Supreme Court acquits accused in drug overdose death case: Chandru vs. State (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12 February 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 123

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Deepak Gupta, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when the cause of death is a drug overdose? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where two individuals were accused of murdering their friend by administering a fatal dose of drugs. The court ultimately overturned the conviction, emphasizing the need for a strong chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment highlights the complexities of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases.

The bench, consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Deepak Gupta, delivered a unanimous judgment, with the opinion authored by Justice Deepak Gupta.

Case Background

The deceased, Arun, was a friend of Siva @ Sivaprakash (Accused No. 1). On October 30, 2004, Arun, Siva, and Chandru @ Chandrasekaran (Accused No. 2) traveled to Chennai and checked into Meena Guest House. They were allotted room no. 203 at around 9 p.m. Later that night, Venkatesh @ Venki arrived and injected 4 ml of Tidijesic drug into Arun’s left wrist, also using 2 ml for himself before leaving. The next morning, October 31, 2004, when Arun did not wake up, the two accused called Venki. The room boy alerted the manager, and it was discovered that Arun was dead.

Iqbal, the manager of the company owned by Arun’s father, and Ponsekar, Arun’s maternal uncle, arrived at the room. Ponsekar filed a complaint at 9:45 a.m. on October 31, 2004, stating that Arun had consumed a heavy dose of a drug through injection and was unconscious. He later found Arun dead.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, a case was registered based on Ponsekar’s complaint. The body was sent for post-mortem, and Dr. A.N. Shanmugham (PW-6) stated that the death could be due to drug injection. Venki was arrested, and he allegedly made a confessional statement, which led to the discovery of drug-related items. Unsatisfied with the police investigation, Ponsekar filed a petition in the High Court of Madras, which transferred the investigation to the CB CID, Tamil Nadu.

The CB CID subjected the three suspects, Venki, Siva, and Chandru, to Polygraph, Brainmapping, and Narcoanalysis tests. The investigating officer stated that Chandru and Siva cleared the tests, while Venki’s answers were deceptive.

In 2006, Arun’s father filed a petition in the Madras High Court to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which was rejected on 08.02.2008. On 23.01.2008, the CB CID filed a charge sheet against Venki under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with the present accused cited as prosecution witnesses. Venki died before the trial.

After Venki’s death, Ponsekar filed a private complaint, alleging that Venki injected Arun with an overdose of Tidijesic at the behest of the accused, and that Siva had a motive due to a suspected relationship between Arun and Siva’s girlfriend, R (PW-10). The Metropolitan Magistrate recorded statements and found sufficient grounds to proceed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges were framed. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was upheld by the High Court, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the principles for appreciating circumstantial evidence as laid down in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where it was held that the circumstances from which guilt is inferred must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and exclude every other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

The Court also referred to Sir Alfred Wills’ book, “Wills on Circumstantial Evidence,” which lays down rules for circumstantial evidence:

• Rule 1: Facts must be clearly proved and connected to the factum probandum.
• Rule 2: The burden of proof is on the party asserting a fact that infers legal accountability.
• Rule 3: The best evidence must be adduced.
• Rule 4: Inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.
• Rule 5: If there is reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

The Court summarized the law as follows:
✓ The circumstances relied upon must be proved beyond doubt.
✓ The circumstances should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.
✓ The circumstances should form a complete chain leading to only one conclusion: the guilt of the accused.
✓ There should be no probability of the crime having been committed by someone else.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the accused were responsible for the death of Arun, based on the following circumstances:

• The accused were last seen with the deceased.
• Medical evidence showed that Arun died of a drug overdose.
• The accused had a motive to kill Arun due to a love triangle involving R (PW-10).
• Chandru, being a medical student, had the knowledge to administer the fatal injection.

The defense countered these arguments by stating that:

• The deceased himself organized the trip to Chennai, not the accused.
• The medical evidence was not conclusive regarding the time of death and the number of injections.
• The motive was not proven, as R (PW-10) did not support the prosecution’s version.
• There was no evidence to suggest that Chandru administered the fatal dose.
• The prosecution’s witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable.

The prosecution relied on the fact that the accused were last seen with the deceased, arguing that this placed them at the scene of the crime. The prosecution also relied on the medical evidence that Arun died of a drug overdose, and that Venki had injected the deceased with 4ml of Tidijesic. They argued that the accused had a motive to kill Arun, as Siva was jealous of Arun’s relationship with R (PW-10). They also argued that Chandru, being a medical student, had the knowledge to administer the fatal injection.

The defense argued that the deceased himself organized the trip to Chennai, and that the medical evidence was not conclusive regarding the time of death and the number of injections. They also argued that the motive was not proven, as R (PW-10) did not support the prosecution’s version. They further argued that there was no evidence to suggest that Chandru administered the fatal dose, and that the prosecution’s witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable.

The innovativeness of the argument by the defence was that it was the deceased who had organized the trip and not the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were proved beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the circumstances unerringly pointed towards the guilt of the accused?
3. Whether the circumstances formed a complete chain leading to only one conclusion, i.e., the guilt of the accused?
4. Whether there was any probability of the crime having been committed by someone else?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Supreme Court:

Judgment

The Court viewed the authorities as follows:

• Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the need for a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• Wills on Circumstantial Evidence: The Court used the principles outlined in this book to analyze the circumstantial evidence presented in the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the death of the deceased. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to prove the circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The medical evidence was not conclusive, the motive was not established, and the possibility of the deceased injecting himself or someone else doing so could not be ruled out. The Court also noted the inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court considered the possibility that the deceased could have injected himself or called someone else to do so. The Court also noted that the prosecution had failed to prove where the additional 36 ml of the drug came from.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Deepak Gupta, with Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to meet this standard.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “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.”
• “In order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused, and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.”
• “If there by any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted.”

Key Takeaways

• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The circumstances must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.
• The circumstances must form a complete chain leading to only one conclusion: the guilt of the accused.
• There should be no probability of the crime having been committed by someone else.
• Medical evidence must be conclusive and consistent with the prosecution’s case.
• Motive must be clearly established with reliable evidence.
• Inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses can weaken the case.

This judgment underscores the importance of a strong chain of evidence in criminal cases. It serves as a reminder that convictions cannot be based on mere suspicion or weak circumstantial evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the accused-appellants be acquitted and released immediately unless required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, and the circumstances must form a complete chain leading to only one conclusion: the guilt of the accused. The Court reiterated the established principles of law regarding circumstantial evidence and its application in criminal cases. There was no change in the previous position of law, but the Court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to these principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial court, and acquitted the accused. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and that the circumstances did not form a complete chain leading to the conclusion that the accused were guilty. The Court emphasized the importance of a strong chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.