REDDY SAMPATH KUMARversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                       REDDY SAMPATH KUMAR                                       A
                                 v.
                     ST ATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                          SEPTEMBER 8, 2005

              [H.K. SEMA AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]                              B


       Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 & 57-Murder-~dical practitioner
allegedly caused death of his parents-in-law and their three minor children by
administering them poison through injection-Act allegedly dOne with the          C
intention of grabbing propo:rty--Conviction by Courts be/ow-Validity of-
Held, valid-Prosecution established circumstantial evidence against the
accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence-
Deterrent punishment is warranted for such gruesome, pre-mediated and cold
blooded murder-Appellant sentenced to imprisonment in terms of S. 5 7 I PC
without any entitlement to remission.                                            n
      According to the prosecution, Appellant - a medical practitioner
caused the death of his parents-in-law and their three minor children by
administering them poison through injection. He did the act by making
them believe that they were suffering from AIDS, whereas it was a fact
that no member of their family was suffering from AIDS. Appellant                E
allegedly committed the act with the intention of grabbing the property
of his father-in-law. Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302
IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. On
appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction. Hence the present
appeal.                                                                          F
     Dismissing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: I.I. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. Both
the Trial Court and the High Court recorded the finding concurrently as
to the circumstances leading to the guilt of the· appellant which would          G
complete the chain and is incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis
except that of the guilt of the appellant. The circumstances which were
established against the appellant have been concisely enumerated by the
High Court. (135-D-E]

                                     133                                         H
    134                      -'SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         1.2. It is well settled principle of law that in order to sustain
    conviction, the circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable
    of explanation of any other hypothesis except that of the guilt of the
    accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of
    the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (136-C)

B         1.3. In this case prosecution has established the circumstantial
    evidence against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt by leading
    cogent evidence. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the concurrent findings
    recorded by the trial court and the High Court which would warrant
    interference by this Court. (136-D)
c         2~1. The facts of this case shocked the judicial conscience. The
    gruesome murder was perpetrated in cold blooded, premediated and well
    organized manner. It calls for deterrent punishment. Such gruesome and
    cold blooded murder with a view to grab the property is not only delict
    the law but also have a deleterious effect in civil society. (136-E)
D
          2.2. Considering the nature of the crime and the manner in which it
    has been perpetrated, the ends of justice would warrant that the appellant
    should be in jail in terms of Section 57, IPC. It is directed that the appellant
    shall not get the benefit of any remission either granted by the State or
    by Government of India on any auspicious occasion. (136-F-G)
E
         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 551
    of 2004.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in Crl.A. No. 313 of 200 I.

F         Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Appellant.
          P. Vinay Kumar and Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          SEMA, J. Heard parties.

G          The sole appellant was put to trial under Sections 302/201/467/468/420
    !PC and under Section 15(2)(b) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The
    trial court after threadbare discussion of the evidence and documents placed
    on record convicted the appellant under Section 302 !PC and sentenced him
    to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 200 each on five
H   counts and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month on each
            REDDY SAMPATH KUMAR'" STA TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [SEMA, J.]       JJ5

count. On appeal, the High Court confinned the conviction. Hence, this appeal A
by special leave.

      The facts established are that in the intervening 11/12 March, 1998 the
accused who was medical practitioner caused the death of his father in law,
mother in law and their three minor children due to poisoning by Pan curonium
bromide, the trade name of which is 'Pavulon', which was administered              B
through injection.

      The facts of this case, as unfolded by the prosecution story shocked
judicial conscience. A greedy son-in-law with the intention of grabbing the
property of father-in-law wiped out the entire family; even three minor innocent
children were not spared.                                                          C
       The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel for
the appellant has taken us to the prosecution evidence. He has also taken us
to the judgment rendered by the trial court and the High Court. Both the trail
court and the High Court recorded the finding concurrently as to the
circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant which would complete the D
chain and is incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis except that of
the guilt of the appellant.
     The circumstances which were established against the appellant have
been concisely enumerated by the High Court as follows:-
                                                                                   E
       !.     That the accused was son-in-law of deceased I and 2 and he was
              practicing medicine.
       2.     That he made the deceased family believe that they were suffering
              from AIDS, whereas it was a fact that no member of the family
              was suffering from AIDS.                                          F
       3.     He took deceased No. I to Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW9), got him
              examined and also subjected him to various investigations for
              the purpose of arriving at diagnosis.
       4.     That the accused also made them believe that he could treat them
              by getting some injections from Calcutta and for this purpose he     G
              took money twice from deceased No. I.
       5.     He had also access to certain hospitals and people connected
              with medicines and sale of medicines.
       6.     That he had purchased Pavulon injection from Mis Jaya Krishna H
    136                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A                 Medical Hall, Godavarikhani on 1.3.1998.
             7.   He was seen at the house of the deceased persons around I 0.00
                  and 11.00 p.m. on the fateful night of 11.3.1998.
             8.   On that night of the occurrence, he had managed to keep his
                  wife away from the house of in laws and from his own house.
B            9.   That the death, according to the medical opinion, was caused
                  due to poisoning by Pan curonium bromide, the trade name of
                  which is 'Pavulon' which was administered through injection.
        It is well settled principle of law that in order to sustain conviction, the
  circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation of
C any other hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence
  should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be
  inconsistent with his innocence.

           In view of the aforesaid legal principle laid down in catena of decisions
    of this Court, we are clearly of the view that in this case prosecution has
D   established the circumstantial evidence against the appellant beyond all
    reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence. We are, therefore, of the view
    that there is no infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court
    and the High Court which would warrant our interference.

E         The facts of this case as already noticed shocked the judicial conscience.
    The gruesome murder was perpetrated in cold blooded, premediated and well
    organised manner. It calls for deterrent punishment. Such gruesome and cold
    blooded murder with a view to grab the property is not only delict the law
    but also have a deleterious effect in civil society.

F       At the time of granting leave, this Court did not issue notice for
  enhancement of punishment. However, considering the nature of the crime
  and the manner in which it has been perpetrated, the ends of justice would
  warrant that the appellant should be in jail in terms of Section 57 of the
  Indian Penal Code. We direct that the appellant shall not get the benefit of
  any remission either granted by the State or by Government of India on any
G auspicious occasion.
          Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid directions.

    B.B.B.                                                       Appeal dismissed.