Judgment - Naik, J. 1. These two cases arise out of the same judgment and therefore can be disposed of by a common judgment. The case for the prosecution may be briefly outlined as follows : In the village of Minnakukkal in Salem district in Madras State there lived an old poor widow called Perumai. She had five daughters and in the present case we are concerned with the third daughter by name Palaniammal alias Panniakkal alias Pappal, whose sudden death under mysterious circumstances has led to the instant prosecution. Palaniammal was married to one Kuppanna gounder of Minnakkal about seven years back. About three years prior to the incident, she had separated from her husband and had come to stay with her mother Perumai. It appears that some arrangement was arrived at between Palaniammal and her husband Kuppanna in which the latter had agreed to pay her maintenance. Kuppanna had married a second wife, presumably after giving divorce to Palaniammal. It further appears that Kuppanna had stopped paying the amount of maintenance to Palaniammal as per the agreement with the result that Palaniammal was driven to file a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff at Salem for maintenance. One Arumugam of Namakkal, who was the President of the Village Panchayat Board of Kurgupuram a place which is ten miles from Minakkal, was helping Palaniammal in prosecuting this litigation. Arumugum is a man of status. Perumai had about four acres of land in Minakkal. Two years prior to the incident she had sole all her lands to Namba gounder, one of her sons-in-laws, for a sum of Rupees 5,000. Perumai put on ornaments on the person of Palaniammal at the time of her marriage with Kuppanna and Palaniammal continued to retain those ornaments after she had come to stay in the house of he other. After the sale of the lands neither Palaniammal nor Perumai had any source of maintenance. They, therefore, used to go out to work as labourers in the field of others. Palaniammal occasionally worked in the field of the accused on hire. The accused. M. V. Palaniswamy, is a man of status having lands at Minakkal. His income from the lands was to the tune of Rupees 5,000 a year. He was a member of the Panchayat Board of Minnakal. Palaniammal occasionally worked in the field of the accused on hire. The accused. M. V. Palaniswamy, is a man of status having lands at Minakkal. His income from the lands was to the tune of Rupees 5,000 a year. He was a member of the Panchayat Board of Minnakal. He used to take contracts or supervise the work construction of roads Palanisammal occasionally used to work on this road construction project carried under the supervision of the accused. the accused was also a social worker. (2) 13th August 1964 was the day for the holding of Mariamman festival at Attiyampatti, a place which is three miles away from Minnakkal. On that day, Perumai along with her daughter, Palaniammal and one of her grand-sons, Palaniappan, the son of Namba gounder, started going to Attiyampatti to attend the festival. On their way they passed through the fields of the village Sappayapuram. One Subbaraya Gounder, who is Perumais husbands sisters son, was working in his field. Hemet palaniammal while she was going to wards Attiyampatti. He had a talk with her. She told him that she was going to Namakkal to meet Arumugam since she had received a letter from him in regard to the suit. Subbaraya Gounder noticed that the deceased Palaniammal was wearing certain ornaments on her person. Perumai has deposed that in the course of the festival she had occasion to meet the accused. the movements of the deceased Palaniammal at movements of the deceased Palaniammal at Attiyampatti are not known except the fact that at about 5 p.m. she had gone to Vaidyalingam a tailor at Attiyampatti, with a view to get a blouse stitched for her. She sat in the shop, got the blouse stitched and then left the place. There is no evidence regarding the movements of the deceased till she actually boarded the train at Madras on the night of the 14th August 1964. (3) It is the case for the prosecution that on the 14th August 1964 the accused went to Vellore and met Natesan, who is a cloth merchant at that place. Natesan is a friend of the accused and the accused had lent a sum of Rs. 5,000 to him. Natesan was repaying the loan by making small payments from time to time. It is not disputed that some balance remained to be paid to the accused. Natesan is a friend of the accused and the accused had lent a sum of Rs. 5,000 to him. Natesan was repaying the loan by making small payments from time to time. It is not disputed that some balance remained to be paid to the accused. There is, however, dispute as to the exact amount of the balance, Natesan contending that the balance was to the extent of about Rs. 1,000, whereas the accused has assented in his statement that the balance was to the tune of Rs. 4,000. On 14th August 1964 the accused obtained a sum of Rs. 230 from Natesan. Natesan made an entry in regard to this item in his ledger (Exhibit 36) and obtained the signature of the accused. it is suggested for the prosecution that originally the entry bore the date 14th August 1964. It is further suggested that the accused took a bus at about 12.35 noon from Vellore and went to Madras. He reached that place at about 4 p.m. it is also suggested that the accused reserved two seats in the bus in the name of M.A. Kandaswamy. The bus reached Madras at about 4 p.m. At about 5 p.m. the prosecution case runs, the accused reserved two seats in the first class compartment in the names of M. A. Kandaswamy and Laxmi Kandaswamy in 10 UP Madras - Bombay Mail for that purpose, he submitted an application (Exhibit 6). It is the prosecution case that against Item No. 4 of Exhibit 6, the accused put the letters M.A. Kandaswamy. Against item No. 2 viz., Number of sleeper berths required (in words). The following contents appear; ""Two - Preferably coupe."" As against the Item No. 3 under the title ""Name and full postal address of each of the passenger for whom reservation is required"". The following contents appears: ""(i) M. A. Kandaswamy, (ii) Mrs. Laxmi Kandaswamy."" The address is mentioned as ; ""Subramanya Koil Street, Vellore. N. A. "" As against the item No. 5 which is entitled ""Relationship of the applicant to passengers and why he preferred the application on their behalf"". The following words have been ""Self and family"". The 10 UP Madras-Bombay Mail left Madras Station at 9-10 p.m. on 14th August 1964. N. A. "" As against the item No. 5 which is entitled ""Relationship of the applicant to passengers and why he preferred the application on their behalf"". The following words have been ""Self and family"". The 10 UP Madras-Bombay Mail left Madras Station at 9-10 p.m. on 14th August 1964. It is the case for the prosecution that a number of witness such as car attendants, train conductor guards and Ticket collectors, had occasion to see the passengers who were travelling under the names Mr. And Mrs. M. A. Kandaswamy during their journey from Madras to Dadar. The couple was occupying cabin A in bogie No. 2985. At about 5-30 a.m. on 16th August 1964 when hammals entered the bogie at Dadar Railway Station, they noticed that a woman was lying below the berth in an unconscious condition. The male passenger was not in the bogie at that time. It is suggested for the prosecution that the accused crossed the platform by the over bridge towards the Western Railway station and boarded a taxi. V.P. Kullkarni, train conductor guard, informed head constable, Janardhan Bhalerao about the fact that a female passenger was lying in an unconscious condition in cabin A in bogie No. 2985. He submitted a report (Exhibit 94) to the Railway Police Sub-Inspector, Dadar. With the aid of some hammals including hammal Ramu Thorat, Hospital. She was admitted in the K. E. M. Hospital at 6-20 a.m. Bogie No. 2985 was detached from the train and kept in the railway yard in the siding. The woman who was later on identified as Palaniammal was treated in the hospital by Dr. Miss Acharya. Dr. Miss Acharya noted down the symptoms on a sheet of paper known as Surgical Medical History Sheet (Exhibit 119). In the column entitled ""House Officers Notes"" we find the following entries: ""An unknown patient found in a state of drowsiness in a train and brought by the police. History of frothing at the mouth. On examination : Patient drowsy muttering unintelligibly and at times rowdy. Pupils pin-point. Not reacting to light. Pulse? Respiration-20 p.m. B. P. - 68 mm Breath does not smell of anything. Respiratory system - Ravels all over secretions on the mouth and in the throat. Cardio-Vascular system (C. V. S) -Pulse? Heart sound not heard. Alimentary system (AS) and Central Nervous System - Detailed examination could not be done"". Pupils pin-point. Not reacting to light. Pulse? Respiration-20 p.m. B. P. - 68 mm Breath does not smell of anything. Respiratory