JUDGMENT : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. These two appeals are by the two who stand convicted and sentenced by the Court of Session for offences punishable on different counts in relation to the alleged murder of the victim as alleged by the prosecution. The other accused stands acquitted by the court below. 2. Heard the learned senior advocate for the first accused, the learned advocate for the second accused and the learned public prosecutor. We have gone through the entire material evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned public prosecutor had argued the matter quite in extenso, on different aspects of the case. 3. The alleged victim of the incident was found by PW 10, lying in shallow waters, in a paddy field amidst a coconut grove. Following the statement given by the father of that victim, investigation followed the registration of that crime. Thereafter, the father of the deceased sought for an investigation, indicting the first accused, a close relative of the deceased. The final report was laid on conclusion of the investigation that followed. 4. The gist of the prosecution case is that deceased Vinayan is the husband of the 1st accused's sister and the 1st accused wanted the couple to divorce, though the deceased was against such a proposal; accused persons 2 and 3 are friends of the 1st accused and they having hatched up a conspiracy in that regard, the 2nd accused enticed the deceased soliciting him for immoral activity in a paddy field, from where 3rd accused provided liquor mixed with sodium cyanide and accused persons 1 and 2 forcibly administered that substance to the deceased and thereafter, all the three accused persons took the victim to the waters and dipped his head in the water. 5. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The guiding principle in that regard is necessarily that the chain of circumstances has to be established to come to the settled conclusion pointing to the guilt of the accused of having committed the offence alleged. 6. Here, the offence charged is one punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. On the basis of the legal evidence on record, here and now, we note that there is considerable doubt on the basis of the materials on record as to what was the nature of death of the deceased. 6. Here, the offence charged is one punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. On the basis of the legal evidence on record, here and now, we note that there is considerable doubt on the basis of the materials on record as to what was the nature of death of the deceased. Before we proceed to the other grounds of the appeals, we go to that aspect. Going by Ext.P15 postmortem certificate and the evidence of PW18, who conducted postmortem, the reason for the death is, clinchingly, by drowning. Now, to take the case of unnatural death of the deceased to be a case of homicide, it needs to be shown, either by way of direct evidence, or otherwise, that it is a case of homicide; excluding the possibility of the case in hand being one of suicide or an instance of accidental death. On the basis of the materials on record, there is no legal evidence whatsoever, of any overt act, or otherwise; clinchingly pointing out the direct route of evidence to fix the case as one of homicide. Therefore, we have to rest satisfied of the possibility of the case being one where accidental death or suicide, has not been ruled out to conclude that the case is one of homicide. 8. PW10 is the person who saw the deceased lying upside down in the water. Ext.P4 inquest prepared by PW23 shows that froth and blood had flown through the nostrils and mouth. But, it needs to be noted that by the time Ext.P4 inquest report was prepared, the body was not in the position where it was originally, as seen by PW10. Ext.P4 inquest report also says that the inquest was not conducted from the place where the body was originally lying as stated and the depth of the water where the head of the deceased was originally seen had 31 cm. 9. With this, we go to the opinion expressed in Ext.P15 which we have already noted. The postmortem findings, according to that lecturer in forensic medicine, who conducted the postmortem, are consistent with death due to drowning. There are six injuries which are noted as anti-mortem injuries. They read as follows: “1. Abrasion 2.5x0.6 cm on the left side of root of neck 6.2 cm to the left of midline. 2. Abrasion 0.8x0.6 cm of the left temple. 3. There are six injuries which are noted as anti-mortem injuries. They read as follows: “1. Abrasion 2.5x0.6 cm on the left side of root of neck 6.2 cm to the left of midline. 2. Abrasion 0.8x0.6 cm of the left temple. 3. Abrasion 2.7x0.8 cm on the left upper eyelid. 4. Abrasion 2.4x0.9 cm on the outer aspect of pinna of the left ear. 5. Abrasion 0.7x0.2 cm on the right ala of nose. 6. Abrasion 1x0.6 cm on the back of left knee.” The other findings in that report include the fact that the Brain, Mouth, Pharynx, Trachea and Bronchi were congested and that there was smell of alcohol in the intestine which carried also partially digested cooked rice and a brownish fluid. The diatom test conducted by PW18 and certified as per Ext.P16 shows that the test did not show that the deceased had ingested or inhaled water particles from the water source where the body was found. PW18, the doctor who conducted the postmortem, while stating that diatom test is not a conclusive test, also said that injury Nos.1 to 6 are minor injuries and injury Nos.1 to 5 could be caused if a person were to fall from a ridge to the lower surface, while injury No.6 which is an abrasion on the back of left knee is not possible by such a fall from a ridge. Injury No.2 is attributed to fish bites. Nothing has been brought out in the examination of that doctor to the effect that the death was as a result of external force of any nature being exerted by any person. No such suggestion or answer was elicited through the doctor in relation to any of the injuries noted in the postmortem certificate. 