Delhi High Court Acquits Man in 2001 Baygon Poisoning Case

The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man who was sentenced to three years in prison for allegedly attempting to kill his wife by pouring Baygon insecticide into her mouth, ruling that the prosecution failed to produce cogent evidence.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav set aside the conviction of Nafe Singh, observing that it was highly unsafe to act upon the shaky evidence presented by the prosecution. Granting Singh the benefit of the doubt, the court noted that the prosecution had failed to establish the requisite intention and knowledge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

Delivering the verdict on August 24, the high court observed that the institution of marriage is paradoxical and can swing between extremes if issues between spouses are left unaddressed. The court noted that one of the most beautiful human relationships can turn into one of the most terrible when things go wrong in a matrimonial alliance.

The bench stated that the best can quickly become the worst if not handled carefully, adding that the better-half becomes the bitter-half if disputes are not resolved promptly. While acknowledging that time often acts as a healer, the court noted that delay in addressing relationship troubles can also be counterproductive and transform bonds into conflict zones marked by physical violence.

According to the prosecution, Singh married the woman in 2000, but their marital relationship deteriorated within a year. During a matrimonial dispute in 2001, Singh allegedly attempted to force his wife to drink Baygon insecticide from a tumbler. When that attempt failed, he was accused of pouring the chemical directly into her throat from the container.

Following the incident, a First Information Report was registered against Singh and his mother. While the trial court previously acquitted his mother, it convicted Singh of attempt to murder and sentenced him to three years in prison.

Singh challenged the trial court judgment before the high court, denying the allegations. He maintained that the dispute arose from his wife's demand that they live separately, away from his widowed mother.

Allowing the appeal, the high court held that the evidence brought on record was insufficient to sustain the conviction.