REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1449 OF 2007

M. Nageshwar Rao        ....Appellant

Versus       State of Andhra Pradesh                      ….Respondent

JUDGMENT   

AFTAB ALAM, J.  

1. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment  

and order dated September 13, 2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra  

Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1009 of 2005. The High Court allowed the  

government appeal, reversed the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial  

court,  found the appellant  guilty  of  the charge of  killing his wife Laxmi  

Kumari by giving her cyanide in cold drink and, accordingly, convicted him  

under  section  302  of  the  Penal  Code  and  sentenced  him  to  rigorous  

imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of  

fine, simple imprisonment for 3 months.            

2. The  basic  facts  of  the  case  which  are  admitted  or  are  at  any  rate  

undeniable  need  to  be  stated  in  the  sequence  in  which  those  facts  were

unfolded. The appellant and Laxmi Kumari got married on April 30, 2000.  

After  marriage  they  came  to  live  in  a  rented  house  at  Yellareddiguda,  

Hyderabad.  The  appellant  and  his  wife  lived  on  the  first  floor  and  the  

remaining portion of the house was occupied by its owner. The appellant had  

a graduate degree in Engineering and a diploma in Computer. He worked as  

a  faculty  member  in  Harica  Information,  situated at  Rehamath  Complex,  

Amarpreet,  Hyderabad,  and he also gave coaching to students  in another  

computer centre. He was earning a salary of about Rs.20,000/- per month.  

3. On September 2, 2000 in the afternoon the landlady, Saroja (PW7)  

received a telephone call asking for Laxmi Kumari. She went to the portion  

of the house where she lived and found her there lying on a chair.  Then,  

with  the  help  of  her  maid  servant  (PW3),  she  got  her  shifted  to  Mythri  

Hospital. After some time her husband, the appellant also reached there.   

4. In the morning of September 3, 2000 Laxmi Kumari’s father, PW1  

received  a  phone  call  from  the  brother  of  the  appellant,  Seshagiri  Rao  

intimating  him  that  his  daughter  had  fallen  seriously  ill  and  had  been  

admitted to the hospital. He along with his wife proceeded to Hyderabad and  

on reaching there went to the hospital, where they found their daughter in an  

unconscious state. On the same day at 8.30 p.m. Laxmi Kumari was declared  

dead by the doctors of Mythri Hospital. In the death certificate issued by the  

2

Hospital (exhibit P-3) it was stated that she was admitted to the hospital on  

September 2,  2000 at  about 7.15 p.m. At the time of admission she was  

unconscious and there was no pulse or blood pressure. She was diagnosed to  

have  suffered  a  cardio-pulmonary  arrest.  She  was  put  on  Ventilator  and  

given  certain  medicines  that  restored  her  cardiac  activity.  She  suffered  

further cardiac arrest at 8.10 p.m. on September 3, that led to her death at  

8.30 p.m.

5. After Laxmi Kumari was dead, her father PW1 went to S.R. Nagar  

Police Station and lodged a complaint there at 9.15 p.m. In the complaint, he  

simply stated that in the morning on that day he received a telephone call  

from  Seshagiri  Rao  from  Hyderabad  asking  them  to  immediately  come  

down to Hyderabad as their daughter was in danger. They started at 8 a.m.,  

and on reaching Hyderabad went to Mythri Hospital where their daughter  

was in an unconscious state.  After half  an hour the doctors declared that  

their daughter had died. He further said that to his knowledge their daughter  

was not suffering from any aliment; he knew that she was in good health till  

4 p.m. on September 2, 2000, and after completing her household work she  

became unconscious  at  6  p.m.  He did  not  know how this  happened.  He  

requested for necessary action so that her dead body could be handed over to  

him for the last rites. The complaint (exhibit P-1) was registered as Crime  

3

No. 589/2000 under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.),  

and was formally incorporated in an FIR (exhibit P-14).     

