Allahabad High Court acquits mother in deaths of three sons, citing gaps in evidence linking her to poisoned food

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, under Sections 302 and 328 IPC for allegedly poisoning her three minor sons, who were found dead in a room in her parental home on 18 September 2012.

The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including food samples in which the FSL detected poison, an empty plastic box recovered after the appellant’s arrest, and evidence alleging a motive connected with her proposed remarriage.

The High Court noted gaps in the evidence concerning the recovery and chain of custody of the food samples, proof that the children consumed the poisoned food, and the reliability of the alleged motive.

The trial court’s conviction and sentence were challenged in appeal

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant administered poison to her children and caused their deaths

2. Whether Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act could support an inference of guilt where the prosecution had not first established a prima facie case linking the appellant to the crime

The charges were under Sections 302 and 328 IPC.

In a circumstantial-evidence case, the prosecution must prove cogent and credible circumstances forming a complete chain consistent with guilt and inconsistent with the accused’s innocence

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove guilt; it applies where proved facts permit a reasonable inference and the relevant matter is especially within the accused’s knowledge.

Section 114 permits courts to draw appropriate factual presumptions, having regard to the ordinary course of events and human conduct

The Court relied on Tulsiram Sahadu Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 10 SCC 373, and Anees v. State Govt. of NCT, 2024 INSC 368, for these principles

The prosecution did not establish where or from whom the food samples were recovered; no recovery memo documented their seizure, and the investigating officer’s evidence did not identify the recovery place.

The samples were sent for analysis six days later, and the evidence did not prove that the poisoned roti and sabzi were served to or consumed by the children.

The postmortem reports recorded no food in the children’s stomachs, while the milk sample tested negative for poison; the recovered plastic box was empty and was not forensically examined

The alleged motive and the testimony concerning the appellant’s relationship with P.W.-5 were not sufficiently corroborated

Because the house was shared with other family members and the prosecution had not established the necessary foundational facts, Section 106 could not be used to shift the burden to the appellant

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 328 IPC, and acquitted the appellant.

It directed that she be released immediately unless required in another case