system - Ravels all over secretions on the mouth and in the throat. Cardio-Vascular system (C. V. S) -Pulse? Heart sound not heard. Alimentary system (AS) and Central Nervous System - Detailed examination could not be done"". Reference is than made to the treatment viz., that Coramine injections were given. Atropine also injected and intravenous glucose drip stated the notes further states that Ryles tube was passed and brownish aspirate taken out which was later sent to the Chemical Analyser. At 7 a.m. intravenous drip was continued as also cordine and coramine injections. Oxygen was also continued. But the patient expired at 7 a.m. (4) Turning now to the movements of the accused, it is the case for the prosecution that the accused went back to Vellore by train. In this connection, it is pointed out that it is possible for the accused to catch Bombay -Madras Janata Express. Which leaves V. T. Station at 8-20 a.m. It reaches Dadar at 8-32 a.m. and Kalyan at 9-15 a.m. The same train reaches Renigunta at 10-5 a.m. on accused to reach Renigunta at 10-5 a.m. on 17th August 1964. From Renigunta there is a meter gauge train. It was possible for the accused to catch the first train which starts at 10-35 a.m. and reaches katpadi at 3-20 p.m. The second train leaves Renigunta at 3-30 p.m. and reaches Katpadi at 8-50 p.m. There is a bus service from Katpadi to Vellore, the distance being only four miles. IT is therefore the prosecution case that the accused after having administered some drug causing deleterious effects on his companion viz., Palaniammal, must have hurried back by the first available train and must have reached Vellore before 9-45 p.m. on 17th august 1964. At 9-45 p.m. the same day the accused went to minerva café at Vellore and lived there till the next day i.e., 18th August 1964. The manager of the Café had made entries in the hotels register to show that the accused had entered the hotels at 9-45 p.m. on the 17th August and left it on the 18th August. At 9-45 p.m. the same day the accused went to minerva café at Vellore and lived there till the next day i.e., 18th August 1964. The manager of the Café had made entries in the hotels register to show that the accused had entered the hotels at 9-45 p.m. on the 17th August and left it on the 18th August. On 18th August 1964 the accused went Netesans shop in the morning and requested him that the date of the entry which was 14th August 1964 should be changed to 17th August 1964. It is suggested that the instance of the accused, Natesan rubbed the figure 14 and wrote the figure 17 on that rubbed portion. Half an hour later the accused went back to Natesan and offered to sell the gold ornaments, which he had brought with him. Guruswamy Mudaliar, who is a relation of Natesan and who working as a clerk in Natesans shop was asked by Natesan to find out a goldsmith who would agree to purchase the ornaments. IT appears that Guruswamy did not himself know any goldsmith. He therefore went to one Rajagopal a tailor who has a shop near the shop of a goldsmith known as Munuswamy called Mjurugesan, who is a gold polisher. One Swaminathan was sitting in the shop of Munuswami. Munuswami and Swaminathan went to the shop of Natesan for seeing the ornaments. At the time the accused and Guruswami were in the shop. The accused showed the ornaments to Munuswami then asked the accused to see him at his place and Guruswami went to Munuswami at 3 p. m. Swaminathan was present at this time also. The ornaments were weighed and found to be 163 grams in weights. The price was fixed at Rs. 1,900. Munuswami told the accused that he did not have sufficient funds and asked them to meet him at 6 p.m. ?He also asked the accused to keep the ornaments with him. Thereafter Munuswami went to Murugesan for getting the ornaments polished. Eventually he sold the ornaments to Murugesan for a sum of Rs. 1, 940. At about 6-30 p.m. the accused along with Guruswami went to Munuswami and has was paid a sum of Rs. 1, 900 as previously agreed upon. It is the case for the prosecution that the profit of Rs. 40 was divided equally between Munuswami and Swaminathan. Eventually he sold the ornaments to Murugesan for a sum of Rs. 1, 940. At about 6-30 p.m. the accused along with Guruswami went to Munuswami and has was paid a sum of Rs. 1, 900 as previously agreed upon. It is the case for the prosecution that the profit of Rs. 40 was divided equally between Munuswami and Swaminathan. On 19th August 1964 the accused approached Munuswami in the morning. He had brought two earrings with stone setting. The accused asked Munuswami to prepare one right from them. Thereafter, the accused left Vellore. It is the case for the prosecution that the accused went to Vellore about a month after the above date and collected the ring from Munuswami. It is suggested that one of the rings that was produced by the brother of the accused on 5th December 1964 was the ring which was prepared by Munuswami. This ring came to be attached under a Panchanama (Exhibit 32) On 16th August 1964 Railway Police Sub-Inspector, Kumbhojkar started an enquiry into the cause of the death of the man under S. 174, Criminal Procedure Code who was then unknown. On 16th August 1964 he inspected the detached bogie and noticed that there were blood-stains on the berths lower as well as upper on the back rest and at other places in the cabin such as the aluminium stripe below the window. He also noticed that the back rest was smeared with frothy material. There was also froth material. There was also froth on the rubber flooring of the compartment under the berth i.e., berth No. 1. He also saw hair sticking to the frothy material. On a close inspection he noticed that there were finger prints on the mirror, which was above the centre window. He therefore, sent for the Fingerprint Expert from the C. I. D. Crime Branch Bombay. The Finger print Expert, Shankar Karla, put some power on the fingerprints for making them clear and visible. The C. I. D. photographer was then called and he took the photographer of the fingerprints. Kumbhojkar then got a Panchnama made of the condition of the berths in the bogie. He noticed two small drops of blood on the flooring outside cabin A. He also noticed a discarded empty Scissors cigarette packet. The C. I. D. photographer was then called and he took the photographer of the fingerprints. Kumbhojkar then got a Panchnama made of the condition of the berths in the bogie. He noticed two small drops of blood on the flooring outside cabin A. He also noticed a discarded empty Scissors cigarette packet. He further found a number of cigarette stubs, burnt catch sticks and another empty packet of Scissors cigarette in the same cabin, he attached all these articles under a Panchanama. The aluminium strips on which there were blood-strains were removed as also the mirror was taken charge of. The frothy material was collected in a bottle. The chipping of the flooring on which there were blood stains was taken i.e., pieces of rexine taken from the berths and the back-rest. Kumbhojkar then drew a panchanama (Exhibit 79) about the condition of the articles described above. Head constable Sawant produced the clothes of the deceased and also a ring, a toeing, an iron ring and a bunch of artificial hair. At the end of the sari which is worn by women on the shoulder, there were blood-stains on the blouse near the left shoulder and at the end. There were corresponding stains on the bodice. Kumbhojkar cut the piece of the sari, blouse and bodice for being sent to the Chemical Analyser. He got a description of the companion of the deceased from the car attendant Pingale. He had also come to know from the reservation chart that the two persons travelled in that cabin under the names of Mr. And Mrs. M. A. kandasyamy. He sent the description of the man to all the police Stations in Greater Bombay and also to the Railway Stations in the State of Bombay. He enquired about M. A. Kandasyamy on the address mentioned in the reservation application form through the District Superintendent of Police, North of Arcot district and learnt that there was no such person at Vellore on that address. He deputed Sub-Inspector Dadar to Madras the instructions to publics the photograph on the woman in Tamil newspapers. Dinamani, and Dina Thanthi. Accordingly, the photograph was published. In the meantime, he took the fingerprints of the hamals, the police constable and the railway servants, pingale and Kulkarni, who had occasion to go into the cabin. He deputed Sub-Inspector Dadar to Madras the instructions to publics the photograph on the woman in Tamil newspapers. Dinamani, and Dina Thanthi. Accordingly, the photograph was published. In the meantime, he took the fingerprints of the hamals, the police constable and the railway servants, pingale and Kulkarni, who had occasion to go into the cabin. Those fingerprints were taken for the purpose of ascertaining whether the fingerprints on