The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to three years in prison for allegedly trying to murder his wife by forcing household insecticide down her throat, citing a lack of medical evidence and unreliable testimony.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav granted the man the benefit of doubt in an August 24 judgment, overturning an April 2004 trial court verdict. The high court ruled that while the couple experienced severe marital friction, the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the husband forcibly administered the chemical agent with intent to kill.
Lack of Medical Evidence
In its decision, the high court emphasized that the prosecution submitted no medical records indicating symptoms typically caused by toxic insecticide ingestion, such as breathing difficulties, tremors, coughing, or loss of consciousness.
The court noted that while friction between the spouses was clear from witness testimonies, proving the existence of domestic disputes was insufficient to establish an attempt to murder. Describing the evidence against the accused as shaky, the bench concluded that upholding the conviction would be unsafe.
Case Background and Lower Court Verdict
The criminal proceedings stemmed from an incident on April 20, 2001, approximately one year after the couple wed on March 5, 2000. According to the wife’s account in the initial police report, her husband attempted to force Baygon spray into her mouth using a tumbler. When that failed, she alleged he forced the repellent directly from its container into her mouth.
Police subsequently arrested the man and his mother, filing charges of cruelty and attempted murder against both. On April 5, 2004, the trial court acquitted both defendants of cruelty charges. However, the trial judge convicted the husband of attempted murder, imposing a three-year rigorous imprisonment sentence alongside a fine of Rs 5,000.
Defense Claims and State Response
Appealing the conviction, defense counsel Sanjay Suri, Vinny Shangloo, and Rishabh Ratan contended that the charges were fabricated. The defense argued that the dispute arose because the wife wanted to live independently from her mother-in-law and demanded a share in property held in the husband’s name. They further alleged that the case was engineered by the woman’s father, who served as a police officer, suggesting she may have ingested or feigned ingesting the substance herself to frame her husband.
Opposing the appeal, state advocate Satinder Singh Bawa argued that the trial court ruling was legally sound and that the testimony provided by the wife was entirely credible.
Judicial Remarks on Marriage
Addressing the context of the dispute, the high court observed that matrimonial bonds depend heavily on mutual trust and communication, warning that unresolved personal conflicts can rapidly transform a supportive partnership into a hostile one. The court added that unrest between spouses carries broader consequences, impacting not only the immediate family unit but society as a whole.
