Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 804 (GUJ)

PARSIGHBHAI GALIYA MACHER v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2012-11-08

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.B.PARDIWALA

body2012
JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J. This appeal is at the instance of a convict accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and is directed against an order of conviction and sentence dated 27/6/2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, in Sessions Case No.31 of 2006. By the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently, sentenced him to suffer Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with a further stipulation that in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. In the same manner the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs.250/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months. 2. Case of the Prosecution : One Dhirabhai Manabhai Machhar was a resident of village Timbi situated in Ta: Zalod of Dist: Panchmahals. The said Dhirabhai Machhar was a father of four sons and four daughters. One of the daughters, named, Kabudi was married to one Rakesh Dhira –a resident of village Raniyar. According to the custom prevailing in the community, after the marriage the girl would stay at the house of her parents for some time and thereafter the family members from the in-laws side would come at the parental home of the girl and thereafter would take the girl along with them to her matrimonial home. On 4/11/2005 the in-laws of Kabudi –D/o/ Dhirabhai Machhar were to come at the house of Dhirabhai Machhar to take Kabudi to her matrimonial home. Accordingly the father –Dhirabhai Machhar had arranged for a social gathering and had invited many people from the village, more particularly relatives and other persons known to the family. On that day Dal and Rice was cooked for the purpose of serving the invitees. The accused was also invited and had come at the house of Dhirabhai Machhar to have food. On that day Dal and Rice was cooked for the purpose of serving the invitees. The accused was also invited and had come at the house of Dhirabhai Machhar to have food. At about 1.30 in the night food was served to the guests and Kabudi –the daughter of Dhirabhai was taken away by her in-laws to her matrimonial home at 4 o’clock in the morning. The persons who had food at the house of Dhirabhai Machhar were suddenly taken ill. Most of them started vomiting and complained of severe diarrhoea. All those persons who had been taken ill were admitted in the hospital. Out of 32 persons who were taken ill, 4 persons died. The wife and three daughters of Dhirabhai Machhar were also taken ill and had to be admitted in the hospital. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was having a dispute regarding a parcel of land with the said Dhirabhai Machhar and with a view to seek revenge, had added a poisonous substance in the vessel when the Dal was being cooked at the house of Dhirabhai Machhar. The Forensic Science Laboratory report on the basis of analysis of the samples of cooked rice and dal revealed that it contained Organo Phosphorous Pesticides “PHORATE”. Accordingly the accused was arrested and was put to trial for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The record reveals that the incident in question had occurred on 4/11/2005, i.e. the day on which there was a social gathering at the house of one Dhirabhai Machhar. As the Police learnt about the incident, an Accident Death Case was registered by the police under the provisions of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the registration of the accidental death case, the police recorded statements of various persons including the family members of Dhirabhai Machhar and also of those who had suffered vomiting and severe diarrhoea on account of food poisoning. The record also reveals that the Food and Drugs Laboratory vide its report dated 16/11/2005 had informed the Food Inspector at Godhra that the samples of cooked rice and prepared Dal were not fit for human consumption as they were mixed with Organo Phosphorous Pesticides “PHORATE”. The record also reveals that the Food and Drugs Laboratory vide its report dated 16/11/2005 had informed the Food Inspector at Godhra that the samples of cooked rice and prepared Dal were not fit for human consumption as they were mixed with Organo Phosphorous Pesticides “PHORATE”. On receipt of such a report of the Food & Drugs Laboratory dated 16/11/2005, the Investigating Officer one Mr.Gurpritsingh Surendersingh Sayan –Police Sub-Inspector of Limdi Police Station lodged a First Information Report on 19/11/2005 wherein for the first time it was alleged that it was the accused who had mixed PHORATE into Dal and Rice on the date of the social gathering at the house of Dhirabhai Machhar i.e. on 4/11/2005. On the strength of such FIR registered by the PSI of Limdi Police Station, the investigation had commenced. Prior to registration of the First Information Report, investigation was conducted as an Accident Death Case under the provisions of Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code. The scene of offence Panchnama was drawn in the presence of two panch witnesses, being Exh.39. The Panchnama of Discovery of a Plastic bag containing PHORATE from the house of the accused was drawn in presence of two panch witnesses, being Exh.51. On 20/11/2005 the accused was arrested and accordingly an Arrest Panchnama being Exh.44, was drawn in presence of the two panch witnesses. Finally at the end of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Zalod. 