the mirror were of any one of them. On 31st August 1964. Dr. shivamrutam, a resident of Minnakkal and a friend and medical attendant of the family of Perumai, wrote a letter to the Railway Police Bombay stating that one lady known as Paniyakka alias Palaniamma of Minnakkal was missing from her parents since 13th August 1964. He further stated that his suspicion was roused on seeing the picture appearing in a daily paper that it must of the missing lady. On 2nd September 1964 Perumai went to the police station at Vennadur, which is about a mile and a half from Minnakkal and gave a report about the fact that her daughter was missing from 13th August 1964. Her statement was recorded on the same day and it is at Exhibit 50. In this statement, she stated that her daughter had received a letter from him for the purpose of reaching a settlement in the litigation started by her against her husband. Accordingly, her daughter left the place telling her that she would go to arumugam. She then referred in detail to the clothes and ornament s which Palaniammal was then wearing. She stated as follows (Exhibit 50)- ""While she was going she had dressed in red coloured silk saree and Kumkum coloured jacket. Also she had taken some black thread (cotton) sarees and jackets. In hand she was wearing a gold ring engraved P on it. While going she was wearing on the neck a necklace with white stones weighing nearly six sovereigns, a neck gold chain weighing nearly five sovereigns, bangles weighing nearly eight sovereigns and in the ear white stone ear-ring. So far she has not returned"". She then referred to the photograph appearing in daily newspaper ""Thanthi"" and stated that her relatives had informed her that the photograph resembled her daughter. On 3rd September 1964 after the receipt of the letter written by Dr. Shivamrutam, Sub-Inspector Kumbhojkar sent a photograph of the woman to him. So far she has not returned"". She then referred to the photograph appearing in daily newspaper ""Thanthi"" and stated that her relatives had informed her that the photograph resembled her daughter. On 3rd September 1964 after the receipt of the letter written by Dr. Shivamrutam, Sub-Inspector Kumbhojkar sent a photograph of the woman to him. On 11th September 1964 Perumai came to Bombay along with Dr. Shivamrutam. Kumbhojkar took them to the morgue and showed them the body. Both of them identified the body as that of the deceased Palaniammal. He asked them to take charge of the body, but Perumai informed him through Dr. Shiavamrutam that it was not possible for her to make arrangement for cremation in Bombay. The body, therefore, was cremated by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Naturally, the first suspicion fell on Arumugam, Kumbhojkar therefore, called Arumugam and took his finger prints. He sent them to the Fingerprint Expert for identification and comparison with the chance fingerprints obtained on the mirror in the compartment. Kumbhojkar received the report from the hospital authorities on 6th October 1964 stating that death was due to severe pulmonary oedema and early broncho-pneumonia following administration of some unknown agent prior to her admission the hospital Accordingly, he registered an offence under S. 302, Indian Penal Code on 7th October 1964. He then started regular investigation. The investigation was taken over by Inspector Thakre or 23rd October 1964. After making enquiries from persons in Bombay, poona and Sholapur he proceeded to Minnakkal and collector certain information about the accused. He then called the accused and interrogated him. He put the accused under arrest on 14th November 1964. Before that he had recorded the statements of the members of the railway staff who had given description of the companion of the deceased who travelled with her in cabin A of bogie No. 2985 of 10 UP Madras-Bombay Mail on the day in question. The same day the finger prints Expert for his examination. On a certain statement made by the accused, Thakre went to Vellore and contacted witness Natesan and seized his ledger books and two cash books under a panchanama (Exhibit 36). He noticed signs of rubbing from which he concluded that the date was altered to 17th August 1964. He sent the entry at Exhibit 36-A to the Hand writing Expert for his opinion. He noticed signs of rubbing from which he concluded that the date was altered to 17th August 1964. He sent the entry at Exhibit 36-A to the Hand writing Expert for his opinion. He then came to Bombay along with the accused sometime after 15th November 1964. Three parades were held for the identification of the accused by different witnesses. The first parade was held on 20th November 1964 in Bombay and witnesses Pingale, Jadhabv and V. Rajamani identified the accused in this parade. The accused was then taken to Sholapur on 23rd November 1964 where a second parade was held for the identification of the accused by other witnesses. In this parade witnesses Shaikh Abdul Karim, Mahaling. Bidwe V.Y. Kulkarni, Mohammed Hussein and Mahomed Nazir identified the accused. One Kutbuddin, who was also present at this parade, was unable to identify the accused. Borkar was not available at the time of this identification parade held in Sholapur on 23rd November 1964. Therefore a third parade was arranged on 19th December 1964 in Bombay and witness Borkar identified the accused in this parade. The accused was sent to the North police hospital to enable the surgeon to take his blood and that blood was sent to the chemical analyser for examination and report. When Inspector Thakre arrested the accused he noticed that there was a mark of injury on his right thumb. He, therefore sent him to the Police Surgeon in Bombay for examination for ascertaining the age of the injury. After the receipt of the report of the Fingerprint Expert, Inspector Tharkre interrogated the accused. On a statement made by him he took the accused to Vellore and contacted Natesan and recorded his statement. Consequent to a statement made by Natesan he recorded the statement of Guruswamy, Munuswamy, Murugasan and Swaminathan on 30th November 1964 and 2nd December 1964. On a statement made by the accused, Inspector Thakre went to Minnakkal and attached a ring produced by the brother of the accused on a certain information he went to Minerva Cafr Lodging House. On 5th December 1964 he contacted M. A. Kandaswamy, who was the President of the Village Gram Panchayat Board at Minnakkal. He showed the application for reservation (Exhibit 6) to Kandaswamy. He then obtained a specimen signature of M. A. Kandaswamy under a panchanama (Exhibit 29). On 5th December 1964 he contacted M. A. Kandaswamy, who was the President of the Village Gram Panchayat Board at Minnakkal. He showed the application for reservation (Exhibit 6) to Kandaswamy. He then obtained a specimen signature of M. A. Kandaswamy under a panchanama (Exhibit 29). The specimen handwriting of the accused was taken in Bombay on 20th November 1964. The signature in the application for reservation read M. A Kandaswamy. He asked the accused to write M. A Kandawamy on certain sheets of paper in the presence of the panchas. These sheets were taken charge of under a panchanama (Exhibit 89). On 26th November 1964 he again took specimen hand writing of the accused at Poona in the presence of the panchas. These sheets were taken charge of under a panchnama (Exhibit 100) . Again he asked Sub-Inspector Dhere to take specimen hand writing of the accused. Accordingly, Dhere took the specimen handwriting on 13th December 1964 at Poona which was attached under a panchanama (Exhibit 52). These sheets were sent along with Exhibit 6 to the Handwriting Expert for his examination and report. The signature of real M. A. Kandaswamy which were taken on 5th December 1964 were also sent to the Handwriting Expert. After completion of the investigation, Inspector Thakre submitted a charge-sheet against the accused under Section 302, Indian Penal Code on 16th March 1965. (6) At the trial in the Court of the Session, the accused abjured the guilt. He denied that he travelled with the deceased, Palaniammal in the Madras-Bombay Mail on 14th August 1964. He also denied that he was in any way connected with the deceased. In particular, he denied that she was working in his fields. He also denied that he had taken up the work of construction of roads or that the deceased was working under him in regard to that project. He further denied that he had gone to Vellore on 14th August 1964 and took an amount of Rs. 230 Natesan on that day. According to his he had lent a sum of Rs. 5,000 to Natesan and that a large balance of about Rs. 4,000 was still outstanding from Natesan. His case was that he had been to Vellore on 17th August 1964 with a view to demand that balance and that Natesan paid him a small amount of Rs. 230. According to his he had lent a sum of Rs. 5,000 to Natesan and that a large balance of about Rs. 4,000 was still