BHUPINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 409 · Decided: 06-04-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
·~ 
I 
BHUPINDER SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
APRIL 6, 1988 
[M.M. DUTT AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973/ 1898-Section 293-Chemical 
Examiner-Report of-A piece of evidence-Does not require formal 
proof-Should normally be forwarded to the doctor who performed 
autopsy report. 
Criminal Trial-Poison murder cases-Invariably committed un-
der cover and cloak of secrecy-Prosecution entitled to establish cir-
cumstances consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 
Bhupinder Singh, appellant, his father Sher Singh and his mother 
A 
B 
c 
Mukhtiar Kaur, were tried for committing the murder of Bhupinder 
D 
Singh's wife, Gian Kaur. by administering poison. The Trial Court 
held that the accused had strong motive for the murder as the deceased 
was unable to satisfy their demand for dowry for which she was being 
constantly harassed. The Trial Court further held that the death of 
Gian Kaur was not accidental or suicidal or by food poisoning. The 
Trial Court held that the accused had the opportunity to accomplish 
E 
their design, and they did administer poison which the deceased must 
have resisted and thereby suffered injuries on her body. The Trial 
Court found all the three accused guilty of the offence under section 302 
read with section 34 .J.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for 
life. 
It was urged before the High Court that the prosecution has failed 
to establish by evidence the necessary conditions for the proof of mur-
der by poisoning. Disagreeing with the contenti.ons and the theory of 
suicide put forth by the appellant, the High Court confirmed the convic-
tion and sentence on Bhupinder Singh and Sher Singh while acquitting 
F 
Mukhtiar Kaur. 
G 
The present appeal by special leave is only by Bhupinder Singh. 
The main contention of the appellant is that in a case of murder by 
poison there are three main points to be proved; firstly, did the 
deceased die ol the poison in question; secondly, had the accused got the 
H 
409 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988] 3 S.C.R. 
A poison in question in his or her possession, and thirdly, had the accused 
an-opportunity to administer the poison in question to the deceased. It is 
contended that the evidence falls short.. of these requirements, and in 
particular, as to the question of proof of possession of the poison with the 
accused. 
B 
The second contention of the appellant is that it is not enough for 
the chemical examiner merely to state in his report that the poison-
Organo phosphorus compound was present in the substance sent for 
examination; he should have also stated that a lethal dose of the poison 
was detected. It is submitted that his report should be full and complete 
to take the place of evidence which he would have given if he were called 
c to Court as witness. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: (1) Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pro-
vides that the report of scientific experts may be used as evidence in any 
D inquiry, trial or other proceedings of the Court. [4i6D I 
(2) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards the value to 
be attached to the report of the chemical examiner. [4 i6D I 
(3) The chemical examiner does not, as a rule, give an opinion as 
E to the cause of death but merely gives report of the chemical examina-
lion. The report itself is not crucial. It is a place of evidece. The only 
protection to it is that it does not require any formal proof. It is, 
however, open . to the Court, if it thinks fit, to call the chemical 
examiner and examine him as to the subject matter of the report. The 
report should normally be forwarded to the doctor who conducted the 
F 
autopsy. [416D·FI 
( 4) In poison murder cases, the accused are not acquitted solely 
on the failure of the prosecution to establish one or the other require-
ment. They are not to be acquitted solely on the ground that the pro-
secution has failed to prove that the accused had the poison in his 
G 
possession, and are to be acquitted by the Court taking into account the 
totality of the circumstances including insufficient motive, weakness in 
the chain of circumstantial evidence and likelihood of the deceased 
committing suicide. [42JC-E] 
(5) Murder by poisoning is run like any other murder and the 
H 
accused cannot have a better chance of being exempted from sanctions 
,.l_,. 
t: 
J-
~
\
. 
; 
BHUPINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
411 
than in other kinds of murders. [4228-CI 
(6) The 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.