The high court said the trial court had made an “error” by treating proof of the cause of death as evidence that the woman had committed the crime and had effectively treated “suspicion” arising from the woman’s presence in the house and the alleged motive as proof of her guilt.
Justices Archana Puri and Mandeep Pannu were hearing the woman’s appeal against the June 2005 trial court order sentencing her to life imprisonment for the death of her husband in 2003.
“The trial court, in the considered view of this court, fell into error in treating the proof of the cause of death as proof of the authorship of the crime,” the high court said on September 2.
Found dead in house
The prosecution claimed that the woman had two children after marrying the head constable. It said that when the constable returned home from duty on the night of August 8, 2003, he had consumed alcohol. He allegedly had dinner with his family and went to sleep around 11 pm. The next morning, at around 6 am, he was found dead inside the house.
Justices Archana Puri and Mandeep Pannu noted that there was no recovery of the poison from the woman and no scientific evidence connecting her to it.
At the time, the family did not suspect foul play and believed that he had died of heart failure. No criminal case was registered initially. His body was sent for post-mortem examination. A doctor later said that the death was caused by the combined effect of alcohol and insecticide.
A case was registered 74 days after the constable’s death. The trial court in 2005 found the woman guilty of murdering her husband and sentenced her to life imprisonment. She then moved the high court, challenging the conviction.
Story continues below this ad
‘Unexplained delay in FIR’
The woman, through advocate Keshavam Chaudhri, argued that the medical and chemical evidence only established the presence of chemicals related to insecticide, but did not prove that it was given by the wife or that the death was necessarily a killing. He also emphasised that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of 74 days.
It was also argued that the trial court had acquitted two other people accused of conspiring with the accused, and there was no separate evidence strong enough to connect her with the poisoning.
Additional Advocate General Sahil Chowdhary opposed the appeal and supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court. He argued that the husband’s death due to poisoning was clearly established by the medical and chemical evidence. It said the woman was present in the house that night and was hence in a position to explain how the poison entered her husband’s body.
Unnatural death: HC
The high court agreed that the husband died an unnatural death caused by poisoning. However, it said this was a separate question from whether his wife was the person who administered the poison.
Story continues below this ad
The court noted that there was no eyewitness to the poisoning, no recovery of the poison from the woman, no evidence that she had purchased or obtained the insecticide and no scientific evidence connecting her to it. “The circumstances proved on record are also reasonably capable of more than one interpretation, and where two views are reasonably possible, the one favourable to the accused must necessarily prevail,” it held.
The court found that the constable died due to poisoning but said the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that his wife had poisoned him or taken part in any conspiracy to kill him. “The chemical evidence establishes the cause of death, but it does not establish the author of the poisoning,” the court observed, stressing that proving that the husband died from poisoning and proving that the woman administered the poison were two separate things.
Accordingly, the court allowed the woman’s appeal and set aside the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence.
Justices Archana Puri and Mandeep Pannu noted that there was no recovery of the poison from the woman and no scientific evidence connecting her to it.