Gujarat HC Upholds Two Men’s Acquittal In Alleged Forced-Poisoning Case, Citing Complaint Omissions And Untested Bottle

The prosecution alleged that, on 11 April 2014, the accused made the complainant consume a poisonous substance after she refused to elope with accused No. 2.

The complainant was taken for medical treatment, and an aluminium bottle containing liquid was allegedly recovered during the investigation but was not sent for forensic analysis.

The Sessions Court acquitted both accused of offences under Sections 328 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The State appealed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 328 IPC concerns causing a person to take a poisonous or other harmful substance with the intent specified by that provision; Section 114 IPC applies to an abettor present when the offence is committed.

The prosecution must prove the essential elements and the accused’s participation beyond reasonable doubt.

Under Section 378 CrPC, an appellate court may review and reappreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but an acquittal carries a reinforced presumption of innocence.

As stated in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, where two reasonable views are possible on the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal; it should not reverse merely because another view is possible.

The complainant’s testimony contained material omissions compared with her complaint, including the alleged exhortation to elope, the act of restraining her, and the administration of poison.

Her mother and brother did not witness the alleged act, and the brother acknowledged that the complainant had not identified who gave her the substance.

The medical evidence showed that she received treatment but did not establish that the accused administered poison; the alleged bottle was not forensically tested, and the medical history referred to unknown persons.

The Court held that these evidentiary deficiencies left the identity and involvement of the accused unproved. The Trial Court’s view was therefore a reasonable one, not a perverse or illegal basis for acquittal.

The appeal was dismissed, the acquittal confirmed, and the bail bonds cancelled; the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the Trial Court.