JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 16th March, 1973 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, in Sessions Trial No. 11/1972. In the Sessions Trial aforesaid, the respondent Nandlal was prosecuted for the offence under section 307 I. P. C. for having attempted to commit the murder of his wife Smt. Kausalya. The Additional Sessions Judge, by his judgment aforesaid, acquitted the respondent of the said charge on the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent and Smt. Kausalya were married in 1965 and that the respondent was not happy with his wife for the reason that she was not beautiful and she was not educated and that the respondent used to beat her and also used to say that if she died he would remarry. Both of them had a daughter aged about two years at the time of the incident. The case of the prosecution is further that the respondent had extended a threat that he would kill Smt. Kausalya after the marriage of his sister which took place on 4th March, 1972. After the aforesaid marriage of the sister of the respondent Smt. Kausalya informed about the threat to her brother, Shantilal (P.W. 3} when he came to see her and on the date of incident, i. e. 25th March, 1972, Ramdittaram (P. W. 2), the father of Smt. Kausalya came and met the father of the respondent. The case of the prosecution is further that on 25th March, 1972 at about 11 P.M. Smt. Kausalya was sleeping in her room and the respondent came to the room with a cup of milk and after mixing a greenish powder in the milk, he asked Srnt. Kausalya to drink it and when she refused to do so he gave a couple of slaps and also threatened to kill her and, therefore, due to the fear Smt. Kausalya took the milk and 4-5 minutes thereafter she became unconscious. Smt. Kausalya was admitted in an unconscious condition in the General Hospital, Sri Ganganagar on 26th March, 1972 at 8 a. m. On 26th March, 1972 at about 2 P.M. Dr. Smt. Kausalya was admitted in an unconscious condition in the General Hospital, Sri Ganganagar on 26th March, 1972 at 8 a. m. On 26th March, 1972 at about 2 P.M. Dr. A. R. Das (P. W. 1) Medical Jurist, General Hospital, Sri Ganganagar sent a report (Ex.P.7) to the S.H.O. P. S. Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, whereby it was intimated that a case of suspected poisoning, named Smt. Kausalya, was admitted in the hospital at 8 a. m. on March 26,1972 in an unconscious state and that she was stall unconscious. By his letter (Ex. P.8) dated 29th March, 1972 Dr. A. R. Das informed the S.H.O., P. S. Sadar, Sri Ganganagar that the patient who had been admitted in an unconscious state on 26th March, 1972 had become conscious and was fit to give a statement. On 30th March, 1972, the statement (Ex. P.l.) of Smt. Kausalya was recorded by Sahifam (P.W.12) A.S.I., P.S. Sadar and on the basis of the aforesaid statement a case under section 307 I.P.C. was registered against the respondent at police station Sadar, Ganganagar. Samples of blood and the urine of Smt. Kausalya had been taken in the hospital on 26th March, 1972 and the same were duly sealed and were sent to the police station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar. The said samples were sent for chemical examination and according to the report (Ex.P.16)of the chemical examiner the blood and urine samples were negative for arsenic, antimony, mercury, Dhatura and opium and the blood samples were also negative for barbiturates, but the urine sample was positive for barbiturates. The statement of Smt. Kausalya was also recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C. before the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Sri Ganganagar on 1st April, 1972 On 6th April, 1972, the respondent was arrested and at the time of his arrest the respondent produced a letter Ex. P. 2 written and signed by Smt. Kausalya where in it was stated that she was committing suicide. On 16t'n April, 1972 the house of the respondent was inspected and the site plan (Ex.P.6) and the memo of site inspection (Ex.P.6A) was prepared. After completing the investigation, the police filed a challan against the respondent in the court of Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar, and, after conducting the committal enquiry, the Addl. On 16t'n April, 1972 the house of the respondent was inspected and the site plan (Ex.P.6) and the memo of site inspection (Ex.P.6A) was prepared. After completing the investigation, the police filed a challan against the respondent in the court of Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar, and, after conducting the committal enquiry, the Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate committed the respondent for trial to the court of Sessions and there upon the respondent was tried by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganganagar for charge under section 307 I.P.C. 3. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 12 witnesses. Smt. Kausalya has been examined as P.W.l, her father Ramdittaram is P.W.2 and her brother Shantilal is P.W.3. Sunderdas P. W. 4, Pokhardas P. W. 5 have been examined to prove the strained relations between the respondent and Smt.Kausaly a and the visit of these witnesses to the house of the respondent a few months before the incident for the purpose of bringing about a reconciliation. Kishan Chand P.W. 6 is the attesting witnesses of the site plan (Ex. P.6) and memo of site inspection (Ex.P. 6-A). Dr. A. R. Das, Medical Jurist, General Hospital, Ganganagar has been examined as P.W. 7 Jagdish Chandra P.W.l 1 is the S H.O., P.S. Sadar, Sri Ganganagar and Sahiram P. W. 12 was attached as A. S. I. at P. S., Sadar, and was associated with the investigation of the case. Fakir Khan P. W. 8, Ram Swaroop P. W. 9 and Gurdaya Singh P. W. 10 are police witnesses whose evidence is of formal nature. The statement of Dr. Shyamsunder Singh who had treated Smt. Kausalya in the General Hospital, Sri Ganganagar which was recorded before the committing court, has also been brought on the record. 