Mohan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 5 November, 1959

Coram: S.K. Das, A.K. Sarkar, M. Hidayatullah

The case of Mohan versus State of Uttar Pradesh was reported on 5 November 1959 by the Supreme Court of India. The judgment was authored by Justice A.K. Sarkar, with Judges S.K. Das, A.K. Sarkar, and M. Hidayatullah on the bench. Justice A.K. Sarkar opened his opinion by stating that the appeal before the Court was entirely without substance. The appellant had been tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge of Budaun for the murder of his cousin, Ram Bharosey, which occurred on 15-November-1957. The conviction was based on the allegation that the appellant had given Ram Bharosey “peras” (sweets) that contained arsenic, causing his death, and the Sessions Judge had sentenced the appellant to death. The High Court at Allahabad affirmed both the conviction and the death sentence on appeal. The appellant subsequently sought special leave to appeal to this Court. The factual background, as recorded, indicated that on the afternoon of 15-November-1957 Ram Bharosey went to his field to graze cattle, followed shortly by his sister, Chameli, who took charge of the cattle while Ram Bharosey scraped grass. Later that day the appellant approached Ram Bharosey from the bank of the river Ganga, claimed to have brought “prashad” of Gangaji, and offered him three “peras” to eat. Chameli and a nearby cattle-grazing labourer named Bikram witnessed the appellant handing the sweets to Ram Bharosey. Both Chameli and Bikram asked the appellant for “prashad” for themselves, but he replied that he had none left, and then he left the scene heading toward his own house. Approximately half an hour later Ram Bharosey began to feel unwell, experiencing nausea, bodily pain, and giddiness. He asked his sister to take him home. Bikram, upon seeing Ram Bharosey’s distress, learned that Ram Bharosey believed he had become sick after eating the “peras” given by the appellant and suspected that the sweets had been laced with poison. Ram Bharosey’s condition deteriorated further after reaching home, and several neighbours who came to see him heard him repeat that he thought the appellant had poisoned the sweets. Ram Bharosey died at dusk on the same day.

The following morning Ram Bharosey’s father, Thakuri, who had been away, arrived at the house and lodged an information report at the police station. Police investigations were undertaken, and a post-mortem examination of the deceased’s body was ordered. The post-mortem report did not determine a definitive cause of death, but the viscera were forwarded to the Chemical Examiner. The examiner discovered more than twenty-eight grains of arsenic in the viscera, an amount considered more than sufficient to kill a normally healthy adult. Both the Sessions Court and the High Court concluded that the arsenic had caused Ram Bharosey’s death. Evidence accepted by the lower courts also showed that prior to going to the field, Ram Bharosey and Chameli had eaten the same food prepared by Chameli, and after receiving the “peras” from the appellant Ram Bharosey ate no further food. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had developed an illicit attachment to Ram Bharosey’s wife, suggesting that this motive led him to poison the “peras” in order to eliminate Ram Bharosey. On the basis of the foregoing evidence, both the Sessions Judge and the High Court found the appellant guilty of murder by administering poison contained in the “peras.” The appellant’s counsel argued on behalf of the appellant that the conviction was legally erroneous, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dharambir Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1958, wherein the Court had discussed questions arising in cases of murder by poisoning.

It was established that both Ram Bharosey and Chameli ate the same food that Chameli had prepared, and after finishing that meal Ram Bharosey proceeded ahead of Chameli to the field. The record further shows that, after receiving the “peras” from the appellant, Ram Bharosey did not consume any other food. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had formed an illicit attachment to Ram Bharosey’s wife and that this illicit affection provided the motive for the appellant to lace the “peras” with poison, intending to eliminate Ram Bharosey. Relying on the material presented, the lower courts concluded that the appellant was guilty of murder for administering poison contained in the “peras” to Ram Bharosey. The appellant’s counsel argued that the conviction was legally unsound, invoking the Supreme Court decision in Dharambir Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1958, a case concerning murder by poisoning. That precedent set out three essential inquiries: first, whether the deceased died from the poison alleged; second, whether the accused possessed the poison; and third, whether the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison, noting that the prosecution must prove the poison caused death, that the accused had the poison, and that the accused could administer it. The counsel contended that, in the present matter, the second element—proof that the appellant possessed the poison—remained unestablished. The court rejected this contention as wholly unfounded. Evidence demonstrated that the appellant handed the “peras” to Ram Bharosey, after which Ram Bharosey became ill within half an hour and died within two hours. It was also evident that the food Ram Bharosey had consumed earlier, before noon, contained no arsenic or any other poison, a fact supported by the observation that Chameli ate the same food and suffered no adverse effects. No evidence showed that Ram Bharosey ate any other food in the field apart from the “peras” supplied by the appellant. The chemical examination conclusively reported arsenic poisoning as the cause of death. Accordingly, the lower courts unequivocally found arsenic in the “peras” given by the appellant, a finding the appellant’s counsel did not dispute. Consequently, the presence of arsenic in the “peras” logically indicated that the appellant possessed arsenic before he handed the “peras” to Ram Bharosey, thereby satisfying the second element articulated in Dharambir Singh.

In this appeal the Court considered the argument that the appellant could not be held liable because there was no proof that he possessed arsenic before handing the “peras” to Ram Bharosey. The Court observed that, as previously noted, the appellant’s act of giving the “peras” to Ram Bharosey necessarily implies that the arsenic was already in the appellant’s possession at the time of that delivery. Accordingly, the second proposition articulated in Dharambir Singh’s case, Criminal Appeal No 98 of 1958, which the appellant’s counsel relied upon, is satisfied in the present matter. The Court, however, pointed out that Dharambir Singh’s case is distinguishable from the case at hand. In Dharambir Singh there was no direct proof that the accused had provided any food to the deceased; the issue there was whether, on the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable inference could be drawn that the accused had supplied poison. By contrast, in the present case there is direct evidence that the appellant himself handed the “peras” to Ram Bharosey, and the only reasonable conclusion from that fact is that the “peras” contained arsenic which caused the victim’s death. The appellant’s counsel further contended that there were no signs of corrosion in the stomach, no bluish discoloration of the nails, and no other symptom typically associated with arsenic poisoning. The Court responded that no witness had been examined on the specific symptoms of arsenic poisoning, and that the medical evidence on record clearly established death by arsenic, a conclusion that had been accepted by the lower courts. Consequently, that point could not be reopened. The counsel then cited medical jurisprudence textbooks, arguing that death from arsenic occurs between forty-five minutes and twenty-four hours after ingestion, and that because death in this case occurred in less than two hours it could not have been due to arsenic. The Court noted that this argument had never been put to any witness and was not raised before the lower tribunals; therefore it would not be entertained now. Moreover, even if death may occur any time after forty-five minutes and before twenty-four hours, a death within two hours is fully compatible with arsenic poisoning. Finally, the appellant’s counsel suggested that an earlier assault by a person named Jagan on Ram Bharosey and his father Thakuri, which had taken place a few days before 15-11-1957, indicated a possible motive for Jagan to have administered the poison. The lower courts had already considered and rejected this suggestion, and the Court described the matter as a pure factual issue that had been properly decided. Satisfied that the lower courts’ findings were correct, the Court concluded by dismissing the appeal.