BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-accused was tried for offences under sections 302, 201, 467, 468 and 420 of IPC and under Section 15 (2) (b) of Indian Medical council Act, 1956. He was acquitted of all the charges except charge under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life on five counts. On each count he has to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month on each count. ( 2 ) THE allegations on the basis of which charges were framed were that, on 12th March, 1998 at about 4. 00 hours in the house of the deceased persons at jhansinagar, Srirampur the accused caused death of the entire family comprising of 3 children and their parents by giving a poisonous injection pavulon to the members of the entire family in order to grab their property and also in order to secure the job of Deceased No. 1. He was further accused of having caused disappearance of evidence, manipulation and forgery to mislead investigation so that it is believed that deceased No. l had committed suicide after committing murder of his family members. On the basis of these allegations, following charges were framed against the accused:"firstly, that, you on 12-3-1998 at about 04. 00 hours in the house of deceased persons at jhansinagar, Srirampur, committed murders of five persons namely (1) Kondaveni ramchander s/o Rajaiah, aged 40 years, caste: Tenugu, Occ: Coal-Filler, RK-6 Incline (D-1), 2) Smt. Kondaveni Rajeshwari, aged 35 years (D-2), 3) Kondaveni Laxmi, aged 12 years (D-3), 4) Kondaveni Padma, aged 9 years (D-4), and 5) Kondaveni Srinivas @ srinu aged 6 years (D-5), intentionally by causing the death of above five persons by giving them poisonous injections (Pavulon) with dishonest intention to grab their property including the job of deceased kondaveni Ramchander and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 I. P. C and within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly, that, you on the said date, time and place as mentioned in charge No. l supra, knowing or having reason to believe that the offence, namely murders of above five persons took place punishable with death or imprisonment for life, has been committed, caused certain evidence connected with the said offence, namely, screened the evidence by means of manipulations and forgery to mislead that deceased No. 1 Kondaveni ramchander killed other four deceased persons i. e. , Smt. Kondaveni Rajeshwari, kondaveni Laxmi, Kondaveni Padma and kondaveni Srinivas and himself (D-1) committed suicide for his suffering from the symptoms of AIDS disease, with intention to screen yourself from legal punishment, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 I. P. C and within the cognizance of this Court. Thirdly, that, you on the said date, time and place as mentioned in charge No. 1 supra, forged a certain document i. e. , prepared a note which you got written and signed by deceased ramchander earlier and by writing the gap between the end of the matter and signature of deceased Ramchander to give meaning that the house, agricultural land and job of the deceased Ramchander to be given to you and your wife and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 467 I. P. C and within the cognizance of this Court. Fourthly, that, you on the said date, time and place as mentioned in charge No. 1 supra, forged a certain document namely, a note said to have been written and signed by deceased kondaveni Ramchander to give meaning that the house, agriculture land and job of deceased Ramchander to be given to you and your wife and with intention that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 468 I. P. C and within the cognizance of this Court. Fifthly, that, you on the said date, time and place as mentioned in charge No. l supra, cheated your deceased father-in-law Kondaveni ramchander and his family members dishonestly inducing them to deliver their house, agricultural land and job of kondaveni Ramchander to you which is capable of being created as valuable security by forging a note purported to have been written and signed by deceased Kondaveni ramchander to give meaning that the house, agricultural land and job to be given to you and your wife and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 420 I. PC and within the cognizance of this Court. Lastly, that, you prior to the date of incident, practiced as Private Medical Practitioner at godavarikhani by opening a clinic in the name and style as "venkata Sai Clinic" and claiming yourself as Private Medical practicing Doctor and possessing A. M. B. S qualification and the same is not enrolled on a State Medical Register and without such enrolment you practiced medicine in godavarikhani and thereby contravened the provisions of the Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 15 (2) (b) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and within the cognizance of this Court. "the appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 38 witnesses and exhibited 131 documents. Defence examined 3 witnesses and exhibited certain portions of statements witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC. Some photographs were also exhibited by the defence. The opinion given by D. W. 3, handwriting expert, was also produced. ( 3 ) BEFORE coming to the evidence of each of the witnesses it may be profitable to note that the prosecution tried to establish the case mainly on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution tried to establish motive, they also tried to establish that the accused was in possession of the poison that was injected to the deceased persons and thirdly it was tried to establish that the accused had the know-how and the opportunity to administer the poisonous injection. In this background, now let us go to the evidence of the witnesses. ( 4 ) P. W. I is a Coal-Filler in the Singareni Colleries. He was also a milk vendor. He used to sell milk in Srirampur colony. The accused belonged to neradupalli village and the witness knows him. In this background, now let us go to the evidence of the witnesses. ( 4 ) P. W. I is a Coal-Filler in the Singareni Colleries. He was also a milk vendor. He used to sell milk in Srirampur colony. The accused belonged to neradupalli village and the witness knows him. The witness used to supply milk to ramchander who was the deceased. Rama (PW 2) was the daughter of the deceased ramchander and wife of the accused. About a year back Ramchander, his wife, two daughters and a son died in their own house. On the date of incident, at about 6. 00am he went to the house of the deceased to supply milk. He called out the wife of the deceased as "akka, Akka". There was no response. The neighbours gathered and he told them that members of the house were not responding. He climbed over the wall, entered inside the house. A neighbour also followed him. He saw a door curtain and the door partly open. He pushed the curtain aside and through the gap he tried to see towards inside. The neighbour who had accompanied him went inside and told him that the deceased ramchander s body was cold. He rushed out and called one Dr. Poshetty who used to treat the deceased and his family. The doctor examined the 5 persons and declared that they were dead. Many people gathered at the spot and after seeing the dead bodies in the first instance he went out to fetch the doctor, he went to police station thereafter, gave his statement Ex. Pl which bears his signature. Police came to the spot. Police recorded his statement. He was told mat there was a chit kept on the table with a tea cup as paper weight. He had not seen the chit himself. In his cross-examination he stated that he was an illiterate person, he could only sign. He had stated in Ex. Pl that the deceased Ramchander suspected that he and his family members were afflicted with AIDS, he was unable to bear with the prospect of living with such disease therefore he took injection and gave injection to the other deceased persons also. The police came to the spot and conducted panchanama. At the time of the inquest nobody had stated that the accused had visited the house. The police came to the spot and conducted panchanama. At the time of the inquest nobody had stated that the accused had visited the house. ( 5 ) P. W. 2 is daughter of deceased No. 1 and 2 and sister of other deceased persons, the accused is her husband. She stated that her marriage with the accused had been performed on 30th May, 1997. For one and half years they were not living together. Her parents, sisters and brother died on 11-3-1998. At that time she had gone to her maternal grandmother s house at kannapuram in Karimnagar District. Her grandfather received telephone message about the incident and she rushed to the house along with her maternal grandfather rajaiah (LW 3 ). Rayamallu (LW4), anjaiah (LW5) and Ashok (LW 6) who were sons of her grandparents. By the time they reached their house, the dead bodies had been subjected to post-mortem examination in Mancherial Government hospital. All her relatives came to the hospital at Mancherial. The accused was an r. M. P doctor who was practicing at gandhinagar of Godavarikhani. Prior to the incident and after marriage, the accused was working as compounder in Swetha nursing home at Godavarikhani. Later the accused gave up the job of Nursing Home and opened a hospital of his own in gandhinagar. The accused had very little practice and used to take 2000/- or 3000/- rupees every month from her father. Prior to her marriage Dr. Poshetty was their family doctor and he used to attend to the family members. After her marriage, the accused told her parents that since he was a doctor the family should not go for treatment to ~dr. Poshetty and whenever there is a problem in the house he should be called from Godavarikhani. Thereafter, the accused used to visit her parents and treat them whenever they needed treatment. About 3 months prior to his death the father of the witness went to the accused s house, complaining that he had pain in the waist, the accused took him to Swetha Nursing home of Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW 9) for treatment. Her father