CHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARAN vs. STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CB CID

1 REPORTABLE

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1193  OF 2011

Versus

WITH

J U D G M E N T Deepak Gupta, J.

2

judgment.  

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 (PW­3) at about 9 p.m. where room no. 203 was allotted to them.   A t 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 (PW­4) 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 (PW­2), working as Manager in the company owned   by   father   of   the   deceased   Arun   and   Ponsekar   (PW­1), maternal uncle of the deceased came to the room.   3 4. PW­1 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 (PW­2) 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 post­mortem.  Dr. A.N. Shanmugham (PW­6) conducted the post­mortem.  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 4 08.11.2004 which led to the discovery of Tidijesic syringe, empty ampoules, unused Tidijesic ampoule etc..     PW­1, 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,   Brainmapping   and Narcoanalysis tests at a Forensic Science Laboratory.  According to the Investigating Officer (DW­4), 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,   PW­5,   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 5 (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 charge­sheet 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 charge­sheet.  Venki died after the filing of the charge­sheet but before trial of the case on 21.07.2008.   7. It   was   only   thereafter   that   PW­1,   maternal   uncle   of   the deceased,   filed   a   private   complaint   before   the   court   which   is Exhibit P­1. In this complaint it was stated that the two accused and the deceased had stayed in Room No. 203 and Venki came to the room at the invitation of the accused Chandru.  Venki was a drug peddler and Arun was not in the habit of taking drugs.  On the request of the accused, Venki had injected 4 ml of Tidijesic injection in the left wrist of the deceased.  It was also alleged that Venki was paid Rs.50/­ by the accused Siva for his services. According   to   this   complaint,   Arun   had   been   injected   for   the 6 second time in the left arm inner portion.   When this witness went   to   the   room   No.   203,   Venki   was   present   and   told   the complainant that the accused had given excess narcotic drugs on the left inner portion of the arm due to which the deceased died. In the complaint it was also stated that immediately after he had visited   the   guest   house   on   31.10.2004,   he   had   gone   to   the Triplicane Police Station, where the police forcibly obtained his signatures on two blank papers.  It was alleged that the FIR was lodged by the police in connivance with the two accused.  In this complaint it is also mentioned that there were marks of injecting two   injections   and,   according   to   the   report   of   the   Forensic Science Laboratory, a huge amount of narcotic substance had been injected into the deceased which caused his death.  In this complaint it was also alleged that the accused Siva had close association with PW­10 (hereinafter referred to as ‘R’).  According to the complainant, R (PW­10) was introduced to the deceased Arun and they used to regularly talk to each other on phone every day and therefore, accused Siva could not tolerate that his girlfriend should shift loyalty to some other person.  Therefore, he approached Chandru, who was a student in a medical college 7 and   with   his   help   injected   excess   dose   of   Tidijesic   with   the intention of killing Arun.   8. After the filing of the private complaint, the metropolitan magistrate recorded the statements of seven witnesses and found sufficient grounds for proceeding with the case under Section 302 IPC.   Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions   and   charges   were   framed   against   the   accused,   who pleaded not guilty.  The evidence of the witnesses were recorded. Accused also examined four witnesses.  The trial court convicted the accused for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.   Aggrieved, the accused filed two separate criminal appeals, which have been dismissed.   Hence, the present appeals. 9. Admittedly, there are no eye­witnesses to the case and this is a case based on circumstantial evidence.  The law with regard to   appreciation   of   circumstantial   evidence   has   been   clearly 8 enunciated   in   the   case   of   Hanumant   v.   State   of   Madhya 1 , wherein this Court held as follows: Pradesh “ 10 ……It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence   is   of   a   circumstantial   nature,   the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be   drawn   should   in   the   first   instance   be   fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.   Again,   the   circumstances   should   be   of   a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such   as   to   exclude   every   hypothesis   but   the   one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 10. This law has been consistently followed and has been repeated in catena of authorities.  It is not necessary to refer to all the authorities.  However, we may refer to Sir Alfred Wills 2 book   Wills   on   Circumstantial   Evidence   (Chapter   VI) ,   in which he has laid down the following Rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: “RULE 1. – The facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference   must   be   clearly   proved,   and   beyond reasonable   doubt   connected   with   the   factum probandum............ 1 AIR 1952 SC 343 2 Butterworths, Seventh Edition, Pp 296-329. 9 RULE 2. – The burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact which infers legal accountability................ RULE   3.   –   In   all   cases,   whether   of   direct   or circumstantial   evidence,   the   best   evidence   must   be adduced which the nature of the case admits......... RULE 4. – In order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory   facts   must   be   incompatible   with   the innocence   of   the   accused,   and   incapable   of explanation   upon   any   other   reasonable   hypothesis than that of his guilt.................. RULE 5. – If there by any reasonable doubt of the guilt of   the   accused,   he   is   entitled   as   of   right   to   be acquitted.” 11. The law can be summarised in the following terms: 1. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution which lead to an inference to the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond doubt; 2. The   circumstances   should   unerringly   point   towards   the guilt of the accused; 3. The   circumstances   should   be   linked   together   in   such   a manner that the cumulative effect of the chain formed by joining the links is so complete that it leads to only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused; 10 4. That  there should  be no probability  of  the   crime  having been committed by a person other than the accused.   12. It is in the light of the aforesaid law that we have to consider the evidence and the circumstances relied upon by the courts below. 13. In a case based on circumstantial evidence it is always better for the courts to deal with each circumstance separately and then link the circumstances which have been proved to arrive at a conclusion.  Unfortunately, in this case, though a reference   has   been   made   to   some   circumstances,   the circumstances have not been discussed separately.  Therefore, we propose to discuss the various circumstances relied upon by the prosecution: 1. LAST SEEN TOGETHER  –  As far as this circumstance is concerned, the same stands proved.   It is the case of all that Room No. 203 in Meena 11 Guest   House   was   hired   by   the   two   accused   and   the deceased.   Venki came at about 9.30 p.m., but he left at 10.15 p.m.  Thereafter the lodge was locked.  Therefore, this circumstance   is   proved.     Though   this   circumstance   is proved, we must also look into the circumstances under which   the   accused   were   last   seen   together   with   the deceased.     The   case   of   the   prosecution   is   that   it   is   the accused   who   took   the   deceased   to   the   room   with   the intention of killing him since the accused Siva suspected that   R   (PW­10)   was   having   an   affair   with   the   deceased. However,   the   manner   in   which   the   accused   reached Chennai and the guest house in question suggests a total different story.  The maternal uncle of the deceased (PW­1) states that one Jeyaraj, an employee of PW­5 informed him over the phone at about 6/7 p.m. on 30.10.2004 that the deceased Arun along with his friend Siddharth was coming to stay in the night with PW­1 at Chennai.  A few minutes later, PW­1 talked to his nephew Arun, who also told him that he would be coming to his uncle’s house but did not come.     Siddharth   is   the   son   of   Gomti   Pandian   (PW­7). According to her, Siddharth told her that he was going to 12 Chennai along with his friend Arun (deceased) to purchase some clothes.  She was reluctant to send her son with his friend but then she talked to Arun who told her that they would be going to Chennai by bus and convinced her to send Siddharth with him.   She dropped Siddharth at the bus stand.  Later she came to know that her son Siddharth had gone to Chennai along with the deceased Arun and three   other   persons   in   a   car   which   had   met   with   an accident.  She was informed about this by Kala Devi (PW­8), whose   son   Mathesh   had   also   travelled   in   the   same   car. Thus, it is clear that it was Arun (deceased), who convinced Siddharth’s   mother   to   send   Siddharth   with   him.     This witness also stated that later her son informed her that the car   had   met   with   an   accident   and,   thereafter,   he   and Mathesh did not proceed to Chennai and returned to their homes.  PW­8 states that her son Mathesh had told her that he was going to Coimbatore.  Next morning she received a call from her brother’s son.   He told her that the car in which Mathesh was travelling had met with an accident. She was also told that Mathesh along with his friends Siva, Chandru, Siddharth and Arun came to the house of her 13 brother and thereafter Mathesh returned to home.  Thus, it is clear that Siddharth and Mathesh were also travelling in the car and they would have also gone to Chennai but for the   fact  that  the   car   met  with   an   accident.     Thereafter, Siddharth   and   Mathesh   did   not   proceed   further   and returned to their homes.  As such, it is clear that it was not the  accused,  who had  organised  the  trip but it was  the deceased,   who   had   organised   the   trip   and,   therefore,   it cannot be said that the accused had taken the deceased to the   guest  house  with  the   intention  of   killing   him.     This assumption   by   both   the   courts   below   is   based   on   no evidence.    2. MEDICAL EVIDENCE    Medical evidence led in this case clearly indicates that the deceased died due to overdose of Tidijesic.  It is not disputed that   4   ml   of   Tidijesic   was   injected   into   the   wrist  of   the deceased   by   Venki,   who   administered   2   ml   of   the   same substance into himself and thereafter the deceased died. The evidence of Dr. R. Baskaran (PW­11), who is Professor 14 and   Head   of   the   Department   of   Legal   and   Forensic Medicines,   Royapettai   Government   Hospital,   Chennai clearly shows that after chemical analysis it was found that the amount of the offending substance found in the blood of the deceased would be equal to injecting 40 ml of Tidijesic. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the deceased died due to overdosing of drug.  