Holding

The Court held that while death by poison, possession of the poison, and opportunity to administer are relevant, they are not absolute requirements; circumstantial evidence may suffice and lack of proof of possession alone does not warrant acquittal.

Summary

Bhupinder Singh, his father Sher Singh and mother Mukhtiar Kaur were convicted of murdering Bhupinder's wife Gian Kaur by administering an organophosphorus poison, motivated by dowry demands. The trial and High Courts upheld the conviction of Bhupinder and Sher, acquitting Mukhtiar. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution must prove three specific facts—death by poison, possession of the poison by the accused, and opportunity to administer it—and whether a chemical examiner's report lacking a lethal‑dose statement is sufficient. The Court held that these three points are relevant but not rigid prerequisites; circumstantial evidence can establish the charge, and failure to prove possession alone does not merit acquittal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction affirmed.

Issues considered

Whether proof of possession of the poison by the accused is a mandatory element in a murder‑by‑poison case.
Whether a chemical examiner's report that merely identifies the poison, without stating a lethal dose, is sufficient evidence of poisoning.
Whether circumstantial evidence can substitute for direct proof of possession and administration of poison.
Whether the conviction should be set aside on the ground of insufficient proof of possession of the poison.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 293
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

poison murdercircumstantial evidencechemical examiner reportSection 293 CrPCdowry demandpossession of poisonburden of proofmurder

Judgment

BHUPINDER SINGH
A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB

APRIL 6, 1988

[M.M. DUTT AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.] B

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-
c
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
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.
F
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
Mukhtiar Kaur. G

·~ The present appeal by special leave is only by Bhupinder Singh.

I 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 I1988] 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-
,.l_,.
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,
t:
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

F
report should normally be forwarded to the doctor who conducted the
autopsy. [416D·FI

(4) In poison murder cases, the accused are not acquitted solely
J-
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
BHUPINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 411

than in other kinds of murders. [4228-CI
A

(6) The poison murder cases are not to be put outside the rule of
circumstantial evidence. There may be obvious very many facts and
circumstances out of which the Court may be justified in drawing
permissible inference that the accused was in possession of the poison in
question. [42JH; 422A] B

(7) The insistence on proof of possession of poison with the
accused invariably in every case is neither desirable nor permissible. It
would mean to introduce an extraneous ingredient to the offence of
murder by poisoning. I4228 I

(8) Murder by poison is invariably committed under the cover
c
and cloak of secrecy. Nobody will administer poison to another in the
presence of others. The person who administers poison to another in
secrecy will not keep a portion of it for the investigating officer to come
and collect it. The person who commits such murder would naturally
take care to eliminate and destroy the evidence against him. In such D
case, it would be impossible for the prosecution to prove possession of
poison with the accused. The prosecution may, however, establish other
circumstances consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. The Court then would not be justified in acquitting the
accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove posses-
sion of the poison with the accused. [42JE-G I E

Mt. Gajrani and another v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1933 All 394; State
v. Fateh Bahadur, A.I.R. 1958 All l; Chandra Kant Myalchand Seth's
.
;
case, (Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1957 decided on 19. 2. 1958!:
Dharambir Singh v. The State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 98 of
1958 decided on 4.11.1958; Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. F
1960 SC 669; Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1972 S.C.
656; Sharda B. Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, [198511 SCR 88
andAnanth Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1960 S.C.
500, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal G
No. 379 of 1986.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13. 7.1984 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 82 D.B. of 1984.

R.L. Kohli and R.C. Kohli for the Appellant. H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 19881 3 S.C.R.
R.S. Suri for the Respondent.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

JAGANNATHA SHETTY,J. One may ask the question whether
murder by poisoning is not run like any other murder? The learned
B counsel for the appellant purports to state that it is not. He relies upon
the judicial prescriptions as to the burden of proof in "poison-murder"
cases. He contends that the prosecution must prove "that the accused
had the poison in his possession''. He asserts that failure to establish . J
that factor should entail the acquittal of the accused. This is a vital
question which goes far beyond the case and it, therefore, requires
careful consideration.
c
Bhupinder Singh-Appellant was prosecuted for the murder of
his wife by poisoning. He was sentenced for life imprisonment by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot in Session Case No. 86 of 1983.
His conviction and sentence have been affirmed by the Pun jab and
D Haryana High Court in criminal appeal No. 82-DB of 1984. He has
preferr"d this appeal by special leave challenging the conviction and
sentence.

