1 2026:CGHC:7561-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1414 of 2015 Smt. Amrit Bai Chandra W/o Laxmi Prasad Chandra Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kirkar, P.S. Malkharouda, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ----Appellant (On Bail) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Malkharouda, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant :- Ms. Katyayani Vishnupriya, Advocate For Respondent/State:- Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. [ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 11/02/2026 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by the appellant against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02/11/2015 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.02.13 11:23:51 +0530 2 No. 53/2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence U/s 460 of IPC R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year. U/s 302 r/w 34 of IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 2 years. U/s 328 r/w 34 of IPC R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year. Prosecution Case :- 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10/12/20136 at about 9 PM at village Kirkaar within the ambit of Police Station Malkharouda, the appellant herein along with co-accused persons Maheshwar and Avdhesh, in furtherance of their common intention of causing death of Dashrath Chandra, trespassed into his house and after assaulting him with hands and fists, administered insecticide (organophosphorus) to him and caused his death and thereby, committed the aforesaid offences. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that about two years prior to the incident, co-accused Avdhesh had borrowed 3 fertilizer from the deceased and had not made any payment and on 08/12/2013, when deceased went to his house asking for money, Avdhesh abused him and they got into a dispute. On 09/12/2014, at about 9 PM, son of the deceased namely Nameshwar (PW-3) was watching TV and deceased Dashrath was lying in his cot when co-accused Maheshwar trespassed into their house and forcefully administered insecticide to the deceased and dragged him outside the house and after 15 minutes, when deceased returned to his house, he told his son that accused persons Maheshwar, Avdhesh and the present appellant had assaulted him with hands and fists and thereafter, he fainted and lost consciousness and at about 12 AM, deceased Dashrath died in his house. 4. On the next day, complainant Nameshwar (PW-3) reported the incident at the Police Station pursuant to which FIR was lodged vide Ex. P/4 and merg intimation was registered vide Ex. P/5 and the wheels of investigation started running. In the presence of the witnesses, dead body panchnama and nazri naksha were prepared and the dead body of deceased Dashrath was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Hemant Kumar Sahu (PW-1) and cause of death is said to be cardiorespiratory failure as a result of suspected poisoning. From the appellant herein, her 4 saree and slippers were seized vide Ex. P/13 and from the spot, one plastic bottle of Dichlorvos 76% Hilvos 76% insecticide containing 150 ml liquid was seized vide Ex. P/14. The viscera of the deceased was seized vide Ex. P/18 and all the seized articles were sent for forensic examination. As per the FSL report (Ex. P/34A), insecticide organophosphorous 'monocrotophos' was found in the viscera of the deceased as well as in the bottles of insectide seized from the spot. After due investigation, the appellant herein was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 460, 302 and 328/34 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant abjured her guilt and entered into defence. 5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and brought on record 34 documents. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein she denied guilt, however, she neither examined any witness nor brought any document on record. 6. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 460, 302/34 and 328/34 of IPC and sentenced her as aforesaid. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that co-accused persons Avdhesh and Maheshwar were tried separately for the 5 aforesaid offences and were convicted by the trial Court against which they preferred appeal bearing CRA/1396/2015 before this Court, however, since both of them died during the pendency of that appeal, the said appeal was disposed of by this Court by order dated 04/12/2023. Submissions of the Parties :- 8. Ms. Katyayani Vishnupriya, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the main accused persons were Maheshwar and Avdhesh and their appeals have already been disposed of by this Court and neither the motive of offence was found proved against the present appellant nor it was proved that she has administered poison to the deceased or that she was in possession of the said poisonous substance. As Such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal from the aforesaid offences. 9. Per contra, Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, as the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt, as such, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above 6 and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Question for consideration :- 11. The integral question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, “Whether it was the appellant/accused who administered the said poison to the deceased and thereby, murdered him” ? Answer to the Question for consideration :- 12. In order to arrive at the answer to this question, it would first be relevant to notice a few decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in this regard which squarely applies to the case of the appellant/accused. 