4. As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the JMFC, Zalod, committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Court framed charge against the accused Exh.4 and statement of the accused was recorded. The accused did not admit the charge and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution adduced the following oral evidence in support of its case. PW.1 Dr.Karansinh Rasubhai Handa. -Medical Officer who performed the Postmortem of the dead bodies of The Deceased persons. Exh. 7 PW.2 Dineshbhai Tersingbhai Amaliya -Panch witness of the scene of Offence panchnama. Exh.38 PW.3 Dhirabhai Manabhai Machhar -The Host of the Social Gathering Exh.40 PW.4 Dodiabhai Manabhai Machhar - Brother of the Host. Exh.48 PW.5 Muljibhai Mangalbhai Panchal - The witness at whose farm the Accused was serving. Exh.__ PW.6 Shaileshbhai Bachubhai Ninama - Panch witness of the Discovery Panchnama. Exh.38 PW.3 Dhirabhai Manabhai Machhar -The Host of the Social Gathering Exh.40 PW.4 Dodiabhai Manabhai Machhar - Brother of the Host. Exh.48 PW.5 Muljibhai Mangalbhai Panchal - The witness at whose farm the Accused was serving. Exh.__ PW.6 Shaileshbhai Bachubhai Ninama - Panch witness of the Discovery Panchnama. Exh.50 PW.7 Ishwarbhai Dalsingbhai Machhar - Nephew of the host Dhirabhai Exh.52 PW.8 Dineshbhai Dhirabhai Machhar. - Son of the Host Dhirabhai Machhar Exh.53 PW.9 Bhurjibhai Dhirabhai Machhar - Another son of the Host Dhirabhai Exh.54 PW.10 Gurpritsingh Surendersingh Sayan - Police Officer who lodged the First Information Report. Exh.55 PW.11 Mansingbhai Kaljibhai Charel - One of the Investigating Officers. Exh.58 PW.12 Motising Jausing Bhuriya - Panch witness. Exh.60 PW.13 Shuklabhai Raykabhai Dhamare - Talati-cum-Mantri of the village Exh.61 PW.14 Aaratsinh Saburbhai Bariya - Circle Officer who had prepared the map of the scene of offence. Exh.62 PW.15 Hirabhai Kediyabhai Damor - One of the I.O. Exh.64 The following pieces of documentary evidence were adduced by the prosecution. Sr. No. Details of Documents Exh. Exh.60 PW.13 Shuklabhai Raykabhai Dhamare - Talati-cum-Mantri of the village Exh.61 PW.14 Aaratsinh Saburbhai Bariya - Circle Officer who had prepared the map of the scene of offence. Exh.62 PW.15 Hirabhai Kediyabhai Damor - One of the I.O. Exh.64 The following pieces of documentary evidence were adduced by the prosecution. Sr. No. Details of Documents Exh. 1 Accidental Death Original declaration 2 Original complaint 56 3 Inquest panchnama of dead body of Somjibhai Surtanbhai and Rupabhai Matabhai 41 4 Inquest panchnama of dead body of Vijaybhai Javsingbhai 42 5 Inquest panchnama of dead body of Nurjibhai Dotiyabhai 43 6 Panchnama of the place of incident 39 7 Discovery panchnama in respect of the accused produced a red plastic bag containing medicines 51 8 Detention panchnama of the accused 44 9 Map of the place of incident 63 10 Medical certificate of Kanuka Kadakiya 13 11 Medical certificate of Kalabhai Dhirabhai 14 12 Medical certificate of Rajubhai Kukabhai 15 13 Medical certificate of Sunilbhai Shantubhai 16 14 Medical certificate of Prakashbhai Nanjibhai 17 15 Medical certificate of Ravindrabhai Javsingbhai 18 16 Medical certificate of Kaliben Kanukabhai 19 17 Medical certificate of Sumanbhai Malabhai 20 18 Medical certificate of Malsingbhai Ramabhai 21 19 Medical certificate of Parsingbhai Galiyabhai 22 20 Medical certificate of Shukalabhai Ravjibhai 23 21 Medical certificate of Alkeshbhai Varsingbhai 24 22 Medical certificate of Methaliben Dhirabhai 25 23 Medical certificate of Gorsing Virsing 26 24 Medical certificate of Dineshbhai Dhirabhai 27 25 Medical certificate of Rameshbhai Dhirabhai 28 26 Medical certificate of Bhurjibhai Dhirabhai 29 27 Medical certificate of Ishwarbhai Dalsing 30 28 Medical certificate of Rakeshbhai Dhirabhai 31 29 Medical certificate of Sangitaben Sursing 32 30 Medical certificate of Rupsing Hadiyabhai 33 31 Medical certificate of Shankarbhai Gajsingbhai 34 32 P.M. Note of Vijaybhai Javsing 11 33 P.M. Note of Samjibhai Surtanbhai 8 34 P.M. Note of Rupabhai Matabhai 9 35 P.M. Note of Nurjibhai Dotiyabhai 10 36 Forwarding etter of Food and Drug Laboratory 35 37 Analysis report of Food and Drug Laboratory 12 38 Dispatch entry of F.S.L. 36 39 Examination report of F.S.L. 37 40 Pedigree 45 41 A copy of 7/12 of Survey number [illegible] 46 42 Village form no. 8[A] of Survey No. 253 47 6. 8[A] of Survey No. 253 47 6. After completion of oral as well as documentary evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code was recorded, in which the accused stated that the complaint was a false one and he was innocent. 7. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as stated herein before. 8. Being dissatisfied, the accused-appellant has come-up with the present Appeal. 9. Submissions on behalf of the accused-appellant: Mr. Mrudul Barot, the learned Advocate appearing for the accused-appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed a serious error in holding the accused guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC as well as for the offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. According to Mr. Barot, the entire case hinges on the circumstantial evidence and none of the circumstances relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge could be termed as one pointing towards the guilt of the accused. According to Mr. Barot, the conviction of the accused is based only on suspicion and the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have relied upon the oral evidence of the witnesses at whose house the incident had occurred, more particularly when all those witnesses