St at e of Ut t arakhand v. Sm t Hem want i Devi

principles. As regards t he first requirem ent t hat t he deat h t ook place by poisoning, FSL report confirm ed t hat t he organophosphorous insect icide and et hyl alcohol poisons were det ect ed in viscera sent for t he 2 chem ical exam inat ion. Thus t he chem ical analysis indicat es t he presence of a t oxic agent . Accordingly, t he first requirem ent st ands est ablished.

6. So far as second requirem ent regarding possession of poison by t he accused is concerned, t here is no recovery of any poison or cont ainer from t he possession of t he accused respondent . There is no direct or circum st ant ial evidence t o prove t hat t he accused respondent ( m ot her- in- law) ever purchased, procured or possessed t he poison in quest ion. No wit ness has deposed about t he accused handling or acquiring poison, nor have t he prosecut ion produced any shopkeeper, vendor, or forensic link t o show possession. Thus, t he second requirem ent rem ains unproved.

7. As regards t he t hird requirem ent i.e. opport unit y t o adm inist er poison, it is t he case of prosecut ion it self t hat t he deceased was living separat ely from bot h his parent s and his in- laws. Trial Court not iced t hat on t he day of alleged incident , t here is no evidence t o suggest t hat t he accused was present wit h t he deceased or she had t he opport unit y t o adm inist er poison t o him . There is no eyewit ness t o est ablish t hat t he accused and deceased were seen t oget her or t hat t he deceased visit ed house of t he accused on t he dat e of alleged incident . Thus t he t hird requirem ent also rem ains unproved.

8. As regards t he m ot ive, t he Trial Court not iced t hat t he deceased was unem ployed and t here is no evidence t o suggest t hat he possessed any 3 valuable propert y. Thus t here is no clear m ot ive for t he accused t o adm inist er poison t o t he deceased. Ot h e r Ci r cu m st a n ce s

9. The Trial Court not iced t hat t he deceased was living separat ely from bot h his parent s and his in- laws. The evidence on record shows t hat t he deceased had st rained relat ions wit h his fat her aft er t he lat t er’s second m arriage and had developed habit s of excessive drinking and drug use, including sm ack. Neit her t he parent s of t he deceased nor his wife or m ot her- in- law was in scene right from consum pt ion of poison t ill his last right s. PW9, who conduct ed t he m edical exam inat ion, has st at ed in his deposit ion t hat t he deceased had t old him t hat he him self had consum ed Salphaz, aft er consum ing liquor. Thus t he Trial Court t hat circum st ances afforded a great er m ot ive t o t he deceased t o com m it suicide t han for t he accused t o com m it m urder.

10. As is evident , t he prosecut ion has at t em pt ed t o build a case on circum st ant ial evidence. However, it t rit e t hat in a case based solely on circum st ant ial evidence, t he circum st ances m ust form a com plet e and unbroken chain point ing only t o t he guilt of t he accused. I n t he present case: • The chain of circum st ances is incom plet e. • The accused wife was exonerat ed during invest igat ion. • Though t he accused did not at t end t he deceased’s t reat ed as support ing t his cannot be wit hout rit es, but conduct incrim inat ing evidence. 4 • The deceased’s prior m ent al and physical condit ion, including subst ance abuse, int roduces t he real possibilit y of accident al or suicidal ingest ion of poison.

11. As regards t he alleged dying declarat ion, t he sam e was not found reliable for t he following reasons: ( i) Prior t o t he recording of t he st at em ent , several relat ives of t he deceased were present wit h him in t he hospit al and had int eract ed wit h him , t hereby cast ing doubt on t he spont aneit y and volunt ary nat ure of t he declarat ion. ( ii) The first doct or ( PW9) , who exam ined t he deceased and also cert ified t he dying declarat ion, t est ified t hat t he deceased was under t he influence of alcohol and he m ade cont radict ory st at em ent s regarding t he cause of poisoning inasm uch as he t old PW9 t hat he him self had consum ed Salphaz, aft er consum ing liquor. ( iii) The dying declarat ion lacks corroborat ion from independent and reliable evidence.

12. Thus, considering t he t ot alit y of evidence t he legal st andards required in a case of poisoning, t he prosecut ion has failed t o prove t he essent ial ingredient s and t hus failed t o prove it s case beyond reasonable doubt .

13. Even ot herwise also, it is a set t led law t hat t he Appellat e Court m ust always give proper weight and considerat ion t o t he findings of t he Trial Court and if t wo reasonable views can be reached - one t hat leads t o acquit t al, t he ot her t o convict ion - t he High Court / Appellat e Court m ust rule favour of t he 5 accused. The Appellat e Court m ay only overrule or ot herwise dist urb t he finding of acquit t al if it has “ very subst ant ial and com pelling reasons” for doing so. No such com pelling circum st ance or ground has been point ed out by learned St at e Counsel t o j ust ify dist urbing t he finding of acquit t al.

14. Consequent ly, we find no m erit t he appeal, which deserves dism issal. We, accordingly, dism iss t he appeal. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 1 9 .5 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af 3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588 052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR 6