* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29th November, 2018
+ CRL.REV.P. 139/2018
LALIT KUMAR ORS ….. Petitioners
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ANR ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Panwar with Mr. Vikas
Walia and Mr. Suyash Sinha,
For the Respondent: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State.
Mr. Bipin Kumar Jha, Advocate.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.REV.P. 139/2018 Crl.M.A.3126/2018 (stay)
1. Petitioners impugn order on charge dated 04.01.2018, whereby,
charge has been framed against the petitioners under Section
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the
CRL.REV.P. 139/2018 Page 1 of 6
petitioners are innocent and are not liable to be charged for any
offence, he restricts his prayer to the framing of charge under Section
307 IPC as prima facie from the perusal of the record no offence
under Section 307 IPC is made out. He submits that they shall be
facing trial in the other offences.
3. Subject FIR No.526/2016 was registered under Sections
498A/506/323/34 IPC, Police Station Timar Pur on the allegations of
the wife on the petitioner No.1 (the husband) and father and mother of
the petitioner No.1, contending inter alia that they wanted to murder
4. It is alleged that the mother-in-law held her hair, father-in-law
held her legs and the husband poured poisonous liquid into her mouth.
The poisonous liquid stated was All-Out (a mosquito repellent).
5. The Trial Court, in the impugned order, has noticed the
contention of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated.
Further, it is noticed that it was the father-in-law himself, who had
taken the complainant to the hospital. Further, the Trial Court has
noticed that the FSL report has come negative and the contention of
the petitioners that the allegation that complainant had been
administered All-Out were negated by the MLC itself. After noticing
the same, the Trial Court has framed charges inter alia under section
307 IPC against all the accused.
CRL.REV.P. 139/2018 Page 2 of 6
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare reading of
the allegations do not raise any suspicion leave alone grave suspicion
insofar as the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned out. It is
contended that the complainant herself had sought to drink All-Out
and thereafter appeared to have fainted. Her father in law
apprehending that she had drunk All-Out took her to the hospital.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as the
learned APP for the State submit that the facts sufficiently show that
an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant relies on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of
U.P. Ors.: AIR 2016 SC 1160 to contend that the ocular testimony
of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical
9. MLC of the complainant, which has been filed on record,
shows that petitioner No.2 had taken the complainant to the hospital
and had informed the hospital authorities that she had consumed All-
10. Perusal of the MLC shows that there is no symptom reported in
the MLC of consumption of any poisonous substance. Further,
gastric lavage sample was taken and sent for forensic examination.
The examination report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, referred
CRL.REV.P. 139/2018 Page 3 of 6
to by the Trial Court, shows that the Forensic Science Laboratory has
opined that on Chemical, Microscopic, TLC GC-MS examination,
metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide,
alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be
detected in exhibits ‘1’ and ‘2’. The exhibits that were sent to
Forensic Science Laboratory were gastric lavage as also the Refill
Bottle of All-Out alleged to contain the poisonous substance.
11. The only allegation insofar as the offence under Section 307
IPC is concerned is that the petitioners had sought to administer All –
Out liquid to the complainant. It is on this basis that the prosecution
had filed a chargesheet contending that the petitioners had sought to
administer a poisonous substance to the complainant with the
intention of murder her and accordingly Section 307 IPC was made
12. The Forensic Science Laboratory report negates the version of
the prosecution that any poisonous substance was administered to the
complainant. The report for poisonous substance was in the negative
for the two exhibits i.e. the gastric lavage and the Refill Bottle of All-
Out alleged to contain the poisonous substance.
13. The MLC does not report that eth complainant was showing
any symptoms of poisoning. On the other hand, in front of all
parameters the word “NAD” (i.e. Nothing Abnormal Detected) is
CRL.REV.P. 139/2018 Page 4 of 6
14. Neither the medical report nor the Forensic Science Laboratory
report supports the case of the prosecution that poisonous substance
was administered to the complainant. Since the scientific evidence is
clearly against the version of the prosecutrix, no suspicion, leave
alone grave suspicion, arises against the petitioners of having
committed an offence under Section 307 IPC.
15. Further, it may be seen that in the judgment Sadhu Saran Singh
(supra), the Supreme Court has relied on a decision of the Supreme
Court in Darbara Singh vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 476,
wherein, the Supreme Court has held that unless the oral evidence
available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral
evidence would have primacy and if medical evidence make the oral
testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the
process of evaluation of such evidence.
16. As noticed above, in the present case, there were no symptoms
visible of the complainant having been administered any poisonous
substance, as may be noticed in the MLC and further the Forensic
Science Laboratory report has negated the commission of the offence
administering poison to the complainant, in my view the medical as
well as the Forensic Science Laboratory report completely contradict
the version of the prosecutrix that she was administered a poisonous
17. Since, no poisonous substance was administered to the
CRL.REV.P. 139/2018 Page 5 of 6
complainant, accordingly, it cannot be held that there was any attempt
to murder by the petitioners. Since there is no grave suspicion arising
from the facts of the case vis-à-vis the petitioners having committed
an offence under Section 307 IPC, the Trial Court has erred in
framing a charge under Section 307 IPC.
18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.01.2018 is modified
to the above extent. Trial Court shall appropriately amend the charge
and pass appropriate consequential orders.
19. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
expressed any opinion on the contentions/allegations of either side
insofar as the other offences are concerned and for which charges
have already been framed by the Court.
20. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
21. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
NOVEMBER 29, 2018
CRL.REV.P. 139/2018 Page 6 of 6