was subjected to certain tests and then returned to the witness s house. The accused told her that her father was suspected to be an AIDS patient. She was also told by the accused that she should not tell it to her mother. Ramesh Kumar (PW 9) for treatment. Her father was subjected to certain tests and then returned to the witness s house. The accused told her that her father was suspected to be an AIDS patient. She was also told by the accused that she should not tell it to her mother. The accused informed her father also that he was a patient of AIDS. Thereafter her father went back to Srirampur. The accused told her father in her presence that he would get medicines for him from Calcutta if he pays the money required. After a week thereafter the witness accompanied the accused to the house of her parents. The accused demanded Rs. 2000/- from her father in order to obtain medicine from calcutta. The accused also took blood samples on a slide (glass plate) from her parents, from the witness, from her sisters and brother and said that he would get the blood samples tested for AIDS for the whole family. The accused took the blood samples to Godavarikhani, he returned back to the house of parents of the witness on the next day and told them that all the members of the family were suffering from AIDS. The accused brought an injection and he gave the injection to all the members of the family including the witness intravenously. He had stated that these injections he had brought from Calcutta. He also told that the next dose of injection would be given next month and for that he demanded Rs. 2000/- from her father who gave him Rs. 2000/- and then the accused returned to Godavarikhani the witness remained with her parents. Thereafter her paternal aunt took her, her mother and her younger brother to kannapuram. The accused also visited kannapuram and stayed there for two days. The witness told the accused that she would like to accompany him and go to her house at Godavarikhani but he refused. On the same day the accused left Kannapuram at about 10. 00am for Godavarikhani. Her mother took rice in an auto trolley and along with her brother went to Srirampur. The witness stayed back at Kannapuram. Her maternal uncle who was accompanying her mother took the auto trolley from srirampus to Godavarikhani to shift the goods to the witness s house and from that place to Eradapalli which was the native place of accused. Her mother took rice in an auto trolley and along with her brother went to Srirampur. The witness stayed back at Kannapuram. Her maternal uncle who was accompanying her mother took the auto trolley from srirampus to Godavarikhani to shift the goods to the witness s house and from that place to Eradapalli which was the native place of accused. The maternal uncle returned and told the witness that the accused had told him that he would be going to Srirampur. On the next day she heard about the death of the deceased. When she reached the Government Hospital, mancherial where the post-mortem was conducted, the accused was present in the hospital. The witness stated that while she was weeping the accused approached her and enquired from her as to whether she could identify handwriting of her father. The witness told that she could identify. In the evening the post-mortem was conducted and dead bodies were taken to Gangaram, the village of her paternal grand-parents. In the Government Hospital, in the evening, the C. I of police showed her Ex. P2 and enquired whether it bears the handwriting of her father. She told him that it was not in the handwriting of her father. Her deceased father used to work in a coal mine of singareni Colleries. She was not suffering from AIDS nor were her parents suffering from the disease. Ex. P3 was exhibited by her as a register in which pages 1 to 88 contained the handwriting of her father. Ex. P4 was a pocket note book containing the handwriting of her father. Ex. P5 was the application form for Peerless company which bears the handwriting of her father. Ex. P6 was also a page of a note book containing the handwriting of her father. She could also identify the handwriting of the accused. When she reached her parent s house on hearing about the death of her parents she was not allowed to enter into the house and the bodies by that time had been shifted to the hospital. Her father had no medical knowledge. He had no knowledge or know-how of administering an injection. She was the only remaining legal heir of her parents. Her father had around 21/2 acres of land. He also owns a house at Srirampur. His monthly income by way of salary was Rs. 4000/ -. Her father had no medical knowledge. He had no knowledge or know-how of administering an injection. She was the only remaining legal heir of her parents. Her father had around 21/2 acres of land. He also owns a house at Srirampur. His monthly income by way of salary was Rs. 4000/ -. The accused, in her view, gave injection to the deceased and killed her parents, sisters and brother in order to get the property of the father of the witness. In her cross-examination she stated that her relations with the accused were cordial. She denied the suggestion that she had not stated to the police that the accused was getting Rs. 2,000/- from her father every month. She denied that her father had received any money from the accused. She also denied that her father was suffering even before the marriage of the accused from diseases like T. B, Asthma. She stated that her father had a complaint of pain in the waist but no other disease. She also denied that her father had taken treatment from Mancherial and the receipts were found in the house. She again stated that two months prior to the death her father had come to Godavarikhani for medical treatment and the accused had taken him to Dr. Ramesh Kumar, Surgeon for treatment. She denied the suggestion that she had not told police that the accused had told her that her father was suffering from AIDS. She also did not accept the suggestion that the accused had not told her father that he was suffering from AIDS. She denied the suggestion that after 3 days of the occurrence on the advice of the relatives of her parents she had made false allegations against the accused on suspicion. She denied that the accused had no connection with the death of her family members. She also denied the suggestion that her father had written a suicide note long before the occurrence because he was scared of an incurable disease and was worried about his life and future of his children. She also denied the suggestion that her father had some glands over his left shoulder and on his thighs. She also denied that her father had gone for biopsy and samples taken from the glands were taken to Hyderabad for the purpose of biopsy. She also denied the suggestion that her father had some glands over his left shoulder and on his thighs. She also denied that her father had gone for biopsy and samples taken from the glands were taken to Hyderabad for the purpose of biopsy. But she accepted that "her father had some problem in the neck and a piece of flesh was sent to hyderabad once for biopsy". She denied the suggestion that her father was visiting the accused at Godavarikhani every week to know about his medical condition. ( 6 ) P. W. 3 is the brother of the Deceased No. 1. He stated that his brother, deceased No. l was a mason and later secured a job in Coal mine at Srirampur. He received telephone call from Srirampur about the tragedy. He, his wife Sarojana, anjaiah his elder brother, his wife mangamma, his father Rajaiah and others went to Srirampur. By the time they reached srirampur the bodies were shifted to mancherial hospital for post-mortem. P. W. 2 arrived at the hospital. The deceased persons had no disease and were not suffering from AIDS. He came to know that accused had given injection to the deceased persons and it was the accused who had written the death note stating that deceased had AIDS. At Srirampur the deceased No. l had about 2 acres of land. After the death of his brother police had come to his village and sought for the sample handwriting of the deceased. He gave them a register Ex. P6 containing the handwriting of his deceased brother. He had given ex. P6 to the police in Srirampur. He denied the suggestion that Ex. P6 was not in the handwriting of the deceased No. l. The deceased No. l used to write his name always as k. Ramachander and not as kondaveni Ramchander . Ex. P2 was not in the handwriting of his brother ramchander. ( 7 ) P. W. 4 is an auto driver, Reddy Rajeeru (LW7) and Reddy Pochamma (LW8) are his parents. Lingaiah (LW9), odelu (LW10) are his brothers. The deceased No. 2 Rajeshwari was his elder sister and the deceased No. 1 was his brother-in-law. P. W. 2 was the daughter of his sister and Ramchander (deceased No. 1 ). ( 7 ) P. W. 4 is an auto driver, Reddy Rajeeru (LW7) and Reddy Pochamma (LW8) are his parents. Lingaiah (LW9), odelu (LW10) are his brothers. The deceased No. 2 Rajeshwari was his elder sister and the deceased No. 1 was his brother-in-law. P. W. 2 was the daughter of his sister and Ramchander (deceased No. 1 ). He stated that about 10 days prior to the death, his sister Rajeshwari, P. W. 2 along with children came to their village. They stayed there for 2 or 3 days. The accused also came to their house, stayed with them for 2 days and thereafter left. About 2 days later he and his sister and her children went on an auto, took some rice, went in auto to Srirampur and took some rice. P. W. 2 remained in their house. The accused told P. W. 2 to stay back in the house of the witness and P. W. 2 remained there at Srirampur. He unloaded rice in the house of his sister. He had meals with the accused who was present there and his deceased brother-in-law and then went in his auto trolley to shift the household goods of accused to Eradupalli. Ramchander dropped down at Godavarikhani and accused went with the witness to eradupalli. From Eradupalli the witness went back to Kannapuram alone. His deceased brother-in-law told the accused to bring p. W. 2 to Srirampur. About 3 days after he came to know about the death of his