PW­11 stated that if a 20 ml syringe is used then about 40 ml of Tidijesic could be injected in two attempts.  However, if a 5 ml syringe is used, it would require 8­10 attempts.  He clearly states that he cannot tell when and how this 40 ml Tidijesic was injected into the body of the deceased.  He also could not state what time the death had occurred.  He also stated that it takes 6 to 24 hours for the drug to take effect and this would further depend upon the quantity of the drug, the physique and the actions of the person injected. Therefore, his statement does not help us with regard to the time of death or with regard to the number of attempts in which the drug was injected into the body of the deceased. Even in the post­mortem report the approximate time of 15 death has not been indicated.  Dr. A.N. Shanmugham (PW­ 6), who conducted the post­mortem also could not say when the death took place.   Dr. A.N. Shanmugham (PW­6) in his statement had stated that   injuries   caused   by   the   needle   due   to   injection   of medicine were found in fore arm, ankle of front foot, front and middle fore arm.  He has been confronted with the post­ mortem report (PD­5), in which there is mention of only two injection marks – one in front of left elbow joint and one in middle of left fore arm.  It is clearly mentioned that no other external or internal injuries seen over the body.  He has not been   able   to   give   a   proper   explanation   why   he   did   not mention   other   injuries   in   the   post­mortem   report.     This would mean that the deceased was injected only twice.    It is the case of the prosecution that on the first occasion the deceased was injected with 4 ml Tidijesic.  Therefore, 36 ml   could   not   have   been   injected   in   one   go   on   the   next occasion.  The police has not recovered any syringe or other material from the room.   As per the prosecution case, the 16 lodge was locked at about 10.30 p.m..   The next morning the   deceased   was   found   dead.     No   recoveries   of   any ampoules or syringe have been made from the accused or at their instance to connect them with the offence.   The   prosecution,   by   means   of   the   aforesaid   medical evidence, has failed to link the accused with the death of the deceased.   The prosecution has failed to prove the exact time   of   death   of   the   deceased.     The   deceased   was   first injected an injection between 9.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m..  As per doctor, the effect of this could end in about six hours. Therefore, the possibility of the deceased getting up himself in the middle of the night to inject himself cannot be ruled out.  There is also the possibility of his calling some other person to inject him with the drug.  Even more importantly, the prosecution has failed to prove where the balance 36 ml of drug came from.  Who got this drug and when?  There is no   evidence   that   the   accused   purchased   this   drug.     No recovery has been made from them and, therefore, we are of the view that though it stands proved that the deceased died 17 due   to   overdose   of   drug,   the   prosecution   has   miserably failed to link the accused with the death of the deceased.     3.   MOTIVE The motive put forth is that R (PW­10) was close to accused Siva, who introduced her to Arun.  According to the case set up   by   the   prosecution,   the   two   had   developed   a   close relationship and were regularly chatting with each other on phone and through SMS­es.   This was not liked by Siva (Accused   No.1),   who   thereafter   conspired   with   Chandru (Accused No. 2) to kill the deceased by overdosing him.  R (PW­10)   in   her   statement   has   not   at   all   supported   the prosecution case and according to her, she had never met Arun   but   had   talked   to   him   over   phone   and   that   too occasionally.   She also stated that she and the deceased Arun would exchange SMS­es which were usual in nature. She, in cross­examination, denied the suggestion that she used to talk to Arun every day.  She stated that they talked generally about matters relating to college.  She also denied that she had any special relationship with Siva.  According 18 to her, Siva was her friend being a college­mate.  No other evidence  has   been  led  to  prove   that  R  (PW­10) had  any special   relationship   with   accused   Siva   or   that   she   had developed any special relationship with deceased Arun.  The only evidence in this regard is the statement of R (PW­10), which does not support the prosecution case at all.   In this regard, it would also be pertinent to mention that in the first complaint filed by PW­1, there is no mention of R (PW­10), much less of her having any affair with either the accused or the deceased.  This was brought out for the first time only in the complaint filed four years after the death of Arun.  There is no explanation for this long silence of four years.  Therefore, we are clearly of the view that the motive has not been proved.   We must also remember that the accused and the deceased were good friends.   They had studied for many years together and there is not even an iota of evidence about such love triangle. 4. CHANDRU WAS A MEDICAL STUDENT ­  19 Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that Chandru was asked by Siva to commit the crime because Chandru was a medical student and he alone knew how to inject the substance into the body of the deceased.  We are constrained   to   observe   that   the   inference   drawn   by   the courts below was totally ill founded.  Why would Chandru kill another human being just on the asking of the accused Siva?     Chandru   was   a   medical   student,   studying   in   a profession meant to save lives and not to kill people.  From the   evidence   on   record   it   stands   established   that   the deceased was a drug addict and had been taking injectible drugs for a long time.   It is well known that such drug addicts can easily inject themselves.   