Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 154

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
CHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARAN – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CB CID AND ANOTHER – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1193 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.253 OF 2019 (@SLP (CRL.) NO. 2306 OF 2011)
Decided On : 12-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raj Kamal, AOR Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Naveenraj, Adv. Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, AOR Mr. Nithin Saravanan, Adv. Mr. Gajapathy Krishnan, Adv. Ms. Arunima Singh, Adv. Ms. Priyadarshini, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-I, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
In a case based on circumstantial evidence it is always better for courts to deal with each circumstance separately and then link circumstances which have been proved to arrive at a conclusion.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 120B – Murder and conspiracy – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – In a case based on circumstantial evidence it is always better for courts to deal with each circumstance separately and then link circumstances which have been proved to arrive at a conclusion – Though a reference has been made to some circumstances, circumstances have not been discussed separately – It was not the accused who had organised trip but it was deceased who had organised trip – Therefore, it cannot be said that accused had taken deceased to guest house with intention of killing him – This assumption by both courts below is based on no evidence – No recoveries of any ampoules or syringe have been made from accused or at their instance to connect them with offence – Prosecution, by means of medical evidence, has failed to link accused with death of deceased – Prosecution has failed to prove exact time of death of deceased – Though it stands proved that deceased died due to overdose of drug, prosecution has miserably failed to link accused with death of deceased – Doctor, who conducted post-mortem has not given any approximate time of death of deceased which could have helped us in the matter – Circumstances proved cannot lead to inference that it is accused alone who committed the offence. In fact, the prosecution has even failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that death is homicidal in view of inconsistencies in medical evidence – Accused-appellants acquitted. (Paras 13 to 16)
       Facts of Case:
       Murder case. After filing of private complaint, metropolitan magistrate recorded statements of seven witnesses and found sufficient grounds for proceeding with case under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, case was committed to Court of Sessions and charges were framed against accused who pleaded not guilty. Evidence of witnesses were recorded. Accused also examined four witnesses. Trial court convicted accused for having committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved, accused filed two separate criminal appeals which have been dismissed. Hence, present appeals.
       Findings of Court:
       Prosecution, by means of medical evidence, has failed to link accused with death of deceased. Prosecution has failed to prove exact time of death of deceased. Deceased was first injected an injection between 9.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.. As per doctor, effect of this could end in about six hours. Therefore, possibility of deceased getting up himself in middle of night to inject himself cannot be ruled out. There is also possibility of his calling some other person to inject him with drug. Even more importantly, prosecution has failed to prove where balance 36 ml of drug came from. There is no evidence that accused purchased this drug. No recovery has been made from them and, therefore, we are of the view that though it stands proved that deceased died due to overdose of drug, prosecution has miserably failed to link accused with death of deceased.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2306 of 2011.

2. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.

3. The undisputed facts are that the deceased Arun was a friend of accused Siva @ Sivaprakash, Accused No. 1. The deceased along with Accused No. 1 and Chandru @ Chandrasekaran, Accused No. 2, travelled to Chennai on 30.10.2004. They went to Meena Guest House, run by M. Sheik Davood (PW-3) at about 9 p.m. where room no. 203 was allotted to them. At about 9.30 p.m. Venkatesh @ Venki came to the room. Venki injected 4 ml of Tidijesic drug into the left wrist of deceased Arun. Venki also used 2 ml drug for himself. Thereafter, Venki left the guest house. Next morning i.e. on 31.10.2004, the two appellants herein called Venki since Arun did not get up. The room boy of the lodge viz., Sankar (PW-4) complained to the Manager of the lodge that a lot of people were coming into room no. 203. It was found that Arun was dead. Thereafter, Iqbal (PW-2), working as Manager in the company owned by father of the deceased Arun and Ponsekar (PW-1), maternal uncle of the deceased came to the room.

4. PW-1 filed a complaint on 31.10.2004 at 9.45 a.m., in which he stated that his nephew Arun was earlier studying in an engineering college at Chennai. However, he was not studying properly and had developed some bad habits and, therefore, he was shifted to a college at Thoothukudi. The relevant portion of the complaint is to the effect that on 31.10.2004 at about 7.30 a.m. he had received a call from Iqbal (PW-2) informing him that his nephew Arun, who stayed the night in Room No. 203 of Meena Guest House had consumed heavy dose of a drug through injection and is unconscious. He immediately went to the guest house where he found that his nephew was dead. He thereafter went to Triplicane Police Station and lodged the report.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid report a case being Crime No. 1150 of 2004, was registered. The body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. Dr. A.N. Shanmugham (PW-6) conducted the post-mortem. He stated that he could not say with certainty what was the cause of death but it was possible by drug injection. Venki was arrested in connection with the said crime and he allegedly made a confessional statement to the police on 08.11.2004 which led to the discovery of Tidijesic syringe, empty ampoules, unused Tidijesic ampoule etc.. PW-1, the maternal uncle of the deceased, filed a petition in the High Court of Madras in February, 2005 seeking transfer of the investigation to some other agency since he was not happy with the manner in which the case was being investigated. The High Court vide order dated 28.02.2005 transferred the investigation to the CB CID, Tamil Nadu. There were three suspects before the police viz., Venkatesh @ Venki, Sivaprakash @ Siva and Chandrasekaran @ Chandru. All three were subjected to Polygraph, Brain mapping and Narcoanalysis tests at a Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the Investigating Officer (DW-4), who carried the investigation, the two appellants herein cleared the said tests and there was no suspicion against them since they disclosed no signs of deception. However, during the tests, Venki's answers were found deceptive.

6. In the year 2006, PW-5, father of the deceased, filed a petition in the Madras High Court for transferring the investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI). This petition was rejected by the High Court on 08.02.2008. Meanwhile, on 23.01.2008, more than three years after the incident, a charge-sheet was filed by the CB CID under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'CrPC') only against Venkatesh @ Venki under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). The present accused (appellants herein) were cited as prosecution witnesses in the said charge-sheet. Venki died after the filing of the charge-sheet but before trial of the case on 21.07.2008.

7. It was only th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 154

IMPORTANT POINTIn a case based on circumstantial evidence it is always better for courts to deal with each circumstance separately and then link circumstances which have been proved to arrive at a conclusion.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
In a case based on circumstantial evidence it is always better for courts to deal with each circumstance separately and then link circumstances which have been proved to arrive at a conclusion.