IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SUSHIL KUKREJA, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Arif Khan - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 316 of 2014
Decided On : 13-05-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 328, and 120B - Appeal against acquittal - The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the necessity of establishing motive, possession of poison, and opportunity to administer it. (Paras 1, 4, 18, 32)
(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Burden of proof - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in serious offenses, where the presumption of innocence is paramount. (Paras 8, 9)
(C) Circumstantial Evidence - The prosecution failed to establish the four essential elements required for conviction in poisoning cases, as outlined by the Supreme Court. (Paras 18, 20, 30)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, Babu Ram, died after consuming poisoned chicken allegedly prepared by the accused, who were acquitted due to insufficient evidence linking them to the crime. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's acquittal was upheld as the prosecution did not prove the necessary elements of the crime, including motive and opportunity. (Paras 32)
Issues: Whether the prosecution established motive, possession of poison, and opportunity to administer poison to the deceased. (Paras 21, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the prosecution must prove all elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of direct evidence necessitates acquittal. (Paras 18, 32)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2013, whereby the accused persons (respondents herein) were acquitted under Sections 302, 328 and 120B of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under:
(a) On 01.01.2013 accused Arif Khan called Babu Ram (the deceased), who was father of complainant Harish Singh, on phone for a deal and he (accused Arif Khan) represented that he had 100 sheep and goats. On 02.01.2013 accused Arif Khan again called the deceased and on 03.01.2013, in response to the phone calls, the deceased alongwith his son Harish Singh (complainant) proceeded towards the place of accused Arif Kahan, but accused Arif Khan met them, alongwith his goats and sheep, one kilometer short of his house. The deceased and the complainant had a deal with accused Arif Khan and they purchased 13 sheep and goats for a total consideration of Rs.26,000/- and money was paid in cash. However, the deceased was not satisfied with the deal, as he wanted to purchase more cattle, thus he asked accused Arif Khan to make available cattle, as per the telephonic talk, on this, accused Arif Khan told them to stay for a night at his place and he assured that he would arrange some cattle on the subsequent morning, for which he demanded Rs.50,000/- in advance. It has further come in the prosecution story that in the residence of accused Arif a lady, who was being called sister by him with a teen aged boy, were sent by accused Arif to some place in another village and on return he (accused Arif) telephoned co-accused Abdul Karim to come to his place. Accused Arif asked the deceased that what he would like to have in the dinner and he desired for chicken and quarter bottle of rum. After some time, accused Arif, alongwith co-accused Abdul, came with chicken and liquor and he, after cooking the meal, served the same to victim and complainant. The accused persons offered meal first to the deceased and the complainant and told that they would take meal later on.
(b) Subsequently, the complainant left the place with accused Abdul to the adjoining cowshed and the deceased and accused Arif stayed together. The complainant and accused Adbul slept together. Accused Arif did not consume meal and accused Abdul told that he had meals in his residence. While the complainant was asleep, accused Abdul called accused Arif on phone and they had talk for about 40-45 seconds in their local dialect, which the complainant did not understand. Thereafter, the complainant felt uneasy and had irritation in his tongue and on being told, accused Abdul told him not to worry. After fifteen minutes the deceased called the complainant and he told him that he had uneasy feelings. The deceased fell down and it was difficult for him to even walk. The accused persons were not seen there, but when the deceased and the complainant reached road side, they were already there. The complainant lifted the deceased to the road side and he telephoned one of his relatives Shri Baldev and informed that some poisonous substance has been administered to the deceased. The complainant asked Baldev to bring his vehicle. Thereafter, a Bolero car came from Chamba side and the complainant stood amidst the road and he requested the occupant of the vehicle to take them to Bhalei. Accused Arif Khan boarded the vehicle with Harish and the deceased and accused Abdul Karim fled away from the road. When they reached near Brangal, Baldev alongwith one Ram Krishan came there and the complainant and the deceased alighted from the vehicle. The deceased was shifted to the vehicle of Baldev. Ram Krishan and Baldev asked accused Arif Kahan to accompany them, but he refused. Th
AI
The prosecution must prove all elements of a crime beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases involving poisoning, where circumstantial evidence is critical.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence and poisoning. The judgmen....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction in criminal cases, particularly where direct evidence is absent.
(1) Delay in lodging FIR by itself cannot be regarded as sufficient ground to draw adverse inference against prosecution case, nor could it be treated as fatal to case of prosecution.(2) It would not....
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence; mere suspicion or non-explanation of conduct is insufficient for establishing guilt.
A negative viscera report does not preclude liability for poisoning if other evidence establishes the accused's guilt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.