13. In the matter of Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down the parameters to be established by the prosecution in case of murder by poisoning and it has been held that the prosecution must establish in a case of poisoning that the death took place by poisoning; the accused had the poison in his possession; and that the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. In the aforesaid matter, the following has been observed by their Lordships: “The prosecution must establish in a case of poisoning (a) that death took place by poisoning; (b) that the accused had the poison in his possession; and (c) that the accused had an 1 AIR 1960 SC 500 7 opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. Though these three propositions must be kept in mind always, the sufficiency of the evidence direct or circumstantial, to establish murder by poisoning will depend on the facts of each case. If the evidence in a particular case does not justify the inference that death is the result of poisoning because of the failure of the prosecution to prove the fact satisfactorily, either directly or by circumstantial evidence, then the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused person. But if circumstantial evidence, in absence of direct proof of the three elements, is so decisive that the court can unhesitatingly hold that death was a result of administration of poison (though not detected) and that the poison must have been administered by the accused person, then the conviction can be rested on it.“ 14. Thereafter, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 2 , which was a case of cyanide poisoning, for which, the husband of the deceased was tried for murder, their Lordships of the Supreme Court stressed that the court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction. The following was thus held in paragraphs 164, 165 and 166: “164. We now come to the mode and manner of proof of cases of murder by administration of poison. In Ramgopal case8 this Court held thus : Three questions arise in such cases, namely (firstly), did the deceased die of the poison in question ? (secondly), had the accused the poison in his possession ? and (thirdly), had the accused an opportunity to administer the poison in question to the 2 (1984) 4 SCC 116 8 deceased ? It is only when the motive is there and these facts are all proved that the court may be able to draw the inference, that the poison was administered by the accused to the deceased resulting in his death. 165. So far as this matter is concerned, in such cases the court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction: (1) there is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased, (2) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered, (3) that the accused had the poison in his possession, (4) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. 168. The facts of the case cited above were very much similar to the present appeal. Here also, the Court found that circumstances afforded a greater motive to the deceased to commit suicide than for the accused to commit murder. This view was reiterated in Dharambir Singh case10 where the Court observed as follows : Therefore, along with the motive, the prosecution has also to establish that the deceased died of a particular poison said to have been administered, that the accused was in possession of that poison and that he had the opportunity to administer the same to the deceased; (see Mt. Gajrani v. Emperor11). It is only when the motive is there and these facts are all proved that the court may be able to draw the inference, in a case of circumstantial evidence, that the poison was administered by the accused to the deceased resulting in his death. * * *” 9 15. The principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Anant Chintaman Lagu (supra) and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) was subsequently followed in the matter of Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab3, in which, it was held that even if there is failure of the prosecution to prove the possession of poison with the accused, the same is not fatal, if the prosecution clearly proves that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. The following was thus held in paragraphs 26 & 27 : “26. The poison murder cases are not to be put outside the rule of circumstantial evidence. There may be obvious very many facts and circumstances out of which the Court may be justified in drawing permissible inference that the accused was in possession of the poison in question. There may be very many facts and circumstances proved against the accused which may call for tacit assumption of the factum of possession of poison with the accused. The insistence on proof of possession of poison with the accused invariably in every case is neither desirable nor practicable. It would mean to introduce an extraneous ingredient to the offence of murder by poisoning. We cannot, therefore, accept the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. The accused in a case of murder by poisoning cannot have a better chance of being exempted from sanctions than in other kinds of murders. Murder by poisoning is run like any other murder. In cases where dependence is wholly on circumstantial evidence, and direct evidence not being available, the Court can legitimately draw from the circumstances an inference on any matter one way or the other. 