sister and his family. The dead bodies had been shifted to hospital. His sister, brother-in-law and other family members had no disease like AIDS. He suspected the accused in the offence. He could not say anything about the motive. ( 8 ) P. W. 5 is a Medical Practitioner in Mancherial since 1990. He had a hospital of his own named M/s Raviteja Hospital. He also owned M/s Vijaya Diagnostic center in Mancherial. He identified Ex. P7 OP chit which bears the name K. Ramchander. According to him, Ramchander came to his hospital on 1-7-1995. He had fever. He complained of lack of appetite and increased thirst. After investigation he found that Ramchander was suffering from typhoid. He treated him accordingly. He also owned M/s Vijaya Diagnostic center in Mancherial. He identified Ex. P7 OP chit which bears the name K. Ramchander. According to him, Ramchander came to his hospital on 1-7-1995. He had fever. He complained of lack of appetite and increased thirst. After investigation he found that Ramchander was suffering from typhoid. He treated him accordingly. On his advise Ramchander came to him again on 9-7-1995 and the witness told him that to some extent he had been cured but he complained weakness and chest pain. The witness continued his treatment for one more week and asked him to report back after one week, but he did not return. Police recorded his statement. He issued Ex. P8 which was OP chit. During the time he examined Ramchander from 1-7-1995 or 9-7-1995 he was not suffering from AIDS. In his cross-examination he stated that he had not given the details in Exs. P7 and P8 with regard to the age and father s name of K. Ramchander. He accepted the suggestion that during 1995 he might have examined some more persons with the name ramchander. ( 9 ) P. W. 6 is also a Medical Practitioner running Sewasadan Nursing Home at mancherial. About a year back police came to him and asked him whether certain prescription slips had been issued by him and whether he had treated a patient whose name was mentioned in the prescription slips. He exhibited Ex. P9 as prescription slip given by him after examining one Ramchander on 14-2-1986. Ex. P10 was X-ray that was taken, Ex. Pll was blood test report, Ex. P 12 was receipt for the x-ray charges. He had treated Ramchander for amebiosis. ( 10 ) P. W. 7 was a Lab technician in M/s. Sai Clinical Laboratory, Godavarikhani. The laboratory belonged to one Srinivas kumar. The witness knew the accused. His laboratory was by the side of M/s. Swetha Nursing Home owned by Dr. Rarnesh kumar. The accused worked as a compounder in M/s. Swetha Nursing Home for about three months in the year 1997. The accused brought Ex. P13 blood report dated 17-12-1997 and Ex. P14 dated 17-12-1997 to their laboratory. The accused had also brought one Ramchander and introduced him to the witness as his father- in-law. He took the sample of blood and urine of Ramchander. Ex. P15 was the urine report issued in the name of Ramchander. The accused brought Ex. P13 blood report dated 17-12-1997 and Ex. P14 dated 17-12-1997 to their laboratory. The accused had also brought one Ramchander and introduced him to the witness as his father- in-law. He took the sample of blood and urine of Ramchander. Ex. P15 was the urine report issued in the name of Ramchander. Ex. P14 was the blood test report which shows that HIV was found negative. He issued Exs. P13 to P15 certificates to the accused. On 13-3-1998 police brought exs. P13 to P15 to him and he told them that they were issued from his laboratory. Police recorded his statement. In cross- examination he, was asked, in the year 1997 whether there were laboratories only in hyderabad to detect HIV virus to which he replied that, if the virus is 70% then they would refer the patient for further treatment to Hyderabad. In Ex. P14 he had mentioned that patient was referred by dr. Ramesh Kumar. In Ex. P14 he had noted the age of the patient as 40 years. In exs. P13 and P15 the age of the patient was mentioned as 30 years. He denied the suggestion that Exs. P13 to P15 were created at the instance of police. ( 11 ) P. W. 8 was a compounder in M/s Swetha Nursing Home, Godavarikhani of dr. Ramesh Kumar. He knew the accused who was a compounder in M/s Swetha nursing Home from 1993 to July, 1997. Thereafter the accused set up his practice in Gandhinagar locality. The accused used to bring patients to their hospital. The accused came to their hospital along with a patient in March, 1998. He was at the OP counter at that time. On his enquiry the accused told him that he wanted Pavulon injections. He stated that he needed the injections for treatment of some of his relatives of his maternal aunt. The accused took him to M/s Jaya Krishna Medical Hall, godavarikhani. The witness left the accused at the medical hall. The salesman in the medical hall took a chit from the accused and gave six ampoules of Pavulon injections to the accused. Thereafter he left. About one week or ten days later, the accused came to him and asked him to lend his bicycle. The accused told him that his nursing Home in Gandhinagar was not running and therefore he was shifting to his old room. Thereafter he left. About one week or ten days later, the accused came to him and asked him to lend his bicycle. The accused told him that his nursing Home in Gandhinagar was not running and therefore he was shifting to his old room. The accused took his bicycle. Till 8. 30pm the witness waited for the accused so that he gets his bicycle back. The elder brother of the accused came and enquired about the accused. About 2 or 3 days later i. e. , on 13-3-1998 on the day of holi festival through newspapers he came to know about the death of the family of the parents-in-law of the accused. In his cross-examination he stated that he did not know what was schedule drug, whether pavulon was a schedule h drug or l drug. He did not know that Pavulon could not be sold or dispensed without a prescription from a doctor. He stated that, in the Nursing Home the accused had not told him that he wanted Pavulon injection. He had specifically stated to the police that in the Nursing Home the accused had requested him to go with him for purchase of Pavulon injection. He knew that Pavulon was used by anesthetists for giving anesthesia. He himself had never administered Pavulon injection. Police had come to the Nursing home on 21st March, 1998. The accused was not with the police. Till 21st March, 1998 he had not discussed with anybody that the accused had come to his Nursing Home and then had gone for purchase of the injection. Police had not shown him any injection either filled or empty ampoule. ( 12 ) P. W. 9 is a Surgeon who owns M/s Swetha Nursing Home at Godavarikhani. He knew the accused. The accused worked as a compounder in his Nursing Home from 1993 to 1997. Thereafter he left his service and set up his own practice at Gandhinagar of Godavarikhani. In the month of december, 1997 the accused brought his father-in-law for consultation. The patient complained of fever. He conducted his hemoglobin total count, differential count, urine complete, chest X-ray and HIV test. The name of the patient was Ramchander. After seeing the reports he found only a lymph gland and he advised him biopsy. Ex. P 16 was the prescription he gave to the patient. The patient complained of fever. He conducted his hemoglobin total count, differential count, urine complete, chest X-ray and HIV test. The name of the patient was Ramchander. After seeing the reports he found only a lymph gland and he advised him biopsy. Ex. P 16 was the prescription he gave to the patient. He had not prescribed any medicines to the patient but he told the patient that he had not AIDS. The accused had little knowledge of medicines in view of his employment in his Nursing Home. The c. I of police recorded his statement. In cross-examination he stated that he had not stated to the police that he had told the patient that he had no AIDS. ( 13 ) P. W. 10 was working as salesman in M/s Jaya Krishna Medical and General stores, Godavarikhani which was 100 meters away from Swetha Nursing Home. He knew accused who used to work as compounder in M/s Swetha Nursing Home. Being a salesman in the medical hall he knew the accused. The accused opened a clinic in gandhinagar of Godavarikhani after leaving the job in Swetha Nursing Home. On 1-3-1998 between 1. 00 and 2. 00 p. m, p. W. 8 who was a compounder in Swetha nursing Home came to his shop along with the accused. The accused wanted 6 Pavulon injections. He gave his own prescription for Pavulon injections. The witness sold him 6 Pavulon injections and wrote a bill in his name for Rs. 96/ -. The accused paid the money. Ex. P17 was the original bill which he had issued to the accused in the name of the accused. Ex. P18 was the prescription given by the accused to him for Pavulon injection. The owner of the shop Mr. Anandam (LW 19) was not in the shop at that time and had gone for lunch. After the owner returned from lunch he told him about sale of injections to the accused. Police recorded his statement on 21-3-1998. Police also enquired from him whether he had issued Ex. P17 bill Police seized carbon copy of the bill. In the cross- examination he stated that he knew that without doctor s prescription medicines should not be sold. He did not know whether pavulon injection was a dangerous drug and was schedule h drug. He had not noted it in Ex. P 17. P17 bill Police seized carbon copy of the bill. In the cross- examination he stated that he knew that without doctor s prescription medicines should not be sold. He did not know whether pavulon injection was a dangerous drug and was schedule h drug. He had not noted it in Ex. P 17. He had also not noted the date of expiry in Ex. P17. The shop in which he worked remains open on Sundays also. In their village shops do not maintain weekly holidays. Daily about Rs. 5000/- sale was being conducted in their shop. He stated that, it was true that as per bill book maintained on 20th February, 1998 medicines worth only Rs. 235/- were shown to have been sold. On 21-2-1998 the bill book was showing that medicines worth rs. 200/-were sold. On 