JUDGMENT Sanderson, C.J. - This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Faridpore. 2. The accused Ahirannessa Bibi was charged with the murder of her husband, Kanchan Joardar. Another person called Ahaddi was charged with abetment of murder of the deceased man. 3. Shortly stated the case for the prosecution was that Ahirannessa was the second wife of Kanchan, that she was married some two years before the trial, which took place in November, 1922; that she lived with him for a few months and then she left her husband's house, that she was away for about a year, that her whereabouts were then discovered through the assistance of the police; that her husband had brought her back to his own home; and, the allegation was that two days after she had arrived at her husband's home she poisoned him by using dhatura and some black powder which, it was alleged, had been given to her by her co-accused Ahaddi. 4. The learned Judge directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty as regards Ahaddi, as there was no evidence against him except in so far as the confession of Ahirannessa was concerned, a confession which she had retracted before the trial in the Sessions Court. The jury unanimously acquitted Ahirannessa and, on the direction of the learned Judge they acquitted Ahaddi also. 5. The learned Judge has referred the case of Ahirannessa to this Court, stating his reasons for his opinion that the verdict of the jury was perverse and contrary to the whole weight of the evidence and, the question is whether we are to accept the reference of the learned Judge and convict Ahirannessa of murder. 6. We have to take into consideration the verdict of the jury, the opinion of the learned Judge and to scrutinise and consider the evidence which was given in the case. 7. I am not suprised that the learned Judge referred this matter to us. Looking at the case from one point of view, there is a strong case against the accused Ahirannessa. I appreciate the learned Judge's comment that the facts may be said to have disclosed a motive and that the confession is corroborated in some material respects by the evidence in the case. Looking at the case from one point of view, there is a strong case against the accused Ahirannessa. I appreciate the learned Judge's comment that the facts may be said to have disclosed a motive and that the confession is corroborated in some material respects by the evidence in the case. At the same time there is, in my judgment, just sufficient in the evidence to enable the learned Vakil, who appeared for Ahirannessa, to urge that the jury may not unreasonably have felt a doubt about the case and were consequently justified in finding the verdict which they did. One respect, in which I think this doubt may have arisen, is in connection with the doctor's evidence. 8. The poison is alleged to have been given to the deceased man in his food which, it was alleged was prepared by Ahirannessa, and he is supposed to have eaten it before daylight, at or about 4 O'clock in the morning. The evidence points to the fact that he was attacked by some kind of, seizure when he was taking his meal, and immediately became unconscious. He never regained consciousness and died on the following day. A medical man was brought about 11 O'clock in the morning, about six hours after the deceased man became unconscious. He administered an emetic and the deceased man vomited more than once. The woman Ahirannessa was interrogated by certain of the villagers, and she is said to have admitted that she had administered poison in the form of dhatura and a black powder which it was alleged, she received from Ahaddi the co-accused. That statement is corroborated to some extent by the report of the analyst, which dealt with some uneaten food arid certain vomit stains and deposits upon portions of the clothing of the deceased man's bed. 9. Neither the Civil Assistant Surgeon who examined the dead body, nor the Chemical Examiner was called as a witness at the trial. The Chemical Examiner's report was as follows: "Atrophine the active principle of Belladona and dhatura has been detected in the contents of each of the packets marked A. B. and C respectively contained within the parcel." These packets contained the uneaten food and the stained bed clothing. The Chemical Examiner's report was as follows: "Atrophine the active principle of Belladona and dhatura has been detected in the contents of each of the packets marked A. B. and C respectively contained within the parcel." These packets contained the uneaten food and the stained bed clothing. It is to be noted that the report does not contain any information as to the amount or percentage of the atrophine detected, nor does^ it supply anything to enable the Court to judge whether the amount of atrophine found in any of the exhibits would be sufficient to cause death. Further there was no evidence as to what quantity of the food containing the atrophine, alleged to have been detected, would have to be taken to cause death. I do not consider such a report a satisfactory or sufficient report, if neither the person who made the analysis nor the medical man who examined the dead body is called as a witness at the trial. 10. The case was a very serious one, viz : a charge of murder, and much might depend upon the result of the analysis of the uneaten food and the deposits of vomit and although the report was admissible in evidence u/s 510 of the Code, in my judgment, it is not satisfactory that this question should be allowed to depend upon such a limited and incomplete report. 