27. The view that we have taken gets support from the decision of this Court in Ananth 3 (1988) 3 SCC 513 10 Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 where Hidayatullah, J., has given an anxious consideration to the three propositions laid down in Dharambir Singh case. The learned Judge did not consider them as invariable criteria of proof to be established by the prosecution in every case of murder by poisoning. …” 16. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court in Anant Chintaman Lagu (supra), Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) and Bhupinder Singh (supra) have been followed recently in the matter of Sandeep Kumar and others v. State of Uttarakhand and another4. 17. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Anant Chintaman Lagu (supra), Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), Bhupinder Singh (supra) and Sandeep Kumar (supra), it is quite vivid that in the instant case, the prosecution was required to establish the following circumstances: - 1. there is a clear motive for the accused/appellant to administer poison to the deceased; 2. that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered; 3. that the accused/appellant had the poison in his possession; and 4. that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. 4 2020 SCC OnLine SC 980 11 18. We will consider each of the aforesaid circumstances one by one to find out as to whether the prosecution has established all the four incriminating circumstances to justify the conviction of the accused / appellant herein. I. Whether the appellant/accused had motive for offence ? 19. In the instant case, prosecution has failed to prove motive of offence against the present appellant as son of deceased Dashrath namely Nameshwar (PW-3) has stated before the Court that prior to two years, co- accused Avdhesh had borrowed fertilizer from them but did not make any payment for the same and when his father deceased Dashrath went to his house asking for money, dispute arose between them and thereafter, on 09/12/2013, co-accused Maheshwar broke the door and trespassed into their house and after administering insecticide to deceased Dashrath, took him outside the house where the three accused persons namely Maheshwar, Avdhesh and the present appellant assaulted him. As such, from the statement of Nameshwar (PW-3), it is very evident that motive for offence has not been established against the present appellant rather it is attributable against co-accused Avdhesh. II. Whether the deceased died on account of poison administered to him ? 12 20.The dead body of Dashrath was subjected to postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Hemant Kumar Sahu (PW-1), who has proved the postmortem report (Ex. P/1) before the Court. After examining the deceased, he has recorded in the postmortem report (Ex. P/1) that there was no external injury over his body and rigor mortis was present. After the entire examination, the Doctor opined that cause of death is due to cardiorespiratory failure as a result of suspected poisoning, however, since he had his doubts, he collected the viscera of the deceased and after packing it in a sealed pack plastic container handed it over to be sent for FSL and as per the FSL report (Ex. P/24), viscera of the deceased, which was marked as Article A and B, contained organophosphorous insecticide 'monocrotophos'. As such, we are of the considered opinion that on the basis of FSL report (Ex. P/34A), it has been proved beyond doubt that deceased Dashrath Chandra died on account of the poison administered to him which has been found to be organophosphorous insecticide 'dichlorvos'. III. Whether the appellant/accused was in possession of the poison ? 21.It is not in doubt that no poison (insecticide) was found in possession of the present appellant/accused and it has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable 13 doubt that co-accused Maheshwar was in possession of the poison which has also been stated by the eye-witness Nameshwar (PW-3) in his testimony before the Court that co-accused Maheswar administered poison to his father. IV. Whether the appellant/accused had opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased ? 22. As we have already discussed above, it was the co- accused Maheshwar who administered poison to the deceased and caused his death, therefore, the present question is of no relevance in the case of the present appellant/accused. Conclusion :- 23.In view of the aforesaid legal analysis, we are of the considered opinion that co-accused Avdhesh had motive for offence and co-accused Maheshwar administered poison (insecticide) to the deceased Dashrath which caused his death. The appellant was present outside the place of incident as per Nameshwar (PW-3) and caused injury to the deceased but as per the statement of Dr. Hemant Kumar Sahu (PW-1), who conducted postmortem of the deceased, there was no external injury on the body of the deceased. As such, the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offences and she is entitled for acquittal as she neither had the poison in her possession nor she administered the poison to the deceased. Therefore, the 14 impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby set aside and appellant is hereby acquitted from the charges levelled against her. Since she is already on bail, she need not surrender, however, her bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six month in view of the provision contained under Section 437A of CrPC. 24. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands allowed. 25. Office is directed to transmit the lower court record along with the certified copy of this judgment to the court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. [ Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Judge Harneet