had kept quiet as regards the involvement of the accused in the crime for a period of almost 15 days from the date of the incident. Mr. Barot further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to consider an important question that the witnesses who had deposed before the Court that they had seen the accused adding something in the Dal on the date of the social gathering kept conspicuous silence when their statements were recorded by the police during the course of inquiry under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Mr. Barot submitted that it is only after the receipt of the Report of the Public Analyst stating that the samples of cooked rice and dal contained “PHORATE” that the First Information Report was lodged by the Police Officer himself on 19/11/2005 and all of a sudden all the witnesses thereafter in their statements before the police recorded under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code involved the accused for the first time. Mr. Barot also submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge also committed an error in relying on the evidence of the discovery of a packet of PHORATE from the house of the accused, more particularly when the panch witnesses, though not declared hostile, had failed to prove the contents of the discovery Panchnama. According to Mr. Barot, even if such a discovery is said to have been proved then mere discovery of a packet containing PHORATE from the house of the accused is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence of murder, more particularly when there is evidence on record to suggest that the accused was working in an Estate of a Teak Plantation, where his job was to sprinkle pesticides in the Teak Plantations. Mr. Barot, therefore, urged to allow the Appeal and acquit the accused of all the charges. 10. Submissions on behalf of the State : Mr. K.P. Raval, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, vehemently submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly found the accused guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and no interference is warranted in the present appeal. Mr. Raval submitted that the report of the Public Analyst reveals that in the sample of cooked rice and dal, PHORATE was found to have been mixed and such a packet of PHORATE was found from the house of the accused which was suggestive of the fact that it was none other than the accused who had added a poisonous pesticides 'PHORATE' in the rice and dal on the date of the gathering at the house of Dhirabhai Machhar. Mr. Mr. Raval also submitted that there is thumping evidence on record to show that on the date of the gathering the accused was present at the house of Dhirabhai Machhar and as many as four witnesses had seen the accused adding something in the Dal. According to Mr. Raval the chain of circumstances is so complete that it could be said without any hesitation that it was the accused who had put 'PHORATE' in the Dal due to the land dispute with Dhirabhai Machhar. Mr. Raval, therefore, urged that there being no merit in this appeal the same be dismissed. 11. The picture that emerges from a cumulative reading and assessment of the material available on record is thus – i) There is no dispute as regards the fact that there was a Social gathering at the house of the PW.3 Dhirabhai Machhar on 4/11/2005. The PW.3 Dhirabhai Machhar in his evidence, being Exh.40, has deposed that his daughter Kabudi was married to a boy, named Rakesh of village Raniyar and as per the custom, family members of the in-laws of his daughter Kabudi were to come at his house to take Kabudi along with them to her matrimonial home. Accordingly the PW.3 Dhirabhai Machhar had arranged for a social gathering and had invited many people at his house. On the day of the gathering i.e. on 4/11/2005 Dal and Rice was cooked to be served to the guests. The PW.3 Dhirabhai has also deposed that food was served at around 1.30 in the night and early in the morning at 4.00 O’clock his daughter Kabudi left for her matrimonial home along with the family members of her in-laws. After having food, around 32 guests were taken suddenly seriously ill and out of them 4 had died due to poison. The PW.3 Dhirabhai Machhar has also deposed that the accused had added a poisonous substance in the Dal due to a land dispute. The PW.3 Dhirabhai Machhar has also deposed that he had actually witnessed the accused adding something in the Dal and at that point of time the PW.3 had also inquired with the accused as to what he was putting or adding in the Dal and according to the PW.3 the reply of the accused was that he was putting Masala in the Dal. The PW.3 has also deposed that when Dal and Rice was being served to the accused, the accused had refused to have the same. Therefore, the accused had not suffered the effect of poison. The PW.3 has also deposed that the accused happened to be the son of his uncle. The PW.3 has also deposed that one Mukesh Manji had lodged a complaint with the police and police had recorded his statement in that regard. In the cross-examination of the PW.3, the PW.3 has deposed that Mukeshbhai Nanji –the person who had lodged the complaint with the police happened to be the father-in-law of his daughter named Kabudi. The PW.3 has also deposed that it was true that the police had come 2 to 4 times at their house for the purpose of investigation. The place where food was being cooked was an open place. The PW.3 has also deposed that they had not restrained or stopped the accused from adding the Masala. The PW.3 had not disclosed to any other person about the accused having added Masala in the Dal. The