2019 INSC 0134
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1193  OF 2011
CHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARAN …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT 
OF POLICE CB CID AND ANR.        …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   253   OF 2019
(@SLP (CRL.) NO.2306 OF 2011)
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2306 of
2011.

2
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 (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
Pradesh 1
, wherein this Court held as follows:
“ 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
book   Wills   on   Circumstantial   Evidence   (Chapter   VI) 2
,   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
clean hands  – The motive has been introduced after four

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