CHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARANversusSTATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CB CID AND ANR.

                        [2019] 2 S.C.R. 105                             105


            CHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARAN                                    A
                           v.
         STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
               OF POLICE CB CID AND ANR.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1193 of 2011)
                                                                        B
                       FEBRUARY 12, 2019
    [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
        Penal Code, 1860:
        s.302 r/w. s. 120B – Murder – Prosecution case based on
circumstantial evidence – Conviction by the trial court – High Court    C
affirmed the conviction in appeal – On appeal, held: There was
inconsistency in the statement of the complainant (PW1) – There
was delay in filing private complaint – The private complaint which
was filed four years later was contrary to the first complaint which
was filed immediately after the incident – Evidence of PW1 and
PW5 cannot be relied on as they did not come to the court with          D
clean hands – The circumstances relied on by the prosecution cannot
lead to the inference that it is the accused alone who committed the
offence – In view of inconsistencies in medical evidence,
prosecution has even failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the death was homicidal – Thus prosecution miserably failed to link     E
the accused with the death of the deceased – The appellants-accused
are entitled to be acquitted.
        Evidence:
        Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of – Held: In the
case of circumstantial evidence it should be observed that (1)          F
circumstances leading to inference of guilt must be proved beyond
doubt; (2) circumstances should unerringly point to the guilt of the
accused (3) circumstances should be so linked to form a chain
leading to only one conclusion i.e. guilt of accused and (4) There is
probability of the crime having been committed by a person other
than the accused.                                                       G
       Allowing the appeals, the Court
        HELD: There are no eye-witnesses to the case and this
is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution which lead to an inference to the
                                                                        H
                                105
106               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A     guilt of the accused must be proved beyond doubt. The
      circumstances should unerringly point towards the guilt of the
      accused. 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. That there should be no probability of
B
      the crime having been committed by a person other than the
      accused. [Paras 9 and 11][112-C, 113-D-F]
            Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC
            343 : [1952] SCR 1091 – relied on.
            Wills on Circumstantial Evidence (Chapter VI) by Sir
C           Alfred Wills Butterworths, Seventh Edition, Pp 296-
            329 – referred to.
              2.1 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
D     at a conclusion. In the present case, though a reference has
      been made to some circumstances, the circumstances have not
      been discussed separately. [Para 13][113-G]
              2.2 Though the circumstance of last seen together is
      proved, the manner in which the accused reached
E     Chennai and the guest house in question suggests a total
      different story. 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.
F     [Para 13] [114-B, C, 115-B-C]
              2.3 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. The medical evidence clearly shows that after chemical
G     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. The prosecution, by
      means of the medical evidence, has failed to link the accused
      with the death of the deceased. The prosecution has failed to
H
 CHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARAN v. STATE REP. BY DY.                         107
       SUPDT. OF POLICE CB CID AND ANR.