5. The statement made by the respondent before the committing court has also been brought on the record as (Ex.P. 15). In his aforesaid statement the respondent stated that he was married to Smt. Kausalya in October, 1968. At the time of marriage he was reading in the B. Sc. final class at Khalsa College. Fifteen days prior to the marriage he received a letter from an unknown person where in it was stated that the character of Smt. Kausalya was not good. At the time of marriage he was reading in the B. Sc. final class at Khalsa College. Fifteen days prior to the marriage he received a letter from an unknown person where in it was stated that the character of Smt. Kausalya was not good. He made a mention about this letter to Ramdittaram, the father of Smt. Kausalya, and he told him that the said letter was the handiwork of some person opposed to him. After the marriage he showed the letter to Smt. Kausalya and told her to let him know the truth. When he made a reference to the letter again after a week she told him that the letter was snatched away by the younger brother of the respondent and he had torn it. When he asked for the torn pieces she kept quiet, and when he asked again she said that the letter had been lost. This created suspicion in his mind but in spite of that he did not do anything. Three mouths after the marriage he received two more anonymous letters and those letters were also shown to Smt. Kausalya. On persuasion she admitted her fault and said that one year prior to the marriage she had developed intimacy with a tenant living in her house and as a result of the same she had become pregnant and had got herself aborted but she did not disclose the name of the said person. He did not mention this fact to anybody thinking that mistakes are committed by every person. After passing the B. Sc. examination he joined the M. Sc. (Chemistry) Course at the Chemistry Department of the University at Jaipur and remained at Jaipur for two years. After obtaining the M. Sc. degree in 1977 he returned to Sri Ganganagar and joined as Lecturer.in Chemistry at Khalsa College. During this period his personal relationship with Smt. Kausalya was quite cordial and he never gave any threat to kill her, nor did he tell her that he wanted to marry again. On 25th March, 1972 he reached his house at village Kalia at about 7 p.m. and after having his meals he was studying in his room. During this period his personal relationship with Smt. Kausalya was quite cordial and he never gave any threat to kill her, nor did he tell her that he wanted to marry again. On 25th March, 1972 he reached his house at village Kalia at about 7 p.m. and after having his meals he was studying in his room. Smt. Kausalya was quite normal and she came to the room and after talking to the respondent for sometime she went to sleep at about 10 p.m. He also went to sleep at 11.30 p.m. At 4.30 a.m. their daughter cried and when Smt. Kausalya did not pay any heed to the daughter he called her twice or thrice and when she did not speak he switched on the light and found that she was lying unconscious and a letter was found by the side of the pillow. On reading the said letter he suspected that she had been taken something and, therefore, he called the doctor of the village but the doctor said that the matter was serious and she should be removed to the hospital. Thereupon he asked his parents to fetch a Tonga and bring her to the hospital and in the mean while he himself went to the city on a cycle to bring a jeep. While he was coming to the village in the jeep he met the Tonga on the way and after transferring Smt. Kausalya to the jeep he brought her to the General Hospital and got her admitted in the hospital at about 7 a.m.. While Smt. Kausalya was unconscious in the hospital, her father and other relatives started propagating that Smt. Kausalya had been poisoned. After getting Smt. Kausalya admitted in the hospital, he did not lodge a report with the police for the reason that the police would implicate her in a suicide case. Smt. Kausalya regained consciousness at 6 A. M. on 27th March, 1972 and the first thing she told her father, on her own, was that the respondent was not at fault and that after her father had gone away she told the respondent that she had committed a mistake and that she may be forgiven. The father of Smt Kausalya and other relatives were, however, putting pressure on her to make a statement against the respondent but she was not agreeable to it. The father of Smt Kausalya and other relatives were, however, putting pressure on her to make a statement against the respondent but she was not agreeable to it. In the meanwhile the father of Smt. Kausalya was also threatening that he would get the respondent implicated and was demanding Rs. 25,000/- or the transfer of 9 bighas of land in favour of Smt. Kausalya. The respondent did not agree to the aforesaid pressures which were put on him