Case: Mohan And Ors Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh

2. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge of Budaun for the murder of one Ram Bharosey onby giving him "peras" (sweets) containing arsenic, to eat, and sentenced to death. On appeal the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court at Allahabad. The appellant has now appealed to this Court with special leave.3. Ram Bharosey was the cousin of the appellant. About noon onRam Bharosey went to his field to graze cattle. His sister Chameli followed him a little later. On reaching the field Chameli took charge of the cattle and Ram Bharosey began to scrape grass. Sometime in the afternoon the appellant came to Ram Bharosey in the field from the side of the river Ganga and told him that he had brought "prashad" of Gangaji and gave him three "peras" to eat. Ram Bharosey took the three "peras". This took place in the presence of Chameli. One Bikram who was grazing cattle nearby, also saw the appellant giving "peras" to Ram Bharosey. Both Chameli and Bikram asked the appellant for "prashad" for themselves but the appellant told them that he had no more "prashad" to give. Thereafter, the appellant went away in the direction of his own house. Half an hour later, Ram Bharosey began to feel unwell. He had nausea, pain in body and giddiness. He then asked his sister to take him home. Bikram also came to Ram Bharosey when he complained of feeling unwell and to him Ram Bharosey said that he had become sick since eating the "peras" given by the appellant and that he thought that the appellant had given him poison. Ram Bharoseys illness grew worse when he came home and a number of neighbours came to see him, and to some of them he said that he had become ill after taking the "peras" given by the appellant and that he though that the appellant had put poison in them. Ram Bharosey died about dusk.4. Ram Bharoseys father. Thakuri, who was away from home arrived next morning and lodged information at the police station. Investigation ensued and aexamination of the body of Ram Bharosey was held. Thedid not disclose any cause as to death. The viscera of Ram Bharosey was however sent to the Chemical Examiner and he found over twenty eight grains of arsenic in it. That was much more than what is sufficient to kill a normally healthy person and both the Courts below have found that the arsenic had killed Ram Bharosey.

Reasoning: 5. It also appears from the evidence which was accepted by the Courts below, that before leaving for the field Ram Bharosey and Chameli had both partaken of the same food which was prepared by Chameli, and after taking the food Ram Bharosey had preceded Chameli to the field. It further appears from the evidence that after taking the "peras" given by the appellant Ram Bharosey had taken no otherdid not understand the learned advocate to challenge this finding. Now, it seems to us that if there was arsenic in the "peras" which the appellant gave to Ram Bharosey, it inevitably follows that the appellant was in possession of arsenic before he gave them to Ram Bharosey. Therefore, in our view, the second proposition mentioned in Dharamabir Singhs case, Cri App. No. 98 of 1958 (SC) on which the learned advocate for the appellant relies, is satisfied in the presentthe present case, we have direct evidence that the "peras" were given by the appellant to Ram Bharose and the only reasonable conclusion is that those "peras" contained arsenic which caused the death of Ramis enough for us to say in regard to this contention that no question had been put to any witness to elicit what symptoms would appear in a case of arsenic poisoning. The medical evidence is clear that death was due to arsenic poisoning. That evidence was accepted by the Courts below. We cannot allow that point to be recanvassedwe have to point out that this aspect of the matter was not put to any witness and does not appear to have been raised in the Courts below. We are therefore not prepared to allow it to be canvassed before us. Furthermore, if death from arsenic could occur at any time afterfortyfive minutes and beforehours from its administration, death occurring within two hours of the administration of a drug may well be due to arsenic poisoning.13. Lastly, the learned advocate pointed out that there was evidence that on Jagan had beaten Ram Bharosey and his father Thakuri a few days beforeAccording to him, this proved that there was enmity between Jagan and the deceased and therefore it might have been Jagan who had administered the poison. The same suggestion had been made in the Courts below and rejected. The point raised is purely a point of fact and we do not propose to go into it. We are quite satisfied that this point was rightly decided against the appellant in the Courts below.