prove the exact time of death of the deceased. The deceased            A
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
                                                                       B
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, though it stands proved that the
deceased died due to overdose of drug, the prosecution has             C
miserably failed to link the accused with the death of the deceased.
[Para 13][115-E, 116-E-G]
        2.4 The motive put forth by prosecution is that PW-10
was close to accused No.1, who introduced her to the deceased.
According to the case set up by the prosecution, the two had           D
developed a close relationship and were regularly chatting with
each other on phone and through SMS-es. This was not liked by
Accused No.1, who thereafter conspired with accused No. 2 to
kill the deceased by overdosing him. PW-10 in her statement
has not at all supported the prosecution case. No other evidence
has been led to prove that PW-10 had any special relationship          E
with accused No.1 or that she had developed any special
relationship with deceased. In the first complaint filed by PW-1,
there is no mention of PW-10, 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    F
death of the deceased. There is no explanation for this long
silence of four years. Therefore, the motive has not been proved.
[Para 13][117-A-B, D, E-F]
        2.5 Both the courts below have come to the conclusion
that accused No.2 was asked by accused No. 1 to commit the
crime because accused No.2 was a medical student and he alone          G
knew how to inject the substance into the body of the deceased.
Such inference drawn by the courts below was totally ill founded.
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    H
inject themselves. What has happened in the present is not clear
108               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A     but it cannot be said with certainty that accused No.2 had injected
      the poisonous substance into the body of the deceased. There is
      no evidence in this regard. Even as per the prosecution, accused
      No.2 had no motive to kill the deceased. Therefore, the inference
      drawn by the High Court as well as the trial court that accused
      Nos. 1 and 2 had conspired or had the common intention of
B     murdering the deceased is not based on any cogent or reliable
      evidence. [Para 13][117-G-H, 118-A-C, E]
             2.6 There is inconsistency in the statement of PW-1. The
      private complaint filed by him four years later is contrary to the
      first complaint filed by him immediately after the occurrence. His
C     explanation is that he was asked to sign on two blank papers by
      the police. In case the version of PW-1 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
D     original complainant and the informant and the State, they failed
      to point out whether any such complaint had been made by PW-1
      or PW-5. Therefore, the version of PW-1 that his signatures were
      obtained on blank sheets of papers is not acceptable. This also
      casts a doubt on the veracity of the statement of PW-1.
      [Para 14][118-F-H, 119-B-C]
E
             2.7 There is delay in filing the private complaint. After the
      charge-sheet was filed against ‘V’ by the Investigating Officer
      (DW-4), neither PW-1 nor PW-5 filed any protest petition to the
      effect that the accused should also be arraigned as accused. They
      let the matter go on and it was only after ‘V’died that the private
F     complaint was filed. There is no explanation why no protest
      petition was filed when the police had only made out a case against
      accused ‘V’ and that too under Section 304 IPC and not murder.
      [Para 14][119-D-E]
             2.8 PW-1 and PW-5 are not coming to the Court with clean
      hands. The motive has been introduced after four years. The
G     father and the maternal uncle of the deceased never
      brought up the issue of the deceased having conversations with
      PW-10 at any earlier stage. Therefore, PW-1 and PW-5 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
H
      and a person cannot be convicted on the basis of such evidence.
      [Para 14][119-F-G]
 CHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARAN v. STATE REP. BY DY.                            109
       SUPDT. OF POLICE CB CID AND ANR.

       2.9 The circumstances proved cannot lead to the inference          A
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. Even otherwise, it is not proved that it was
the accused who injected the deceased and the possibility of the          B
accused injecting himself or some other person doing so cannot
be ruled out. [Para 15][120-C]
                       Case Law Reference
[1952] SCR 1091                 relied on                Para 9
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal                  C
No. 1193 of 2011
       From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2010 of the High
Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in Crl. A. No. 592 of 2010
                                WITH                                      D
        Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2019.
       M. N. Rao, Sr. Adv., Gaurave Bhargava, Raj Kamal, Ms.
Promila, Subash Sagar, S. Thananjayan, Adv. for the Appellant.
        Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv., Nithin Saravanan, Ms. Arunima Singh,
                                                                          E
Pranjal Kishore, Ms. Priyadarshini, Anil Kumar Mishra-I, Balaji
Srinivasan, Ms. Purbitaa Mitra, R. Naveen Raj, K. V. Vijayakumar,
Advs. for the Respondents.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        DEEPAK GUPTA, J.                                                  F
        1. 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   G
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    H
110                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C     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
D
      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-
E     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-
F     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,
G     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
      (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
H
      found deceptive.
 CHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARAN v. STATE REP. BY DY.                                111
SUPDT. OF POLICE CB CID AND ANR. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

        6. In the year 2006, PW-5, father of the deceased, filed a petition   A
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’)
                                                                              B
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 thereafter that PW-1, maternal uncle of the          C
deceased, filed a private complaint before the court which is Exhibit P-
1. 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           D
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
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      E
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    F
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 PW-10 (hereinafter referred to as ‘R’).
According to the complainant, R (PW-10) was introduced to the deceased        G
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 and with his help injected excess
dose of Tidijesic with the intention of killing Arun.                         H
112                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A              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.
B
      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.
C              9. Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the case and this is
      a case based on circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to
      appreciation of circumstantial evidence has been clearly enunciated in
      the case of Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, wherein this
      Court held as follows:
D               “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
E               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
F               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
G
      specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:


      1
          AIR 1952 SC 343
      2
          .Butterworths, Seventh Edition, Pp 296-329
H
 CHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARAN v. STATE REP. BY DY.                                 113
SUPDT. OF POLICE CB CID AND ANR. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