We may first advert to the prosecution case. It reveals a sad
story. It runs like this: Gian Kaur, the victim in this case is the only
E daughter of Baltej Singh. Baltej Singh like many other parents thought
that his problems would be solved by the marriage of his daughter. He
got her married to Bhupinder Singh by spending all his savings. His
relatives also contributed for the marriage. But ill-luck would have it,
his problems started immediately after the marriage. Bhupinder Singh
and his parents wanted Gian Kaur to bring Rs.10,000 from her father.
F It was nothing but a demand for dowry. They stopped up their demand
with harassment to Gian Kaur. Gian Kaur informed her father. The
father could not arrange that much of amount. He had already spent
all that he had in connection with her marriage. He had also then given
presents in cash and kind to Bhupinder Singh. So he felt helpless.
Unmerciful, Bhupinder Singh asked his wife to go back to her parents'
G house. So she left to seek shelter with her parents. She remained with
them for about eight months. But how long the father could keep his
married daughter away from her husband. Some parents think that it is
a reflection upon them. Baltej Singh also must have thought like that.
He somehow arranged Rs.6,000 and sent Gian Kaur to her husband's
house .. Gian Kaur rejoined her husband upon making the payment of
H Rs.6,000. That appears to have satisfied Bhupinder Singh for about
BHUPINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [SHE1TY, J.[ 413

one year. In the meantime, Gian Kaur had a male child. Naturally there
A
was jubilation for Baltej Singh. He performed the customary
Chuchhak ceremony and again gave Rs.4,000 and a buffalo as presents
to Bhupinder Singh. Bhupinder Singh ought to have been happy and
satisfied. But he was not. It was alleged by the prosecution that this
time he demanded a motorcycle. Baltej Singh could not give it. Gian
Kaur, as usual, was again the target. It was further alleged by the B
prosecution that Bhupinder Singh threatened to kill his wife if motorcy-
cle was not given to him. Gian Kaur had kept her father informed
about the said demand and the threat.

On July 13, 1983, Gian Kaur died under mysterious circumst-
ances. Upon receiving that information, Baltej Singh with his brother
Baldev Singh reached the place in the evening of that day. They saw
c
Gian Kaur, lying dead on a charpai. They suspected foul play. Baltej
Singh gave the information to the police narrating all the above events.
He informed the police that his daughter was killed by Bhupinder
Singh and his parents by administering something to her. On the basis
of that information, the F.I.R. was issued. The investigation of .the D
case was taken by A.S.I. (PW 4). The body of Gian Kaur was sent to
Dr. Sant Prakash Singh (PW 6) for post-mortem. The Doctor Prakash
Singh noticed five minor injuries on the body of the ·deceased. The
brain and other vital organs were also found to be congested. The
Doctor sent stomach contents, portions of small intestine, liver, spleen
and kidney to the chemical examiner for the purpose of analysis. E

The chemical examiner in his report dated September 14, 1983
has stated that an Organo phosphorus compound was found in the
substance sent to him for analysis. The investigating officer sent that
report for opinion of the Doctor Prakash Singh as to the cause of death
of Gian Kaur. The Doctor gave his opinion that the death of Gian F
Kaur was due to organo phosphorus compound poisoning.

Bhupinder Sirigh, his father Sher Singh and his mother Mukhtiar
Kaur were tried for committing the murder nf Gian Kaur hy adminis-
tering poison.
G
. l The prosecution examined six witnesses and the accused in turn
~ examined one. The trial court after considering the evidence and other
material on record held as follows:

The accused had strong motive to get rid of Gian Kaur.
Apparently motive for the murder was the inability of Gian Kaur H
I-

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 3 S.C.R.

to satisfy the demand for dowry. The death of Gian Kaur was not
A
accidental or suicidal. There was no reason for her to commit
suicide. It was also not a death by food poisoning since the
accused and deceased shared common food on the fateful night.
There was none else in.the house on that night except Gian Kaur
and the accused. The accused had an opportunity to accomplish
B their design. The accused must have administered the poison to
the victim. The injuries found on the body of the deceased indi-
cated the resistence she must have offered when the poison was
administered to her. With these and other conclusions, the trial
colirt finally said:

"In the background of the circumstances and evidence dis- ~·
c cussed above, the only conclusion possible is that Bhupin-
der Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur did administer poison organo
\ "II
phosphorus compound to Gian Kaur and did cause her
death with common intention, which was to get rid of her as
she had not been able to persuade his father to meet their
D demand for motorcycle so as to clear way for another mar-
riage of Bhupinder Singh in his youthful years in order to
get more and more of dowry."