outstanding from Natesan. His case was that he had been to Vellore on 17th August 1964 with a view to demand that balance and that Natesan paid him a small amount of Rs. 230. He admitted that he put his signature below the entry (Exhibit 36-A) in the ledger book at Exhibit 36, but asserted that he had put that signature on 17th August 1964. He denied that either the entry was made on 14th August 1964 or that he put his signature on that date. He asserted that he left Vellore on the night of 17th August 1964. He asserted that he attended the function to celebrate the Independence Day at Minnkkal on 15th August 1964. He stoutly denied that he sold any ornaments to Munuswamy or Murgesan through the intervention of Natesan or Guruswamy. He asserted that he did not know Munuswamy, Murgesan or Swaminathan. He pointed out that he is a well to do person, that he owns six acres of land and that his annual income is to the tune of Rs. 5,000 a year. He asserted that he was doing social work and that it was through his intervention that the Chief Minister of Madras, Bhaktavastalam agreed to attend the function at Minnkkal. According to him, he delivered the well-come speech on that occasion. His main contention was that there were two parties in the panchayat Board of Minnkkal, one led by Thaila Gounder and the other by Kandaswamy, Gounder. According to the accused; he belonged to the party of Thaila Gounder. He has then set out the details about the contest which took place between Thaila Gounder and Kandaswamy Gounder during the election to the post of the President of the Panchayat Board and contended that not only he canvassed for Thaila Gounder but that he recorded his vote in favour of Thaila Gounder. According to him, since then the relations between him and M. A. Kandaswamy have been embittered. He suggested that it is at the instance of M. A. Kandaswamy that the prosecution witnesses and in particular, Minnkkal group of witnesses have tried to involve him falsely in the present offence. According to him, since then the relations between him and M. A. Kandaswamy have been embittered. He suggested that it is at the instance of M. A. Kandaswamy that the prosecution witnesses and in particular, Minnkkal group of witnesses have tried to involve him falsely in the present offence. He denied that the letters M. A. Kandaswamy against item No. 4 in Exhibit 6 were in his hand writing. He denied that he had made any application for reservation of seats on 14th August 1964 in the 10 UP Madras-Bombay Mail. In regard to the identification parades that were held in Bombay and Sholapur. He suggested that he was shown to the identifying witnesses while he was kept in the respective lock-up at the police stations. He also stated that the Magistrate was telling the panch, who went out for calling the identifying witnesses, the rank occupied by the accused in the line of persons who were telling for the parade. As regards the produced by his brother at Exhibit 31, he stated. ""Inspector asked me if it was my practice to put ring on my finger. I replied in the affirmative. He asked me to bring a ring which I used to put I used to were three rings. Exhibit 31 is one of them. I had sent my paternal uncles son to bring the ring from my house. After seeing the three rings Inspector Thakre selected this ring. And allowed me to take back the other two rings. The rings was prepared two years back at the time of marriage of my sister by the father-in-law of my sister"". He denied that he has given two ear rings to Munuswamy on the 19th August 1964 asking him to prepare one ring out of them. He also denied that the ring at Exhibit 31 was the same as was prepared by Munuswamy. In regard to the specimen hand writings obtained from him by the police in the course of investigation, he stated that the was asked to copy down the writing on Exhibit 6 viz., M.A. Kandaswamy and accordingly he wrote the letters on the sheets as per the suggestion made to him by the police. He stated that none of the panchas was present at the time when he wrote out the sheets. He stated that none of the panchas was present at the time when he wrote out the sheets. In short the case for the accused is that he did not travel with the deceased in 10 UP Madras-Bombay mail in the day in question and that he knew nothing as to whether the deceased was travelling in that train on the relevant dates and as to what happened to her in the course of the journey. In fact, he suggested that even the identity of the deceased has both been established in the present case. (7) The learned Sessions Judge, after a protracted trial held that the deceased met with an unnatural death; that it was the accused who seduced the deceased from Minakkal and took her in 10 UP Madras-Bombay Mail; that in the course of this journey he must have administered some drug having deleterious effect on the health of the woman and eventually causing her death; that he did this with the object of mis-appropriating the ornaments that were with her; that having accomplished the object of administering the drug or poison and after finding that the deceased was lying below the berth in an unconscious condition, he decamped from the train and ran to Vellore; that he had been to Vellore on 14th August 1964; that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 230 from Natesan with a view to enable him to defray the expenses of the journey; that he put his signature in the ledger book on that date; that after running away from Bombay, the accused went back to Vellore and contacted Natesan and asked him to change the date 14th August 1964 to 17th August 1964 and thereafter he got the ornaments belonging to the deceased sold through Natesans clerk, Guruswamy for a sum of Rs. 1,900. The learned Sessions Judge believed the evidence of the railway witnesses, who identified the accused as also the deceased while the two were travelling in cabin A of bogie No. 2985 of 10 UP Madras-Bombay mail on 14th, 15th and 16th August 1964. He also held that the letters M. A. Kandaswamy appearing on the application from for reservation (Exhibit 6) were in the handwriting of the accused which indicated that the accused travelled under an assumed name or a pseudo name. He also held that the letters M. A. Kandaswamy appearing on the application from for reservation (Exhibit 6) were in the handwriting of the accused which indicated that the accused travelled under an assumed name or a pseudo name. The learned Judge also held that the accused lured away the deceased from Minnakkal with a view to misappropriate her ornaments and that he got rid of her by administering a drug or poison which led to her death so that he would not be exposed and held responsible for the misappropriation of the ornaments. He also felt that this was a case of cold-blooded and sordid murder committed for the sake of pecuniary gain and murder of a woman with whom the accused deserved to be awarded the highest sentence laid down under S 302, Indian Penal Code. Consequently, he convicted and sentenced the accused to be hanged . The death sentence has come up for confirmation and the accused has preferred an appeal from the conviction. (8) Mr. Kode, for the accused, who argued the appeal with ability and in great detail, contended in the first place that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased died an unnatural death. He argued that on the medical evidence led in this case, death by natural causes cannot be ruled out. According to him, this was a case of sudden death and since the deceased died under suspicious circumstances, the prosecution, the prosecution has jumped to the conclusion that this must have been a case of unnatural or homicidal death. He further contended that the motive suggested for the prosecution is not only not adequate but is ridiculous. According to him, it was unthinkable that a man of the position of the accused would stoop so low position as to commit murder of his own beloved merely for the purpose of securing a small gain of Rs. 1,900 or so. He attacked the evidence of the railway witnesses, who tired to identify the accused, firstly on the ground that all of them are interested in upholding the prosecution case and secondly, it was not possible for any one of them to identify the accused person after a lapse of time that intervened between their so called observation and the dates of the identification parades. He also argued that the evidence of Natesan and his companions viz., Guruswamy, Munuswamy, Murgesan and Swaminathan, is in the nature of tainted or accomplice evidence and since their evidence is not supported even by the scrap of a paper, the Court should not accept the said evidence. He suggested that there is dispute between Natesan and the accused in regard to the exact amount that remained outstanding between the debtor and the creditor and in order to get himself rid out of the indebtedness. Natesan has cooked up a false story relating