Morphine Found In Son’s Body; P&H HC Upholds Acquittal Of 3 Men, Finding No Proof They Supplied The Drug

In brief

The question

Whether the evidence that the deceased was last seen with the respondents, considered with the medical and other evidence, proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt

The court held

The Court held that the prosecution had not proved the respondents’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt and found no illegality, perversity, or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference with the acquittal.

It also directed

The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court’s judgment dated 2 July 2025 was affirmed.

01Facts

Sarpreet Singh was found unconscious near a village tomb on the morning of 3 April 2022 and was declared dead after being taken to hospital.

¶ 1–14

His father, Janak Singh, alleged that respondents had administered a poisonous or intoxicating substance to him.

¶ 1–14

The prosecution relied principally on evidence that Sarpreet had been seen with the respondents at the village bus stand, along with medical evidence showing morphine in his body.

¶ 1–14

The trial court acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 304 and 120-B IPC, finding the prosecution had not established their connection to the death.

¶ 20–21

Janak Singh appealed against the acquittal.

¶ 20–21

02Issues

i.Whether the evidence that the deceased was last seen with the respondents, considered with the medical and other evidence, proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt

¶ 21–23, 27

ii.Whether the trial court’s acquittal disclosed a basis for appellate interference

¶ 28–30

03Law Applied

The respondents were charged under Sections 304 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶ 1, 6

The Court applied the rule that last-seen evidence, standing alone, may raise suspicion but is insufficient to establish guilt; it must be assessed with the entire evidentiary chain (Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403).

¶ 22–23

In a circumstantial-evidence case, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclude other reasonable hypotheses, and form a complete chain (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116; Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala, (2024) 10 SCC 813).

¶ 25–26

On appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may review the evidence, but the acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

¶ 28

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 304

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 161 Section 173 Section 207 Section 175 Section 313

04Reasoning

The medical evidence supported the conclusion that Sarpreet had consumed an intoxicating substance and died following an overdose, but it did not establish that the respondents supplied or administered it.

¶ 24–27

The prosecution produced no cogent evidence linking them to the substance or showing that it had been given forcibly.

¶ 24–27

The evidence that Sarpreet was last seen with the respondents did not complete the circumstantial chain, and the medical evidence did not resolve the missing link between their presence and his death.

¶ 24–27

The trial court’s conclusion that guilt had not been proved was therefore a reasonable view of the evidence.

¶ 24–27