Accordingly, the trial colirt found all the three accused guilty of
the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. They were
E sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Challenging the legality of the conv1ct10n and sentence the
accused appealed to the High Court. It was urged before the High
Court that th'e death of Gian Kaur was not homicidal. She must have in
-
all probability committed suicide since she was suffering from
F tuberculosis. It was also urged that the prosecution has faile.d to
establish by evidence the necessary conditions for the proof of murder
by· poisoning. -The High Colirt did not agree with those contentions. -
The High Court ruled out the theory of suicide. It was observed that
there was no evidence to show that Gian. Kaur was suffering from
tuberculosis or ever treated for that disease. The High Court obser-
G ved:

"Case of murder by poisoning is always one of sec-
recy. Almost in every such case one has to depend on
circumstances. Doubtless, before a person can be convic-
ted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the cir-
H cumstances in question must be satisfactorily established
BHUPINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [SHETTY, J.J 415

and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence A
to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If those circumst-
ances or some of them can be explained by any reasonable
hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that
hypothesis. But in assessing the evidence imaginary possi-
bility has no place. What has to.be considered are ordinary
human probabilities. We have already referred to some II
important circumstances which in our opinion point out to
the guilt of Bhupinder Singh and Sher Singh appellants. In
the well-known case of Anant Chantman Lagu v. The State
of Bombay, A.LR. 1960 S.C. 500 their Lordships held that
in a cause of poisoning, the prosecution must establish: (a)
that the death took place by poisoning; (b) that the accused
had the poison in his possession; and (c) that the .accused c
had an opportunity to administer the poison to the
deceased. All the three requirements are satisfied in this
case. There is no dispute that the death of the deceased was
caused by poisoning. It has been established by the chemi-
cal examiner's report, that the viscera contained organo D
phosphorus compound poison. The evidence of the pro-
secution witnesses has established that the aforesaid two
appellants had the opportunity to administer poison to the .
deceased and that they had the motive to commit the
crime. Their running away from the house at the time when
the Investigating Officer visited their house is also consis- E .
tent with their guilt and not with their innocence."

With these observations, the High Court confirmed the convic-
tion and sentence on Sher Singh and Bhupinder Singh· while acquitting
Mukhtiar Kaur. ·
--~· F
' The present appeal is only by Bhupinder Singh.

•.~. Before embarking onhe validity' of the main sub~ission made in
thi.s appeal, we may first dispose of one other contention urged for ihe
appellant. Mr. R.N. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant submit-
ted that it is not enough for the chemical examiner merely to state in G
his report that the organo phosphorus compound was present in the
substance sent to him for examination. He should have also stated that
a lethal dose of the organo phosphorus comJKlund was detected in the
· substance sent to him. His report should be full and complete to take
the place of evidence which he would have given if he were called to
Court as witness. In the absence of such particulars, the death by H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19881 3 S.C.R.

A
poisoning cannot be inferred. In support of this contention, learned '1'
counsel relied upon two decisions of the Allahabad High Court viz. (i)
Mt. Gajrani and Anr. v. Emperor, [A.LR. 1933 Allahabad 3941 and
(ii) State v. Fateh Bahadur & Ors., [A.LR. 1958, Allahabad l]. In the
first case, it was observed that it was not enough for the chemical
examiner merely to state his opinion. He must also state the grounds
13 which formed the basis of his opinion. The second case was a case of
death by arsenic poisoning. The chemical examiner did not state the -'
quantity of arsenic poison found in the viscera of the deceased. He
did not state whether it was a fatal dose or not. The High Court
pointed out that it would be of the utmost importance before a Court
could find any individual guilty of murder by arsenic poison that its
complete analysis should be made. It is not enough to state that arsenic
c was detected in the body of the deceased.