to the so-called sale or ornaments. He pointed out that the prosecution has been unable to lead any evidence relating to the movements either of the deceased or of the accused after Attiyampatti till Vellore. He also pointed out that there was also no evidence travelled from Vellore upto Madras till he was supposed to have boarded 10 UP Madras-Bombay Mail. He also argued that the accused did not have a fair trial inasmuch as copies of the statements of a larger number of witnesses recorded under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code were not supplied to the counsel for the accused at the proper time so as to enable to properly cross-examine the witnesses. He also contended that the identification parades have not been conducted in a fair and straightforward manner and the investigating officer has not stated that proper precautions were taken for concealing the identity of the accused during the course of his travel first from Madras to Bombay and then from Bombay to Sholapur at the time of the second identification parade. In substance, his argument is that at best this may be a case of strong suspicion. But suspicion however strong cannot take the place of doubt. (9) The case for the prosecution solely rests upon circumstantial evidence. The principles relating to appreciation and evaluation of circumstantial evidence are well settled. In the first place, each of the circumstances on which the prosecution relies, must be affirmatively established. In the second place, these circumstances considered in their totality must be consistent and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. In the third place, the circumstances must be incompatible with the hyposthesis of the innocence of the accused. In the first place, each of the circumstances on which the prosecution relies, must be affirmatively established. In the second place, these circumstances considered in their totality must be consistent and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. In the third place, the circumstances must be incompatible with the hyposthesis of the innocence of the accused. The cases in which these principles have been propounded are legends and it is enough to cite a passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 S.C. 28: "" In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."" Before we deal with the circumstantial evidence led in this case, the first question for our consideration is whether the deceased, Palaniammal met with an unnatural death. If the prosecution fails to prove that Palaniammal died by unnatural causes, then it would be an end of the prosecution case. The question as to whether the deceased died an unnatural or a violent death is to be decided mainly with reference to the medical evidence and the medical authorities. Mr. Kode contended that the question as to whether the deceased met with a violent or unnatural death can only be decided with reference to the medical evidence. We are not prepared to accept this proposition as an absolute proposition of law. Wills in his famous book on the Principles of Circumstantial Evidence, 1912 edition, page 333 states: ""In cases of homicide three propositions must be made out in order to establish the corpus delicti: (1) That a death has taken place. (2) That the deceased is identified with the person alleged to have been killed. Wills in his famous book on the Principles of Circumstantial Evidence, 1912 edition, page 333 states: ""In cases of homicide three propositions must be made out in order to establish the corpus delicti: (1) That a death has taken place. (2) That the deceased is identified with the person alleged to have been killed. (3) That the death was due to unlawful violence or criminal negligence."" ""In the great majority of cases, the moral conduct of the person accused or suspected has little or nothing to do with the investigation of death, identity, or foul play, but it would be going too far to say that moral conduct of an accused or suspected person can have no bearing upon any of these questions"". Again at page 401 the following passage appears: ""The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Campbell, in his charge to the jury said that: 'in cases of this sort the evidence had often been divided into medical and normal evidence; the medical being that of the scientific men, and the moral the circumstantial facts which are calculated to prove the truth of the charge against the party accused. They cannot ""be continued"", be finally separated in the minds of the jury, because it is by the combination of the two species of evidence that their verdict ought to be found. . . . His Lordship also said; 'It is impossible that you should not pay attention to the conduct of the prisoner, and there are some instances of his conduct as to which 'you' will say whether they belong to what might be expected from an innocent or a guilty man.'"" The propositions enunciated by Wills have been accepted by the Supreme Court in Anant Lagu v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 S.C. 500 . At p. 523 (paragraph 68) Hidayatullah J., who delivered the judgment for the majority of the Court, stated; ""Circumstantial evidence in this context means a combination of facts creating a net-work through which there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt. To rely upon the findings of the medical man who conducted the post-mortem and of the chemical analyser as decisive of the matter is to render the other evidence entirely fruitless. To rely upon the findings of the medical man who conducted the post-mortem and of the chemical analyser as decisive of the matter is to render the other evidence entirely fruitless. While the circumstances often speak with unerring certainty the autopsy and the chemical analysis taken by themselves may be most misleading. No doubt, due weight must be given to the negative findings at such examinations. But, bearing in mind the difficult task which the man of medicine performs and the limitations under which he works his failure should not be taken as the end of the case, for on good and probative circumstances, an irresistible inference of guilt can be drawn"". Indeed, there may be cases where the corpus delicti may not be forthcoming at all. To quote Wills again, at page 326 the learned author observes: ""It is clearly established law that it is not necessary that the corpus delicti should be proved by direct and positive evidence, and it would be most unreasonable to require such evidence. Crimes, and especially those of the worst kinds, are naturally committed at chosen times, and in darkness and secrecy; and human tribunals must act upon such indications as the circumstances of the case present, or society must be broken up. Nor is it very often that adequate evidence is not afforded by the attendant and surrounding facts, to remove all mystery, and to afford such a reasonable degree of certainty as men are daily accustomed to regard as sufficient in the most important concerns of life; to expect more would be equally needless and absurd. Again, at page 328 the author observes: ""It is enough if its existence the highly probable, particularly if the opposite party has it in his power to rebut it by evidence, and yet offers none; for then we have something like an admission that the presumption is just."" It would thus be clear that the Court would be entitled to raise an inference about the unnaturalness of death on the basis of only circumstantial evidence. In this connection, the case of Mary Anna Nash reported in Criminal Appeal Reports, Vol. VI page 225, edited by Herman Cohen (Stevens and Haynes, Law Publishers), gives us a proper perspective. In this connection, the case of Mary Anna Nash reported in Criminal Appeal Reports, Vol. VI page 225, edited by Herman Cohen (Stevens and Haynes, Law Publishers), gives us a proper perspective. The facts of that case were as follows: On the 27th of June 1907 the appellant was charged with the murder of her illegitimate son, aged five years and nine months. The body was discovered in a well at Burbage in April 1908; an inquest was then held, quite close to the scene of the alleged murder and to the place where the appellant was then living. The features were unrecognisable, and decomposition was advanced. At that time, no evidence was forthcoming and no suggestion was made against the appellant. In October 1906, appellant removed the child from care of her father and placed him with Mrs. Mary Stagg, at Pewsey. She got behind in her payments, and on May 29, 1907, he was removed to a Mrs. Emma Stagg at Aughton, with whom appellant was herself then living. On the way the child was taken for a rest to the cottage of a Mrs. Taken for a rest to the cottage of a Mrs. Sherwood, which overlooks the field where the well is in which the body was afterwards found. Mr. Stagg objected to keeping the child, and one or two days after June 26, 1907, appellant