What has happened in this case is not clear but it cannot be said with certainty that Chandru had injected the poisonous substance into the body of the deceased.  There is no evidence in this regard. As   we   have   discussed   above,   it   was   not   only   Siva   and Chandru who were coming to Chennai with deceased Arun but Siddharth and Mathesh were also coming to Chennai in the same car.  However, they went back only after the car met with an accident.  All these boys were in their late teens 20 or early 20s and two of them got scared after the accident and they went to the homes of their relatives and from there they contacted their respective mothers.   Since they had obtained   permission   of   their   mothers   by   giving   false excuses, they got scared and went back.   Even as per the prosecution,   Chandru   had   no   motive   to   kill   Arun. Therefore, the inference drawn by the High Court as well as the trial court that Siva and Chandru had conspired or had the common intention of murdering Arun is not based on any cogent or reliable evidence.  14. Other than the circumstances referred to above, there are other circumstances which go against the prosecution which we shall refer to now: 1. Inconsistency in the statement of PW­1  – PW­1 is the maternal uncle of the deceased.   In his first complaint made in the police station on 31.10.2004, there is no reference to R (PW­10) or other facts which have been stated at a later stage.  The private complaint filed by him four years later is contrary to the first complaint filed by 21 him immediately after the occurrence.  His explanation is that he was asked to sign on two blank papers by the police.  First of all, we see no reason why the police in a case of this nature would try to help the accused and shield the actual criminal.  Secondly, there is no material on record to show that PW­1, the maternal uncle or PW­ 5,   father   of   the   deceased,   ever   complained   to   any authority that PW­1 had been forced to sign two blank papers.  This is a case where the maternal uncle and the father of the deceased had approached the High Court on at least two occasions for transfer of the investigation. They succeeded once and failed on the second occasion. In   case   the   version   of   PW­1   that   his   signatures   were taken on blank papers was correct, then he would have definitely said so much earlier.  He would have reported the matter to the higher authorities or made mention of this in the petitions filed in the High Court. Despite a pointed query to the counsel for the original complainant and the informant and the State they failed to point out whether any such complaint had been made by PW­1 or PW­5.   Therefore, we do not accept the version of PW­1 22 that   his   signatures   were   obtained   on   blank   sheets   of papers.   This also casts a doubt on the veracity of the statement of PW­1. 2. Delay in filing the private complaint  ­  It is true that PW­1 and PW­5 were moving the High Court for transfer of the case to some other investigating agency but, at the same time, it would be pertinent to mention that after the charge­sheet was filed against Venki by the Investigating Officer (DW­4), neither PW­1 nor PW­5 filed any protest petition to the effect that the accused (appellants herein) should also be arraigned as accused.  They let the matter go on and it was only after Venki died that the private complaint  was  filed.    There  is  no explanation why  no protest petition was filed when the police had only made out a case against accused Venki and that too under Section 304 IPC and not murder. 3. PW­1   and   PW­5   are   not   coming   to   the   Court   with  – The motive has been introduced after four clean hands 23 years.  The father and the maternal uncle of the deceased never   brought   up   the   issue   of   the   deceased   having conversations   with   R   (PW­10)   at   any   earlier   stage. Therefore, PW­1 and PW­5 are not coming to the court with clean hands.   They have  cooked up  the story of signing on blank papers and also cooked up the story relating to the motive.   Therefore, their evidence is not reliable and a person cannot be convicted on the basis of such evidence.   15. All that is proved is that the deceased and the accused were sleeping in one room and the deceased died due to overdose of drug.   The prosecution had miserably failed to prove that the accused injected this drug.  It is the case of the prosecution that the first injection was administered by Venki, which was only 4 ml.  There is possibility of the deceased injecting himself on the second occasion sometime in the middle of the night or early in the morning.  In this context, we must remember that the doctor, who conducted the post­mortem has not given any approximate time of death of the deceased which could have helped us in the 24 matter.  The circumstances proved cannot lead to the inference that it is the accused alone who committed the offence.  In fact, the prosecution has even failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death is homicidal in view of the inconsistencies in the medical evidence dealt by us above.   Even otherwise, it is not proved that it was the accused who injected the deceased and the possibility of the accused injecting himself or some other person doing so cannot be ruled out. 16. In view of the above discussion we allow both the appeals, set aside the judgment dated 30.11.2010 of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.592 of 2010 and 636 of 2010 and judgment dated 24.09.2010 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai in S.C. No.237 of 2009.   The accused­appellants   are   acquitted.     They   are   directed   to   be released immediately unless required in any other case.  Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. ….……………………..J. 25 (SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) .….…………………….J. (DEEPAK GUPTA) New Delhi February  12 , 2019