Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1635 (AP)

DASARI MICHAEL VIJAY RAJ v. STATE OF A. P.

2006-12-28

BILAL NAZKI, NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

body2006
BILAL NAZKI, J, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT was the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 523 of 2002 and was tried by the VI Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC. He was acquitted of the charge under Section 379 of IPC, but was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of ipc and has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, he has to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. ( 2 ) THE allegations on the basis of which the charges were framed against the accused, were that on 10th of August 2001 in Room No. 213 of Sun Lodge, secunderabad, the accused caused the death of one Jacob Mathews by mixing Nitravet tablet in his drink. It was also alleged that thereafter he committed theft of a gold chain, a gold ring and scooter of the deceased. After the charges were framed, the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. The defence also examined 5 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents. Ex. C-1, the list of property form sent to the Magistrate, was exhibited by the Court. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution story was that the deceased was working as supervisor in Viceroy Hotel. The accused and deceased were childhood friends. On 10-8-2001 at about 8 am, the deceased received a phone call from the accused inviting him for a party. At 8 a. m. , the deceased went for his duty. At 1. 30 p. m. , on the same day, a person who stated his name to be Rajesh, took a room in Sun lodge. At about 4 or 4. 30 p. m. , he took another person to his room. At about 7 p. m. , called room service and the room boys of the lodge who went to the room, found that two persons were present in the room, consuming toddy. On 11-8-2001 at about 10. 30 a. m. , it was noticed that the room was locked from outside. The people managing the lodge, waited till 8. 30 p. m. , for the customer to return back. On 11-8-2001 at about 10. 30 a. m. , it was noticed that the room was locked from outside. The people managing the lodge, waited till 8. 30 p. m. , for the customer to return back. As he did not return back, an employee of the lodge peeped through the ventilator and found one person i. e. , the deceased lying on the bed. Then the police were informed by a report in Ex. P-1, and after that, it was found that the deceased was lying dead on the bed. ( 4 ) PW1 was working as a receptionist in Sun Lodge, Regimental bazaar, Secunderabad from May 2001 to october 2001. He stated that on 10-8-2001 at 1. 30 p. m. , one Rajesh came to the lodge, carrying a suitcase. In the register maintained by the lodge, he wrote his name as 'rajesh' and his profession as 'business'. He was allotted Room No. 213 on payment of Rs. 300/- as advance. One Kondaiah and Srinivas took him into the room. At about 4 or 4. 30 p. m. , he brought a person stating that he was his friend. The boys working in the lodge informed the witness that Rajesh and his friend were consuming whisky and they had cleaned the room on the instructions of Rajesh. Next day evening, when he had come for duty, Kondaiah, a room boy informed him that the person, who had come with Rajesh, was lying on the bed without any movements. Kondaiah told him that he had seen him through the ventilator as the room was locked from outside and the key was not at the reception. The witness informed the owner of the lodge and the owner telephoned to the police. Since the phone was not working, the owner got a report drafted by the witness and sent it to the Police Station through kondaiah. He exhibited Ex. P-1 as his statement. Therefore, police came, took duplicate key from the owner, inspected the room and found the said person oozing some selaiva from his mouth and nose. His hands and legs were stiff. He stated that the accused present in the Court was Rajesh, who had come to the lodge and booked a room. ( 5 ) IN his cross-examination, he stated that the building of the hotel consists of three floors with 29 rooms. His hands and legs were stiff. He stated that the accused present in the Court was Rajesh, who had come to the lodge and booked a room. ( 5 ) IN his cross-examination, he stated that the building of the hotel consists of three floors with 29 rooms. He did not know as to how many rooms each floor had. In the first instance he drafted a report at the instance of the owner, thereafter, at the request of Sub-Inspector of Police rahman, he re-drafted Ex. P-1. He did not have any appointment order. He did not furnish any proof to police that he had worked in Sun Lodge. Raghavarao, the