took him away, saying she was going to the house of a Mrs Hiller, near Marlborough. She returned the same evening without him, after an absence of about twelve hours; and then on several other occasions stated, untruly, as was admitted at the trial, that the boy was at Mr. Hiller's alive and well. Mrs. Sherwood, which overlooks the field where after the child was at her house she met him walking on the Aughton side of her cottage' i.e. going for Mrs. Stagg's house towards the well, and beyond that in the direction of Marlborough, and that he was accompanied by a woman whom she could not identify, but who was tall. . . . . . . In December 1907, two workmen, looking in to the well, saw something floating, which they took to be a dog; they could touch the water with a stick. They saw nothing else; no doubt the well was wider down below than at the aperture, which was 18 inches in diameter. . . . . . . In December 1907, two workmen, looking in to the well, saw something floating, which they took to be a dog; they could touch the water with a stick. They saw nothing else; no doubt the well was wider down below than at the aperture, which was 18 inches in diameter. The remains of dog were afterwards found in the well. The evidence was that if the body of the child was put in the well in June 1907 it must have been floating by December. In April, 1908, it was found by two other workmen, although a doctor was called in, he made no post mortem or other careful examination. There was no evidence even as to sex except from the general appearance and dress. There was nothing to show whether death was natural or violent, nor whether it occurred before or after the body was put into the well. It was conceded that a child of five or six years could lift the well cover, and might therefore, have fallen in accidentally. The Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Darling and Mr. Justice Banker held: but we cannot accept that Mr. Goddard cannot have meant that there must be proof from the body itself of a violent death"" In the famous Palmer's case where there was conflicting expert evidence on both the sides, Lord Campbell said that circumstantial evidence is all that can be reasonably expected and he pointed out that of the various heads of evidence in charges of poisoning that of moral conduct is of most general interest (see page 374 of Wills). At page 375 Wills says: ""In most criminal charges, the evidence of the corpus delicti is separable from that which applies to the indication of the offender; but in cases of poisoning, it is often impossible to obtain conclusive evidence of the corpus delicti, irrespectively of the explanatory evidence or moral conduct: and Mr. Justice Buller, in Donnellan's case told the Jury that: If there was a doubt upon the evidence of the physical witnesses, they must take into their consideration all the other circumstances, either to show that there was some poison administered, or that there was not, and that every part of the prisoner's conduct was material to be considered"" (Vide page 376 of Wills). Again at pages 376 and 377 Wills observes : ""It is indeed, obvious that where the medical evidence is not conclusive as to the cause of death, evidence of facts tending to show that the accused person knew that poison had been administered is relevant to the question whether the deceased did in fact die of poison"". It would thus be clear that even for the purpose of finding out as to whether death was unnatural, we can, and have got to take into account the conduct of the accused. (10) Although this is the position in law, still, for the sake of clarity of understanding, it would always be convenient to separate the medical evidence from what is known as moral evidence, and first consider the medical evidence separately and thereafter if any doubt remains on the question as to whether death unnatural, the conduct of the accused should be pressed into service. With that end in view, we will deal first with the medical evidence and consider whether that evidence is sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the deceased met with an unnatural death either as a result of administration of poison or as a result of administration of a drug, which would lead to the death of the deceased. The deceased Palaniammal was admitted in the K.E.M. Hospital at 6-15 a.m. on 16th August 1964 and she expired at 7-15 p.m. on the same day in the said hospital. We have already referred to the contents of the case-papers which have been styled as Surgical Medical History Sheet. (Exhibit 119). The symptoms which the patient exhibited on admission have been noted in considerable detail on these case-papers. Dr. (Miss) Acharya, who treated the deceased on admission and prepared the notes at Exhibit 119, has stated that on examination she noticed the following symptoms: ""At that time, she (the deceased) was in a semi-conscious and delirious state. She was muttering incoherently and was at times rowdy. By that I mean she was moving her limbs. Her pulse was not felt. I could record the systolic blood pressure. It was 68, Diastolic could not be recorded, because it was very low. Her pupils were pin-point and not reacting to light. Her pin-point and not reacting to light. Her breath did not smell of any specific smell. There were secretions at the mouth and in the throat. Her pulse was not felt. I could record the systolic blood pressure. It was 68, Diastolic could not be recorded, because it was very low. Her pupils were pin-point and not reacting to light. Her pin-point and not reacting to light. Her breath did not smell of any specific smell. There were secretions at the mouth and in the throat. Examination of the respiratory system revealed bubbling sounds were heard in both the lungs. That would show that her lungs were flooded with fluid. Other examination could not be done because here condition was very low and treatment had to be instituted immediately. We tried to drain out the secretions by means of suction pump. She was given injections of Coramine and Atropine . Coramine was given as a stimulant to the respiratory movement and Atropine to dry up the secretion. A glucose saline treatment was started to maintain her blood pressure. A stomach tube was passed and the stomach contents were aspirated. Brownish colour aspire was saved for chemical analysis, which was sent to the Chemical Analyser. She was also given oxygen and intravenous hydrocortison. Patient failed to recover and died at 7-15 a.m."" It may be mentioned at this stage that the report (Exhibit 117) of the Chemical Analyser relating to the brownish aspirate that was sent to him for chemical analysis shows that no recognisable poison was detected. Dr. Acharya requested the Dean of the Medical College to carry out a post-mortem examination on the dead body. Later on, the post-mortem examination was carried by Dr. Vaidya. Dr. Acharya says that she asked Dr. Vaidya to hand over the viscera to the Chemical Analyser. Dr. Acharya had suspended her judgment as to the cause of the death till she received the post-mortem report as also the Chemical Analyser's report. On receiving these two reports, she applied her mind afresh to the question. She also consulted Rr. Joglekar . Dean of K. E. M. Hospital in regard to the cause of death of the patient and eventually, made the following entries in the case-papers (Exhibit 119): ""The death was due to severe pulmonary oedema and early broncho-pneumonia following administration of unknown agent. This death could be accidental, homicidal or suicidal following administration of an agent which could have been ingested, inhaled or injected"" She has then explained as to what is meant by oedema. This death could be accidental, homicidal or suicidal following administration of an agent which could have been ingested, inhaled or injected"" She has then explained as to what is meant by oedema. According to her, oedema is present of fluid in the lung alveoli (small air spaces in the lung). She says that fluid was uniformly present in both the lungs. She had then explained as to what kind of broncho-pneumonia was noticed as a result of the post-mortem examination. According to her it was early broncho-phemonia, because very few areas were involved. She has further explained that in the case of a patient sufffering from early broncho-phemonia about by disease and not by administration of any foreign agent, it is not detected very easily. She has added that advance broncho-phemonia shows the following symptoms': A patient has temperature, breathlessness and cough"". At paragraph (3) of her evidence, she has given reasons as to why she arrived at the conclusion that death was due to pulmonary oedema, which, according other, was primary and not secondary to any other disease. Says Dr. Acharya: ""Pulmonary oedema in a patient due to natural causes is a secondary to a disease in the heart, occasionally in the brain, kidney and lung. There