Short Note : 1. The case of the prosecution was that on 8-1-1976, the appellant under the pretence of distributing 'Prasad' gave sweetmeat to Bhanwarlal's minor child, when he was returning from school with the instruction that it snail be pal taken by himself, his parents and other children of the family. The appellant distributed other kind of 'Prasad' i.e. sugar and coconut pieces to other children. Two boys - Suresh and prabhu finding that Fakira was given sweetmeat, asked him to give parts of it to them. Fakira, therefore, gave small pieces of the sweetmeat to these boys and went home with the remaining part which he distributed among his two sisters Kailashibai, Nandubai and his mother. Fakira himself took a larger share. All the persons who ate the sweet-meat started vomiting and the three children-Fakira, Kailashibai and Nandubai actually died after sometime on account of the poisoning. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant had illicit connection with the wife of one Pura Lohar. It is said that Bhanwarial bad opposed the said illicit relationship and even tried to prevail upon Pura Lohar not to give any entry to the appellant in his house. The appellant, therefore, got annoyed and with a view to destroy the whole family of Bhanwarlal, distributed poisoned sweet to his minor child Fakira With the instruction that he might distribute it to other members of his family. Held : The conduct of the appellant prior to the said occurrence, as proved by the witness Kaluram (PW-2) is very significant. It appears that the appellant had visited the school with the specific purpose to verify that Fakira had gone to the school that day. 2. Both these witnesses have deposed that on the date of the said Occurrence when the school was closed, both of them were returning along with Fakira. 3. It appears that the appellant had visited the school with the specific purpose to verify that Fakira had gone to the school that day. 2. Both these witnesses have deposed that on the date of the said Occurrence when the school was closed, both of them were returning along with Fakira. 3. When they reached near the Chabutara of Hanumanji, they found the appellant distributing 'Prasad', According to these witnesses, the appellant gave sugar and coconut pieces to them in the 'Prasad' but he gave one piece of sweetmeat (Besan-ki-Chakki) to the deceased-Fakira with the instruction that be might eat part of it and also give to his parent's and sisters it is true that both the witnesses Suresh (PW-14) and Prabhu (PW-15) are child witness set but on perusal of their evidence it would be clear that their testimony is most natural and reliable. 4. It is true that there is no direct evidence to prove that the appellant actually mixed 'Sankhiya' poison in the Besan-ki-Chakki which he had given to the deceased-Fakira for eating. However, the presence of 'Sankhiya' poison in his house, the fact that he gave sweetmeat (Besan-ki-Chakki) to deceased. Fakira under the pretence of 'Prasad', that all the persons who consumed portions of that sweetmeat immediately started vomiting; that out of them, three children actually died and in their viscera contents 'Sankhiya' poison was deflected would go to prove beyond any doubt that it was the appellate and he alone who had administered the poison through the preparation of Besan-ki-Chkaki. 5. It is quite likely that the appellant got aggrieved on account of the obstructive tendency of Bhanwarlal with respect to the appellant's love affairs with Pura's wife and he took into his head to destroy the whole family of Bhanwarlal. It is true that ordinarily, this motive should appear to him very weak for the perpetration of such a serious crime. But it is difficult to predict about the frailty of a perverse brain Moreover, when there is positive and reliable evidence on record to connect the appellant with the perpetuations of the crime, absence of strong evidence of motive is not very material. When there is evidence that the accused has acted in a particular manner, it would not be the function of the Court to say that the accused could not have acted in that manner. 6. When there is evidence that the accused has acted in a particular manner, it would not be the function of the Court to say that the accused could not have acted in that manner. 6. The appellant having administered 'Sankhiya' poison must be taken to know that his act was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, As by the said act of the appellant three children actually died, he must be held guilty of murder, even in case it were to be held that he had no intention to cause death. The appellant gave the sweetmeat to Fakira with the instruction that he should eat part of it and distribute it to all other members of his family as well. The appellant is, therefore, guilty of committing murder of three children. The appellant is, therefore, rightly held guilty of the offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Appeal dismissed.