24-2-1998 sales were of Rs. 200/ -. As per Ex. P19 medicines worth rs. 310/- were sold on 1-3-1998. It was also true that except for Ex. P19 the other bills contained in the bill book showed that the medicines were sold on the prescription of dr. Ramesh Kumar. Dr. Ramesh Kumar was a Surgeon. Operations were being conducted in the Nursing Home of P. W. 9. The bill book containing Ex. P19 shows sales between 18-2-1998 to 21-3-1998. It contained 84 leaves. Except Ex. P19 there were no receipts in the bill book showing sale of Pavulon injection. He did not know that Pavulon injection could not be dispensed without prescription by a qualified doctor. He did not know whether Pavulon injection was an anesthetic drug. He denied the suggestion that the bill book containing ex. P19 was prepared by him at the instance of the police. M/s Padmavathi Clinical laboratory was located opposite to M/s swetha Nursing Home and he did not know its owner s name. The telephone number of his shop was 45021. Ex. P18 shows that the clinical laboratory had Telephone No. 4969. He did not know whether the telephone numbers in Godavarikhani had changed to 5 numbers six years back. ( 14 ) P. W. I 1 is a doctor and anesthetist. He was practicing as such in Godavarikhani. He knew the accused who used to work as compounder in M/s Swetha Nursing Home. The accused worked for some time with p. W. 9. Pavulon injection is used during surgery to make the patient immobile. ( 14 ) P. W. I 1 is a doctor and anesthetist. He was practicing as such in Godavarikhani. He knew the accused who used to work as compounder in M/s Swetha Nursing Home. The accused worked for some time with p. W. 9. Pavulon injection is used during surgery to make the patient immobile. After the operation they give an ante dote to reverse the muscular paralysis caused by pavulon. For a normal person they give initial dose of 1. 5mg to 2. 00 mg. After giving Pavulon injection which is given intravenously the patient stops breathing and would not be able to move and during the period of operation Oxygen is given to the patient directly to the respiratory tract. Till the operation is over the procedure is continued and after the operation an ante dote is given for reversal of the condition. If pavulon is given without taking proper precautions like giving Oxygen and ventilator support the patient would die within 3 to 5 minutes for lack of oxygen supply. It can cause immediate cardiac arrest and brain death. Police had recorded his statement. In his cross-examination, he stated that the pavulon gets circulated throughout the system and starts working within 90 seconds. The drug usually remains in the body for more than 24 hours if it is not ejected through kidneys and in case of immediate cardiac arrest the drug can remain in the body for hours after death. He was not able to say whether viscera on examination after several days would disclose presence of the drug. The body cells would die one after the other after the death. ( 15 ) P. W. 12 is a Coal filler. The deceased Ramchander was his colleague. He knew the daughter of Ramchander p. W. 2. He also knew the accused. On 11-3-1998 he and Ramchander worked together in the second shift. He went to work at 3. 00 p. m. , and returned by about 1. 30 and 11. 00 pm. At about 9. 30 p. m. , the deceased Ramchander fell down with coal load and sustained an injury to his chest. The Sardar wrote a report and told him to take Ramchander. He and another colleague M. Gattaiah brought Ramchander to the ground. After the formalities at the mine he had brought the injured ramchander to his house. At about 9. 30 p. m. , the deceased Ramchander fell down with coal load and sustained an injury to his chest. The Sardar wrote a report and told him to take Ramchander. He and another colleague M. Gattaiah brought Ramchander to the ground. After the formalities at the mine he had brought the injured ramchander to his house. Gattaiah also followed him to the house of Ramchander. He reached the house of Ramchander at 10. 30 p. m. The family members of ramchander were inside the house. The accused was inside the gate of the house. Ramchander told him that he can leave because his son-in-law had come who would take care of him. Thereafter, he and gattaiah went. In the next morning they came to know about the death of ramchander and his family. Police recorded his statement. In cross-examination he accepted the suggestion that in Srirampur from 6. 30 p. m. , to 11. 00 p. m. , there was no electricity on 11-3-1998. He had not seen the accused at the house of Ramchander at that time. All his colleagues visited the house of the deceased to see the dead bodies. They went to see the dead bodies at about 10. 00 or 10. 30 a. m. Many people including the police were present at the house of the deceased. He had not stated to police that he saw the accused at the house of the deceased when he went to drop the deceased at his house after he had sustained an injury. After 15 or 20 days of the death of the deceased police recorded his statement at the coal mine. Till the date he had been examined by police he had not told to anybody what he had stated in the court. ( 16 ) P. W. 13 was another coal filler. He knew the deceased No. 1. He, P. W. 12 and nine others got into the coal mine in the second shift by about 4. 00 p. m. At about 9. 00 p. m. , the deceased Ramchander fell down and sustained an injury to the chest. The mining Sardar came and noted down the injury. He knew the deceased No. 1. He, P. W. 12 and nine others got into the coal mine in the second shift by about 4. 00 p. m. At about 9. 00 p. m. , the deceased Ramchander fell down and sustained an injury to the chest. The mining Sardar came and noted down the injury. He and P. W. 12 brought ramchander to the ground, got a report written then they suggested to Ramchander that they would take him to hospital but ramchander told them that he would go to the hospital tomorrow, so they accompanied him to his house. There they saw the accused. Ramchander told them that his son-in-law would take care of him and they left his house. In the next morning about 9. 00am he came to know about the death of the deceased family. He along with other members of the staff went to see the dead bodies. The accused was not present at the house of the deceased when he went there to see the dead bodies next morning. The house of the deceased was located in jhansinagar locality. They were working in r. K-6 mine. Jhansinagar was 2 or 6 Km away from R. K. 6 mines. Ramchander got injured inside the mine. He fell down from about 3 feet height. He tumbled down and got injured. The deceased was not in a position to work after the fall. He sustained injuries on his forehead and on chest. No first aid was given inside the mine to ramchander. There was no electric power when they took the injured Ramchander to his house. The accused was sleeping on a cot and Ramchander told him that in view of presence of his son-in-law who would treat him they could leave. The mining Sardar had not given him out report . The out report given to Ramchander was with him. About 2 or 3 days after the death of ramchander police recorded his statement. He along with 14 gang members attended the cremation. Accused also attended the cremation. ( 17 ) P. W. 14 is a resident of Godavarikhani village. Accused was his tenant. The accused had taken his house on rent somewhere in august, 1997. He remained his tenant for about 6 months. The accused opened a clinic. He was running a clinic from his premises. He displayed a board of his clinic. ( 17 ) P. W. 14 is a resident of Godavarikhani village. Accused was his tenant. The accused had taken his house on rent somewhere in august, 1997. He remained his tenant for about 6 months. The accused opened a clinic. He was running a clinic from his premises. He displayed a board of his clinic. The witness was paid P. s. 400/- per month as rent, Rs. 1,000/- was paid to him as advance. The accused and his wife were living in the same premises. After 6 months he left the premises leaving the household articles. Within one month the accused and his father-in-law came and shifted the furniture from the premises. He adjusted rent from the rent deposit. He could identify the board displayed on the clinic by the accused. During his stay in his house as tenant the relations between the accused and his wife were cordial. The accused and his father-in-law shifted the furniture to srirampur. ( 18 ) P. W. 15 is also a resident of Godavarikhani. He owned M/s Nirmala medical Stores at Godavarikhani. He knew the accused. He was known to him as a private medical practitioner. The accused used to buy medicines from his shop. On 10-3-1998 the accused purchased paracetamol, Chloroquin and Avil tablets. The accused also purchased one Chloroquine and one Avil injection from him. He did not remember whether he had issued receipts to the accused or not. In cross- examination he stated that he had retail shop. Every day many customers would come to his shop. There was no register showing the names of his customers. He did not sell any poisonous or dangerous drugs. There were many medical shops in mancherial. ( 19 ) P. W. 16 is a resident of Srirampur. The deceased Ramchander was his paternal uncle. His house was 1 km away from the house of the deceased. On the date of occurrence he came to know that the deceased Ramchander and family members committed suicide. He immediately rushed to the spot and found the dead bodies of ramchander and his children in the front room and the dead body of the wife of ramchander in the back room. He found one syringe and needle in the front room. On the table he saw a slip which was ex. P2. There was a tumbler kept as a paper weight over Ex. He found one syringe and needle in the front room. On the table he saw a slip which was ex. P2. There was a tumbler kept as a paper weight over Ex. P2 in which the tops of ampoules were found. M. O. 2 was disposable syringe which was found at the scene of offence. M. O. 3 was the steel tumbler containing broken tops distilled water ampoules found at the scene of occurrence. The deceased had no illness. Police recorded