Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Poison case in Manrakhan Prasad Miri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 February, 2023Matching Fragments
11. Now, the question, is whether the prosecution has been able to prove that it is the appellant who has caused the death of his elder son Nikhil Miri by poisoning?
12. The law in this regard is well settled. In the matter of Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay 2, 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 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 2 AIR 1960 SC 500 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."
3 (1988) 3 SCC 513 "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.
20. Similarly, in the matter of Pannayar v. State of T.N.6, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.
21. Furthermore, in the matter of Babu v. State of Kerala7, which is a case of poisoning, the Supreme Court has held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive must be established at least to a certain extent and relying upon its earlier decisions in Kishanpal's case (supra) and Pannayar (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under: