### ORAL DYING DECLARATION UNCORROBORATED BY MEDICAL EVIDENCE OR SEIZURE OF POISON CANNOT SUSTAIN CONVICTION

The informant, Dinesh Yadav (PW-6), alleged that on January 28, 2008, his seven-year-old son, Ashish, was called by their neighbor (the appellant) who gave him "shakkar" (sugar) to eat

After consumption, the child began vomiting, became unconscious, and died during treatment

The prosecution alleged the sugar was laced with poison due to a prior dispute over a "fake soap"

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing her to life imprisonment

The appellant challenged this on grounds of material contradictions, lack of forensic proof, and unreliable oral dying declarations

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 328 (Causing hurt by means of poison) of the Indian Penal Code

circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused

Regarding oral dying declarations, the Court followed Arun Bhanudas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Waikhom Yaima Singh v. State of Manipur, which hold that such declarations must be treated with extreme caution, and the maker must be proven to be in a fit medical condition to speak

It also noted Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, emphasizing that material contradictions between police statements and court testimony discredit a witness

The Court found the "chain of circumstances" significantly broken. First, there was no eyewitness to the administration of poison, and the medical evidence was inconclusive as the doctor (PW-8) could not ascertain the cause of death

Second, the Court noted a "fatal lapse" as the Investigating Officer (PW-9) failed to seize the alleged "shakkar" or collect samples of vomit for forensic analysis

Third, the oral dying declarations were deemed "shaky" due to contradictions: PW-2 stated the child could not speak clearly, while others claimed he provided a detailed narrative

Furthermore, the viscera was sent to the laboratory after a one-year delay, and the FSL report lacked conclusive proof of poisoning

The Court concluded that the alleged motive—a dispute over a bar of soap—was too "weak" to justify the commission of murder

The oral dying declaration lacked the requisite reliability, and the absence of scientific evidence created a gap that could not be filled by suspicion

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction dated October 21, 2019, and the order of sentence dated October 22, 2019, and directed the immediate release of the appellant