PW.3 has also deposed in his cross-examination that Dal was cooked by him and around 50 to 60 guests were invited. ii) Close on the heels of the evidence of the PW.3 is the evidence of all other witnesses, more particularly those witnesses, who were present at the house of the PW.3 Dhirabhai Machhar. Everyone claimed to have witnessed the accused adding something in the Dal, but nobody had restrained the accused in that regard. iii) There is no dispute also as regards the fact that the samples of cooked rice and prepared Dal were not found fit for human consumption as they were grossly mixed with Organo Phosphorous Pesticides “PHORATE” as revealed by the analysis report of the Public Analyst dated 16/11/2005 being Exh.12. The only question that falls for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether there is any evidence to even remotely suggest that it was the accused who had added 'PHORATE' in the cooked Rice and Dal on the date of the gathering at the house of the PW.3 Dhirabhai Machhar. The only question that falls for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether there is any evidence to even remotely suggest that it was the accused who had added 'PHORATE' in the cooked Rice and Dal on the date of the gathering at the house of the PW.3 Dhirabhai Machhar. In our opinion, if the witnesses had actually witnessed the accused adding something in the Dal on 4/11/2005, and immediately thereafter if as many as 32 guests were taken seriously ill and out of those 4 had died at the hospital, then under such circumstances there is no explanation worth the name by any of the prosecution witnesses as to why this fact was not disclosed and revealed before the Police immediately when Inquiry under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code was initiated on registration of Accidental Death Case. On the PW.3 Dhirabhai’s own saying, that the police had come for around 2 to 4 times for the purpose of inquiry, then why such an important fact was concealed and was not disclosed by the witnesses until 19/11/2005 i.e. the date on which the PW.10 Gurpritsingh Sayan –the I.O. lodged the First Information Report. This omission on the part of the witnesses in not disclosing the name of the accused before the police from 4/11/2005 till 19/11/2005, more particularly, when they all claimed to have witnessed the accused adding something in the Dal, would be a relevant fact admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. iv) The PW.10 Gurpritsingh Sayan –PSI in his evidence being Exh.55 has deposed that on receipt of the Public Analyst Report dated 16/11/2005, he had lodged the First Information Report naming the present appellant as the accused for the first time. The PW.10 in his cross-examination has deposed in so-many words that it was true that during the course of investigation under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code pursuant to registration of A.D. Case, his colleague V.P. Patel had recorded number of statements of the witnesses, but none of the witnesses had named or had attributed anything to the accused. Thus, it is very clear that only on suspicion after a period of almost 15 days that the witnesses involved the accused in the crime. 12. At this stage, we may also deal with the submission of Mr. Thus, it is very clear that only on suspicion after a period of almost 15 days that the witnesses involved the accused in the crime. 12. At this stage, we may also deal with the submission of Mr. K.P. Raval that an investigation under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code is limited in scope and is confined to the ascertainment of the apparent cause of death. There cannot be any dispute so far as this proposition of law is concerned. In fact, we would like to look into the provisions of Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which are quoted below :- “174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.- (1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been inflicted. (2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 13. The language of the aforesaid statutory provision is plain and simple and there is no ambiguity therein. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Ors. 13. The language of the aforesaid statutory provision is plain and simple and there is no ambiguity therein. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Ors. vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2006 SC 951 , an investigation under Section 174 is concerned with discovering whether in a given case, the death was accidental, suicidal or homicidal or caused by animal and in what manner or by what weapon or instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. 14. It is with this limited purpose that persons acquainted with the facts of the case are summoned and examined under Section 175 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is true that the details of the overt acts are not necessary to be recorded in the inquest report. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted or who are the witnesses of the assault is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Neither in practice nor in law it is necessary for the person holding the inquest to mention all these details. 