was no abnormality with regard to the deceased in the brain, the heart and the kidney. If there was severe pulmonary oedema as a secondary effect to the condition of the heart, lung, kidney or brain, any one of the organs connected to it would be more severely affected. In this case, it was the other way round. All these organs were normal and yet there was severe pulmonary oedema in the lung"" It should be noted that the evidence of broncho-phemonia was found in what is known as histological examination carried out by Dr. Purandare. The date when this examination was made is not clear from the record of the case. It is, however obvious that the examination was done and the report submitted prior to 5th October 1964. On that date, Dr. Acharya submitted her report (Exhibit 118) to the Coroner of Bombay. Therein she has referred to the result of histological examination. She has stated: ""Histopathology revealed evidence of early broncho-phemonia in the lungs. Septical capillaries were congested. A few alveolar spaces contained oedemas fluid and a few others contained acute inflammatory cells. Liver cells showed cloudily changes. Acharya submitted her report (Exhibit 118) to the Coroner of Bombay. Therein she has referred to the result of histological examination. She has stated: ""Histopathology revealed evidence of early broncho-phemonia in the lungs. Septical capillaries were congested. A few alveolar spaces contained oedemas fluid and a few others contained acute inflammatory cells. Liver cells showed cloudily changes. Uterus showed endometrium to be in the proliferative phase. There were large number of chronic and acute inflammatory cells."" Dr. Purandare has not been examined in this case. But, Dr. Vaidya has stated that he had seen all these slides on the microscopic examination carried out by Dr. Purandare and that he agreed with the findings recorded by Dr. Purandare. Dr. Purandare has made notes in his own handwriting in the autopsy report under the heading Histology report' and Dr. Vaidya has identified that handwriting, Dr. Acharya received the report (Exhibit 117) of the Chemical Analyser on 19th September 1964, which report stated. No recognisable poison was detected"". Dr. Acharya has then referred to the book on Poisoning-Diagnosis and Treatment by Sven Moschin who according to her, is an authority on the subject of poisoning for the proposition that pulmonary oedema i a frequent complication in poison. On the basis of the findings of the postmortem examination and the hystological examination, Dr. Acharya has asserted; ""In this particular case, I ruled out a natural death. I would ascribe the death of the administration of some unknown foreign agent."" The only theory that was put to Dr. Acharya as a alternative hypothesis relation to the probable cause of death was that of cholera sicca. We will have occasion to discuss this aspect of the matter at a later stage of this judgment. It may also be mentioned that there was a faint suggestion in her cross-examination as to whether pneumonia, which was found in the histological examination in the case of the deceased could be the result of the froth, which was coming out of the mouth, entering the mouth and eventually reaching the lungs. We may quote the question and the answer in full: Q. - If a person is suffering from fits and falls down and if froth that comes out of the mouth goes into the lungs, it develops into pneumonia? A. - That is known as aspiration pneumonia. We may quote the question and the answer in full: Q. - If a person is suffering from fits and falls down and if froth that comes out of the mouth goes into the lungs, it develops into pneumonia? A. - That is known as aspiration pneumonia. In such a case, the sounds which a doctor would hear on the stethoscope would be different from the one I heard in examining that woman. The sound that I heard was bubbling sound. In the case of aspiratory pneumonia, a doctor would not hear bubbling sound. Before the 16th August, 1964 I have examined quite a number of cases who have aspiratory pneumonia. Severe oedema and broncho-phemonia"". There was also a suggestion as to whether this could be a case of peripheral circulatory failure with signs of severe pulmonary oedema of the lungs as a result of food poisoning. Dr. Acharya pointed out that in such a case there would be signal of severe pneumonia and not severe pulmonary oedema. Dr. Acharya ruled out the alternative hypothesis of cholera sicca as an improbability and has given very good reasons in support of the same. she has finally stated that she reached the conclusion on the basis of her own clinical examination and the findings of the autopsy. (11) Dr. Ravindra Vaidya, who carried out the post-mortem examination in this case, has given his evidence at Exhibit 121. He has stated: ""There were no marks of any external injury. Rigor mortis was present. Pupils were semidilated. My internal findings were as follows : The trachea and bronchi contained plenty of frothy secretion. Throat and lungs showed marked oedema. Stomach contained 100 c.c. of semidigested bile stained fluid. Semi-digested food material. The mucosa of the stomach was normal. Small intestine was normal. Liver was congested and friable. Alimentary track did not show any lesion. Nothing abnormal in the spleen and kidney was detected. Genital organs were normal. No evidence of pregnancy or any injury to genital organs. There was nothing abnormal in the central nervous system. The pericardium of the heart was normal. The heart was of normal size and shape. The heart was normal. The meningis covering the brain were normal. There was nothing abnormal detected in the brain. So far as the respiratory system was concerned, the trache, the mucosa covering the larynx and bronchi were slightly congested. The pericardium of the heart was normal. The heart was of normal size and shape. The heart was normal. The meningis covering the brain were normal. There was nothing abnormal detected in the brain. So far as the respiratory system was concerned, the trache, the mucosa covering the larynx and bronchi were slightly congested. The trachea and bronchi contained plenty of frothy secretion. More amount of such secretion could be seen pouring the tracheas ad bronchi on squeezing the lung. Both the lungs were heavy. Oedematous, sub-crepitate and potted on pressure. By pitted against pressure, I mean that if a thumb or a finger is pressed on the lung, the dent would be visible on the lung. In a normal lung the pressed portion of the lung would immediately come up and the dent would not be visible. The lung tissue (parenchyma) was slightly congested. The cut surface of the lung showed marked exudation of frothy fluid. The bronchi contained plenty of frothy material. The hilar lymph nodes were not enlarged. That shows that there was no marked infection of the lung. On a microscopic examination of the uterus I noticed that it was slightly infected. It was a chronic infection but that infection did not lead to the severe pulmonary oedema or the frothy secretion in the trachea and bronchi"". Dr. Vaidya therefore, asserted that he could not find any natural cause for the death in his post-mortem examination. He has then explained that pneumonia may be of two types, one broncho-phemonia and the other lobar pneumonia. By lobar pneumonia is meant consolidation of whole lobe of a lung. According to Dr. Vaidya, this is due to exudation of inflammatory exudate in the air spaces of a lung. Dr. Vaidya asserted that in the case of the deceased both the lungs were totally affected. They were water-logged and pitted on pressure. In case of lobar pneumonia, only lobe is affected and it is solidified. It does not pit on pressure. In pulmonary oedema there would be frothy secretions in the traches and bronchi. This was what was found on autopsy in this case. According to Dr. Vaidya, in lobar pneumonia in the earlier stages, there is a mucoid secretion, which is different from watery secretions as it was in this case, Dr. It does not pit on pressure. In pulmonary oedema there would be frothy secretions in the traches and bronchi. This was what was found on autopsy in this case. According to Dr. Vaidya, in lobar pneumonia in the earlier stages, there is a mucoid secretion, which is different from watery secretions as it was in this case, Dr. Vaidya then proceeds to say; ""In the later stages of lobar pneumonia there is plenty of mucopurulent secretion. That is, mixture of mucus and pus. In this case I did not find either mucus or pus. Microscopically, in lobar pneumonia there is marked exudation of fluid and in this case, in addition to this, there was scanty exudate of polymorph cells. In case of lobar pneumonia there was marked exudation of inflammatory cells, so that the air spaces are fully packed with this inflammatory cells. In addition, there is a fibrine deposit in the air spaces. In the instant case, there was no fibrin deposite. There