his statement. ( 20 ) P. W. 17 is a resident of Srirampur. The house of the deceased was by the side of his house. In the morning the milkman p. W. 1 came to deliver milk to the deceased and raised hue and cry. The witness rushed to the house of the deceased. He found ramchander on a cot, his children on a big table inside the house and his wife in another room. He found a syringe and a water tumbler at the scene of occurrence. In the tumbler there were pieces of empty ampoules. He saw M. O. 2 disposable syringe and ( 24 ) P. W. 21 is a Welfare Officer in R. K. 6 mine, R. K. pur. The deceased ramchander was working as a Coal filler in R. K. 6 mine. In his company, in case of death of a worker job would be offered on compassionate grounds to the brother of the deceased or son of the deceased or son-in- law of the deceased. The witness added that, "in case of any other death, the job will be offered in the preceding men". In case of death in the mine, the spouse or the daughter of the deceased would be offered a job, in the absence of male persons. After the death of Ramchander police came and recorded his statement. Ex. P29 was the letter addressed from his office to the S. I. of police giving details of the amount the deceased was entitled to. In cross-examination he stated that, he had not signed Ex. P29. It was true that Ex. P29 was issued by the Colliery Manager. There was no nomination made by the deceased ramchander according to the records. He did not state to the police as contained in ex. D6 that when a worker dies in harness his son, unmarried daughter and adopted son would be offered a job. P29. It was true that Ex. P29 was issued by the Colliery Manager. There was no nomination made by the deceased ramchander according to the records. He did not state to the police as contained in ex. D6 that when a worker dies in harness his son, unmarried daughter and adopted son would be offered a job. The younger brother of the deceased is also eligible in the absence of any eligible members of the family to be offered a job in their company. P. W. 2 was not offered any job as she was not eligible in the present case. As per the wage agreement, in case of death of a worker in service the sons of the deceased, the younger brother or his son-in- law would be eligible for appointment. It was not true to suggest that as the son-in- law belongs to another family and not dependant on the worker he is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. ( 25 ) P. W. 22 was also resident of Srirampur village. He went to the house of the deceased to see the dead bodies. Police conducted inquest over the dead bodies in his presence and in the presence of ramchander (LW51 ). He exhibited Exs. P30 and P31. The witness was of the opinion that the deceased ended their lives by taking injections as they had suspicion of having AIDS. ( 26 ) P. W. 23 is a lorry cleaner. He also went to see the dead bodies. Inquest was conducted in his presence. He exhibited ex. P32 and P20. ( 27 ) P. W. 24 is also a witness to the inquest. He exhibited Ex. P33. ( 28 ) P. W. 25 is a clerk in Singareni collieries. He was a witness to the panchanama conducted in the house of the deceased. He exhibited Ex. P34. He stated that in the front room of the house there were three dead bodies of children. Opposite to those dead bodies there was a cot and on the cot the dead body of Ramchander was there. By the side of the dead body of ramchander there was a table and on the table there was a letter. He also noticed a steel tumbler with water and broken injection ampoules. In the adjacent room the body of rajeshwari was there. By the side of the dead body of ramchander there was a table and on the table there was a letter. He also noticed a steel tumbler with water and broken injection ampoules. In the adjacent room the body of rajeshwari was there. There was a bathroom inside the compound, inside it there was a small cupboard on which there was a syringe with needle. Within the compound there was a well and in the well he found one injection bottle floating. In the front room he found some medical prescriptions, one note book, one identity card and medical bills of the deceased Ramchander. All the objects were seized by police. There were no labels to the ampoules. Ex. P2 was the letter found on the table at the scene of occurrence. Ex. P2 bears the signatures of the witness which were obtained by the police at the time of seizure. M. 0. 3 was the tumbler with broken ampoules seized by police. He saw one syringe inside the house and another outside the house which were m. Os 2 and 4. M. O. 5 was the injection veil with white powder in it which was recovered from the well. M. O. 6 was the identity card of deceased Ramchander. M. O. 7 was a slip book of M/s Padmavathi clinic which was seized under panchanama. M. O. 8 was one X-ray film seized in his presence. Exs. P? and P8 were also seized by police in his presence. Exs. P9 to P 12 chits were also seized by police. Exs. P 13 and 14 were blood reports and Ex. P15 was urine report which were also seized by police. Ex. P16 prescription chit was also seized by police. Exs. P3 and P4 note books were also seized in his presence. He found used wet cotton under the cot. In cross-examination he stated that his signatures were obtained by police at the scene of occurrence. He found m. O. 5 tumbler over a table. There was water in M. 0. 3 tumbler when it was seized. The tumblers like M. O. 3 are common and are available in the market. He denied the suggestion that police drafted the panchanama in the police station and obtained his signatures on panch chits only in the Police Station. ( 29 ) P. W. 26 is a panch witness to Ex. 3 tumbler when it was seized. The tumblers like M. O. 3 are common and are available in the market. He denied the suggestion that police drafted the panchanama in the police station and obtained his signatures on panch chits only in the Police Station. ( 29 ) P. W. 26 is a panch witness to Ex. P35 under which M. Os 11 and 12 note book/register and diary were seized. He also witnessed the seizure of Ex. P6 which is contained in register M. O. 13. ( 30 ) P. W. 27 is a doctor who conducted post-mortem over the dead bodies of two of the victims. She exhibited Ex. P36 to be autopsy report with respect to the dead body of Kondaveni Rajeshwari. She started post-mortem at 3. 00 p. m. , and concluded by 4. 00pm. She found pin prick mark over left glutial region reddish brown in colour. She preserved the viscera and sent it for laboratory for FSL report. Ex. P37 is her final opinion. She gave her opinion on the basis of FSL report. According to her, death had been caused due to respiratory paralysis due to pancuronium bromide poisoning. On the same day she conducted post-mortem over the body of Kondaveni Laxmi. She found one pin prick mark over right buttock, reddish brown in colour. She preserved the viscera and sent it to the laboratory for analysis. On the basis of FSL report she issued final opinion Ex. P39. The cause of death was same i. e. , respiratory paralysis due to pan curonium bromide poisoning. The pin prick marks on the dead bodies indicate intra muscular injection. The death had occurred due to administration of Pavulon injection to the deceased persons. The injection Pavulon was fatal unless the patient was kept on artificial respiration. She had also examined P. W. 2 on 26-3-1998. She found an old scar mark over the central part of the front of the left forearm 0. 5cm in diameter. The colour was blackish. The scar was soft and flat in nature. Age of the scar was between 14 and 60 days. She was of the opinion that the possibility of injection resulting in the scar could not be excluded. She exhibited Ex. P40 as the wound certificate. 5cm in diameter. The colour was blackish. The scar was soft and flat in nature. Age of the scar was between 14 and 60 days. She was of the opinion that the possibility of injection resulting in the scar could not be excluded. She exhibited Ex. P40 as the wound certificate. According to her, the death of the persons mentioned hereinabove coul have been caused between 12 and 18 hours prior to the autopsy. The pin prick marks found on the dead bodies were of the same age. No anesthetic drug could cause pan- curonium bromide poisoning. She was not aware of similar drug like panthelone injection similar to Pavulon. Anesthesia is given intravenously in all cases. She had not found on the body of dead persons any marks of administering Pavulon injection intravenously. If Pavulon is administered orally it would not be absorbed by the body and therefore it would have no effect on the person. The witness added that, only an Anesthetist could answer the question. The witness volunteers to say that in people with dark complexion it is difficult to find pin pricks and she could not find pin pricks showing application of drug intravenously in the present cases. It was true that generally doctors would not prefer to give intramuscular injections on the forehands. The mark that was found on P. W. 2 did not indicate intravenous injection. She had found semi-digested food in the dead body of Rajeshwari. She did not find any semi digested food in her intestines. The death might have occurred about 3 to 4 hours after consumption of food. She did not find any food in the stomach of Kondaveni laxmi. The deceased Laxmi might have died about 4 to 5 hours after her meals. From the stomach contents it was difficult to say whether the deceased Laxmi died about one hour earlier to Rajeshwari. When the Court put a question as to what would be the effect of the drug Pavulon if it is administered intramuscularly and not intravenously she replied that it takes some more time for the drug to act and there would not be any change in the effect. ( 31 ) P. W. 28 is a Finger print expert/s. I of Police. He received requisition from the inspector of Police, Srirampuron 16-3-1998 for development of chance finger prints on the material objects. ( 31 ) P. W. 28 is a Finger print expert/s. I of Police. He received requisition from the inspector of Police, Srirampuron 16-3-1998 for development of chance finger prints on the material objects. On 17-3-1998 he and sri T. Surjeet Singh (LW 68) the photographer of police department went to srirampur. He found M. O3, M,o2, M. O4 and M. O. 10, Ex. P2 a suicide note in telugu and M. O. 6 an identity card of the deceased Ramchander". He developed change prints on M. O. 3 tumbler. He could not find any finger prints on the other material objects. He exhibited Exs. P41 to 43 photographs. ( 32 ) THE evidence of P. W. 29 and P. W. 36 will be discussed after discussing the evidence of other witnesses because along with the evidence of those witnesses the contents of the death note and also the opinion of the expert shall be considered. ( 33 ) P. W. 30 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem of body of k. Ramchander. He found one pin prick mark on the right shoulder reddish brown in colour. He found no internal injuries over the dead body. He found undigested rice in the stomach. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Ex. P69 was the report issued by him. On the basis of FSL report he gave his final opinion Ex. PVO. His opinion as to the cause of death was, due to respiratory paralysis due to pan- curonium bromide poisoning. The trade name of the poison is Pavulon. Time of death was about 12 to 18 hours prior to the examination. He also examined the body of Kondaveni. Padma and found one pin prick mark on the right shoulder reddish brown in colour. Semi-digested food present in the stomach. Viscera was preserved by him and it was sent to FSL for analysis. Ex. P71 was the autopsy report. On the basis of FSL report he issued his final opinion Ex. P72. According to him, the death was caused due to respiratory paralysis due to pan curonium bromide poisoning. He also conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased kondaveni Srinivas. He found pin prick mark on the left buttock. Stomach contained white paste like material. Viscera was sent to FSL for analysis. On the basis of FSL report he gave his final opinion. Ex. P73 was autopsy report. Ex. He also conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased kondaveni Srinivas. He found pin prick mark on the left buttock. Stomach contained white paste like material. Viscera was sent to FSL for analysis. On the basis of FSL report he gave his final opinion. Ex. P73 was autopsy report. Ex. P74 was final opinion. According to the doctor the cause of death was due to respiratory paralysis due to pan curonium bromide poisoning. On 7-5-1998 he received a requisition from S. I of police asking him to clarify whether the poison was injected or consumed. He and dr. Aruna (PW 27) gave opinion that pan curonium bromide was given by parental route (injected) on all deceased persons. In cross-examination he stated that, if a person is given injection intravenously two hours prior to death the pin prick marks would be visible. He did not find any pin prick showing that injection given intravenously. The pin prick marks he found showed that injections had been given intramuscularly. A skilled person is required to give injection intravenously, skill is not required to give an injection intramuscularly. The death of Ramchander occurred within one or two hours after he had his meals. The time of death after administration of Pavulon depends on the quantity of poison injection with a minimum time of 5 or 10 minutes and above. The person injected with Pavulon would struggle for breathing before death. ( 34 ) P. W. 31 is resident of Jagtial village. He knew the accused. He himself is an auto driver. He is a witness to panchanama with regard to seizure of a letter from the house of the accused under Ex. P77. Ex. P51 was the letter seized under Ex. P77 panchanama. The mother of the accused handed over Ex. P51 letter to the police. ( 35 ) P. W. 32 is a witness to the alleged disclosure made by the accused with regard to purchase of injections at Godavarikhani. He stated that he and another witness were called by police to Srirampur police station, the accused was present in the police station, the Inspector of police interrogated the accused and the accused told them that he had purchased six injections at godavarikhani. The accused led them to the house of the deceased. The accused told them that after giving injection he had kept the syringe in a 'goodu' (shelf ). The accused led them to the house of the deceased. The accused told them that after giving injection he had kept the syringe in a 'goodu' (shelf ). The police drafted a scene of offence panchanama in their presence. The accused had shown them the syringe. He had also accompanied them to the medical shop namely M/s Jaya Krishna Medical Store. He had also led them to Eradapalli Village, karimnagar District to his house. He had brought a bag containing a diary and other papers. He produced one medical bill issued by M/s Jaya Krishna Medical Stores. Ex. P18 was the prescription slip. They found one ampoule without label. Police also seized the name board M. O1 produced by the accused showing that he was running a clinic at his house. These articles were seized under Ex. P80. Under Ex. P80 police also seized M. Os. 14 to 37 containing medical bottles, injections, needles, scissors, knee hammer, stethoscope, B. P. apparatus, a book with the name of Dr. Ramesh Kumar, laboratory books, letter pads of the accused as Dr. Sampath Kumar and other things. At the instance of the Inspector of Police the accused gave a sample hand writing which was Exs. P81 to 85. ( 36 ) P. W. 33 is a police constable and photographer. On the requisition of Inspector of Police, Srirampur he and P. W. 28 went to the police station where he was shown m. O. 3 tumbler and asked to take the photo of the prints. He exhibited Exs. P41 to 43 photographs. ( 37 ) P. W. 34 is ASI of police who conducted inquest over the body of the deceased Rajeshwari and Padma. P. W. 35 is SI of Police who conducted inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased Laxmi a srinivas. P. W. 37 is the Inspector of Police who conducted the investigation. P. W. 38 is j. F. C. M, Bhainsa. He obtained specimen handwriting of the accused Exs. P63 to P67 and sent them to FSL along with other record vide covering letter Ex. P61. P. W. 37 is the Inspector of Police who conducted the investigation. P. W. 38 is j. F. C. M, Bhainsa. He obtained specimen handwriting of the accused Exs. P63 to P67 and sent them to FSL along with other record vide covering letter Ex. P61. ( 38 ) THE prosecution tried to establish the case on the basis of the following circumstances; (1) that the accused was son-in-law of deceased 1 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 having AIDS, he also took deceased No. 1 to Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW 9) got him examined and also subjected him to various investigations for the purpose of arriving at a diagnosis (3) that the accused also made them believe that he could treat them by getting some injections from Calcutta and for this purpose he took money twice from deceased No. 1 (4) that, he had access to certain hospitals and people connected with medicines and sale of medicines (5) that, he had purchased Pavulon injection from M/s Jaya Krishna Medical Hall, godavarikhani on 1-3-1998 (6) that, the accused was seen at the house of the deceased persons around 10. 00 or 11. 00 p. m. , on the night in which the occurrence took place (7) that, on the night of the occurrence he had managed to keep his wife away from the house of in-laws and from his own house, and (8) that the death, according to the legal opinion, was caused due to poisoning by pan curonium bromide the trade name of which is 'pavulon' which was administered through injection. ( 39 ) THE first circumstance that the accused is son-in-law of deceased No. 1 and 2 is admitted and there is no necessity for further discussion. It is also admitted and established that the accused was working initially as compounder in the hospital of p. W. 9 but later on he established his own practice. There is evidence which has been discussed herein above that the accused had set up private practice in a private house. The landlord was also examined and a board M. O. I showing the name of the clinic was also seized. His wife P. W. 2 also testified that the accused was doing private practice. There is evidence which has been discussed herein above that the accused had set up private practice in a private house. The landlord was also examined and a board M. O. I showing the name of the clinic was also seized. His wife P. W. 2 also testified that the accused was doing private practice. The doctor P. W. 9 and other witnesses who were dealing with sales of medicines also testified that the accused was practicing medicine. ( 40 ) WITH regard to the second and third circumstances there is ample evidence to show that the family of the deceased persons was taking the medical advise of dr. Poshetty but after the marriage of the first daughter of the deceased i. e. , P. W. 2 they started taking medical advise from the accused. This has been testified by dr. Poshetty who was working in the village as a private medical practitioner and he emphatically stated that he used to attend the family members of the deceased Ramchander and used to treat them but 7 or 8 months prior to the date of occurrence the deceased family had stopped coming to him for medical advice. It is not otherwise unbelievable or improbable or unnatural that when the son-in-law of a particular person is practicing medicine the father-in-law and others in his family would go to him for medical treatment and advice. It has also been established by the evidence of PW. 7 and P. W. 9 that the deceased No. l was taken by accused to dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW 9) two months prior to his death and got him examined. The accused had disclosed to the doctor also that he was his father-in-law. Therefore, it is established that the family of the deceased was depending upon the accused for their medical problems and the deceased No. 1 was taken by him to a doctor and also to a hospital. Further, evidence has also been produced to show that after the examination of deceased No. 1 by the doctor