ACQUITTAL SUSTAINED WHERE PROSECUTION FAILS TO PROVE MOTIVE OR EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF POISON IN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE

The State appealed an acquittal order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2002

The prosecution alleged that Mittal (deceased) married Suresh Kori Patel (Accused No. 2) on February 17, 2002. It was alleged that Taraben (Accused No. 1, elder sister-in-law) had an intimate relationship with Accused No. 2 and intended to marry him

On February 18, 2002, Accused No. 1 allegedly served tea laced with poison to the deceased and a companion, Bhavini (PW-6)

While PW-6 remained unaffected, the deceased fell unconscious hours later and was declared dead at the hospital

Police recovered poisonous substance via discovery panchnama from the house of Accused No. 1

The trial court acquitted the respondents on January 13, 2003, citing a lack of evidence regarding motive and administration of poison

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove that the accused administered poison to the deceased

2. Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was perverse or contrary to the evidence on record, warranting interference by the Appellate Court

The court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 114 (Abettor present when offence committed) of the Indian Penal Code

Regarding the admissibility of evidence, the court applied Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act concerning the discovery of facts at the instance of the accused

The court adhered to the established appellate principle that a judgment of acquittal should only be interfered with in "exceptional cases" where there are "compelling substantial reasons" or the findings are "palpably erroneous" or "perverse," maintaining the presumption of innocence reinforced by an acquittal

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of PW-6. However, PW-6, who allegedly consumed the same tea, suffered no ill effects and required no medical treatment, which negated the theory that the tea served by Accused No. 1 contained poison

The court found that the "motive"—the alleged illicit relationship—was not established by clinching evidence

Critically, the discovery panchnama (Exh. 19) for the poisonous substance was not proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as the panchas did not support the prosecution

The prosecution further failed to prove that the accused were in possession of or had purchased the poison, as the shopkeeper (PW-11) did not substantiate the claim

Consequently, the court found the chain of circumstances to be broken and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court answered both issues in the negative, finding no perversity in the lower court's judgment

The appeal was dismissed, the judgment of acquittal was upheld, and the bail bonds were ordered to be cancelled