6. After recording the statement of the father of the deceased the Sub-

Inspector (PW15) proceeded for Mythri  Hospital and got the body of the  

deceased shifted to Gandhi Hospital for post  mortem examination.  At 11  

p.m.  on  the  same  day,  the  Sub-Inspector  went  to  the  residence  of  the  

appellant  and the deceased and in the presence of two ‘panchas’ made a  

thorough search of  the  three rooms which were  in the  occupation of the  

appellant and the deceased. He prepared the ‘Scene of Offence Observation  

Panchnama’ (exhibit P-5) and the ‘Rough Sketch of the Scene of Offence’  

(exhibit P-6). From exhibit P-5, the ‘Scene Panchnama,’ it appears that the  

door on the eastern side of the bedroom was kept closed for separating it  

from the portion of the house under the use and occupation of its owners. A  

computer  system  was  set  up  against  this  door.  On  the  ‘Sajjas’  of  the  

bedroom the Sub-Inspector found suit cases and some miscellaneous articles  

and on the shelves, goddess’ pictures, weekly magazines, some books and  

clothes.  There  was  also  one  double  bed  in  the  bedroom.  No  article  or  

anything else that would shed light on the cause of death of Laxmi Kumari  

was found in the search.       

4

7. Next morning (September 4, 2000) inquest was held on the body of  

Laxmi Kumari in course of which, her parents expressed suspicion on her  

husband (the present appellant) and his brother Seshagiri Rao in connection  

with her death. As a consequence,  the case which was initially instituted  

under section 174 Cr. P. C. was changed to one under sections 498A and  

306 of the Penal Code and further investigation began in that light.

8. On the same day at 4.05 p.m., post mortem was held on the body of  

the deceased Laxmi Kumari. According to the post mortem report, cyanosis  

was present in the fingers and nails and there was froth in the mouth and  

nostrils of the deceased. In the stomach there was 200 ml of yellowish liquid  

that smelled of bitter almonds. The mucosa of the stomach, small intestine  

and large intestine was congested; similarly congested were the organs liver,  

gall-bladder and biliary passages, pancreas, kidney and uterus. The doctor  

conducting post mortem took samples of small intestine, large intestine, liver  

and kidney and also collected a little of the liquid found in the stomach for  

forensic examination.  The doctor  reserved his  opinion as to the cause of  

death awaiting report from the forensic experts.       

9. According to the appellant, he was taken in custody by the police on  

September 4, 2000 itself, though was shown as formally arrested three days  

later,  on  September  7,  2000.  But  we  may,  for  the  present,  discard  the  

5

allegation made by the appellant and proceed with the incontrovertible facts  

of the case.  

10. On September 7, 2000 one B.N. Chary (PW10) who knew the families  

of  both  the  deceased  and  the  appellant  and  who  was  one  of  the  two  

mediators in the marriage between the appellant and Laxmi Kumari, along  

with 20 others, came from Velerupadu to Hyderabad, to meet their MLA,  

Tati Venkateswarlu. They took the MLA to the police station on September  

7, 2000 between 8 and 9 in the morning where he had a discussion with the  

Inspector in connection with the case.  At that time, the appellant and his  

brother were also present at the Police Station.  

11. On the same day and at about the same time (September 7, 2000 at  

7.40  a.m.)  the  appellant  is  said  to  have  made  a  detailed  confessional  

statement that was recorded by Ashok Kumar Singh (PW18), Inspector of  

Police of S.R. Nagar Police Station, near AP Transco bill-payment office,  

Ameerpet in the presence of two panchas, namely, S. Chengaiah Chetty and  

G. Venkateswara Reddy (PW12).

12. In his confessional statement, the appellant is supposed to have said  

that  his  marriage  with  the  deceased  Laxmi Kumari  was  arranged  by his  

parents and it was solemnized on April 30, 1999 at Annavaram Temple, East  

Godvari District. His in-laws had initially agreed to pay as dowry a sum of  

6

Rs.5,00,000/-, besides some furniture and a motor cycle, but they gave only  

Rs.3,69,000/- and some furniture that was worth no more than Rs.10,000/-.  