accountant of the lodge, was related to the owner. Sridhar, brother-in-law of raghavarao, was working as Manager. He did not know whether David worked as assistant Manager in the lodge. He did not know whether any lady of Gudivada stayed in Room No. 201 had died due to cardiac arrest. They used to take the signatures of customers. On 10-8-2001 and 11-8-2001, they took signatures of customers who stayed in the lodge. Police seized the register relating to 10-8-2001 and 11-8-2001. In those registers, he did not sign. The owner of the hotel maintains a register and puts marks about the attendance of the staff, but staff members do not sign in the register. The room of Receptionist was situated in the corner of the cabin. Persons who come from outside are visible to the Receptionist. There is only one entrance to the lodge and it is covered on all three sides. The police took away the visitors' registers after ten days of the occurrence. The police did not return back the registers. The accused was a stranger to him and he does not know him prior to the date of occurrence. He was seeing the accused for the first time in the Court after the day he had stayed in the hotel. He had not given any descriptive particulars of accused in ex. P-1 or in his statement recorded by police. No identification parade was conducted before any Magistrate. He used to see about 40 to 50 visitors daily in his lodge. He could not say the details with regard to the persons who occupied Room nos. 210, 211 and 214 on that day. P-1 or in his statement recorded by police. No identification parade was conducted before any Magistrate. He used to see about 40 to 50 visitors daily in his lodge. He could not say the details with regard to the persons who occupied Room nos. 210, 211 and 214 on that day. He also did not give the descriptive particulars of the friend of Rajesh in Ex. P-1. On 10-8-2001, he came to his duty at 6 p. m. , and went to the house at 11 a. m. , on 11-8-2001. He came to duty again at 6 p. m. on 11-8-2001. Prior to his coming for duties, one Srinivas and Arjun were on duty on 10-8-2001. ( 6 ) PW2 stated that he was working as a room boy in Sun Lodge. On the day his statement was recorded, he stated that he was working in a tiffin centre at ECIL. He worked in the lodge from 1999 to July 2000. The learned Counsel for defence pointed out that on his own saying, this witness had worked in the lodge only up to July, 2000 and the occurrence had taken place in August 2001. But it appears to be a typographical mistake, as in his further deposition he had clearly stated that on 10-8-2001 he was in the lodge. The witness stated that on 10-8-2001 at 1. 30 p. m. , one person came with a suitcase and asked for a room. PW-1 allotted room No. 213 to him. He wrote his name as Rajesh, resident of Guntakal and paid rs. 300/- as advance. PW-1 asked Srinivas, another room boy, to take him to his room. After some time, he went out and brought another person along with him on a scooter. At 7 p. m. , the said Rajesh called for room boy, the witness and Srinivas. All of them went to the room. Rajesh and the person accompanying him were consuming toddy. The person who came with Rajesh, vomited and he and others cleaned the room. They also noticed that they were smoking cigarettes. He saw a chain and gold ring on the person who came with Rajesh. On 11-8-2001 they noticed that the room was locked and no key was available at the Reception. They observed through the ventilator that the person, who had come with Rajesh, was lying on the bed without any movement. They also noticed that they were smoking cigarettes. He saw a chain and gold ring on the person who came with Rajesh. On 11-8-2001 they noticed that the room was locked and no key was available at the Reception. They observed through the ventilator that the person, who had come with Rajesh, was lying on the bed without any movement. They informed the Manager. Then police were informed. Police came and opened the door with a duplicate key. They found the said person dead. He was wearing a pant and a banyan. Chain, gold ring and shirt were not found. Police took photographs. Scooter of the said person was also not found. Sub-Inspector of Police recorded his statement on 11-8-2001. On 24-8-2001, the C. I. of Police brought a marriage cassette of the person who came with Rajesh and played the same and asked to identify the said person. On seeing the person in the cassette, he came to know that the said person was not Rajesh and his real name was Michael Raj. This was told to him by some of the relatives of the deceased. He stated that the person who had come to the hotel was the accused who was present in the Court. C. I. of Police had recorded his statement and he had identified the accused