Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court has cleared charges of a person accused in a case dating back two decades, related to suspected liquor poisoning resulting in a man's death, has been in the matter of Hariprasad @Kishan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh.

What is the Background of the Hariprasad @Kishan Sahu v. State of State of Chhattisgarh Case?

• Bisahu Singh (deceased) went to the forest one evening in July 2003 to collect wood.
  • He was found in a semi-conscious state the next morning.
• The deceased asserted that Hariprasad (appellant-accused) compelled him to ingest liquor and added herbs to the mixture in incoherent speech.
• Considering his falling health, his wife took him to the hospital where he died during treatment in 2003.
• A First Information Report (FIR) was filed in this regard in November 2004 after the chemical examiner gave his report.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant, and the decision was upheld by the High Court.
• Hence, an appeal was made to the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court found that the delay was caused by the Chemical Examiner, which took 1 year to submit the report of the chemical examination of the viscera of the deceased.
• The Court further took note of the landmark case:
  • Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), SC stated that the elements to be demonstrated in cases of murder by poison, it is crucial to emphasize the necessity of establishing:
  • A distinct motive.
  • Confirming the cause of death as poison.
  • Demonstrating the accused's possession of the poison.
  • Affirming the opportunity to administer the substance.
• Furthermore, the Court stated that the Trial Court and High Court neglected to provide the accused with the chemical examination report during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the court thereby overturned the conviction.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

• Section 313 - Power to examine the accused -

(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court—

(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;

(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).

(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1).

(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.

(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.

(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.