Even If Accused Had No Motive, Knowledge That ‘Tari’ Is Injurious Suffices For Conviction: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction In Poisoning Case
In a pivotal ruling, the Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction of Prasad Ray @ Roy, under sections 304(Part II) and 328 of the Indian Penal Code, for the administration of poisoned alcohol which resulted in one death and several hospitalizations. The court declared, “Even if the accused Prasad Roy had apparently no motive or intention to cause death… but he has knowledge that ‘tari’ is injurious to health and even cause death.”
Legal Context and Origin: Prasad Ray was initially convicted by the Sessions Court in Malda for causing death by administering poisoned alcohol and for causing hurt by means of poison, which led to his appeal in the High Court. His conviction entailed a seven-year sentence under Section 304 (Part II) and a six-year sentence under Section 328, with both sentences to run concurrently.
Facts and Issues: On November 22, 2004, Ray invited several individuals, including the deceased Jagadish Mandal, to consume ‘Tari’ (a form of local alcoholic brew) at his residence. Shortly after consumption, Mandal and others exhibited severe symptoms of poisoning and were rushed to Chanchal Hospital, where Mandal was declared dead at the entrance. Subsequent medical investigations confirmed the presence of a toxic pesticide, Endosulfan, in the victims’ systems.
Court’s Assessment:
Credibility of Evidence: The court reviewed extensive testimonial evidence from the surviving victims and medical reports confirming the symptoms consistent with poisoning. The High Court, citing key medical findings, validated that the cause of death was Endosulfan poisoning.
Legal Principles Invoked: The Court emphasized that the non-requirement of motive in cases where the accused knowingly administered a poisonous substance. This aligns with precedents that specify the administration of poison, with knowledge of its effects, suffices for conviction under Section 304 Part II.
Comparison with Precedents: The High Court referenced the landmark judgment in State of Bihar vs. Ramnath Prasad & Ors, noting that knowledge of the lethality of the administered substance, irrespective of the motive, constitutes sufficient grounds for conviction under the aforementioned sections of the IPC.
Decision: Upholding the Sessions Court’s verdict, the High Court modified the sentence to five years of imprisonment for both charges, maintaining that the sentences will run concurrently.
Conclusion: The court’s decision underscores the principle that the knowledge of harm, regardless of direct motive, is a critical factor in determining culpability in cases involving the administration of harmful substances.
Date of Decision: April 29, 2024
Prasad Ray @ Roy Vs The State of West Bengal