In May, 1999 he moved with his wife to Hyderabad where he took on rent  

the  first  floor  of  house  no.  8-3-412  at  Yellareddiguda  owned  by  Sri  

Sudharshan, on a monthly rental of Rs.1,200/-. He made plans to go to the  

U.S.A.  for  better  job  prospects,  and  while  continuing  to  work  in  the  

coaching centre he also obtained a passport in his name. But after a few  

months of marriage frictions arose between him and his wife. She did not  

co-operate with him at the time of sex, and used to pick up quarrels with him  

on several issues.  She would complain about the stay of his brother with  

them and would strongly oppose his sending any money to his parents. She  

did not seem to care much for him or his work and despite persuasions by  

him showed no interest in learning computer. Distressed by the unhappiness  

of  his  matrimonial  life,  he  thought  of  taking  his  own life  and  with  that  

intention procured from his friend Brahmachary, who was a goldsmith, some  

cyanide on the pretext that he needed it for cleaning the computer parts. He  

kept the cyanide at a concealed place at their residence in Hyderabad. At that  

time  he  got  an  opportunity  to  go  to  the  U.S.A.  through  the  Macro  

Technology Company, and he told his wife that he would go first and then  

call her there after a year, but she insisted on accompanying him. He even  

7

told her that he would call her to America only after three months of his  

going there, but she would not listen and insisted that he must take her along  

with  him.  Completely  exasperated  by  his  wife’s  nagging  he  thought  of  

killing her rather than giving up his own life. He then decided to kill her by  

administering the poison that lay hidden at their residence and waited for a  

suitable chance to give her the poison. On August 22, 2000 his wife went to  

her native place to attend the marriage of her elder brother and she returned  

back to  Hyderabad  on September  1,  2000.  During her  absence  from the  

house he had decided to kill her within the shortest possible time as he had  

to go to the U.S.A. in the month of October, 2000. In the night of September  

1, 2000 his brother-in-law, Prasad stayed in his house. That night he was  

completely unable to sleep and he kept on thinking of ways to kill his wife  

by giving her cyanide. On the following day at about 2.30 in the afternoon  

he returned from the computer centre. His brother-in-law had already left the  

house in the morning. At around 4 in the afternoon his wife said she wanted  

to have a cold drink. And this suddenly gave him the idea to give her the  

poison by mixing it in the cold drink. He took out the cyanide packet from  

the place where it was hidden and went to a nearby general store from where  

he purchased a bottle of Limca. He got the bottle opened and on the way  

back went inside a STD booth where he put some cyanide into the opened  

8

cold drink bottle. At around 4.30 p.m. he arrived back at his house and gave  

the cold drink, spiked with cyanide, to his wife. His wife asked him to have  

some cold drink from that bottle but he declined the offer and left the house  

saying that he had some urgent work at the computer centre. On the way to  

the institute, he threw away the remaining cyanide in a nala. He was sure  

that  his wife would consume the poisoned cold drink and would die.  At  

about  6.45  p.m.  he  received  the  message  at  his  office  that  his  wife  was  

seriously ill  and was admitted to Mythri Hospital. He knew that his wife  

would die. He went to the hospital and found his wife in unconscious state.  

He feigned ignorance about the reason for her falling ill. He rushed back to  

his  house  and  found  the  Limca  bottle  by  the  side  of  the  sofa.  It  still  

contained about half of its contents. He threw away the remaining contents  

of the bottle in the bathroom and concealed the bottle on the bedroom shelf.  

Then, he again went to the hospital. In the meanwhile some of his relatives  

had sent the message to his in-laws. On September 3, his in-laws reached the  

hospital. On the same day (September 3, 2000) around 8 p.m. the doctors  

declared his wife dead.  On the death of his wife, his in-laws got agitated.  

They expressed doubt about the cause of her death and cast suspicion on  

him. Seeing the turn of the events he went away from the hospital. On the  

following morning, he came to know that the police was searching for him.  