in the film played. ( 7 ) IN his cross-examination, he stated that he is native of Nellore. Generally, from time to time, they would ask their customers for their requirements. The person, who came on 10-8-2001, wrote his details in the register and he was present at that time. On that day, he and Srinivas were on duty. He could not say about the details of the customers who occupied other rooms on 10-8-2001. He did not give any descriptive particulars of accused in his statement to the Sub-Inspector of Police. No test identification parade was conducted before the Magistrate. He could not say as to how many rooms were occupied on the day of occurrence and how many rooms were vacant. He knew that a lady had died of natural death by cardiac arrest. He also know that one lady died in the lodge by committing suicide. He did not find any injuries on the body of the deceased. ( 8 ) PW3 is another room boy of the lodge. He stated that he knew PWs. He knew that a lady had died of natural death by cardiac arrest. He also know that one lady died in the lodge by committing suicide. He did not find any injuries on the body of the deceased. ( 8 ) PW3 is another room boy of the lodge. He stated that he knew PWs. l and 2. On 10-8-2001, a person who gave his name as Rajesh, asked for a room. The witness was sitting in the counter with PW1, who was the Receptionist. PW-1 allotted room No. 213 to the said Rajesh and he dropped him in the said room with his luggage. After some time, the said Rajesh went outside and stated that he will return at 4 p. m. He came along with his friend at 4 p. m. on a Chetak blue colour vehicle and went inside the room. After that, they asked for water. At 7. 30 p. m. , Rajesh called for room service. Then the witness and pw-2 went to the said room. The person, who had come with Rajesh, had vomitted and they cleaned the room. They cleaned toddy, liquor bottles and cigarettes. At about 8 p. m. , he went to the room and enquired for any other service. At that time, Rajesh seemed to be tense and he was smoking. Rajesh told him that whenever he wanted anything, he would call him and closed the door. He had opened half of the door. On 11-8-2001 he came to duty at 10. 30 a. m. , and found the door was locked. They waited up to 8. 30 p. m. , but the customer did not return. PW-2 saw from the ventilator and found one person lying on the cot with banyan and underwear. Then they informed PW-1. Thereafter, police came, opened the door and found a person as if he was sleeping, but his stomach was swollen. They found his shirt, chain and ring missing. Police recorded his statement. On 24-8-2001, the Sub-Inspector of Police brought a cassette and played the cassette and they found said Rajesh attending the marriage of deceased and they identified rajesh. The relatives informed that the person's name was not Rajesh but other name, but he did not remember that name. The witness identified Rajesh as accused. Police recorded his statement. On 24-8-2001, the Sub-Inspector of Police brought a cassette and played the cassette and they found said Rajesh attending the marriage of deceased and they identified rajesh. The relatives informed that the person's name was not Rajesh but other name, but he did not remember that name. The witness identified Rajesh as accused. In cross-examination, he also conceded that there was no test identification parade conducted before the Magistrate and that he had not given any descriptive particulars of the deceased or the accused, to the police. ( 9 ) PW4 is the brother of the deceased. He stated that he knew the accused and he had seen him in the Police Station after the occurrence. He stated that on 10-8-2001, his mother informed him that the deceased had gone to duty and had not returned. The deceased was working in viceroy Hotel. When the information was given to him by his mother, the deceased had not returned. He went to the Viceroy hotel and enquired from Tulsidas, Manager, about his brother. Tulsidas told him that the deceased had come for duty, attended his duty and left. Thereafter, on 13-8-2001, he lodged a complaint in Police Station, gandhi Nagar along with a photograph of his brother. On the same day in the evening, he saw in a newspaper that his brother was dead. He came to Sun Lodge with a photograph of his brother. The photograph was shown to the Manager and others at Sun Lodge. The people at the lodge told him that his brother had come to the lodge along with another person. He also came to know that his brother's body was in Gandhi Hospital Mortuary. Next day they obtained the body of deceased. ( 10 ) IN his cross-examination he stated that for six years they were staying in Prem Nagar. He, the deceased and one sister Anja were the children of first wife of his