2025:UHC:4396-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Government Appeal No. 30 of 2022 State of Uttarakhand … Appellant Versus Smt. Hemwanti Devi … Respondent Mr. G.C. Joshi, Assistant GA, for the State/appellant. None for the respondent. J U D G M E N T Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) State has filed this appeal, by leave, challenging the judgment and order dated 30.11.2021, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2017. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has held that the accusations against the accused respondent have not been established beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted her of the charges punishable under Sections 302 and 328 IPC. 2. The case involves a suspicious death where the wife and mother-in-law were initially accused of poisoning the husband (deceased). Deceased was married to daughter of respondent. It was alleged that the motive stemmed from domestic discord. FIR was lodged by brother of the deceased (PW2). However, during the investigation, the investigating officer did not find any material evidence to substantiate the involvement of the wife in the alleged act and she was 2025:UHC:4396-DB 2 exonerated during the investigation and chargesheet was filed only against mother-in-law (accused/respondent) for the aforesaid offences. Trial resulted in acquittal of the accused respondent, as stated herein above. 3. There is no eyewitness to the alleged administration of poison and the case against the accused is based purely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relies on the following circumstances: • The deceased died due to poisoning. • The accused had strained relationship with the deceased. • The accused did not attend the last rites of the deceased. • The deceased made an alleged dying declaration. 4. It is a settled principle of law that in a case of homicidal poisoning, the prosecution must establish the following propositions beyond reasonable doubt: (i) That death took place by poisoning; (ii) That the accused had the poison in his/her possession; (iii) That the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased; and (iv) That there is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased 5. We have examined the case in light of these principles. As regards the first requirement that the death took place by poisoning, FSL report confirmed that the organophosphorous insecticide and ethyl alcohol poisons were detected in viscera sent for the 2025:UHC:4396-DB 3 chemical examination. Thus the chemical analysis indicates the presence of a toxic agent. Accordingly, the first requirement stands established. 6. So far as second requirement regarding possession of poison by the accused is concerned, there is no recovery of any poison or container from the possession of the accused respondent. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that the accused respondent (mother-in-law) ever purchased, procured or possessed the poison in question. No witness has deposed about the accused handling or acquiring poison, nor have the prosecution produced any shopkeeper, vendor, or forensic link to show possession. Thus, the second requirement remains unproved. 7. As regards the third requirement i.e. opportunity to administer poison, it is the case of prosecution itself that the deceased was living separately from both his parents and his in-laws. Trial Court noticed that on the day of alleged incident, there is no evidence to suggest that the accused was present with the deceased or she had the opportunity to administer poison to him. There is no eyewitness to establish that the accused and deceased were seen together or that the deceased visited house of the accused on the date of alleged incident. Thus the third requirement also remains unproved. 8. As regards the motive, the Trial Court noticed that the deceased was unemployed and there is no evidence to suggest that he possessed any 2025:UHC:4396-DB 4 valuable property. Thus there is no clear motive for the accused to administer poison to the deceased. Other Circumstances 9. The Trial Court noticed that the deceased was living separately from both his parents and his in- laws. The evidence on record shows that the deceased had strained relations with his father after the latter’s second marriage and had developed habits of excessive drinking and drug use, including smack. Neither the parents of the deceased nor his wife or mother-in-law was in scene right from consumption of poison till his last rights. PW9, who conducted the medical examination, has stated in his deposition that the deceased had told him that he himself had consumed Salphaz, after consuming liquor. Thus the Trial Court found that circumstances afforded a greater motive to the deceased to commit suicide than for the accused to commit murder. 10. As is evident, the prosecution has attempted to build a case on circumstantial evidence. However, it is trite law that in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must form a complete and unbroken chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused. In the present case: • The chain of circumstances is incomplete. • The accused wife was exonerated during investigation. • Though the accused did not attend the deceased’s last rites, but this cannot be treated as incriminating conduct without supporting evidence. 2025:UHC:4396-DB 5 • The deceased’s prior mental and physical condition, including substance abuse, introduces the real possibility of accidental or suicidal ingestion of poison. 11. As regards the alleged dying declaration, the same was not found reliable for the following reasons: (i) Prior to the recording of the statement, several relatives of the deceased were present with him in the hospital and had interacted with him, thereby casting doubt on the spontaneity and voluntary nature of the declaration. (ii) The first doctor (PW9), who examined the deceased and also certified the dying declaration, testified that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and he made contradictory statements regarding the cause of poisoning inasmuch as he told PW9 that he himself had consumed Salphaz, after consuming liquor. (iii) The dying declaration lacks corroboration from independent and reliable evidence. 12. Thus, considering the totality of evidence and the legal standards required in a case of poisoning, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients and thus failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Even otherwise also, it is a settled law that the Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the Trial Court and if two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Court/Appellate Court must rule in favour of the 2025:UHC:4396-DB 6 accused. The Appellate Court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the finding of acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so. No such compelling circumstance or ground has been pointed out by learned State Counsel to justify disturbing the finding of acquittal. 14. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal, which deserves dismissal. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 19.5.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by 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 Date: 2025.06.04 17:03:49 +05'30'