JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - If the prosecution story taken as a whole is false, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. This was an appeal preferred on the 23rd of August 1901, against the conviction and sentences passed by the Sessions Judge of Khulna (D.H. Kingsford) on the 24th of June 1901. 2. The accused, a girl of 15 years of age, was charged under sec. 307, I. P. Code, with having attempted to murder her husband, by administering poison to him and also under sec. 328, I. P. C., with having on the same occasion administered poison to her husband with intent to cause hurt. In the opinion of the lower Court the case against the accused rested chiefly upon the evidence of her husband Ahadali and his father Jenatali, of the chowkidar and upon the accused's own retracted confession. The accused retracted her confession both at the trial before the Sessions Judge and at the preliminary enquiry. The material points of the confession were that one Sonai Molla gave the accused a flask with instructions to administer the contents to her husband in order to kill him, that two days afterwards the accused mixed some of these with her husband's rice, that after eating the rice the husband became ill and that the accused produced the flask before her relatives after concealing it near the hedge. The circumstances under which the confession was made will appear from the judgment of their Lordships. Before dealing with the evidence the learned Sessions Judge observed as follows :-- The case presents some difficulty because there are material differences, chiefly in the shape of additions, in the evidence of Ahadali and Jenatali before this Court as compared with their depositions in the lower Court. In order therefore to ascertain how far their evidence is credible and what part of it is credible it will be necessary to examine these differences. 3. In order therefore to ascertain how far their evidence is credible and what part of it is credible it will be necessary to examine these differences. 3. After discussing the evidence the lower Court convicted the accused and observed as follows:-- I believe that I have sufficient grounds for crediting certain statements of the witnesses and for discrediting others, and when grounds for such a distinction exist it is proper that it should be made, and having regard to the circumstances attending the administration of justice in this country it is improper that an accused should escape the consequences of a crime simply upon the ground that the prosecution story taken as a whole is false. 4. Mr. L.M. Ghose for (sic) looking at the terms of the confession itself and to the circumstances under which it was made, we can fairly say that it is conclusive of the case. We do not think it is. If we look carefully at the terms of the confession which was subsequently retracted, both at the trial before the Sessions Judge and at the preliminary enquiry, we find that they are, in material respects, at variance with the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. I think it is sufficient, if I point out one variation which has struck me as of considerable importance. The prisoner says this:--"Then he (the husband) reprimanded me very much. Then I brought out the phial, which contained the powder, before my father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband. The phial at that time contained a little powder. Some of the powder fell on the ground near the beta (hedge) on which I kept the phial concealed. Then my husband, father-in-law confession which she subsequently retracts, a confession as I have pointed out, inconsistent with the evidence given in the case by the prosecution witnesses. I do not think that, under these circumstances, we can safely rely on the confession alone, and without the confession the case must fail. 5. There is again one feature in the case which remains quite unexplained. The Petitioner is charged with putting arsenic into her husband's food with a view to killing him. Arsenic is a white powder : the composition found on the phial was a black paste with, it is said, traces of arsenic in it. How the metamorphosis took place from white arsenic to black paste has not been explained. 6. The Petitioner is charged with putting arsenic into her husband's food with a view to killing him. Arsenic is a white powder : the composition found on the phial was a black paste with, it is said, traces of arsenic in it. How the metamorphosis took place from white arsenic to black paste has not been explained. 6. Again both the assessors were of opinion that the prisoner ought not to have been convicted. I cannot part with the case without saying that I entirely dissent from the view expressed by the Sessions (sic)