· In our opinion, these observations cannot be taken as a rigid
1
statement of law. {No hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards
the value to be attached to the report of the chemical examiner. Sec-
D tion 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the report of
scientific experts may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other
proceedings of the court. The chemical examiner does not, as a rule,
give an opinion as to the cause of death but merely gives report of the
chemical examination of the substance sent to him. The report by itself
is not crucial. It is a piece of evidence. The only protection to it is that ~
E 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 autopsy. In the instant case, that was
done. The Doctor who conducted the autopsy was given a copy of the
report of the chemical examiner. The Doctor in the light of the report
F gave his opinion that the death of Gian Kaur was by poisoning i.e.
organo phosphorus compound. The report of the chemical examiner
j
'
coupled with the opinion of the Doctor is, therefore, sufficient to hold
that it was a death by poisoning.

This takes us to the main contention urged for the appellant. It
Ci was urged that in a case of murder by poison there are three main points
to be proved, firstly did the deceased die of the poison in question;
secondly, had the accused got the poison in question in his or her
,lo
possession; and thirdly, had the accused an opportunity to administer
the poison in question to the deceased. It was also urged that if the
prosecution fails to prove these factors, then the accused cannot be
H convicted. The evidence in the case, according to learned counsel falls

\
t
BHUPINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [SHETTY, J.[ 417

~ short of these requirements and, in particular, as to the question of
A
proof of possession of the poison with the accused and therefore the
accused is entitled to acquittal.

We have been referred to some decisions of this Court in support
of the contention urged. We have also examined some other cases
bearing on the question raised. A brief survey of these cases would be B
J. useful to appreciate the contention urged for the appellant. There are
two unreported decisions of this Court of the year 1958. The first one is
in Chandra Kam Myalchand Seth's case [Criminal Appeal No. 120 of
1957 decided on 19.2.19581. There a woman died of alkali cyanide.
The husband of the deceased was tried and convicted by the trial court
for the offence of murder. The conviction was set aside by this Court.
I
c
~1 In the course of the judgment, it was observed:

"Before a person can be convicted of murder by poisoning,
it is necessary to prove that the death of the deceased was
caused by poison, that the poison in question was in posses-
sion of the accused and that poison was administered by the D
accused to the deceased."

The acquittal, however, was based on the consideration of the
entire facts and circumstances of the case. It was found that there was
a greater motive to the deceased to commit suicide than to the accused
to commit murder. This Court also took note of the concern and E
conduct of the accused when he found his wife lying unconscious. The
accused ran to the house of his friend and returned with a Doctor to
render assistance to the victim. The accused called another Doctor for
the same purpose. He was also found weeping all the while. Taking
I into consideration of all these factors, this Court found no justification
·~ to sustain the conviction of the accused. F

Dharambir Singh v. State of Punjab,·(Criminal Appeal No. 98 of
1958 decided on 4.11.1958) is another case of homicidal action by
cyanide poisoning. It was perhaps in this case, the guidelines as to the
proof of certain facts in "poison murder cases" were laid down by this
Court. It was observed: G

~\ "Where the evidence is circumstantial the fact that
the accused had motive to cause death of the deceased,
though relevant, is not enough to dispense with the proof
of certain facts which are essential to be· proved in such
cases, namely (firstly) did the deceased die of poison in H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1988] 3 S.C.R.

question? (secondly) had the accused the poison in his pos-
A
session? and (thirdly) had the accused an opportunity to
administer the poison in question to the deceased? It is
only when the motive is there and these facts are all proved
that the court may be able to draw the inference, that the
poison was administered by the accused to the deceased
13 resulting in his death."

After laying down these principles, the court considered the
entire evidence on record which indicated the likelihood of the
deceased committing suicide or another person to have administered
the poison to the deceased. This Court accordingly acquitted the
accused by extending the benefit of doubt.
c
If one prefers to go yet further back we find a decision of the
Allahabad High Court which is exactly on the principles laid down in
Dharambir Singh case. In Mt. Gajrani v. Emperor, A.LR. 1933 All.
394 Benett, J. speaking for the Court observed (at p. 394):
D
"In a case of murder by poison there are three main points
to be proved: firstly, did the deceased die of the poison in
question; secondly, had the accused got the poison in ques-
tion in his or her possession; and thirdly, had the accused
an opportunity to administer the poison in question to the
E deceased. If these three points are proved, a presumption
may under certain circumstances be drawn by the Court
that the accused did administer poison to the deceased and
did cause the death of the deceased. It is not usual that
reliable direct evidence is available to prove that the
accused did actually administer poison to the deceased.
F The evidence of motive which is frequently given in these
cases is of subsidiary importance, and the mere fact that the
accused had a motive to cause the death of the deceased is
not a fact which will dispense with the proof of the second
and third points that the accused had the poison in his or
her possession, and that the accused had an opportunity to
G administer the poison."