11. The strange thing is that although there was some undigested food in the stomach, and although the stomach and its contents, and portions of the liver, spleen and kidney were submitted to chemical analysis, no sign of any atrophine was found in those parts of man's the body or in the contents of his stomach. The Civil Assistant Surgeon when before the Committing Magistrate, stated in his deposition that as no poison was detected in the viscera he could not give any opinion as to the cause of death. The Civil Assistant Surgeon when before the Committing Magistrate, stated in his deposition that as no poison was detected in the viscera he could not give any opinion as to the cause of death. It is true that he went on to say that there were some post-mortem appearances which were consistent with poisoning by Dhatura or Belladona and further that "if by vomiting the main portion of the poison came out of the stomach one might not find poison in the viscera." It was however argued that , if the deceased man received such a dose of Dhatura that he almost immediately became unconscious, it would naturally be expected that some trace of the poison would be found in the stomach or in the undigested food found in the stomach, or in some the parts of the man's body, which were subjected to analysis. It was urged that the emetic was net given until six hours after the seizure, and even though the man vomited twice there was still some undigested food found in the stomach and yet no trace of poison was detected either in the stomach or in the undigested food. It may be that the Jury were impressed by this and by the medical evidence in this respect: and consequently they may have thought that it was possible that the deceased man had not died from the effects of poison and that it would be unsafe to convict the woman of murder. There is a further matter which may have affected the minds of the Jury. Baser Joarder was the man who, according to the evidence, was first upon the scene after the deceased man's seizure. There is no evidence to show what brought him to the deceased's hut; he may have gone there in the ordinary course : on the other hand he may have gone in answer to some summons from the accused, Ahirannessa. If the latter was the case, it would be a material fact, worthy of the consideration of the Jury, as inconsistent with her being the cause of the deceased man's illness. Having regard to these facts, I am unable to say that the verdict of the Jury was so perverse and was so unreasonable that this Court ought to interfere and convict the woman of murder, although she has been acquitted by the unanimous verdict of the Jury. 12. Having regard to these facts, I am unable to say that the verdict of the Jury was so perverse and was so unreasonable that this Court ought to interfere and convict the woman of murder, although she has been acquitted by the unanimous verdict of the Jury. 12. The result is that in my judgment this reference ought not to be accepted and the accused Ahirannessa should be acquitted and released from custody as soon as possible. 13. Before parting with this case. I desire to make a general observation with regard to the method which seems to be adopted in the conduct of some prosecutions, in respect of the calling of witnesses. In my opinion the witnesses for the prosecution ought, as far as possible, to be called in the order of the events, which they are called to prove and in chronological order. Take this case for instance. The man who was alleged to have been first upon the scene after the deceased man's seizure was Baser Joarder. He was the man who was first attracted to the condition of the deceased man, and who attended on him, in the first instance Becoming alarmed at the state of the deceased he called some of the neighbours to come and assist him. 14. One would naturally expect this man to be called as a witness before the others who responded to his calls. He however appears to have been called as the sixth witness, and some of those, who came upon the scene after him and in consequence of his cries, were called as witnesses before him-I refer to this merely as an instance of what I mean-I have noticed a similar absence of method and order in presenting the evidence in many cases and I desire to impress upon those who are conducting prosecutions the desirability of calling the witnesses in the proper order. I am satisfied that it is much easier for the learned Judge, who is trying the case, and for the jury to follow and appreciate the evidence, if the witnesses are called in the proper order. It certainly would lighten the work of the Court of appeal, if the course, which I am now suggesting were adopted in the trial Court. It certainly would lighten the work of the Court of appeal, if the course, which I am now suggesting were adopted in the trial Court. I do not mean to say that it is the duty of the learned Judge, who is trying the case, to dictate to the prosecution the order of the witnesses but it is in the discretion of the learned Judge, who has control very the trial, to suggest to those, who are responsible for the conduct of the prosecution, that the proper method and order of calling the witnesses should be observed. I am convinced that if this course is adopted, it will be found to be a great convenience not only to the prosecution but also to the accused person or persons, and it will certainly be of material assistance to those who have to administer justice. Ghose J. 15. I agree.