father. His father had performed another marriage with one Eliza. He himself was marred and was working as an RTA agent. ( 11 ) PW-5 is a resident of Khairatabad. She is the mother of the deceased. She stated that the deceased was working as supervisor in Viceroy Hotel. On 10-8-2001 at about 8 a. m. , the deceased-Mathews received a phone call and she lifted the phone. He himself was marred and was working as an RTA agent. ( 11 ) PW-5 is a resident of Khairatabad. She is the mother of the deceased. She stated that the deceased was working as supervisor in Viceroy Hotel. On 10-8-2001 at about 8 a. m. , the deceased-Mathews received a phone call and she lifted the phone. She found Michael on phone, who was a friend of Mathews. She knew micheal who used to visit their house since childhood. Micheal asked her to give phone to Mathews. She handed over the phone to mathews and then her son informed her that Micheal invited him for a party. She asked her son not to go since he had to go to duty. Her son went to duty at 8 a. m. His duty timings were from 8. 30 a. m. to 5 p. m. She waited for her son till 6 p. m. , but he did not return. On next day evening at 6 p. m. , they received a phone call from Viceroy hotel informing that her son had not attended his duty on that day. On knowing that, she got suspicion, as on 10-8-2001 Mathews had gone to a party of Michael, therefore, she went to Seha Hospital to enquire from sheela, wife of Michael. Sheela was working as a nurse. The wife of the accused informed her that she did not know anything and she would enquire and inform her. On the same day at 9 p. m. , Michael telephoned her and enquired about the deceased. He also told her that he had not seen the deceased since one month. But the witness told him that he had phoned him in the morning of 10-8-2001 and invited the deceased to the party. He did not reply and disconnected the phone. She came to know about the death of her son through Vaartha newspaper. Then she went to the Police station and she was informed that the body was shifted to Gandhi Hospital Mortuary. On enquiries from Viceroy Hotel, she came to know that at about 3 p. m. , her son had gone along with a person who was tall and black. Her son used to wear gold chain and gold ring and had a Bajaj Chetak vehicle bearing No. AHU-8041. On enquiries from Viceroy Hotel, she came to know that at about 3 p. m. , her son had gone along with a person who was tall and black. Her son used to wear gold chain and gold ring and had a Bajaj Chetak vehicle bearing No. AHU-8041. M. O. I was the vehicle, M. O. 2 was the gold chain, M. 0. 3 was the gold ring of her son. He also used to wear a watch, which was not found. ( 12 ) IN her cross-examination, she stated that she was the second wife of her husband. One Magi was the first wife of her husband. John and Anza were children of first wife of her husband. Magi was alive. They were christians. The deceased and accused were childhood friends for 30 years. ( 13 ) PW6 stated that he was working as Senior Security Guard at Viceroy Hotel. On 10-8-2001 while he was on duty, one Micheal came and asked that he wanted to see Mat hews. He informed mathews through internal phone that michael wants to see him. Within two minutes, Mathews came and informed michael to wait for him in Gate No. l. At about 15. 24 hours, he got relieved from his duty and one N. B. Rao assumed charge. He came to know about the death of deceased on 14-8-2001 in Vaartha newspaper. He was examined by the police and his statement was recorded on 14-8-2001. He stated that Micheal was black in complexion and was slim. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for appellant has submitted that this witness has not identified the accused even in the Court. In his cross-examination he stated that nobody came to him to enquire about the deceased from 10-8-2001 till his statement was recorded on 14-8-2001. There are three gates near the place where security guards are posted. On 10-8-2001 he was posted at time office. There is only one gate, which is exclusively used by staff for entering and going out. In his cross-examination he further stated that there was no test identification parade conducted. ( 15 ) PW7 was running a toddy shop at Nala Bazar, Boggulakota. He stated that he knew the accused, who used to visit his shop now and then to consume toddy. On 10-8-2001, the accused took four bottles of toddy in between 1. In his cross-examination he further stated that there was no test identification parade conducted. ( 15 ) PW7 was running a toddy shop at Nala Bazar, Boggulakota. He stated that he knew the accused, who used to visit his shop now and then to consume toddy. On 10-8-2001, the accused took four bottles of toddy in between 1. 