The above proposition found its way into Mohan v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, A.LR. 1960 S.C. 669 and Ram Copa/ v. State of Maharash-
tra, A.LR. 1972 S.C. 656. In Mohan's case, the death in question was
by arsenic poisoning. In that case, the prosecution was able to prove
H that the accused gave 'peras' to the victim as 'pershad' and the victim
BHUPINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [SHETTY, J.J 419

died after eating the 'pershad'. 'Pershad' contained arsenic. There was
A
thus direct evidence as to the possession of the poison with the
accused. This Court, therefore, had no difficulty to sustain the convic-
tion and sentence awarded to the accused.

Ram Gopal's case was concerned with homicidal action by
administering a compound called "kerosene and orango choloro com- B
pound". The High Court, relying upon the motive and other circums-
tantial evidence convicted the accused for the offence of murder

- although there was no evidence that the accused was in possession of
poison. This Court could not agree with the view taken by the High
Court. The analysis of the evidence produced by the prosecution
revealed that the motive alleged against the accused was not fully
established. The incriminating circumstantial evidence against the
c
accused was also found to be insufficient. So the conviction of the
accused was set aside and the acquittal was recorded.

Sharda E. Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, [1985) 1SCR88
A.LR. 1984 S.C. 1622 is yet another case of death by cyanide poison- D
ing for w:.1ich the husband of the deceased was tried for murder. There
was no direct evidence to establish that the accused was in possession
of that poison. The High Court, however, relied upon the circumstan-
tial evidence and convicted the accused. In the appeal preferred by the
accused, this Court did not agree with the reasoning of the High Court.
After referring to Ram Gopal's case. Fazal Ali, J., focussed the atten- E
tion on the following four factors: The learned Judge observed (at p.
167):

"So far as this matter is concerned, in such cases the court
must carefully scan the evidence and determine the four
important circumstances which alolte can justify a convic- F
tion:

(1) there is a clear motive for an accused to administer
poison to the deceased,

(2) that the deceased died of poison said to have been G
administered,

(3) that the accused had the poison in his possession,

( 4) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to
the decased." H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988] 3 S.C.R.

A The learned Judge went on to state:

"In the instant case, while two ingredients have been
proved but two have not. In the first place, it has no doubt
been proved that Manju died of potassium cyanide and
secondly, it has also been proved that there was an
B opportunity to administer the poison. It has, however, not
been proved by any evidence that the appellant had the k
poison in his possession. On the other hand, as indicated
above, there is clear evidence of PW 2 that potassium
cyanide could have been available to Man ju from the
plastic factory of her mother, but there is no evidence to
show that the accused could have procured potassium
c cyanide from any available source. We might here extract a ~
most unintelligible and extra-ordinary finding of the High \. ·
Court:

"It is true that there is no direct evidence on these two
D points, because the prosecution is not able to lead evidence
that the accused had secured potassium cyanide poison
· from a particular source. Similarly there is no direct evi-
dence to prove that he had administered poison to Manju.
However, it is not necessary to prove each and every fact
by a direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be a basis
E for proving this fact."

The comment by the High Court appears to be frightfully
vague and absolutely unintelligible. While holding in the
clearest possible terms that there is no evidence in this case
to show that the appellant was in possession of poison, the
F High Court observes that this fact may prove either by
direct or indirect (circumstantial) evidence. But it fails to
indicate the nature of the circumstantial or indirect evi-
dence to show that the appellant was in possession of
poison. If the Court seems to suggest that merely because
the appellant had the opportunity to administer poison had
G the same was found in the body of the deceased, it should
be presumed that the appellant was in possession of poison,
then it has committed a serious and gross error of law and
has blatantly violated the principles laid down by this
Court. The High Court has not indicated as to what was the
basis for coming to a finding that the accused could have
H procured the cyanide. On the other hand, in view of the
BHUPINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [SHETTY, J.[ 421

decision in Ram Gopal's case failure to prove possession of
A
the cyanide poison with the accused by itself would result in
failure of the prosecution to prove its case."

