M. NAGESHWAR RAO versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 608 · Decided: 05-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 1 S.C.R. 608 
A 
M. NAGESHWAR RAO 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No.1449 of 2007) 
B 
JANUARY 5, 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
P.enal Code, 1860- s.302 - Death of appellant's wife due 
~ 
to cyanide poisoning - Allegation that appellant had mixed 
c up cyanide in a cold drink bottle of Limca and given it to his 
wife to drink - Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed 
to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable 
doubts and, therefore, acquitted him of the charge under · 
s.302 - Appeal by State Government - High Court reversed 
D the judgment of acquittal and, convicted the appellant under 
s.302 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for fife -
-r-· 
Justification of - Whether on the basis of the materials on 
record, the view taken by the trial Court, was so wrong and 
unreasonable as to warrant interference and reversal by the 
E High Court - Held: There was hardly anything in the 
prosecution evidence to establish the charge against the 
appellant - The facts and circumstances of the case may give 
rise to a strong suspicion against the appellant but suspicion, 
howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof - Testimony of 
+ 
F PW6 (on the issue of appellant mixing up cyanide in the cold 
drink bottle of Limca and giving it to the deceased to drink) 
was not reliable - Prosecution case on recovery of the Limca 
bottle from the residence of appellant was also highly suspect 
- There was no proof of the appellant's guilt and on the basis 
G of the evidence on record it would be quite unsafe to hold him 
guilty of murder and to send him to imprisonment for life -
'r 
' 
Trial court had taken the perfectly correct view in the matter-
High Court arrived at a completely erroneous conclusion 
H 
608 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
In her cross-examination by the defence, she stated that 
the decea!ed was suffering from some kind of disease, 
and at that stage ~e was declared hostile by the 
prosecution. PW7 similarly stated that on receiving a 
telephone call she went to the portion of the house 
8 
occupied by the deceased and found her there lying 
unconscious in a chair. She, then, called her maid PW3 
and with her help, shifted her to hospital. She did not 
know what had happened to the deceased. In her cross 
examination she stated that the accused and the 
..... 
c deceased were living amicably prior to the date of the 
incident. [Para 27] (624-G-H; 625-A-C] 
' -
2. PW4 was the goldsmith, from whom the appellant 
is supposed to have obtained the cyanide as per his 
D 
confessi~111al statement. In his deposition before the 
. Court, PW4 stated that he was threatened and cajoled· by 
the pofice to say that the appellant had obtained cyanide 
y 
forru' him on the pretext of cleaning the computer parts. 
He stated ~efore the court that he and his brother were 
E 
brought to the Police Station where they were kept for 10 
days and were threatened that they would be implicated 
in the case, unless they made statements as directed by 
the police. In the end, finding no way out, he yielded and 
made the statement before the police and the Magj~trate 
as he was asked to do. He was declared hostile and was 
....;-
F cross- examined by the prosecution, if'! course of which 
he bluntly denied that his statement under section 161 of 
Cr. P. C. was given voluntarily and not under coercion. 
The deposition of PW4 is a major blow to the prosecution 
case as regards the source of cyanide to the appellant 
G and his access to the poison. [Para 28] (625-D-G] 
3.1. On the issue of the appellant mixing up cyanide 
..,.. 
~
in the cold drink bottle of Limca and giving it to the 
deceased to drink, the prosecution relied upon the 
evidence of PW6, the owner of a general· store, and the --
H 
M. NAGESHWAR RAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
611 
PRADESH 
recovery of the empty Limca bottle from one of the rooms A 
~ 
in the occupation of the appellant and the deceased. 
PW6 deposed before the court that more than a year ago, 
at about 2.30 or 3 p.m., the accused went to his store and 
purchased a Limca bottle. Apart from the price of the cold 
drink, he was asked to deposit Rs.5 for the bottle. He paid 
B 
Rs.15 and took away the bottle of Limca, but he didn't 
return the empty bottle. He did not know where and in 
which house the accused resided. In cross-examination, 
"" 
he stated that his store was a big shop and a number of 
customers came there. He remembered some custo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.