30 and 2 p. m. The witness asked the accused as to why he was taking toddy with him as he was usually consuming toddy at the shop. Then the accused told him that there was a party. On 24-8-2001, police came to him and took him to the Police Station. Accused was shown to him and he told the police that the accused had taken toddy from him. He also stated in his cross-examination that no test identification parade was conducted. ( 16 ) PW8 stated that he knew the deceased who was his friend and he had seen the accused in the house of the deceased. He did not know anything about the matter and he had seen from newspapers that the deceased had died. PW9 was the original owner of Bajaj Chetak bearing Registration No. AHU-8041. He stated that he had sold that vehicle to the deceased for Rs. 10,000/ -. He had given the receipt. He could identify the vehicle and m. O. I was the same vehicle. ( 17 ) PW10 was doing soda business at rajeswari Street, Secunderabad. He stated that on 12-8-2001 at about 8. 30 a. m. , he was called to the Market Police Station and from there he went to Room No. 213 of Sun Lodge, where police conducted panchanama and found one TV, one cot, one table, empty whisky bottles, black shoes, vijay brand cigarette buds and there were also the traces of vomiting on the floor. The contents of the panchanama were read over to him. Ex. P-2 was the panchanama of observation of scene of offence. The vomitting substance was also seized. Then he and another panch Venkatesh went to the mortuary of Gandhi Hospital. Police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Ex. P-3 was the inquest report and he had signed it. They found that the deceased was black in colour. ( 18 ) PW11 was working as a driver. He stated that on 24-8-2001 at about 1. Then he and another panch Venkatesh went to the mortuary of Gandhi Hospital. Police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Ex. P-3 was the inquest report and he had signed it. They found that the deceased was black in colour. ( 18 ) PW11 was working as a driver. He stated that on 24-8-2001 at about 1. 30 p. m. , while he was returning from mehdipatnam through Humayun Nagar from his sister's house, two Sub-Inspectors of police stopped him and he was taken near a house at Hanuman Temple, where he found one person in the custody of police. He was black in complexion and lean and tall. He was the person who was in the court as accused. He made enquiries from the accused on the instructions of the police. The accused confessed the offence. In pursuance of confession, the accused took out M. O. 4 shirt, one lodge key M. O. 5, m. O. 6 key bunch containing the scooter key, M. O. 7 on strip of Nitravet Tablets, m. O. 2 gold chain and M. O. 3 gold ring, from the sajja inside the house. The police seized all the above material objects under the cover of Ex. P-4. In between 3 and 4 p. m. , they were take to Sun Lodge, where the police seized a register from reception counter. Along with them, accused was also present. Police obtained specimen signature and writing of the accused. Ex. P-5 was the signature and writing on the panchanama. He signed on panchanama. ( 19 ) PW12 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. The doctor did not find any injuries on the dead body. Stomach contained 100 ml of liquid. It smelt of alcohol. Mucos membrane was congested. Viscera was congested. The viscera was sent to chemical examination. The report was received on 10-9-2001. Basing on the chemical analysis report and post-mortem findings, he came to the opinion that the death was due to Nitrazepam (sedative)poisoning associated with alcoholic intoxication. Ex. P-6 was the post-mortem examination report, Ex. P-7 was his opinion, ex. P-8 was the FSL report on the basis of which he had given his opinion as in ex. P-7. ( 20 ) IN his cross-examination he stated that mixing of sedatives with alcoholic beverages produces greater intoxication. Ex. P-6 was the post-mortem examination report, Ex. P-7 was his opinion, ex. P-8 was the FSL report on the basis of which he had given his opinion as in ex. P-7. ( 20 ) IN his cross-examination he stated that mixing of sedatives with alcoholic beverages produces greater intoxication. A single drink also produces intoxication, but mixing of more drinks produces more intoxication. He did not know that Kerala whisky was cheap liquor. He did not know toddy sold in cities is generally adulterated with other intoxicants like Dizopham and cloral Hydrate. He agreed that Dizopham and Cloral Hydrate were sedatives. Dizopham and Cloral Hidrate act as sedatives when taken in lesser quantity, but would act as poison if taken in large quantity. He also agreed that Nitrozapam is similar to dizopham and it is also a sedative. He agreed that death could be caused due to