10. With this, we take note of the submission made by the learned public prosecutor making reference to the work on Principles and Practice of Forensic Medicine by Dr. Umadethan, who was formerly Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine and Police Surgeon, Medical Colleges of Thiruvananthapuram, Alappuzha and Thrissur and a person having high reputation in the field of forensic medicine. Reference was made to the chapter relating to asphyxial deaths and the sub-heading dealing with drowning where, in the concluding discussions, it is said that death occurring in shallow waters should be considered as homicide unless otherwise proved. Reference was made to the chapter relating to asphyxial deaths and the sub-heading dealing with drowning where, in the concluding discussions, it is said that death occurring in shallow waters should be considered as homicide unless otherwise proved. We have looked into the conclusions of the learned author under that sub-heading. The afore-noted opinion is preceded by the opinion that in any case, the doctor will not be in a position to commit himself as to the manner of death, namely, accident, suicide or homicide. Accidental drowning can take place even in shallow waters if the person falls unconscious due to intoxication or diseases like epilepsy. We may repeatedly recall here that Ext.P15 postmortem certificate corroborated by its maker PW18 contains abundant evidence that the victim had consumed alcohol. We would not now say whether there is any positive material as to whether he was in such an intoxicated stage that he could not have saved him from drowning. There is no material to say either way. But, one thing is certain. If a doctor would not be in a position to commit himself as to the manner of death, namely, accident, suicide or homicide; on principles of law relating to appreciation of evidence and burden of proof in criminal cases, it would not be appropriate to say in point of view of jurisprudence, that death occurring in shallow waters should be considered as homicide unless otherwise proved. If we do so, obviously, we would be putting the burden of proof on the accused in a criminal case to disprove himself of having committed an offence, calling upon him to show that a death by drowning in shallow waters was either suicidal or accidental and, therefore, not homicidal. That is impermissible. 11. On the basis of the aforesaid material evidence, which alone are available in relation to the nature of death, we see no reliable legal evidence to conclusively hold that the deceased Vinayan met with homicidal death. With this finding, it is really not necessary for us to further proceed to consider the other aspects. 12. Be that as it may, we would also notice that the prosecution case was initially that the victim was administered sodium cyanide mixing it in alcohol. Ext.P43 chemical analysis report concludes by saying that sodium carbonate was detected in a sealed packet, which was recovered and labelled as potassium cyanide. 12. Be that as it may, we would also notice that the prosecution case was initially that the victim was administered sodium cyanide mixing it in alcohol. Ext.P43 chemical analysis report concludes by saying that sodium carbonate was detected in a sealed packet, which was recovered and labelled as potassium cyanide. Neither sodium cyanide nor sodium carbonate was detected in any of the recovered articles enlisted at serial Nos.1 to 9, i.e., including the sample of liquor and dress materials, liquor bottle etc. With this, an attempt was made during trial, by the prosecution to say that it was neutralized cyanide, which was administered. If what is meant by 'neutralized cyanide' is that it does not have any potency, it goes without saying that, the said substance cannot be treated as a material administered as if it is a poison and therefore, to be treated as administration of poison in connection with a charge of offence under Section 302 by administering poison. 13. The presence or otherwise of either potassium cyanide or sodium cyanide or sodium carbonate in the viscera of the deceased is a decisive issue and the absence of chemical examination of the viscera has made such opinion available to the investigator, prosecution and the Court. We are compelled by the situation to say that there appears to be an element of negligence in conducting the postmortem. While we are looking into the FSL report in relation to the material objects collected from the scene of occurrence and during the search and recoveries, we are conscious of the fact that the viscera of the victim was not harvested during the postmortem examination and sent for chemical analysis. This, according to us, is a serious lapse in forensic investigation, more particularly because, it was a case of unnatural death and the investigating agency and the State are obliged to make all possible efforts to reach at the nature of the death rather than dumping a case registered as unnatural death, some way or the other. This is the duty of the State to the dead person who is a citizen of India. While that may indicate that the postmortem examination was not conducted as is required in the given situation, we cannot, but, give the benefit of that to the accused. 14. This is the duty of the State to the dead person who is a citizen of India. While that may indicate that the postmortem examination was not conducted as is required in the given situation, we cannot, but, give the benefit of that to the accused. 14. The 'last seen together' theory attempted to be emphasised as between the deceased and 2nd accused has been spoken to by PWs.7, 8 and 13, by bringing out that the cycle in which they were seen travelling was later kept in the shop of PW8, Wilson. With that evidence, the said inference also becomes immaterial as that by itself will be a link with loose ends not to be tied in any chain of circumstantial evidence to conclude on the guilt of the accused persons, more particularly, when we have already entered a finding that there is no proof of homicide. 15. With reference to the submissions made by the learned public prosecutor as regards the evidence as to motive and the prior animosity as reflected by Exts.P2 and P2(a) in the light of Ext.P44 report of PW28 Joint Director, General Forensic Science Laboratory as to the handwriting contained in Ext.P2 and other attendant circumstances, including the disturbed matrimonial home of the deceased and the sister of the 1st accused, we would say that the entire evidence read together does not inspire confidence to hold that even if the motive as suggested could be taken as fairly shown, there is no connecting link in the chain of events to connect the appellants with sufficient materials of evidentiary value to conclude of having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Resultantly, the appellants are entitled to acquittal. 17. In the result, these criminal appeals are allowed vacating the conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the appellants. The appellants are acquitted and they shall be set at liberty forthwith. They shall be released from custody, if their continued presence in custody is not required in connection with any other case against them. 18. The Registry is directed to send the gist of the judgment forthwith to the prison concerned, where the appellants are undergoing incarceration. Forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Health Secretary of the State.