‘Better becomes bitter’: Delhi High Court frees man who ‘forced’ wife to ingest Baygon spray

The court went on to add that the institution of marriage is strengthened by faith, companionship, and the mutual trust that gives both partners a sense of security and protection. “The troubles in this bond between the spouses not only affect the institution of marriage but the family as well and, in turn, society too,” it added.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held that it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the man had “forcibly administered” Baygon to his wife.

The judgment recorded that the man and his wife had gotten married on March 5, 2000, and “the spouses practically came to loggerheads within a year or so of their marriage”. It came on record that because of the minor fights during that year, an FIR was filed, where the wife had claimed that on April 20, 2001, the man had forcibly tried to pour down Baygon Spray into her mouth. The wife had alleged that the man’s first attempt to pour Baygon through the tumbler into her mouth had failed, after which he had allegedly managed to force some amount of Baygon Spray directly from its container.

The FIR was registered against the man and his mother, who were later arrested by the police. A charge-sheet was filed against the man and his mother for subjecting the wife to cruelty and attempting to murder her. The trial court, through its judgment on April 5, 2004, had acquitted the man and his mother of the charges of ‘subjecting the wife to cruelty’, but the man was convicted for trying to murder his wife and was sentenced to “rigorous” imprisonment for three years and to pay a sum of Rs 5,000 as a fine.

Subsequently, the man approached the high court to challenge his conviction because he claimed that the “matrimonial discord” had taken place because the wife wanted to “live a separate and independent life, away from her mother-in-law” and insisted on having a share in property even though it was in the man’s name. The man also contended that the case against him was false as it was a “machination” of his father-in-law, who was a policeman.

‘Falsely implicate’

Advocates Sanjay Suri, Vinny Shangloo and Rishabh Ratan, appearing for the man, contended that apart from the statement of the wife, there was no other evidence which may prove the allegations against the man, and even the medical record did not support the fact that the man had tried to poison his wife.

The counsel also contended that if somebody had consumed such a poisonous substance used as a bug repellent, then certain symptoms, such as difficulty in breathing, coughing, loss of alertness or stupor, tremors, were bound to be there. It was also urged by the counsel that it was the wife who had herself consumed or pretended to consume the poisonous substances to “falsely implicate” the man.

Advocate Satinder Singh Bawa, appearing for the state, submitted that the judgment of the trial court was in accordance with the facts and the law on the subject and that there was no reason to disbelieve the statement of the wife.

No symptoms

The high court noted that the statement of the wife and her father clearly proved that there were problems in the matrimonial life of the couple but questioned if it was enough for the wife to take such a step or strong enough reason for the man to poison her and cause her death.

According to the judgment, “there are two parties to the relationship, and how they feel about their matrimonial tensions may vary according to the respective perceptions, treatment meted out by one to the other and the individual’s nature etc. On the same set of facts, one may try to resolve the issues by constructive measures, and those very reasons may prompt somebody, with a different mindset, to go into an entirely different direction and resort to the kind of acts such as what has been alleged against the appellant”.

The high court observed that the prosecution had not brought on record any medical opinion which stated that the wife showed the symptoms that were “ordinarily associated with poisoning or insecticide ingestion of such severity as would ordinarily follow forcible administration of Baygon”. According to the high court, it had been clearly proved that the husband and the wife had fought with each other, but the evidence was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man had “forcibly administered” Baygon with the intention required to attract the allegation of attempt to murder.

The high court was of the view that it was “highly unsafe to act upon the kind of shaky evidence brought on record. Appellant is certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt,” and held that the man was not guilty.