consumption of alcohol in large quantity during a short spell. He also agreed that death could be caused due to alcohol consumption as it has direct effect on brain or due to aspiration of vomiting. He could not say that the amount of alcohol consumed by the deceased was sufficient to cause death. A question was put to him; question: What are the post-mortem appearance of death due to alcohol? answer: Presence of alcoholic smell in the stomach, congestion of other visceral objects suggest injection of alcohol. He further stated "it is true in Page No. 5 under Col. No. II in ex. P. 6, brain congestion is present. Col. No. 7 of Page 5 in Ex. P. 6 is Oedenamatus. In page No. 6 of Ex. P. 6 in Col. No. II of abdomen smell of alcohol is present. Mucous membrain congested. My above these findings suggests consumption of alcohol. In Page No. 6 of Col. No. VIII coronaries are narrow and large blood vessels atheromatos changes seen. When the smaller than the normal size we will observe coronaries are narrow. The colour of the atheromatos changes not given. It is not true to suggest that the deceased was suffering with heart ailment because of coronary narrow and sedatives were administered. There is no specific colour found in the 100 ml of liquor on the stomach of the deceased. I do not know the colour of the nitravet is yellow. Nitravet is the trade name of Nitrazapam manufactured by anglofrench Pharmaceuticals. There is no specific colour found in the 100 ml of liquor on the stomach of the deceased. I do not know the colour of the nitravet is yellow. Nitravet is the trade name of Nitrazapam manufactured by anglofrench Pharmaceuticals. Since I do not mention the colour of liquid, I cannot tell that is yellow liquid or not. I agree with any peculiar/special phenomena observes during the post-mortem examination, I incorporate the same in my post-mortem report. " ( 21 ) PW13 was working as a Head constable. He stated that on 11-8-2001 rahman, Sub-Inspector of Police, received telephonic message from Sun Lodge at about 9. 45 p. m. , and he went to the Sun lodge. He made a GD Entry and registered ex. P-1 in Crime No. 157 of 2001. PW-14 was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police. He stated that he received telephonic message from Manager, Sun Lodge that a person was found inside Room No. 213 and door was locked from outside. He proceeded to Sun Lodge and opened Room no. 213 with a duplicate key and found one unknown male person lying dead on a cot. He took a complaint from the Manager and forwarded the same to the Police Station to register a case. PW-13 registered the case. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of PWs. l and 2, inspected the body, got photographs taken and shifted the body to the hospital. Ex. P-10 to P-13 were the photographs with negatives. On 11-8-2001 and 12-8-2001, he continued his investigation and visited the sun Lodge and recorded the statements of g. Arjun and B. Srinivas. He summoned panchas, inspected the scene of offence, conducted panchanama, visited Gandhi hospital, conducted inquest, photographs were published in newspapers for identification of the body. He got autopsy conducted. On 14-8-2001, on seeing the advertisement in the newspaper, PWs. 4 and 5 came to the mortuary of Gandhi hospital and identified the dead body as that of one Jacob Mathews. He recorded the statements of J. Clera and PWs. 4 and 5 and handed over the body to them for the last rites. Those persons suspected Micheal vijay Raj who was a friend of deceased. Deceased had been working before his death in Viceroy Hotel, therefore, he visited viceroy Hotel and examined PW-6. He recorded the statements of J. Clera and PWs. 4 and 5 and handed over the body to them for the last rites. Those persons suspected Micheal vijay Raj who was a friend of deceased. Deceased had been working before his death in Viceroy Hotel, therefore, he visited viceroy Hotel and examined PW-6. He got a cassette, which had recordings of the marriage ceremonies of the deceased and showed the video cassette to PWs. 2 and 3 and Arjun. They identified the accused. Thereafter, he tried to apprehend the accused and arrested him from his house, interrogated him and in the presence of witnesses, he recorded the confessional statement of accused, which led to the recovery of M. Os. 2 to 7 from the house of accused. ( 22 ) IN his cross-examination he stated that he had not seized visitors' register pertaining to Room No. 213 of Sun Lodge for 10-8-2001 and 11-8-2001. He was present at the scene of offence from 10 p. m. , to 12 midnight till shifting of dead body. On 11-8-2001 he did not conduct any scene of offence panchanama. He conducted scene of offence panchanama on 12-8-2001. A question was put to him; question: On 11-8-2001 