Archive · 25 Aug 2026
Delhi High Court Frees Man in Baygon Poisoning Case
A man was accused of forcing his wife to swallow Baygon insecticide after an argument.
The wife reported the incident to police in 2001.
A lower court later found the man guilty of trying to murder her.
He appealed that decision to the Delhi High Court.
The High Court said the couple clearly had serious marital problems.
However, it found that medical records did not show the symptoms expected from severe insecticide poisoning.
The court also said there was not enough reliable evidence to prove that the man had forced her to drink the spray.
Because of this doubt, the High Court acquitted him.
The Delhi High Court acquitted a man convicted of trying to murder his wife with Baygon spray.
The wife alleged that he forcibly poured insecticide into her mouth after a marital argument in April 2001.
A trial court convicted him in April 2004 and imposed three years of rigorous imprisonment plus a Rs 5,000 fine.
The High Court found no medical evidence showing symptoms ordinarily associated with severe insecticide ingestion.
The court ruled that the evidence was shaky and did not prove forcible administration or murderous intent beyond reasonable doubt.
- Who
- The Delhi High Court, Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav, and a man accused by his wife of forcing her to consume Baygon spray.
- What
- The High Court overturned the man’s conviction for attempting to murder his wife and held that the allegation was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- When
- The alleged incident occurred on April 20, 2001; the trial court convicted the man on April 5, 2004; the High Court ruling was issued on August 24, with the year not stated in the article.
- Where
- Delhi, India.
- Why
- The court found the evidence unreliable and noted that medical records did not establish symptoms ordinarily associated with severe insecticide ingestion.
Defense and High Court reasoning
Prosecution’s position
Reliability of the allegation
Defense and High Court reasoning
The defense argued that the wife’s statement was the only significant evidence and that the case was a false implication linked to marital and family disputes.
Prosecution’s position
The state argued that there was no reason to disbelieve the wife’s statement and that the trial court’s judgment was supported by the facts and law.
Medical evidence
Defense and High Court reasoning
The defense said the medical record did not support poisoning and argued that serious insecticide ingestion would ordinarily produce symptoms such as breathing difficulty, coughing, stupor or tremors.
Prosecution’s position
The prosecution maintained that the trial court’s conviction should stand, without accepting the defense’s interpretation of the medical evidence.
Standard of proof
Defense and High Court reasoning
The High Court held that the evidence was shaky and that the prosecution had not proved forcible administration or the required intent for attempted murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecution’s position
The trial court had previously convicted the man of attempting to murder his wife and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Judge
- Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav
- Marriage date
- March 5, 2000
- Alleged incident
- April 20, 2001
- Trial conviction
- April 5, 2004
- Original sentence
- Three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 5,000 fine
- Key finding
- The prosecution did not prove forcible Baygon administration beyond reasonable doubt