         “RULE 1. – The facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference      A
         must be clearly proved, and beyond reasonable doubt connected
         with the factum probandum............
         RULE 2. – The burden of proof is always on the party who
         asserts the existence of any fact which infers legal
         accountability................
                                                                               B
         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              C
         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:
                                                                               D
        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;
                                                                               E
        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;
        4. That there should be no probability of the crime having
            been committed by a person other than the accused.                 F
        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.            G
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:
                                                                               H
114         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A     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
      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.
B     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
C     (PW-10) 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 (PW-1) states that one Jeyaraj, an
      employee of PW-5 informed him over the phone at about 6/7
D     p.m. on 30.10.2004 that the deceased Arun along with his friend
      Siddharth was coming to stay in the night with PW-1 at Chennai.
      A few minutes later, PW-1 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 (PW-7). According
      to her, Siddharth told her that he was going to Chennai along
E     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
F     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 (PW-8),
      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
G     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. PW-8 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
H     that the car in which Mathesh was travelling had met with an
 CHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARAN v. STATE REP. BY DY.                           115
SUPDT. OF POLICE CB CID AND ANR. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

    accident. She was also told that Mathesh along with his friends      A
    Siva, Chandru, Siddharth and Arun came to the house of her
    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
                                                                         B
    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.    C
    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           D
    himself and thereafter the deceased died. The evidence of Dr.
    R. Baskaran (PW-11), who is Professor 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     E
    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.
      PW-11 stated that if a 20 ml syringe is used then about
    40 ml of Tidijesic could be injected in two attempts. However, if    F
    a 5 ml syringe is used, it would require 8-10 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   G
    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 post-mortem report the approximate time
    of death has not been indicated. Dr. A.N. Shanmugham
                                                                         H
116          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A     (PW 6), who conducted the post-mortem also could not say when
      the death took place.
        Dr. A.N. Shanmugham (PW-6) 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
B     middle fore arm. He has been confronted with the post-mortem
      report (PD-5), 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
C     post-mortem 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.
D     The police has not recovered any syringe or other material from
      the room. As per the prosecution case, the 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
E     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
F     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
G     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 due to overdose of drug, the prosecution has miserably
      failed to link the accused with the death of the deceased.
H
 CHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARAN v. STATE REP. BY DY.                           117
SUPDT. OF POLICE CB CID AND ANR. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

    3. MOTIVE                                                            A
    The motive put forth is that R (PW-10) 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 SMS-es. This was not liked by Siva (Accused              B
    No.1), who thereafter conspired with Chandru (Accused No.
    2) to kill the deceased by overdosing him. R (PW-10) 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 SMS-es which were               C
    usual in nature. She, in cross-examination, 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
    to her, Siva was her friend being a college-mate. No other           D
    evidence has been led to prove that R (PW-10) 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 (PW-10), which does not support
    the prosecution case at all.
                                                                         E
      In this regard, it would also be pertinent to mention that
    in the first complaint filed by PW-1, there is no mention of R
    (PW-10), 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.   F
    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.
                                                                         G
    4. CHANDRU WAS A MEDICAL STUDENT-
    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      H
118                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A            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
B
             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
C            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 or early 20s and two of them got scared
             after the accident and they went to the homes of their relatives
D
             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
E            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
F     refer to now:
             1. Inconsistency in the statement of PW-1 – PW-1 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
             (PW-10) or other facts which have been stated at a later stage.
             The private complaint filed by him four years later is contrary to
G            the first complaint filed by 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
H            that PW-1, the maternal uncle or PW-5, father of the deceased,
  CHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARAN v. STATE REP. BY DY.                            119
 SUPDT. OF POLICE CB CID AND ANR. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

      ever complained to any authority that PW-1 had been forced to        A
      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 PW-1 that his signatures were taken on blank papers
                                                                           B
      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 PW-1 or              C
      PW-5. Therefore, we do not accept the version of PW-1 that
      his signatures were obtained on blank sheets of papers. This
      also casts a doubt on the veracity of the statement of PW-1.
      2. Delay in filing the private complaint - It is true that
      PW-1 and PW-5 were moving the High Court for transfer of             D
      the case to some other investigating agency but, at the same
      time, it would be pertinent to mention that after the charge
      sheet was filed against Venki by the Investigating Officer (DW
      4), neither PW-1 nor PW-5 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       E
      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. PW-1 and PW-5 are not coming to the Court with                    F
      clean hands – The motive has been introduced after four years.
      The father and the maternal uncle of the deceased never brought
      up the issue of the deceased having conversations with R (PW
      10) at any earlier stage. Therefore, PW-1 and PW-5 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        G
      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.
                                                                           H
120                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2019] 2 S.C.R.


A     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 post-mortem has not given any
B
      approximate time of death of the deceased which could have helped us
      in the 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
C     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
D     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 accused-appellants are acquitted.
      They are directed to be released immediately unless required in any
      other case. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

E     Kalpana K. Tripathy                                        Appeals allowed.




F




G




H