during your first visit at the scene i. e. , Room No. 213 Sun lodge and on 12-8-2001 at the scene of offence panchanama, did you peruse the visitors registers of Sun Lodge? answer: Yes. Then he stated that he had not seized the visitors' register. Panchayatdars or this witness did not express any cause of death at the time of inquest. He did not give any request to the Magistrate for sending the register of Sun Lodge to get the opinion with regard to the handwriting of PW-1 and accused. Till 24-8-2001, he did not seize any visiting register of Sun Lodge. ( 23 ) PW15 was the Inspector of Police. He stated that on 24-8-2001, Sub-Inspector of Police Rahman produced the accused before him in the Police Station. Thereafter, he registered a case under Sections 302 and 379 of I. P. C. , and submitted an alteration memo. He also examined some of the witnesses and forwarded the seized material objects namely cigarette buds, vomited material collected from the scene of offence and Saliva collected from the accused, to the FSL, Hyderabad for analysis and report. ( 24 ) PW16 is the Inspector of Police. He also examined some of the witnesses and forwarded the seized material objects namely cigarette buds, vomited material collected from the scene of offence and Saliva collected from the accused, to the FSL, Hyderabad for analysis and report. ( 24 ) PW16 is the Inspector of Police. He stated that on 7-11-2001, he sent four nitravet Tablets to FSL, Hyderabad for chemical examination, through A. C. P. , to find out whether Nitrazapam was available in the said tablets. He also filed the chargesheet. ( 25 ) DW1 is the accused himself, who got conducted a blood test at Vijaya diagnostic Centre, Basheerbagh, to find out his blood group. The diagnostic centre was of the view that the blood group of accused was A+ve. Ex. D-2 was the certificate issued by Vijaya Diagnostic centre. He also underwent blood group test at Seha Hospital in Lakdikapool. They also certified that the blood group of accused was A+ve and Ex. D-4 was the certificate issued by them. DW-2 is the doctor who has an MBBS Degree and a Diploma in clinical Pathology. Ex. D-3 was given by him, which discloses that Micheal Vijay raj got his blood tested on 11-3-2003 and his blood group was A+ve. DW-3 is again a Lab Technician, who gave Ex. D-2 stating that the blood group of accused was A+ve. To the same effect, there is the testimony of DWs. 4 and 5. ( 26 ) THERE is no direct evidence as is seen from the evidence, which has been discussed in detail. But the prosecution tried to bring home the guilt of accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and these circumstances, on the basis of which the prosecution wanted to establish the case, can be summarized as follows: 1. that the accused and deceased were last seen together; 2. that the accused had booked a room in a lodge and had taken the deceased to the lodge; 3. that the accused had purchased toddy on the day of occurrence; 4. that the accused had left the room, locking it from outside and nobody else had access to the room and the deceased was found dead in the said room; 5. that the medical evidence proves that the accused had consumed liquor along with Nitravet Tablets; and 6. recovery of articles belonging to the deceased, from the accused. that the accused had left the room, locking it from outside and nobody else had access to the room and the deceased was found dead in the said room; 5. that the medical evidence proves that the accused had consumed liquor along with Nitravet Tablets; and 6. recovery of articles belonging to the deceased, from the accused. ( 27 ) THE defence, on the other hand, submits that the circumstances shown have not been proved and even if it is accepted that the death of the deceased had occurred after consuming liquor with nitravet Tablets in the company of accused, even then, there is no evidence to show that the drug was administered by the accused. May be by their own choice the accused and the deceased had taken the liquor along with Nitravet Tablets to get more intoxication, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The defence counsel further submits that the trial court did not believe the recoveries and at Paragraph 107 of its judgment, the trial court stated: "however the gold ornaments and the lodge key were said to have been recovered from the accused. PW. 11 is one of the mediators for the said seizure and confession. It is elicited through PW. 11 in course of his cross-examination that the name of the lodge is not mentioned on M. O. 5 key and that it carries only room number and that the room number is mentioned on a chit on m. O. 5. He pleaded ignorance as to the availability of keys like M. Os. 5 and 6 at any key maker on footpaths. PW. 11 is not a neighbour to the accused. He is not resident of the locality of accused or the person within the area of Market Police Station. He is resident of Puranapool. The time when he was secured was 1. 