In a murder case, the prosecution must prove that the deceased died of the poison in question, that the accused was in possession of that poison, and that the accused had the opportunity to administer the same to the deceased.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - PROOF OF POSSESSION OF POISON - EVIDENCE OF ADMINISTRATION OF POISON - SUFFICIENCY - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - SYMPTOMS OF ARSENIC POISONING - TIME OF DEATH - ENMITY BETWEEN ACCUSED AND DECEASED - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted of murder by poisoning his cousin, Ram Bharosey, by giving him sweets containing arsenic. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that there was no proof that he possessed the poison, that there were no signs of corrosion in the stomach or of the nails having turned bluish, and that death occurred too quickly to have been caused by arsenic.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant possessed the poison, that the medical evidence was clear that death was due to arsenic poisoning, and that the time of death was consistent with arsenic poisoning.
Issues: 1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant possessed the poison? 2. Whether the medical evidence was clear that death was due to arsenic poisoning? 3. Whether the time of death was consistent with arsenic poisoning?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence showed that the appellant gave Ram Bharosey the sweets and that within half an hour he became ill and died within two hours. It also found that the food which Ram Bharosey had taken before noon did not contain arsenic or any other poison, and that there was no evidence that he took any other food in the field apart from the sweets given to him by the appellant. The court concluded that it inevitably followed that the appellant was in possession of arsenic before he gave the sweets to Ram Bharosey. 2. The court held that the medical evidence was clear that death was due to arsenic poisoning. It noted that no question had been put to any witness to elicit what symptoms would appear in a case of arsenic poisoning, and that the medical evidence was accepted by the courts below. 3. The court held that the time of death was consistent with arsenic poisoning. It noted that the medical evidence was that death from arsenic could occur at any time after forty-five minutes and before twenty-four hours from its administration, and that death occurring within two hours of the administration of a drug may well be due to arsenic poisoning.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Judgment

SARKAR, J. : This appeal is entirely without substance.

2. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge of Budaun for the murder of one Ram Bharosey on 15-11-1957, by giving him "peras" (sweets) containing arsenic, to eat, and sentenced to death. On appeal the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court at Allahabad. The appellant has now appealed to this Court with special leave.

3. Ram Bharosey was the cousin of the appellant. About noon on 15-11-1957, Ram Bharosey went to his field to graze cattle. His sister Chameli followed him a little later. On reaching the field Chameli took charge of the cattle and Ram Bharosey began to scrape grass. Sometime in the afternoon the appellant came to Ram Bharosey in the field from the side of the river Ganga and told him that he had brought "prashad" of Gangaji and gave him three "peras" to eat. Ram Bharosey took the three "peras". This took place in the presence of Chameli. One Bikram who was grazing cattle nearby, also saw the appellant giving "peras" to Ram Bharosey. Both Chameli and Bikram asked the appellant for "prashad" for themselves but the appellant told them that he had no more "prashad" to give. Thereafter, the appellant went away in the direction of his own house. Half an hour later, Ram Bharosey began to feel unwell. He had nausea, pain in body and giddiness. He then asked his sister to take him home. Bikram also came to Ram Bharosey when he complained of feeling unwell and to him Ram Bharosey said that he had become sick since eating the "peras" given by the appellant & that he thought that the appellant had given him poison. Ram Bharosey s illness grew worse when he came home and a number of neighbours came to see him, and to some of them he said that he had become ill after taking the "peras" given by the appellant and that he though that the appellant had put poison in them. Ram Bharosey died about dusk.

4. Ram Bharosey s father. Thakuri, who was away from home arrived next morning and lodged information at the police station. Investigation ensued and a post-mortem examination of the body of Ram Bharosey was held. The post-mortem did not disclose any cause as to death. The viscera of Ram Bharosey was however sent to the Chemical Examiner & he found over twenty eight grains of arsenic in it. That was much more than what is sufficient to kill a normally healthy person and both the Courts below have found that the arsenic had killed Ram Bharosey.

5. It also appears from the evidence which was accepted by the Courts below, that before leaving for the field Ram Bharosey and Chameli had both partaken of the same food which was prepared by Chameli, and after taking the food Ram Bharosey had preceded Chameli to the field. It further appears from the evidence that after taking the "peras" given by the appellant Ram Bharosey had taken no other food.

6. It was stated by the prosecution that the appellant had developed an illicit attachment for the wife of Ram Bharosey. It was suggested that that was the motive which caused the appellant to give poison to Ram Bharosey in the peras" with the intention of doing away with him.

7. On the evidence stated above both the Courts below found the appellant guilty of the offence of murder of Ram Bharosey by administering poison contained in the "peras."

8. The learned advocate for the appellant has first contended that the conviction is wrong in law in view of the decision of this Court in Dharambir Singh v. The State of Punjab, Cri. App. No. 98 of 1958 (SC). That was a case of murder by poisoning. It was there said:

"Three questions arise in all such cases, viz., (firstly), did the deceased die of the poison in question? (secondly), had the accused the poison in question in his possession? and (thirdly,) had the accused an opportunity to administer the poison in question to the deceased? Therefore, along with the motive, the prosecution has also to establish that the deceased died of a particular poison said to have been

Click Here to Read the rest of this document