were few polymorph cells."" The object of this part of Dr. Vaidya's exposition is to explain that pulmonary oedema would not be due to broncho-phemonia which was noticed in histological examination. Dr. Vaidya ha then tried to make a distinction between lobar pneumonia and broncho-pneumonia. He has pointed out that this could not be a case of lobar pneumonia for two reasons : (1) In lobar pneumonia, there is consolidation of the whole lobe of the lung, whereas in the present case, the lungs were totally affected, water-logged and pitted on pressure. In the case of lobar pneumonia, only lobe is affected and it is solidified, which means that it would not pit on pressure. (2) In the case of lobar pneumonia in the earlier stages, there is a mucoid secretion which is different from watery secretions as it was in this case. In the later stages of lobar pneumonia, there is plenty of muco purulent secreion, which is a mixture of mucus and pus. In this case, Dr. Vaidya did not notice either mucus or pus. He has also added a third point of distinction viz., in the case of lobar pneumonia, there is a fibrin deposit in the air spaces. In the present case there was no such deposit and there were few polymorph cells. In this case, Dr. Vaidya did not notice either mucus or pus. He has also added a third point of distinction viz., in the case of lobar pneumonia, there is a fibrin deposit in the air spaces. In the present case there was no such deposit and there were few polymorph cells. He has then explained that in the case of broncho-pneumonia there is patchy solidification of lung tissue, so that when you feel for the lung it gives a nodular feeling. In the present case, there was no nodular feeling. In the case of broncho-pneumonia, in the earlier stages there is a mucoid secretion followed by plenty of mucoid purulent secretion. Dr. Vaidya has stated that in the instant case, under microscope he saw a few air spaces surrounding the bronchi showing scanty inflammatory cells. In addition to the above, he noticed marked oedema o f the rest of the air spaces. It is on the basis of this evidence that Dr. Vaidya came to the conclusion that pulmonary oedema was primary and early broncho-pneumonia was secondary to the pulmonary oedema. He has added that in the case of primary broncho-pneumonia, hilarlymph nodes may be enlarged, but such enlargement was not present in this case. He therefore, concluded that the severe pulmonary oedema was not due any natural disease. In reaching that conclusion he also took into consideration that the heart, brain and kidney were normal. He has also asserted that frothy material, which was coming out of the mouth, was produced primarily in the lung. As a result of the attempt made by the deceased to take air into breath the oedema got mixed with air bubble in that process. He has explained that when there is excess of secretion in the lung, that the lung tires to throw it out and that is how it came out in the form as it appeared in the case of the deceased. In answer to a question in cross-examination, Dr. Vaidya asserted; ""I do not agree that severe pulmonary oedema and early broncho-pneumonia can be caused by natural disease of ineffective nature."" This question was posed on the basis of the letter (Exhibit 124) written by Dr. (Mrs.) Satoshkar to the Sub-Inspector, Central Railway Police, Dadar, on 22nd October 1964. In answer to a question in cross-examination, Dr. Vaidya asserted; ""I do not agree that severe pulmonary oedema and early broncho-pneumonia can be caused by natural disease of ineffective nature."" This question was posed on the basis of the letter (Exhibit 124) written by Dr. (Mrs.) Satoshkar to the Sub-Inspector, Central Railway Police, Dadar, on 22nd October 1964. It is clear from the contents of this letter that the letter purported to be in reply to the queries made by the Sub-Inspector to the medical authorities on 7th October 1964. Unfortunately, that letter has not been produced and we are not in a position to know what were the questions that were asked, to which replies have been given by this letter. The letter (Exhibit 124) reads thus: ""Severe pulmonary oedema and early broncho-pneumonia can be caused by natural disease of infective nature, but it is unlikely in this case, as the patient was not having fewer on admission"". What was put to Mr. Vaidya was only a part of this reply viz., whether pulmonary oedema and early broncho-pneumonia can be caused by natural disease of infective nature. The latter part in which Dr. Sathoshkar mentioned the reason for her positive reply to the effect that, this should be accompanied by fever, was omitted, and therefore, Dr. Vaidya asserted that he did not agree with the view with which he was confronted. Of course, at a later stage, the defence counsel, Mr. Nair did refer to the present of fever and asked Dr. Vaidya whether this would make any different to the problem. Dr. Vaidya replied; "". . . . . . . .It is true that there may or there may not be fever in the case of natural infection"". Unfortunately, Dr. Satoshkar has not been examined and no request was made that she should be examined. As pointed out above, we do not know that nature of the question asked to her t o which the first reply in Exhibit 124 is purported to be directed. In the absence of Dr. Satoshkar having been examined as a witness, it is not possible to accept the opinion expressed by her in reply to certain queries put to her. The opinion of an expert must be supported by reasons and it is the reasons and not ipse dixit which is of importance in assessing the merit of the opinion. Satoshkar having been examined as a witness, it is not possible to accept the opinion expressed by her in reply to certain queries put to her. The opinion of an expert must be supported by reasons and it is the reasons and not ipse dixit which is of importance in assessing the merit of the opinion. According to the reply given by Dr. Sathoshkar, absence of fever is decisive and rules out the possibility of pulmonary oedema and early broncho-pneumonia being the effect of natural disease of infective character. Dr. Vaidya's admission was to the effect that there may or may not be fever in case of natural infection. No question was asked to him as to whether when pulmonary oedema and broncho-pneumonia are present and could be attributed to a natural disease of infective character, the patient would or would not get a fever. The expression ""natural infection"" is generalised one. There are different varieties of infection, some very minor and some extremely virulent. All that Dr. Vaidya admitted was that there may be cases where fever may not be an accompaniment to natural infection. The reply given by Dr. Satoshkar and that given by Dr. Vaidya, therefore, do not appear to be inconsistent with each other, nor do we think that either of them affects the merits of the opinion expressed by Dr. Vaidya. Certain questions were put to Dr. Vaidya based on the hypothesis that this was a case of cholera. As we propose to discuss the validity of this hypothesis separately, we do not propose to deal with the questions and answers given by Dr. Vaidya at this stage of the discussion. It would thus be noticed that the attempts made by the two medical witnesses examined for the prosecution was in the first place to establish that there was no evidence in the post-mortem examination about death being due to any natural causes. The two doctors have proceeded by the process of elimination. They noticed that all the organs of the deceased were healthy and there was no sign of any disease in any one of the organs such as, brain, heart, lung and kidney. There could not, therefore, by any natural disease to any of these organs. That means that pulmonary oedema could not be the result of disease to any of these organs. There could not, therefore, by any natural disease to any of these organs. That means that pulmonary oedema could not be the result of disease to any of these organs. So far as broncho-pneumonia is concerned, the two doctors maintained that broncho-pneumonia was secondary to pulmonary oedema. Had pneumonia been of lobar origin, it may be possible to maintain that pulmonary oedema was the result of pneumonia. Having ruled out the possibility of death being due to any natural causes, the two doctors addressed themselves to the question as to what could be the possible cause of death. They concentrated their attention upon the presence of pulmonary oedema, which was primary and not consequence of disease to any of the vital organs which may lead to the appearance of pulmonary oedema. Therefore, they posed the question whether pulmonary oedema could be the result of administration of any foreign agent, and they were forced to the conclusion that it could only be the result of entry of a foreign agent in the body. How this entry was effected, of course could not be stated by the experts. The drug could be inhaled, could"