30 p. m. He deposed that the Sub-Inspector of Police Rehman and the Sub-Inspector of Police Karunakar reddy stopped him on his way and asked him to act as mediator and took him to the house of accused situated near Hanuman temple. It is not the case of PW. I4 Rehman that Karunakar Reddy was present there. PW. 15 Karunakar Reddy did not state that he was present at the time of confession or seizure or that he asked PW. 11 to act as mediator for confession and seizure. PW. It is not the case of PW. I4 Rehman that Karunakar Reddy was present there. PW. 15 Karunakar Reddy did not state that he was present at the time of confession or seizure or that he asked PW. 11 to act as mediator for confession and seizure. PW. 14 stated that he did not verify the ownership of M. 0. 1 scooter. PW. 9 Hafeez deposed that he sold M. O. 1 scooter to the deceased. He could not say its number. He stated that he cannot identify the vehicle purchased by the deceased without seeing the number. He could not tell the number but stated that M. O. I was the said scooter. He stated that he was not the owner of scooter M. O. I by the time of its sale by him to the accused. He stated that M. 0. 1 was in the name of one Rasheed Moihiuddin and that it was not transferred in the name of the accused. He again stated that he did not know about transfer of vehicle. PW. 14 stated that he did not verify the ownership of the said M. O. I scooter. PW. 14 Sub-Inspector of Police stated that PW. 4 lodged a complaint with Market Police Station but he did not collect the copy of the same. PW. 15 (Inspector of Police) stated that he seized the lodge register under cover of mahazar under Ex. P. 5. The said lodge register is not even produced by the police for the best reasons known to them. Under ex. P. 5 Mahazar, the standard writings of accused were taken but the same and the register were not sent to the F. S. L. for comparison of handwritings. P. W. I6 stated that he sent 4 Nitrovet Tablets seized from the accused to F. S. L. and obtained Ex. D. l report but his evidence discloses that ex. C. l property form discloses that all the seized 10 Nitrovet Tablets were produced before the Court. But 6 tablets are only produced before Court. " ( 28 ) IN the light of the findings of the trial Court, with which this Court also agrees that the recoveries are not believable, there remains no evidence to show that the liquor and the Nitrovet Tablets were administered by the accused to the deceased. There are other discrepancies in believing the prosecution story. " ( 28 ) IN the light of the findings of the trial Court, with which this Court also agrees that the recoveries are not believable, there remains no evidence to show that the liquor and the Nitrovet Tablets were administered by the accused to the deceased. There are other discrepancies in believing the prosecution story. At no point of time the accused was shown to any of the witnesses. Admittedly the accused was not known to any of the witnesses, who had seen him at the lodge or at the Viceroy hotel. No identification parade was conducted. The accused was identified, according to the witnesses, on the basis of a video cassette, which was shot at the time of the marriage of the deceased and in that marriage, the accused had also participated, according to the prosecution. Neither the mother nor the brother of the deceased, who appeared as witnesses, had said that they had given any cassette pertaining to the marriage of the deceased, to the police. On the other hand the brother of the deceased PW-4 stated that he had shown photographs of the deceased to the people at the lodge and not the cassette. This cassette was not even produced during the trial. The signatures allegedly put by the accused on the register of the lodge, were not even sent for comparison with admitted signatures of the accused. ( 29 ) SINCE there is no evidence showing that the accused had administered liquor and Nitravet Tablets to the deceased, it will not be safe for this Court to convict the accused for the death of the deceased. Number of judgments have been cited by the defence as well as the prosecution. But since this Court is of the view that there is no evidence on record suggesting that it was the accused, who administered liquor and Nitravet Tablets to the deceased, we believe that the accused deserves to be acquitted. ( 30 ) APPEAL is accordingly allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the accused/ appellant. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. He is entitled to refund of fine amount paid, if any. .