Inculpatory evidence not put to accused during Section 313 examination cannot form the basis of conviction.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants administered poison to the deceased or if it was a case of suicide/natural death.

The court held

The Court answered the issues in favor of the appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable chain of evidence and the forensic evidence was procedurally inadmissible and factually suspect.

It also directed

The Court acquitted Ram Autar, Rakesh Kumar Misra, and Laddan Misra of all charges, setting aside the 1989 conviction; the appeal was allowed and the appellants' bail bonds were discharged.

01Facts

The deceased, Vijay Laxmi, married Rakesh Mishra in 1984. On January 13, 1986, her brother (PW-1) lodged an F.I.R. alleging she was tortured for money and business partnerships

¶ 3

Her nephew (PW-3) alleged he witnessed the in-laws beating her and forcefully administering medicine on January 12

¶ 10

The deceased died on January 13 while being transported to Kanpur

¶ 4

The post-mortem found minor abrasions, but the viscera report identified "zinc phosphide" (poison) as the cause of death

¶ 4, 6

The Trial Court convicted the husband, father-in-law, jeth (brother-in-law), and mother-in-law (who died during the appeal) under Sections 498A, 302, and 323 of the IPC

¶ 2, 19

02Issues

i.1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants administered poison to the deceased or if it was a case of suicide/natural death.

¶ 28-29

ii.2. Whether the failure to put the viscera report and incriminating circumstances to the accused during their Section 313 CrPC examination vitiates the conviction.

¶ 20(vi), 30

iii.3. Whether the testimony of the child witness (PW-3) and the informant (PW-1) was reliable despite material inconsistencies.

¶ 28-33

03Law Applied

Section 302 (Murder), Section 498A (Cruelty by husband or relatives), and Section 323 (Voluntary causing hurt) of the IPC

¶ 2

Section 313 of the CrPC, which requires all incriminating evidence to be put to the accused to provide a fair opportunity for explanation

¶ 21

Circumstances not put to the accused under Section 313 must be excluded from consideration (Chandan Pasi v. State of Bihar; Kalicharan v. State of U.P.; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra).

¶ 21, 22

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Section 323 Section 328

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 161 Section 211 Section 212 Section 213 Section 313

04Reasoning

PW-1's testimony contradicted the F.I.R., initially claiming the deceased told him she had "cholera," then later claiming she alleged forced administration of medicine

¶ 28

The Court noted that "zinc phosphide" is a bitter, foul-smelling pesticide; its forced administration would logically result in resistance and visible injuries to the mouth or the perpetrators, none of which were present

¶ 29

The Court determined the viscera report was "shrouded in mystery" due to a broken chain of custody: there was no proof of safe storage at the C.M.O. office or a recorded transit to the laboratory

¶ 31

The Court held that since the viscera report—the sole conclusive evidence of poisoning—was never put to the accused during their Section 313 examination, it must be excluded from evidence

¶ 30, 32

05Holding

¶ 32-34

The Court acquitted Ram Autar, Rakesh Kumar Misra, and Laddan Misra of all charges, setting aside the 1989 conviction; the appeal was allowed and the appellants' bail bonds were discharged.

¶ 35-36

LawLens.Allahabad High Court

Original Court PDF