p. W. 9 the accused had accompanied him for carrying out certain investigations and test reports are available and are on record. Further, evidence has also been produced to show that after the examination of deceased No. 1 by the doctor p. W. 9 the accused had accompanied him for carrying out certain investigations and test reports are available and are on record. The deceased No. l was ill, he was subjected to investigations and tests, He was shown to a doctor by the accused himself and there is emphatic evidence of P. W. 2 that the deceased had told her that the deceased and his whole family was suffering from aids. P. W2 also stated that the accused had taken twice an amount of Rs. 2,000/- each time to get medicines from Calcutta. Therefore, in our view these two circumstances have also been established by the prosecution. ( 41 ) WITH regard to fourth and fifth circumstances with regard to the access of the accused to certain hospitals and people connected with medicines and regarding purchasing of 'pavulon' injection we have already narrated the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 11. Though it is a fact that such injections should not be sold without prescription but it is common knowledge that every medicine in this country is available across the counter, besides this the accused was practicing medicine although there is no evidence that he had any qualification for that but the person from whom he had purchased the medicines knew him and he also knew that the accused had been a compounder in M/s Swetha Nursing home and that he had set up his own practice. Besides, the vouchers, bills and receipts exs. P16 to P19 which have been produced by the prosecution have been proved beyond shadow of doubt. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the accused had access to certain hospitals and people connected with sale of medicines and he was the person who had purchased 'pavulon' injection from M/s Jaya Krishna medical Stores. ( 42 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant, however tried to say that, although the witness P. W. 10 stated that there was sale of Rs. 5,000/- per day from his shop but the bill book did not show sale of more than Rs. 100/- per day. ( 42 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant, however tried to say that, although the witness P. W. 10 stated that there was sale of Rs. 5,000/- per day from his shop but the bill book did not show sale of more than Rs. 100/- per day. That should not detain us any further and should not be a reason for doubting the prosecution story as it is common knowledge that vouchers are not issued and account books are not maintained properly by the shopkeepers. Since one of the witness who sold the medicines told that there was sales of rs. 5,000/- which was not evidenced by books his evidence cannot be brushed aside. ( 43 ) WITH respect to the sixth circumstance that the accused was seen at the house of the deceased persons around 10. 00 or 11. 00 p. m. , on the night in which the occurrence took place P. Ws 12 and 13 who were colleagues of the deceased no. l testified that while they were working inside the mine in the afternoon session deceased No. l had a fall and had an injury therefore they accompanied him to his house. P. W. 12 stated that on reaching home deceased No. l told them that they could leave now because his son-in-law had come who would take care of him. P. W. 13 emphatically stated that he had seen the accused who was lying on a cot at the time they reached the house of deceased No. 1. It was tried to establish by the defence while cross-examining these witnesses and by the learned Senior advocate Mr. Padmanabha Reddy while arguing the matter before us that, admittedly there was no power on that day in the evening therefore it was not possible for the witnesses to see the accused in the house of the deceased. This cannot be believed at all. Somebody enters into the house of someone in normal circumstances and when the eldest member of the house i. e. , the father enters the house after the duty hours there would not be any arrangements of light in the house. There is nothing to discredit the evidence of these witnesses. Therefore, we hold that these witnesses had seen the accused in the house of the deceased at about 10. 00 or 11. 00 in the night in which the murder took place. There is nothing to discredit the evidence of these witnesses. Therefore, we hold that these witnesses had seen the accused in the house of the deceased at about 10. 00 or 11. 00 in the night in which the murder took place. ( 44 ) THE seventh circumstance that the accused had managed to keep his wife away from the house of the deceased has been discussed in detail while narrating the evidence of P. W. 2 and her maternal uncle and auto driver. Some of the members of the deceased family had gone to the maternal uncle's house including P. W. 2. After 2 or 3 days of their stay at the maternal uncle's house the accused had come. All others had returned but he had insisted that his wife should stay back in her maternal uncle's house. He returned back accompanied by auto driver P. W. 4 and deceased No. 1. He shifted some of his belongings from one house to another house in the auto belonging to P. W. 4. He returned to his house but by evening he came back to the house of the deceased. Therefore, it is established that the accused had managed to keep his wife away from the house of his in-laws on the date of occurrence. ( 45 ) THE medical evidence clearly established that all the deaths had been caused due to poisoning by Pan curonium bromide. This opinion was based on the fsl report. The doctors also said that the trade name of the poison is 'pavulon' which is administered through injection. Therefore, this circumstance is also proved. ( 46 ) NOW coming to the defence, the defence is mainly based on alleged suicide note which is Ex. P2. This exhibit does not bear any date. The original being in Telugu the English translation of it reads as under:"namaskars to the respected elders. Recently the Doctors after conducting blood test on me at Mancherial declared me to have had the symptoms of AIDS disease. The position of my disease is not curable one. In the recent days Rs. 50,000/- debts also incurred. Therefore brought these injections from Mancherial and taking. My house, field and the job shall be given to son-in-law and daughter. Recently the Doctors after conducting blood test on me at Mancherial declared me to have had the symptoms of AIDS disease. The position of my disease is not curable one. In the recent days Rs. 50,000/- debts also incurred. Therefore brought these injections from Mancherial and taking. My house, field and the job shall be given to son-in-law and daughter. Sd/- Kondaveni Ramchander"according to the prosecution also the whole document is not forged, upto 'brought these injections from Mancherial and taking ' it is in the handwriting of the deceased No. l, 'my house, field and the job shall be given to son-in-law and daughter" is in the handwriting of the accused. According to the learned Counsel, even P. W. 2 who is the daughter of the deceased No. l accepted that Ex. P2 is in the handwriting of the deceased No. 1. The learned Public Prosecutor also stated that even if it is taken to be a suicide note, he has nowhere stated that he was administering injections to his family members. He also has not stated that his family members had the symptoms of AIDS. He had simply stated that he had symptoms of AIDS and the position of his disease was not curable one therefore he had brought injections and was taking. Therefore, even if it is accepted that Ex. P2 was genuine, even then this document only suggests that the death of deceased No. 1 was caused on the basis of this note by the deceased No. 1 himself, but in case of other deceased persons it is of no use. We do not accept even the explanation offered by learned public Prosecutor on the ground that admittedly drug was brought by accused and not deceased and deceased had no knowledge of administering injection. We therefore come to the conclusion that the death of Deceased Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 was caused by administration of lethal injections by the accused and in case of deceased no. 1 death was as result of abetment by the accused. This is conclusively proved because after deceased No. 1 wrote the note it came into possession of accused who added words which were beneficial to him alone. 2, 3, 4 and 5 was caused by administration of lethal injections by the accused and in case of deceased no. 1 death was as result of abetment by the accused. This is conclusively proved because after deceased No. 1 wrote the note it came into possession of accused who added words which were beneficial to him alone. Had deceased No. 1 any intention to kill his other family members he would have certainly written what was ultimately written by accused because after death of deceased No. 1's whole family the only survivor would be accused and his wife, the daughter of deceased No. 1. ( 47 ) NOW, we will go to the evidence of P. Ws. 29 and 36. ( 48 ) P. W. 29 is Assistant Director, FSL, Hyderabad since August, 1994. He had experience of 18 years in the field of handwriting examination. He was an M. Sc and M. Ed. He had a diploma in document examination from the Institute of Criminology and Forensic Sciences, New Delhi. On 31- 3-1998 he received a requisition from the court of JFCM, Luxettipet along with a letter of advice and documents for the purpose of comparison. Ex. P49 was the requisition with covering letter. The letter of advice accompanying the document was ex. PSO. The questioned document was ex. P2. He marked the signature and writing as Q1 to Q3 on Ex. P2. The standard signature of Kondaveni Ramchander and handwriting were marked as S1 to S7. On ex. P5, S1 was the signature of K. Ramchander. He marked another signature of K. Ramchander as S2 in a note book page 60 which was marked as Ex. P6. He marked standard writings on a pocket size note book as S4, S5, S6 which were marked as Exp4 pocket note book. He marked the standard writing of K. Ramchander as S7 at page 82 in Ex. P4 pocket note book. The standard Telugu handwriting of Sampath kumar, the accused on an inland letter dated 31-8-1997 (Ex. P51) was also marked by the witness as S8 to S10. He examined the original documents in this case and all aspects of handwriting in detection of forgery with scientific equipment in the State Forensic science Laboratory, Hyderabad. He was of the opinion that;1. The standard Telugu handwriting of Sampath kumar, the accused on an inland letter dated 31-8-1997 (Ex. P51) was also marked by the witness as S8 to S10. He examined the original documents in this case and all aspects of handwriting in detection of forgery with scientific equipment in the State Forensic science Laboratory, Hyderabad. He was of the opinion that;1. The person who wrote the red enclosed signatures and writings marked as SI to s7 also wrote the red enclosed signature and writings marked Ql and Q2 but did not write the red enclosed writings marked Q3. 