Bread Laced With Poison Administered by Fellow Prisoners—Not Proven Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Acquits Life Convicts in Jail Poisoning Case

“No Motive, No Forensics, No Prompt FIR — Only a Story Wrapped in Suspicion” — Allahabad High Court delivered a landmark judgment acquitting two undertrial prisoners who had been convicted of triple murder in a shocking custodial poisoning case. The Court decisively held that “reasonable doubt looms large over the prosecution’s version” and set aside the 2016 life sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, Ghazipur.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh observed that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 302 and 328 IPC. The case arose from the alleged poisoning of four inmates inside Ghazipur jail using ‘Pepsi’ mixed with a toxic substance, which led to the deaths of Wasim Ahmad, Ram Bachan Yadav, and Guddu @ Raj Kumar, while one prisoner, Surendra Yadav, survived.

“FIR Lodged by the Jail Superintendent Two Days Later Without Any Explanation — A Breach of Mandatory Duties Under Jail Manual”

The Court’s attention was drawn to a critical delay in the lodging of the FIR. The incident allegedly took place on 21 June 2010, but the FIR was lodged on 23 June 2010, by Brijesh Chandra Yadav, the Jail Superintendent.

The Court stated, “It is unexplainable that a Jail Superintendent, entrusted with safeguarding the lives of inmates, failed to promptly report the unnatural deaths of prisoners. Such delay is not just procedural; it is a direct violation of his statutory duty under the Jail Manual.”

Referring to Rules 608 and 894 of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, the Court observed:

“On the death of a prisoner, the Superintendent shall give information to higher authorities, the National Human Rights Commission, and the District Magistrate…”

By not doing so, the Court remarked, “the Jail Superintendent has failed in compliance with mandatory obligations.”

“Delay in FIR Is Not Just a Technicality—It Is the First Crack in the Prosecution’s Credibility”

The Court cited the Supreme Court’s binding precedents in Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2016) 9 SCC 1 and Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393, reiterating:

“Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought… the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story.”

The High Court found that such a delay by the Jail Superintendent—despite holding an administrative office—was fatal, especially when two prisoners had already died by the time he reported the matter.

“Pepsi Bottle with Poison—Recovered or Planted? Even Jail Superintendent Disputes the Recovery Memo”

The central piece of prosecution’s physical evidence—the Pepsi bottle allegedly used to poison inmates—was itself cast into doubt.

Though Sub-Inspector D.P. Singh (PW-10) claimed he recovered the bottle on 21 June 2010, the complainant himself, Jail Superintendent Brijesh Chandra Yadav (PW-2), categorically denied that any such recovery occurred in his presence.

The Court noted: “Either the recovery memo is to be doubted, or the testimony of the complainant himself under oath is to be rejected. In either case, the foundation of the prosecution collapses.”

Even more damning was the fact that no chemical analysis report was produced to confirm poison in the Pepsi or bread.

“Speaking Loudly While Preparing to Murder? Human Conduct Does Not Work That Way” — Eyewitness Testimony Fails the Test of Credibility

The entire case of the prosecution turned on the alleged eyewitness Ritesh Singh (PW-3), who claimed that he saw accused Ram Singh and Surendra Yadav mixing poison in bread before serving it to the victims.

However, the Court sharply questioned the plausibility of such conduct:

“It is very unusual and uncommon that prisoners preparing to commit such a heinous offence would discuss or perform the act in a loud voice heard by all nearby prisoners. Such narration violates the norms of human behaviour, especially inside a jail where secrecy is paramount for any covert act.”

The Court found that Ritesh Singh’s testimony was not only unnatural but also unsupported by other witnesses, who either turned hostile or gave contradictory statements.

“Prisoners Do Not Privately Serve Bread in Jail—Food Distribution Has a Fixed Time and System” — Testimony Contradicts Jail Practices

Another significant point of doubt was the narrative that accused prisoners privately served poisoned bread and Pepsi in the jail premises. The Court expressed serious reservations:

“The general practice in jails is to provide breakfast, lunch and dinner at fixed times and from central sources. It is inconceivable that one group of inmates could serve food to another in such a controlled environment without detection or breach of protocol.”

The Bench held that such a version defied the standard operational procedure in jails and further weakened the prosecution case.

“Where Is the Motive? No Animosity, No Cause, No Explanation” — Absence of Motive Breaks the Chain

The prosecution offered no motive for why the accused would want to poison fellow inmates. The Court observed:

“No iota of evidence exists on record that may create any basis that there was animosity between the accused and the deceased. In absence of any such evidence… the prosecution story becomes more doubtful.”

The High Court stressed that while motive is not always necessary for conviction, its complete absence—coupled with unreliable evidence and procedural lapses—destroys the prosecution’s case.

“Benefit of Doubt Is Not Charity—It Is a Legal Mandate When Prosecution Fails” — High Court Sets Aside Conviction

The Allahabad High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence presented did not inspire confidence in a criminal trial involving the most serious charge—murder.

The Bench held: “The narration made by the sole eyewitness appears contrary to jail practices. The delay in FIR, lack of motive, conflicting witness statements, and absence of forensic confirmation together create a web of reasonable doubt. In such a case, the accused must be acquitted.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Sessions Court conviction, and acquitted both Ram Singh @ Ram Singha @ Ram Singhwa and Surendra Yadav, granting them the benefit of doubt.

Date of Judgment: 16 October 2025