This Court then went into the merits of the prosecution case. It
was observed that the deceased was of sensitive mind. She had occa-
sionally suffered mental depression due to her inability to adjust her- B
self to her husband's family. It was also observed that the deceased
tJ had access to the poison in question. She could have secured the
~· poison from the factory of her mother. Considering .these and other
circumstances, it was held "that it might be a case of suicide or murder
and both were equally probable". So the accused was given the benefit
;-t- of doubt and he was acquitted.
c
' · From the foregoing cases, it will be seen that in poison murder
cases, the accused was not acquitted solely on the failure of the pro-
secution to establish one or the other requirement which this Court has
laid down in Dharambir Singh case. We do not also find any case
where the accused was acquitted solely on the ground that the prosecu- D
tion has failed to prove that the accused had the poison in his posses-
sion. The accused in all the said cases came to be acquitted by taking
into consideration the totality of the circumstances including insuffi-
cient motive, weakness in the chain of circumstantial evidence and
likelihood of the deceased committing suicide.
E
We do not consider that there should be acquittal on the failure
of the prosecution to prove the possession of poison with the accused.
Murder by poison is invariably committed under the cover and cloak of
secrecy. Nobody will administer poison to another in the presence of
others. The person who administers poison to another in secrecy will
not keep a portion of it for the investigating officer to.come and collect F
it. The person who commits such murder would naturally take care to
eliminate and destroy the evidence against him. In such cases, it would
be impossible for the prosecution to prove possession of poison with
the accused. The prosecution may, however, establish other circumst-
ances consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
The court then would not be justified in acquitting the accused on the G
ground that the ·prosecution has failed to prove possession of the
poison with the accused.

The poison murder cases are not to be put outside the rule of
circumstantial evidence. There may be obvious very many facts and
circumstances out of which the Court may be justified in drawing H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 3 S.C.R.

A permissible inference that the accused was in possession of the poison
in question. There may be very many facts and circumstances proved
against the accused which may call for tacit assumption of the factum ·
of possession of poison with the accused. The insistence on proof of
possession of poison with the accused invariably in every case is neither
desirable nor practicable. It would mean to introduce an extraneous
B ingredient to the offence of murder by poisoning. We cannot, there-
fore, accept the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appel-
lant. The accused in a case of murder by poisoning cannot have a I
better chance of being exempted from sanctions than in other kinds of
murders. Murder by poisoning is run like any other murder. In cases
where dependence is wholly on circumstantial evidence, and direct
--
,I

C evidence not being available, the Court can legitimately draw from the
circumstances an inference on any matter one way or the other.

The view that we have taken gets support from the decision of
this Court in Ananth Chintaman Laguy v. The State of Bombay, A.LR.
1960 S.C. 500 where Hidayatullah, J., has given an anxious considera·
D lion to the three propositions laid down in Dharambir Singh case. The
learned Judge did not consider them as invariable criteria of proof to
be established by the prosecution in every case of murder by poison-
ing. The learned Judge said (at p. 519-520):

"It is now necessary to consider the arguments which have
E been advanced on behalf of the appellant. The first conten-
tion is that the essential ingr~dients required to be proved
in all cases of murder by poisoning were not proved by the
prosecution in this case. Reference in this connection is
made to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Mt.
Gajrani v. Emperor, AIR 1933 All 394 and to two unre-
F ported decisions of this Court in Chandrakant N Nyalchand
Seth v. The State of Bombay, Criminal Appeal No. 120 of
1957 decided on February 19, 1958 and Dharambir Singh v.
The State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1958, de-
cided on 4.11.1958. In these cases, the Court referred to
three propositions which the prosecution must establish in
G a case of poisoning; (a) that death took place by poisoning;
(b) that the accused had the poison in his possession, and
(c) that the accused had an opportunity to administer the
poison to the deceased. The case in Cr. A. No. 98 of 1958
DI- 4.11.1958 (SC) turned upon these three propositions.
There, the deceased had died as a result of poisoning by
H potassium cyanide, which poison was also found in ·the
BHUPINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [SHETTY, J.] 423

autopsy. The High Court had disbelieved the evidence
A
which sought to establish that the accused had obtained
potassium cyanide, hut held, nevertheless that the circum-
stantial evidence was sufficient to convict the accused in
that case. This Court, did not, however, accept the circum-
stantial evidence as complete. It is to be observed that the
three propositions were laid down not as the invariable B
criteria of proof by direct evidence in a case of murder by