15. However, the question before us is as regards the fact of omission on the part of the witnesses to bring to the notice of the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code and when their statements under Section 175 of the Criminal Procedure Code were being recorded by the Investigating Officer that on the date of the social gathering at the house of Dhirabhai Machhar, the accused was also present and they had seen the accused adding something in the Dal. We are finding it very difficult to believe that if all these witnesses had actually seen the accused adding the deleterious substance in the name of Masala then they would omit or forget to mention this fact before the Investigating Officer, more particularly when the Investigating Officer was inquiring as regards the actual cause of death. 16. We cannot undermine the importance of the provisions of Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also Section 175 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 16. We cannot undermine the importance of the provisions of Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also Section 175 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The statement made by the witnesses during the course of investigation under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code and recorded under Section 175 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be termed as a “previous statement” within the meaning of Section 162. Such a statement could be used by the defence for the purpose of contradicting the witness when the said witness enters the witness-box to depose pursuant to a charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer. At this stage, it would also not be out of place to make a reference of a very important decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malkiat Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab reported in (1991) 4 SCC 341 . We would like to refer the following observations passed by the Supreme Court in para 12 of the citation:- “12. ... ... ....Section 174 of the Code empowers a police officer to investigate in the presence of two or more respectable witnesses and report only the cause of death and the person, if known, that has committed the offence. Section 175 empowers him to summon any person who appears to be acquainted with the facts of the case and every person so summoned shall be bound to attend the inquest and answer truly all the questions other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. The statement made by such person is a "previous statement" within the meaning of s.162 and it shall not be signed. So the statement made by such a person to police officer is in the course of the investigation, and when reduced to writing, it shall be used only by the accused to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act or with the permission of the court the prosecution could use it for re-examination only to explain the matter referred to in his cross examination. It is settled law that Section 162 was conceived to protect an accused creating an absolute bar against the previous statement made before the police office being used for any purpose whatsoever. It is settled law that Section 162 was conceived to protect an accused creating an absolute bar against the previous statement made before the police office being used for any purpose whatsoever. The obvious reason is that the previous statement under the circumstances was not made inspiring confidence. It enables the accused to rely thereon only to contradict the witnesses in the manner provided by Section 145 drawing attention of the witness of that part of the statement intended to be used for contradiction. It cannot be used for corroboration of a prosecution or defence witness or even a court witness, nor can it be used contradicting a defence or a court witness. The investigating officer is enjoined to forward the inquest report to the Magistrate along with the statement recorded at the inquest, so that the court would see the record, at the earliest of the circumstances leading to the cause of the death of the deceased and the witness examined during the inquest. Therefore, the statement of PW-3 recorded during inquest is not evidence. It is a previous statement reduced to writing under Section 162 of the Code and enclosed with the inquest report and cannot be used by the prosecution for any purpose including to show the names of the accused except to contradict the maker thereof, or to explain the same by prosecution.” 17. The above referred observations passed by the Supreme Court makes the position very clear. As a matter of fact, we hold that if such statements are recorded during the course of investigation under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code and ultimately, regular FIR is lodged which results into charge-sheet then such statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 175 of the Criminal Procedure Code should also be supplied along with the papers of the charge-sheet to the accused. This is so, because such a statement would be a previous statement reduced to writing under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and could be used to contradict the maker thereof, or to explain the same by prosecution. 18. We are not impressed by the submission of Mr. Raval the learned Public Prosecutor that the witnesses have very clearly deposed that they had seen the accused on the date of the incident adding something in the Dal. 18. We are not impressed by the submission of Mr. Raval the learned Public Prosecutor that the witnesses have very clearly deposed that they had seen the accused on the date of the incident adding something in the Dal. In the first place this story of the witnesses having witnessed the accused adding something in the Dal is not palatable. First, the accused was not incharge of the kitchen on that day and he was not the cook. According to the PW.3, the Dal was cooked by him. Why should the host or his family members allow any other person, even if he may be a relative to add something in the food and more particularly without ascertaining or even having a look as to what was being added or mixed with the food. We are not at all convinced with this version of the prosecution. Apart from the above, the PW.7 Ishwarbhai Machhar, one of the relatives of the host, has altogether a different version to narrate. The PW.7 has deposed that his uncle –the PW.3 Dhirabhai Machhar and the accused both together had prepared Dal and Rice and thereafter the vessel containing Dal and Rice was brought in the house. 