9

He decided to escape from Hyderabad and go to his village. He was waiting  

near  the  Electricity  Office,  Ameerpet  to  meet  the  M.D.  of  his  computer  

institute  to  take  some  money  from  him  but  in  the  meanwhile  he  was  

apprehended by the police at about 7.30 in the morning. At the conclusion of  

his confessional statement the appellant offered to take the police and the  

panchas to his house where the empty Limca bottle was hidden and to show  

the point at the culvert where he had thrown the remaining portion of the  

cyanide.  The  confessional  statement  was  read  over  and  explained  in  

vernacular language and all accepted it to be true and correct.

13. In furtherance of the confessional statement,  the appellant took the  

investigating officer along with the two panchas, S. Chengaiah Chetty and  

G.  Venkateswara  Reddy  (who  had  witnessed  the  recording  of  his  

confessional statement) to his residence at Yellareddiguda where this time,  

at the instance of the accused, the police officer was able to find and recover  

one empty Limca bottle-300 m.l., lying on a shelf. The Limca bottle was  

seized in the presence of two ‘panchas,’ under Seizure Report (exhibit P-10  

& exhibit P-18) which was prepared on September 7, 2000 at 10.30 a.m. The  

Seizure Report is shown to have been signed by both S. Chengaiah Chetty  

and G. Venkateswara Reddy (PW12) as witnesses.   

10

14. On the basis of the confessional statement and the recovery of the cold  

drink bottle made in pursuance to it, the case was further altered to be one  

under section 302 of the Penal Code.    

15. On September  29,  2000 the  investigating  officer,  Sub-inspector  G.  

Prasada Rao (PW16) went to Bhradrachalam and recorded the statement of  

Brahmachary (PW4), the goldsmith from whom the appellant is said to have  

obtained cyanide. In the statement recorded under section 161 of Cr. P.C.  

(later produced before the court as exhibit P-2), Brahmachary confirmed that  

the appellant had obtained cyanide from him.

16. Later,  on  December  16,  2000  two  reports  were  received  from the  

Forensic  Science  Laboratory,  Andhra  Pradesh.  The  first  report  was  in  

respect  of  the  samples/specimens  preserved  by  the  doctor  holding  post  

mortem on the body of  the  deceased.  The forensic report  stated that  the  

samples in the three screw capped bottles were received in the laboratory on  

September 15, 2000 (samples were collected in course of post mortem held  

on September 4, 2000 and there is no explanation where the samples lay for  

11 days). The three bottles contained specimens of (i) Stomach and piece of  

intestine,  (ii)  Pieces  of  liver  and  kidney  and  (iii)  Reddish  turbid  liquid  

(collected  from  the  stomach  of  the  deceased).  According  to  the  report,  

cyanide, a chemical poison was found in all of them.    

11

17. The second report of the same date was in respect of the Limca bottle,  

allegedly recovered from one of the rooms of the appellant’s residence. This  

was received in the laboratory on September 27, 2000 (the recovery of the  

bottle was made on September 7, and it is not explained why it reached the  

laboratory after 20 days).  In the forensic report  it  is noted that the bottle  

labeled as ‘Limca’ contained “small amount of white powder.” According to  

the report, on analysis it was found to be cyanide, a chemical poison.

18. On the basis of the forensic reports, the doctor who earlier held the  

post mortem gave the final opinion on the cause of death and stated that it  

was due to cyanide poisoning.   

19. This finally tied up the investigation and the police submitted charge  

sheet on January 31, 2000 and the appellant was finally sent for trial  for  

committing the murder of his wife.   

20. It is significant to note here that the appellant was charged only under  

section 302 of the Penal Code. He was not charged under sections 304B or  

498A of the Penal Code or under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition  

Act, 1961.              

