HARIPRASAD @ KISHAN SAHU versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 07-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 214 : 2023 INSC 986
214
CASE DETAILS
HARIPRASAD @ KISHAN SAHU
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1182 of 2012)
NOVEMBER 07, 2023
[BELA M. TRIVEDI AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issues for consideration: Whether the delay of about more than 
one year in registering the FIR could be said to be fatal to the case of 
prosecution; whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that 
the deceased had died due to administration of poison and the appellant-
accused administered the poison in the liquor and made the deceased to 
drink it on the previous date of his death.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Allegation of murder by poisoning – 
Delay in registering FIR – When not fatal:
Held: FIR being only a corroborative piece of evidence and not a 
substantive piece of evidence, mere delay in registering the FIR could not be 
held to be a ground adverse to the case of prosecution – In the present case, 
though the FIR was registered against the appellant on 03.11.2004 in respect 
of the incident which had taken place on 22.07.2003, a part of investigation 
had already started on the death of the deceased and on the Merg intimation 
no.43/03 – The explanation off ered by the prosecution that the FIR was not 
registered as the cause of death was not stated by the Doctor who carried out 
the post-mortem and the report of Chemical examiner was awaited, seems 
to be reasonable and acceptable – It was the report of Chemical examination 
sent by the FSL, after one year, which caused the delay in the registration of 
the FIR – Thus, the entire delay as such could be attributed to the FSL which 
took almost one year in giving the report of Chemical examination of Viscera 
of the deceased – There was no mala fi de intention on the part of any of the 
witnesses or the police not to register the FIR or to delay the registration of 
FIR – Further, on facts, having regard to the scanty evidence, it is diffi  cult 
215
to hold that the prosecution had proved the four important propositions in 
case of allegation of murder by poisoning- the accused had a clear motive to 
administer poison to the deceased; the deceased died of poison said to have 
been administered; the accused had the poison in his possession and that 
the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased – 
Findings recorded by the Trial Court as confi rmed by the High Court against 
the appellant for his conviction u/s.302 set aside – Judgment of conviction 
and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court as confi rmed by the High 
Court, set aside – Appellant acquitted. [Paras 17, 18, 26 and 28]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32 – Dying Declaration:
Held: Though a statement made by a person who is dying is made 
exception to the rule of hearsay and has been made admissible in evidence 
u/s.32 – It would not be prudent to base conviction, relying upon such 
dying declaration alone – In the instant case, even if the so-called dying 
declaration of the deceased is believed, at the most it could be said that the 
deceased on 22.07.2003 had consumed liquor along with ‘HR’ and others, 
and that in the third glass of liquor, ‘HR’ had mixed some herb, and made 
the deceased to drink it – There is no evidence to show as to what kind of 
herb was allegedly mixed by ‘HR’, and whether such herb was poisonous or 
not – Chemical examination report of the Senior Scientifi c Offi  cer, FSL (Ex. 
P/14) stated that the Viscera of the deceased contained Organophosphorous 
insecticide and Quinolphos – Though, the Organophosphorous insecticides 
and Quinolphos are considered to be poisonous substances, nonetheless the 
Court would be loathe in imputing personal knowledge and conclude that 
such poisonous substances found in the Viscera of the deceased was the 
cause of death of the deceased, more so when the said opinion of Chemical 
analyzer was received after more than one year of sending the Viscera of the 
deceased to the FSL – In absence of fi nal opinion obtained from any medical 
expert, on the report of Chemical analyzer as to the cause of death, it could 
not be said that prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 
cause of death of the deceased was due to administration of poison. [Para 24]
Evidence – FIR – Prompt lodging of – Object:
Held: FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece 
of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced 
during the course of the trial. The object of insisting upon pr

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