Gujarat High Court Overturns Life Sentence in Poisoning Case Due to Evidence Deficiencies
The Gujarat High Court has acquitted a man previously sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly poisoning his friends during a birthday party, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish crucial aspects of the case, including the source of the poisonous substance used.
Case Background and Prosecution Arguments
Kamal Kishor, also known as Raju Yadav, was convicted by a Gandhinagar sessions court in November 2012 for the death of one friend and the poisoning of two others. The prosecution argued that Yadav harbored a grudge over his sister's relationship with a man named Gaurang Prajapati. According to their case, Yadav invited three friends to what he described as a "long-pending birthday party" and served them snacks laced with aconite poison after they refused to help him eliminate Prajapati.
Key Evidentiary Failures Noted by the Court
A Division Bench comprising Justice I J Vora and Justice R T Vachhani highlighted significant contradictions in the evidence presented. The post-mortem report indicated death due to aconite poisoning, but the doctor who conducted the autopsy admitted in testimony that aconite poison is not available in Gujarat and is typically found in the Himalayas. Furthermore, laboratory tests ruled out the presence of aconite in the samples analyzed.
The court also noted that a police sub-inspector was sent to Uttar Pradesh to investigate an Ayurvedic shop from which Yadav allegedly procured the poison. However, the statement from the shop owner was not included in the chargesheet, undermining the prosecution's claim about the source of the substance.
Contradictions in Testimony and Motive
The judgment pointed out inconsistencies in witness testimonies. One surviving friend claimed that the deceased had informed Yadav about his sister's relationship, which angered him. In contrast, Gaurang Prajapati testified that he and Yadav's sister had registered a court marriage in October 2011, divorcing shortly after due to family disapproval. This occurred about five months before the crime, casting doubt on the prosecution's establishment of motive.
Additionally, there were discrepancies regarding the timing of when Yadav purchased the snacks, further weakening the case against him.
Court's Ruling and Legal Principles
After hearing arguments from Yadav's advocate, P P Majmudar, and Assistant Public Prosecutor J K Shah, the court emphasized that circumstances leading to a conviction must be fully proved and conclusive. The bench stated, "The prosecution does not get support from the evidence recorded by the learned Sessions Court," and acquitted Yadav due to gaps in the chain of evidence and unresolved contradictions.
This ruling underscores the importance of robust evidence in criminal cases, particularly regarding the procurement and presence of alleged poisons, and highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring justice based on factual accuracy.