21. Before  the  trial  Court,  the  prosecution  examined  as  many  as  18  

witnesses and produced 20 documents that were marked as exhibits.  The  

appellant in the statement under section 313 Cr. P. C., of course denied all  

12

the  allegations  against  him.  He  denied  having  made  any  confessional  

statement.  He  also  denied  that  he  led  the  investigating  officer  and  the  

‘panchas’ to his residence and there produced before them an empty Limca  

bottle from a ‘sajja’ in the bedroom. At the end of the statement he said that  

sometime after marriage his wife had become unwell and he had got her  

treated.  She  had gone  to  attend  the  marriage  of  his  brother,  PW2.  After  

returning from the marriage of her brother, she was in a disappointing (sic  

depressed) mood. At the end of examination by the court he made further  

statement which was recorded as follows:    

“It is submitted that after the death of my wife on 3-9-2000 the  body was shifted to Mortuary at Gandhi Hospital from Mythri  Hospital,  myself,  my father-in-law (Bapaiah),  my brother-in- law and my brothers were together and slept in my house at  Yellareddyguda.  Next  Day  i.e.  4-9-2000  we  all  went  to  Mortuary  where  the  police  Sanjeeva  Reddy  Nagar  was  also  present. After the post-mortem the police and my father-in-law  took me and my brother to police station of Sanjeevareddynagar  and where we were kept illegally and forced us to give money  to my father-in-law. I  pleaded my innocence,  but neither the  police  nor  my  father-in-law  listened  me  (sic).  Subsequently  relatives of my father-in-law and MLA visited the police station  had the discussions with the police officials and put up a false  case against me.”

22. The trial Court on a consideration of all the evidence produced before  

it  found that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt  of the accused  

beyond all reasonable doubts. It, therefore, acquitted him of the charge under  

section 302 of the Penal Code. Against the judgment of the trial Court, the  

13

state government preferred an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1009 of 2005).  

The High Court, by a long and detailed judgment set aside the judgment of  

the trial Court and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

23. We will now proceed to examine whether on the basis of the materials  

on record, the view taken by the trial Court, was so wrong and unreasonable  

as to warrant interference and reversal by the High Court.    

24. The medical  evidence  by PW14,  including the  post  mortem report  

(exhibit  P-12) and the final  opinion on the cause of death (exhibit  P-13)  

coupled with the evidence of PW17, Joint Director F.S.L., Hyderabad and  

the report dated December 16, 2000 (exhibit P-15) leave no room for doubt  

that Laxmi Kumari died of cyanide poisoning. But the question is whether  

there is sufficient reliable evidence to show that the cyanide was given to her  

in the cold drink by the appellant.

25. Before  proceeding  to  examine  the  evidence  adduced  by  the  

prosecution in support of its case, it would be better to put aside the so called  

confessional  statement  made  by  the  appellant.  It  is  seen  above  that  the  

confessional  statement was completely repudiated by the appellant before  

the trial court. Further, the statement was supposedly made in presence of  

‘panchas,’ namely, Sri. S. Chengaiah Chetty and Sri. G. Venkateswar Reddy  

and it  was  shown to  have been signed by them as witnesses  along with  

14

Inspector Ashok Kumar Singh, the investigating officer (PW18). Of the two  

panchas, only Venkateswar Reddy was examined as PW12, but he did not  

support the prosecution case either in regard to the appellant’s confessional  

statement or the Seizure Report of the Limca bottle and was declared hostile.  

It was only PW18, the investigating officer, who stated before the trial court  

that the accused voluntarily made the confessional statement and voluntarily  

produced  the  empty  Limca  bottle  from the  ‘sajja’  at  his  residence.  The  

confessional statement, disowned by the appellant and not supported even  

by the witness, is of no use for judging the appellant’s guilt and must be kept  

out of consideration.

26. Now, coming back to the evidence led by the prosecution; as noted  

above, apart from the doctor (PW14) and the forensic expert (PW17), 16  

more witnesses were examined to prove the culpability of the appellant. Out  

of them PWs 1 and 2 were the father and the brother respectively of the  

deceased,  Laxmi  Kumari.  Having  regard  to  the  charge  on  which  the  

appellant was tried, and the nature of the prosecution case the relevance of  

their evidences is limited to the question, whether or not the appellant can be  

said to have the motive to commit the crime. But before that, the prosecution  

is required to establish other circumstances which are more important and  

directly relevant to the case.