- poisoning, because evidently if after poisoning the victim.
the accused destroyed all traces of the body, the first prop-
osition would be incapable of being proved except -by
circumstantial evidence. Similarly, if the accused gave a
;+
#!
victim something to eat and the victim died immediately on
the ingestion of that food with symptoms of poisoning and c
poison, in fact, was found in the viscera, the requirement of
proving that the accused was possessed of the poison would
follow from the circumstances that the accused gave the
victim something to eat and. need not be separately
proved." D

The learned Judge continued:

"The cases of this Court which were decided proceeded
upon their own facts, and though the three propositions
must be kept in mind always, the sufficiency of the evi- E
dence, direct or circumstantial, to establish murder by

- poisoning will depend on the facts of each case. If the evi-
dence in a particular case does not justify the inference that
death is the result of poisoning because of the failure of the
prosecution to prove the fact satisfactorily, either directly
or by circumstantial evidence, then the benefit of the doubt F
will have to be given to the accused person. But if circum-
stantial evidence, in the absence of direct proof of the three
elements, is so decisive that the Court can unhesitatingly
hold that the death was a result of administration of poison
(though not detected) and that the poison must have been
administered by the accused person, then the conviction G
can be rested on it."

So much for the principles for which the learned counsel for the ·
appellant fought for. On the facts there is concurrence of opinion
between the two courts below. This Court seldom re-examines the
findings of fact reached by the High Court. We may, however, out of H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1988] 3 S.C.R.
A deference to the counsel briefly refer to the evidence. The prosecution
has established the motive for the murder. The proof of motive goes a
long way to tilt the scale against the accused which provides a founda-
tional material to connect the chain of circumstances. The facts which
bear on motive are distressing. After the marriage, Gian Kaur was
subjected to repeated harassment for not satisfying the demand for
B dowry made by Bhupinder Singh. Baltej Singh (PW2) has stated that
Bhupinder Singh asked Gian Kaur to bring Rs.10,000. The parents of

-
Bhupinder Singh were also parties to that demand. Baltej Singh with
all difficulties satisfied that demand in part by payment of Rs.6,000.
Bhupinder Singh thereafter demanded a motorcycle. When that was not
immediately given Bhupinder Singh held out a threat to his wife that
C she would be killed. This was conveyed to Baltej Singh. Before he
could take a decision in this regard he was shocked to receive the news
of death of Gian Kaur. This has been proved by the testimony of
Baltej Singh (PW 2) and Nazir Singh (PW 3). The demand for dowry
followed by harassment to the deceased has been thus satisfactorily
proved.
D
The evidence of the Doctor and the report of the chemical
examiner has' established beyond doubt that Gian Kaur died of organo
phosphorus compound poisoning. Bhupinder Singh had an opportun-
ity to administer that poison. There was nobody else in the house. All
the inmates had their common food in the night. All of them slept in
E the same place. Both the Courts have ruled out the theory of suicide by
Gian Kaur. We entirely agree with thRt finding. She could not have
thrown her child to the mercy of others by committing suicide and
indeed no mother would venture to do that. The post-mortem report
giving the description of injuries found on the body of the deceased
-
would also defy all doubts ab9ut the theory of suicide. She had contu-
F sion on the front of right leg. Abrasion on the front of the left leg just
below the knee joint. Linear abrasion on the back of the right hand.
Linear abrasion on the antro-lateral aspect of left fore-arm in its mid-
dle. And contusion on the back of right elbow joint. These injuries, as
the Courts below have observed could have been caused while Gian
Kaur resisted the poison being administered to her.
G
The behaviour of Bhupinder Singh in the early hours of that ~
fateful day by going to his field as if nothing had happened to his wife
is apparently inconsistent with the normal human behaviour. There
was no attempt made by him or other inmates of the house to look out
for any Doctor to give medical attention to the victim. The movement
H and disposition of Bhupinder Singh towards the victim and situations
BHUPINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (SHETfY, J.J 425

are incompatible with his innocence. On the contrary, it gives suste- A
nance to his guilt.

The Courts below having considered all these facts and circumst-
ances had no difficulty to convict the accused for murder and we see no
. good reason to interfere with that conclusion.
• ' l
B
"'-~; In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

~'~ RS.S A-~