The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction of a man under Section 307 IPC in a 2001 case alleging that he forcibly administered Baygon insecticide to his wife following a marital quarrel, holding that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the substance was administered with the intention or knowledge necessary to constitute an attempt to murder.
The prosecution case was that an altercation had taken place between the couple and that the husband first attempted to force Baygon spray down his wife’s throat. According to the prosecution version, after she resisted the initial attempt, he allegedly succeeded in pouring around 50–60 ml of Baygon into her throat with an intention to cause her fatal injury.
The High Court, however, found that the medical and forensic evidence did not support the prosecution case to the extent required for sustaining a conviction under Section 307 IPC. The Court noted that when the woman was taken to hospital by PCR, her initial medical parameters were normal and doctors did not find the symptoms ordinarily associated with poisoning. Although vomiting was reported in the casualty, the Court held that this alone could not establish that a poisonous substance had been administered.
More significantly, the gastric lavage sent for forensic examination contained no trace of poison. The Court acknowledged that a negative forensic report by itself could not conclusively demolish the prosecution case, particularly since the substance involved was an insecticide. However, it held that the finding introduced a significant element of uncertainty.
The Court also found an unexplained discrepancy regarding the alleged Baygon container. The Investigating Officer had stated that the container recovered from the scene was empty, whereas the FSL report recorded that the container examined by the laboratory contained approximately 4 ml of Baygon. The prosecution offered no explanation for this contradiction.
The Court further considered what happened immediately after the alleged incident. The material on record showed that the woman was promptly taken to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and medical treatment was arranged. While this conduct was not treated as conclusive proof of innocence, the Court held that it was relevant while assessing whether the accused had the requisite intention for Section 307 IPC.
The Bench also found inconsistencies in the wife’s testimony on other aspects of the matrimonial dispute. Among other things, she had initially attributed an abortion to beatings allegedly inflicted by her husband, but during cross-examination admitted that the abortion had occurred naturally and was not the result of any beating. She also admitted that no dowry had been demanded at the time of marriage, despite having made an allegation regarding a scooter in her examination-in-chief. The Court ultimately held:
“
“Upon a cumulative appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has undoubtedly established that an altercation had taken place between the parties. However, the evidence falls short of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant had forcibly administered Baygon insecticide with the intention or knowledge necessary to attract Section 307 IPC. The inconclusive medical evidence, the negative forensic findings qua the gastric lavage, the unexplained discrepancy regarding the seized container, and the conduct of the Appellant in ensuring immediate medical treatment put together create such a situation, which cannot be ignored in a criminal trial.”
The Court also took note of the fact that the trial court had already found material inconsistencies in the prosecution’s allegations of cruelty and dowry demand and had acquitted the accused of the Section 498-A IPC charge. The High Court said these inconsistencies could not be completely ignored while assessing the overall credibility of the prosecution evidence. Concluding that it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction on the evidence available, the Court observed: “It is highly unsafe to act upon the kind of shaky evidence brought on record. Appellant is certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt.”
The High Court accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the Section 307 IPC conviction.