15

27. PW7 was the landlady in whose house the appellant and the deceased  

lived on rent, and PW3 was her maid. These two witnesses stated before the  

Court how they had found Laxmi Kumari lying unconscious in a chair and  

had shifted her to Mythri Hospital for treatment. PW3 further stated that at  

that  time  the  accused  was  not  present  in  the  house  but  he  came  to  the  

hospital  an  hour  after  the  deceased  was  admitted  there.  In  her  cross-

examination by the defence, she stated that the deceased was suffering from  

some kind  of  disease,  and at  that  stage  she  was  declared  hostile  by  the  

prosecution. PW7 similarly stated that on receiving a telephone call she went  

to the portion of the house occupied by the deceased and found her there  

lying unconscious in a chair. She, then, called her maid PW3 and with her  

help, shifted her to Mythri hospital. She did not know what had happened to  

the deceased. In her cross examination she stated that the accused and the  

deceased were living amicably prior to the date of the incident.  

28. PW4  was  Brahmachary,  the  goldsmith  residing  at  Bhadrachalam,  

from whom the appellant is supposed to have obtained the cyanide as per his  

confessional statement. In his deposition before the Court, PW4 stated that  

he was threatened and cajoled by the police to say that the appellant had  

obtained cyanide form him on the pretext of cleaning the computer parts. He  

stated before the court that in the last week of September 2000, S.R. Nagar  

16

Police came to his house at Bhadrachalam and from there brought him and  

his brother to S.R. Nagar Police Station in Hyderabad. There they were kept  

for 10 days and were threatened that they would be implicated in the case,  

unless they made statements as directed by the police. In the end, finding no  

way  out,  he  yielded  and  made  the  statement  before  the  police  and  the  

magistrate as he was asked to do. He was declared hostile and was cross-  

examined by the prosecution, in course of which he bluntly denied that his  

statement under section 161 of Cr. P. C. was given voluntarily and not under  

coercion. The deposition of PW4 is a major blow to the prosecution case as  

regards the source of cyanide to the appellant and his access to the poison.   

29. Next comes, the issue of the appellant mixing up cyanide in the cold  

drink bottle of Limca and giving it to the deceased to drink. On this issue,  

the prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW6, the owner of the general  

store and the recovery of the empty Limca bottle from one of the rooms in  

the occupation of the appellant and the deceased. PW6 deposed before the  

court that more than a year ago, at about 2.30 or 3 p.m., the accused went to  

his store and purchased a Limca bottle.  Apart  from the price of the cold  

drink, he was asked to deposit Rs.5 for the bottle. He paid Rs.15 and took  

away the bottle of Limca, but he didn’t return the empty bottle. He did not  

know where and in which house the accused resided. In cross-examination,  

17

he stated that his store was a big shop and a number of customers came  

there. He remembered some customers and the articles purchased by them  

but didn’t remember most of the customers or the articles purchased by them  

on a particular day. He also said that most of the time he went out for the  

purchase of supply for the shop and at those times his brother sat in the shop.  

He also said that he was a social worker and a reputed person in the locality.  

And  he  went  to  the  police  station  whenever  some disputes  arose  in  the  

locality and tried to settle them amicably by compromise.  

30. In appreciating the evidence of PW6, two or three things need to be  

kept in mind. First, though it is not impossible for a busy shop keeper to  

recall a person who is not a regular customer of the shop but comes there by  

chance for purchasing a bottle of cold drink, it is certainly a little unusual.  

Secondly, PW6 claimed himself to be a social worker and a reputed person  

in the locality. He was quite familiar with the police and used to visit the  

police station for settlement of the disputes arising in the locality. Thirdly,  

and most importantly, the appellant was presented before him after allegedly  

making  the  confessional  statement  before  the  police  and  the  punch  

witnesses. The whole story was, thus, out in the open and the police had  

brought the culprit  before him ‘for a simple confirmation’ that  he would  

18

indeed do in order to oblige the police without any difficulty. For the reasons  

discussed above, we feel very reluctant in accepting the testimony of PW6.  

31. Next comes, the recovery of the empty Limca bottle from one of the  

rooms at the appellant’s residence that was found by the forensic laboratory  

to  contain  cyanide.  Proceeding  step  by  step,  it  may  be  noted  that  the  

appellant’s residence was thoroughly searched soon after the death of Laxmi  

Kumari  on September  3  itself.  The  ‘Scene  of  Offence  Panchnama’  is  in  

considerable detail and it describes the appellant’s residence and the articles  

found there. On the ‘sajja’ of the appellant’s bedroom, suit cases and some  

miscellaneous  articles  were  found and on shelves  there  were  portraits  of  

goddesses,  weekly magazines,  other  books  and some clothes.  It  is  rather  

strange,  that  in  course  of  such a  detailed  examination,  the  Sub-Inspector  

should  have  missed  out  the  empty  Limca  bottle  that  is  shown  to  be  

recovered three days later from the same shelf. The seizure memo does not  

state that the bottle was taken out by the appellant from some hidden place  

from where normally it could not be recovered without his assistance. The  

seizure memo (exhibit P-10 and exhibit P-18) was prepared in presence of  

panchas, Sri. S. Chengaiah Chetty and Sri. Venkateswar Reddy. Only one of  

them, namely, Sri. Venkateshwar Reddy was examined by the prosecution  

as PW12. He denied that any recovery was made in his presence. On the  

19

contrary he stated that on September 7, 2000 S.R. Nagar police obtained his  

signatures  on  some  papers  of  which  some  were  written  and  some  were  

blank.  He denied that in his presence the appellant had led the police to his  

house and had produced the Limca bottle, that the police had seized it under  

the seizure memo, and that he and another panch attested the panchnama.  

Thirdly, it is to be noted that in the seizure report under the column details of  

seizure what is stated is ‘One empty Limca Bottle-300ml.’ Thus, at the time  

of  seizure  there  was  no  white  powder  visible  inside  the  bottle  as  is  

mentioned in the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated December  

16, 2000. At this stage, it also needs to be recalled that the bottle reached the  

Forensic  Science  Laboratory  only  on  September  27,  2000  and  there  is  

absolutely  no  evidence  as  to  where  and  with  whom the  bottle  remained  

during this period. All  these circumstances make the prosecution case on  

recovery  of  the  Limca  bottle  from the  residence  of  the  appellant  highly  

suspect.

32. Thus analysed, there appears to be hardly anything in the prosecution  

evidence  to  establish  the  charge  against  the  appellant.  The  facts  and  

circumstances of the case may give rise to a strong suspicion against the  

appellant but it has been said many times before that suspicion howsoever  

strong can not take place of proof. There is no proof of the appellant’s guilt  

20

and on the basis of the evidence on record it would be quite unsafe to hold  

him guilty of murder and to send him to imprisonment for life.   

33. We think that the trial court had taken the perfectly correct view in the  

matter.  The  High  Court  was,  unfortunately,  unable  to  keep  aside  the  so  

called  confessional  statement.  On  the  contrary,  it  put  the  confessional  

statement at the centre and proceeded to examine all other evidences in its  

back drop and, thus, reached to a completely erroneous conclusion regarding  

the appellant’s guilt. We find the judgment of the High Court unsustainable.  

The impugned judgment of the High Court is, accordingly, set aside and the  

judgment passed by the trial court is restored. The appellant is acquitted of  

the charge and is  directed to be released from jail  forthwith unless he is  

required in connection with any other criminal case. The appeal is allowed.

                                                     …………………………

……..J. (AFTAB ALAM)

             ………………………………..J. (R.M. LODHA)

New Delhi; January 5, 2011.    

21