No Killer Would Keep Leftover Poison For Police To Discover After Months: J&K High Court Overturns Conviction in 20-Yr-Old Murder Case

"A person who administers poison to kill a person will not keep the leftover poison, if any, with him for months together and wait for the police to come and recover it from him," observed the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, as it overturned the conviction of Mohd. Shafi in a two-decade-old murder case.The bench, comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, thus set aside the life imprisonment sentence imposed on Shafi for the alleged murder of his two-year-old son in 2013.“.. it is difficult for us to believe the prosecution story that the appellant administered poison to the child, which he had brought in a small Nuvan bottle and that after administering the poison, the appellant kept the bottle with left over poison hidden in the fields, which the prosecution recovered after more than one month of the occurrence”,the court remarked. The case dates back to October 30, 2013, when Mohd. Shafi's two-year-old son, Mohd. Suleiman, died under suspicious circumstances at their home in Indh, Ramban district. The police, upon receiving information about the child's death, initiated inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). The postmortem report revealed that the child had died due to the consumption of organophosphorus insecticide (Nuvan), a poisonous substance. The child's mother, Rubina Begum, later accused Shafi of administering the poison to their son, leading to his death.Shafi was arrested and charged under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) for murder. The trial court convicted him on August 16, 2023, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000. Appealing against his conviction Shafi's counsel, Mr. Imtiaz Mir, argued that the prosecution's case was based on insufficient and contradictory evidence. He pointed out that most of the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and did not support the case. The sole testimony of Rubina Begum, the child's mother, was inconsistent and unreliable, as her statements before the inquest officer, investigating officer, and trial court varied significantly.On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Deputy Advocate General, contended that the evidence, including the postmortem report and chemical analysis, conclusively proved that the child died due to poisoning. The prosecution argued that Shafi had a motive to kill his son, as his relationship with his wife was strained due to his desire to contract a second marriage.The Court meticulously examined the evidence and found several gaps in the prosecution's case. The bench observed that there was no direct evidence linking Shafi to the crime. The prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a Nuvan bottle allegedly containing leftover poison. However, the court noted that the recovery of the bottle was not proven beyond doubt, as the witnesses to the recovery had resiled from their statements and denied any knowledge of the bottle being recovered at Shafi's instance.The court also highlighted the inconsistencies in Rubina Begum's testimony. While she claimed to have seen Shafi hiding a Nuvan bottle in his pocket, she did not disclose this to anyone immediately after the incident. Her statements were recorded 21 days after the occurrence, and her version before the trial court differed significantly from her earlier statements. The court found her testimony unreliable and insufficient to convict Shafi. “The witness has made several improvements while making her deposition before the trial Court, which runs counter to what she stated before the Magistrate in her deposition under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. If we discord the testimony of PW-8 Rubina Begum, the entire case of the prosecution falls flat on the ground”, the court underscored. The bench further observed that the prosecution failed to establish a strong motive for Shafi to kill his son. While the strained relationship between Shafi and his wife was acknowledged, the court noted that the motive could also be interpreted as a reason for Rubina Begum to falsely implicate Shafi. The court emphasized that the prosecution's case lacked a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, which is essential to convict an accused in the absence of direct evidence.Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1988 SC 1011), the court reiterated that murder by poison is usually committed in secrecy, and a person who administers poison would not keep leftover poison for months, waiting for the police to recover it. The court found it implausible that Shafi would have kept the Nuvan bottle hidden for over a month, only for it to be recovered later.The court also referred to the principles laid down in Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622), which outline the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence. The bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish ...

No Killer Would Keep Leftover Poison For Police To Discover After Months: J&K High Court Overturns Conviction in 20-Yr-Old Murder Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

No Killer Would Keep Leftover Poison For Police To Discover After Months: J&K High Court Overturns Conviction in 20-Yr-Old Murder Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers