Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
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. c
19. This finally tied up the investigation and the police submitted charge sheet on January 31, 2000 and the appellant t. 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 3048 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 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' i.n 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 M. NAGESHWAR RAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [AFTAB ALAM, J.] 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 -1 against me."
22. The trial Court on a consideration of all the evidence c 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 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 -f 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 [2011) 1 S.C.R. A 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 B them as witnesses along with Inspector Ashok Kumar Singh, the investigating officer (PWi8). 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 Lim ca )… c bottle and was declared hostile. It was only PW18, the investigating officer, who stated before the trial court that the accused voluntarHy 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 E 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 …,.. F 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.
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 H to Mythri Hospital for treatment. PW3 further stated that at that ,_ M. NAGESHWAR RAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [AFTAB ALAM, J.] time the accused was not present in the house but he came to A .J. 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 -1 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 c _, 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 –1 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 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 G 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 -· .. A 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 B Llmca 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 Llmca, but he didn't return the empty bottle. He did not know where and In which house the accused resided. In cross-examination, he stated that his store was a c big shop and a number of customers came there. He rememtlered 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 E 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 F 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 th~ pollce and the punch G witnesses. The whole story was, thus, out In the open and the police had brought the culprit before him 'for a slmple ',— . confirmation' that he would 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. M. NAGESHWAR RAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA .627 PRADESH [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
31. Next comes, ~he recovery of the empty Limca bottle ·A 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 Laxml Kumarl on September 3 Itself. The 'Scene of Offenc.e Panchnama' Is in B 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 shelve.s there' were portraits of goddesses, weekly magazines, other books and some clothes. It Is rather strange, c that in course of such a detailed examination, the Sub-Inspector sl:lould have missed out the empty Llmca bottle that Is ~hown to be recovered three days later from the same shel . The seizure memo does not state that the bottle was taken out by the appellant from some hidden place from where normally It · D could not be recovered without his assistance.
The seizure memo (exhibit P-1 O and exhibit P-18) was .. prepared in presence of panchas, Sri. S. 'Chengalah Chatty 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 contrary he stated that on September 7, 2000 S.R. Nagar police obtained his signatures on some papers of which '1' 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 Llmca bottle, that the police had seized It und.er , . 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 detalls of seizure what Is stated Is 'One empty Llmca Bottle-300ml.' Thus, at the time of seizure there was no white powder visible Inside the bottle as Is mentioned In the G report of the Foren'51C Science Laboratory dated December 16, 2000.
At this stage, It also needs to be recalled that the bottle reached the Forerisic 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 H (2011] 1 S.C.R. 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 B. 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 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 lhe 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. B.B.B. Appeal allowed.