19. The PW.9 who is the son of the PW.3 Dhirabhai Machhar in his evidence being Exh.54 has deposed that the accused also had food, but the accused had only rice and had refused to have Dal. As per the report of the Public Analyst , even rice contained PHORATE and if it is the case of the PW.9 Bhurjibhai that the accused had rice, then why the accused did not suffer any effect of food poisoning. 20. In our opinion, the story of the prosecution that it was the accused who had mixed PHORATE with Dal and Rice on the date of social gathering at the house of PW.3 Dhirabhai is nothing but an after-thought. It is only after receipt of the report of the public analyst dated 16/11/2005 that all of a sudden everyone started pointing finger towards the accused. As observed above, there is no explanation at the end of any witnesses as to why they had not disclosed the fact of the accused mixing something in the name of the Masala when their statements were recorded by the Police during the course of inquiry of the Accidental Death Case registered at the Police Station. As observed above, there is no explanation at the end of any witnesses as to why they had not disclosed the fact of the accused mixing something in the name of the Masala when their statements were recorded by the Police during the course of inquiry of the Accidental Death Case registered at the Police Station. 21. We shall now consider the evidence of the discovery of a packet of 'PHORATE' from the house of the accused pursuant to the statement made by the accused and which is made admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is no doubt true that the prosecution has heavily relied upon this piece of circumstance to show that the accused was in possession of 'PHORATE' and on the date of the incident he had used the same PHORATE for adding it in the Dal and Rice. First, we would like to clarify that there is evidence on record to show that the accused was working in an Estate of a Teak Plantation and his job was to sprinkle pesticides in the Teak plantations. Such being the nature of his work, perhaps he may have carried some of the powder at his residence. However, the question is whether mere discovery of a packet containing 'PHORATE' could be termed as conclusive proof of the fact that it was the accused who had added PHORATE in the food. We have already taken the view that there is no evidence worth the name to show that it was the accused who had added 'PHORATE' in the Dal and Rice as we have disbelieved the witnesses for the reasons we have assigned in detail. 22. In the decision reported as K.V. Chacko @ Kunju vs. State of Kerala (2001) 9 SCC 277 : (2001 Cri LJ 713) an axe which was found to be stained with human blood was recovered at the instance of the appellant. It was held by Supreme Court that in the absence of any evidence to establish that the death of the deceased was caused by an axe, the said recovery does not connect the accused with the murder of the deceased. 23. In the decision reported as Narsinhbhai Haribhai Prajapati vs. Chhatrasinh & Ors. It was held by Supreme Court that in the absence of any evidence to establish that the death of the deceased was caused by an axe, the said recovery does not connect the accused with the murder of the deceased. 23. In the decision reported as Narsinhbhai Haribhai Prajapati vs. Chhatrasinh & Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1753 Supreme Court had held that in the absence of any other evidence the circumstances of seizure of blood stained shirt and dhoti from the person of an accused and dharias from the houses of the accused are wholly insufficient to sustain the charge of murder against the accused. 24. From the afore-noted judicial decisions, the legal principle which emerges is that mere recovery of an object at the instance of the accused is a relevant fact only when it is established by other evidence that the object recovered is connected with the accused and the offence with which he is charged. To put it pithily, the connection between the object recovered, the accused and the offence with which the accused is charged must always be established by “evidence aliunde”. The decisions further bring out that mere recovery of blood stained articles at the instance of an accused is not sufficient to convict him for the offence of murder. 25. Bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, we hold that mere discovery of the packet containing 'PHORATE' from the residence of the accused is not sufficient to convict him for the offence of murder. 26. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the prosecution has not been able to connect the accused with the crime of murder of the deceased persons. 27. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal. The order of conviction and sentence dated 27/6/2006 imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, in Sessions Case No.31 of 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The accused-appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine, if paid, be refunded. Appeal allowed.