4 Essential Elements to Establish in Cases of Murder by Poison : Supreme Court Clarifies
In a recent judgment in the case of Hariprasad @Kishan Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh, the Supreme Court acquitted an accused involved in a two-decade-old case of alleged liquor poisoning leading to a man's death. The Court, invoking the 1984 case of Sharad BirdhiChand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reiterated the essential circumstances to be proven in cases of murder by poison. It emphasized the importance of establishing a clear motive, cause of death due to poison, possession of poison by the accused, and the opportunity to administer poison.
The Court highlighted evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case, particularly the lack of a definite medical opinion on the cause of death, leading to doubt. The delay in receiving the chemical analyzer's report further contributed to this doubt.
The judgment addressed the critical role of the First Information Report (FIR) in criminal cases, emphasizing its corroborative nature rather than substantive evidence. While recognizing the importance of filing an FIR early, the Court clarified that a delay wouldn't automatically draw an adverse inference, evaluating the cause for the delay.
Additionally, the Court reiterated the four crucial circumstances to be proven in cases of murder by poison, citing the Sharad BirdhiChand Sarda case. It pointed out deficiencies in the evidence presented, including the lack of proof for the motive and failure to identify the specific herb or substance mixed in the liquor.
In overturning the conviction, the Supreme Court noted glaring deficiencies in the case and emphasized the need for substantial evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.