alleged
co-conspirators, who were acquitted. In the absence of any direct evidence,
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-484-DB-2005 (O&M) 25
recovery, scientific material connecting the appellant with the poison, or any
other circumstance completing the chain, the learned trial Court effectively
converted suspicion arising from the appellant’s presence in the house and
the alleged motive into proof of guilt. Such an approach falls short of the
standard required in a case resting exclusively upon circumstantial evidence,
where every link must be firmly established and the complete chain must
exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the
accused.
38. Consequently, although the cause of death stands established as
homicidal poisoning, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the appellant Baljit Kaur administered the poison to the deceased
or participated in any conspiracy for causing his death. The conviction of the
appellant under Section 302 IPC, therefore, cannot be sustained. The appeal
is hereby allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant are set aside. The
appellant is accordingly acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC by
extending to her the benefit of doubt.
39. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
(ARCHANA PURI) (MANDEEP PANNU)
JUDGE JUDGE
02.09.2026
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
POONAM NEGI
2026.09.03 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document