2. The person who wrote the red enclosed writings marked S8 to S10 also wrote the red enclosed writings marked Q3. His report is Ex. P52. He has given detailed reasons in his report for arriving at such opinion. He was put to rigorous cross- examination but nothing could be elicited by the defence in support of their case. S8 to s10 were the admitted signatures of the accused which had been taken from an inland letter which was sozed. S1 to S7 were admitted signatures of deceased No. 1. P. W. 2 who is supposed to know the writings of her father admitted that the document ex. P2 was written by her father. Therefore, this document cannot be said to have been written completely by the accused. In our view, the document was written by the deceased No. 1 partly. The line stating that the "my house, field and the job shall be given to son-in-law and daughter" and the signature on the note have been scribed by the accused. ( 49 ) WE have seen the doctors' opinion that the death was caused due to poisoning by pan curonium bromide i. e. , Pavulon. In this connection, Professor Ravinder Reddy (PW36) was also examined. He was a professor in Gandhi Medical College. He was called as an expert to give opinion as to the effects of the drug pan curonium bromide i. e. , Pavulon which is a poisonous drug. He gave his opinion vide Ex. P109. The questions put to him were: q. 1: Use of Pavulon injection in the medical profession? ans. Pavulon is used therapeutically for (A) As surgical adjuvant to anaesthesia (a) For promoting skeletal muscle relaxation. (b) For facilitating endotracheal inturbation. (B) with electrocanvulsant shock therapy. He gave his opinion vide Ex. P109. The questions put to him were: q. 1: Use of Pavulon injection in the medical profession? ans. Pavulon is used therapeutically for (A) As surgical adjuvant to anaesthesia (a) For promoting skeletal muscle relaxation. (b) For facilitating endotracheal inturbation. (B) with electrocanvulsant shock therapy. Q. 2: Whether any precautions to be taken in its use ? ans: The neuromuscular blocking agents are potentially hazardous drugs. Consequently they should be administered to patients only by anaesthesiologists and other clinicians who have had extensive training in their use. There should be a setting where facilities for respiratory and cardiovascular resuscitation are immediately at hand. Q3. What quantity it will be injected in the normal cases with precautionary measures, in the medical use? ans: The usual does of Pavulon is 0. 04-0. 08 mg/kg which can be administered only by skilled persons, that is anaesthetists who have facilities for respiratory and cardiovascular rescuscitation that is ventilator, oxygen for positive pressure artificial respiration. Q. 4: What effects it will leave in the human beings, if used without precautionary measures and at what quantity it would prove fatal'? ans: If used without precautions, it will cause death due to respiratory paralysis, cardiovascular collapse, Anaphylactoid reaction, hypoxia and respiratory paralysis. Apnoea and cardiovascular collapse. The same quantity that is the therapeutic dose 0. 04-0. 08 mg/kg will prove fatal if used by unskilled persons and without precautions and facilities. Q. 5: How soon it would get death in the human being when injected without the measures of precaution and its effects at different stages i. e. , losing consciousness other reactions and death? ans: On injection of the therapeutic dose the discernible effects are visible within 1 to 1 1/2 minutes. The effects of the drug in various stages are flaccid paralysis in fingers, eyes, etc. , then the muscles of neck, trunk and intercostals, finally diaphragm is paralysed and death occurs due to hypoxia. The drug is capable of causing death within a short period of time. Q. 6: Can it be used for homicidal purpose? ans. Yes, it can be used for homicidal purpose. Q. 7: Any other opinions which you may consider with regard to the drug (Pavulon) and the case? ans: I have referred the following text books while giving the above opinion. (1) Pharmacology and Pharmaco therapeutics by R. S. Satoskar Part. I (vol. ans. Yes, it can be used for homicidal purpose. Q. 7: Any other opinions which you may consider with regard to the drug (Pavulon) and the case? ans: I have referred the following text books while giving the above opinion. (1) Pharmacology and Pharmaco therapeutics by R. S. Satoskar Part. I (vol. 1) 15th edition. (2) Basic and clinical pharmacology by bertham G. Katzung. 7th edition. (3) Goodmans and cilmans, The pharmacological basis of Therapeutics (vol. 1) 8th edition. (4) National Medical series - Pharmacology by Leonard S. Jacob. 2nd edition. In his cross-examination he stated that it was a schedule H drug. He also stated that as per the Drugs Act the date of expiry, the date of manufacture have to be mentioned on the medicines. If the "pavulon" is administered intravenously it would act faster and it would act a bit slow if applied intramuscularly. He was not able to say for how many days the scar marks of an injection would remain visible. He stated that, that would depend on the nature of the skin and skill of the person who applies it and the size of the needle. ( 50 ) THE defence has also produced three witnesses. D. W. I is a reporter of a newspaper who testified that he was author of Ex. DS which was a paper report in which it was stated that on 26-3-1998 the medical shops had observed a bundh in godavarikhani. He had gathered information that the police had apprehended the accused by that time. We do not know how this evidence goes to help the case of the accused-appellant. ( 51 ) SIMILARLY D. W. 2 stated that he was called by the police. He was himself a r. M. P. Doctor. They took him at 9. 00pm and interrogated him. ( 52 ) D. W. 3 was a handwriting expert, as claimed by him. He had received some documents from the Counsel for defence in this case. He took photo copy of document ex. P2. Ex. D9 was the photo copy of the document. Ex. D9 contains three signatures found on the photo copy furnished to him. Ultimately he stated that he had examined the photo copies and unless he had photograph of the original and examine the original document he would not be in a position to give any opinion. P2. Ex. D9 was the photo copy of the document. Ex. D9 contains three signatures found on the photo copy furnished to him. Ultimately he stated that he had examined the photo copies and unless he had photograph of the original and examine the original document he would not be in a position to give any opinion. The evidence of this witness with regard to the documents examined by him does not take us anywhere. ( 53 ) KEEPING in view the whole evidence, we are of the view that the injections had been administered by the accused who had the technical know-how whereas there is no evidence to suggest that deceased No. 1 had technical know- how to administer injections, but the deceased No. 1 knew that his life and the life of his family was coming to an end and this decision he had taken because of the belief that he and his family was suffering from AIDS and perhaps he was participant in his own death, but the death of other persons was caused exclusively by the accused. It was also argued that there was no conclusive evidence that the death had been caused because of the poisoning because neither the FSL report nor the doctor had testified that a lethal dose of poisoning was detected from the body of the deceased persons, but the learned Public prosecutor has relied on a judgment of supreme Court in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab. AIR. 1988 SC 1011, which lays down that the Chemical examiner does not, as a rule, give an opinion as to the cause of death but he merely gives report of the chemical examination of the substance sent to him. The report is not conclusive but it is a piece of evidence. The learned Public prosecutor submits that in case of death by poisoning three circumstances have to be shown firstly that the deceased had died due to poisoning, secondly that the accused had the possession over the poison and thirdly that the accused had the opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. In the absence of these three circumstances conviction may not be sustained. But, in the present case we have found that all these essential requirements were met by the prosecution. In the absence of these three circumstances conviction may not be sustained. But, in the present case we have found that all these essential requirements were met by the prosecution. The note which is claimed to be a suicide note was written by the deceased No. 1 under the influence of the accused. Though charges had been framed in this regard but the accused has not been convicted for those charges and no appeal was filed by the State, therefore nothing further can be done in the matter. ( 54 ) AS a result accused is convicted for murder of deceased Nos. 2, 3,4 and 5 under Section 302 IPC and for death of deceased No. 1 under Section 302 read with 109 IPC. He is sentenced to life imprisonment on all five counts. The sentence shall run concurrently. ( 55 ) IN the light of the above, the appeal is dismissed.