Gujarat HC acquits man who ‘poisoned’ friends during a birthday party for refusing to kill sister’s partner

The prosecution argued Yadav harboured a grudge over his sister’s relationship with a man named Gaurang Prajapati, and “asked his friends to eliminate him”. When the three friends refused to participate in the plan, the prosecution claimed that Yadav decided to target them instead.

According to the prosecution, Yadav invited the three men to what he described as a “long-pending birthday party,” during which he served them a snack allegedly mixed with a poisonous substance. Of the three friends, one, identified as Mangal Prajapati, died, while the other two survived after receiving treatment at a hospital in Ahmedabad and later testified against Yadav.

Autopsy report, lab test

In its 18-page judgment, dated February 6, the High Court noted that the post-mortem examination report stated the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to aconite poisoning. However, the court also noted the doctor, who conducted the autopsy, admitted in her testimony in the trial court that she did not know about the aconite poison, “which is a kind of plant growing in the Himalaya and… unstable poison”.

The court also noted that the doctor confirmed as true that aconite poison is not available in Gujarat. The court also noted that a laboratory test had ruled out the presence of aconite in the samples tested.

The court also noted that a police sub-inspector was sent to Uttar Pradesh by the investigating officer to track down the Ayurvedic shop from where Yadav allegedly procured the poison, but the statement of the shop owner did not form a part of the police chargesheet.

“Thus, there are major contradictions in the scientific/medical evidence as regards the presence of aconite poison, wherein one lab does not confirm the presence of aconite poison whilst the postmortem report speaks about aconite poison and the doctor who performed the postmortem states that this aconite poison is not found in the state of Gujarat,” said the court order.

“(A PSI)…inquired at the Ayurvedic Shop owned by one Jayprakash Balmukand Gupta (in Uttar Pradesh) and recorded his statement. However, during the cross-examination, he has admitted that said statement of the shop owner does not become the part of charge-sheet… Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the source (from where) the aconite poison, if any, was brought by (Yadav) to kill the deceased…”

Contradictions in testimony, evidence

Stating that the lapses create “doubt on the case of prosecution,” the HC also noted the contradiction in the testimony of one of the surviving friends and Gaurang Prajapati, Yadav’s former brother-in-law, who had also deposed in the case.

The judgment highlighted a contradiction in the evidence. The surviving friend testified that it was the deceased, Mangal, who had informed Yadav about his sister’s relationship with Prajapati, which had angered him. However, in his own deposition before the trial court, Prajapati stated that he and Yadav’s sister had already registered a court marriage in October 2011. According to Prajapati, the couple divorced within a month and a half because their family members “were not happy.”

The HC noted that Prajapati and Yadav’s sister had registered their marriage about five months before the crime was committed; therefore, the prosecution had not been able to establish Yadav’s motive for committing the crime. The HC also noted that there was a major contradiction in the “time” when Yadav purchased the snacks.

After hearing the arguments from Yadav’s Advocate P P Majmudar as well as Assistant Public Prosecutor J K Shah, the court, while acquitting Yadav, said, “The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved… must be conclusive in nature… There should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. In the present case, the prosecution does not get support from the evidence recorded by the learned Sessions Court…”