by the father of Smt. Kausalya. According to the respondent the father of Smt. Kausalya had also asked the respondent to give him the letter which was found by the respondent by the side of the bed of Smt. Kausalya but the respondent made an excuse that he had lost the said letter. Thereafter the father of Smt, Kausalya told the respondent that he had got him implicated in the statement of Smt. Kausalya that he had poisoned her. The respondent further stated that the police officers were also in league with the father of Smt. Kausalya and the S.H.O. police station Sadar as well as the A.S.I. were putting pressure on the respondent either to pay money or to transfer the land. The respondent further stated that in view of the aforesaid attitude of the police officers he appeared before the Superintendent of Police on 6th April, 1972 and asked him either to arrest him or see that the Officers do not harass him and thereupon the S.P. called Jagdish, S.H.O., P.S. Sadar and asked him and when Jagidsh told the S.P. that the wife of the respondent had made a statement against him the S. P. told the respondent that he has to face prosecution and thereupon Jagdish arrested the respondent and at the time of his arrest he handed over the letter (Ex. P. 2) to the police. In his statement aforesaid the respondent stated that he had brought the various medicines that were required for the treatment of Smt. Kausalya in the hospital and he also produced the bills for those medicines. 6. P. 2) to the police. In his statement aforesaid the respondent stated that he had brought the various medicines that were required for the treatment of Smt. Kausalya in the hospital and he also produced the bills for those medicines. 6. The Additional Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the prosecution came to the conclusion that there was delay in recording statement of Smt. Kausalya as well as the report and the said delay has not been explained satisfactorily and it casts a serious doubt on the story of the prosecution and it definitely shows that the incident did not happen in the manner in which it is said to have happened. The Additional Sessions Judge further hold that the only evidence against the respondent is the statement of Smt. Kausalya coupled with the report of the Chemical Analyst who found barbiturate in the sample of urine but Smt. Kausalya had stated that she had been given some green substance. Further that even though according to Dr. Das, barbiturate remains in blood for 2-3 days after the administration, barbiturate was not found in the sample of blood which was taken from the body of Smt. Kauyalya on 26th March, 1972. The Additional Sessions Judge was also of the view that the explanation given by Smt. Kausalya for her writing the letter Ex.P. 2 and having put her signatures on it could not be accepted. The Additional Sessions Judge was also of the view that there was no peculiar circumstance showing the requirement of administering poison especially when the marriage of the sister of the respondent had taken place at least 15 days prior to the incident and further the conduct on the part of the respondent in getting medical treatment for Smt. Kausalya and the fact that Ramdittaram P. W. 2 did not make a complaint to the police when he had been informed about the poison having been administered create a serious doubt about the story of the prosecution. The Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, held that the prosecution had not been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the respondent had tried to commit the murder of his wife, Smt. Kausalya, by administering poison to her. In view of the aforesaid finding the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of the offence under section 307 I.P.C. Hence this appeal. 7. In view of the aforesaid finding the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of the offence under section 307 I.P.C. Hence this appeal. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by Shri S. R. Singhi, the learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge has erred in holding that the guilt of the respondent has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel submitted that from the evidence of Smt. Kausalya, which finds corroboration from the F.I.R., it is established that the respondent had administered poison to her and as a result thereof she had became unconscious. The learned counsel have also submitted that the evidence of Smt. Kausalya about the respondent having administered poison to her finds corroboration from other circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution viz., ill treatment of Smt. Kausalya by the respondent, the threat extended by the respondent" to Smt. Kausalya that he would kill her after the marriage of his sister, as well as the subsequent conduct of the respondent. The learned counsel have also submitted that the letter, Ex. P. 2, on which reliance has been placed by the respondent for the purpose of showing that Smt. Kausalya had tried to commit suicide, if properly examined, supports the case of the prosecution that the signatures of Smt. Kausalya on the said letter had been obtained much earlier. The learned counsel have submitted that if the defence set up by the respondent, on the basis of the said letter, that Smt. Kausalya had tried to commit suicide, is found to be false, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the respondent, has attempted to commit the murder of Smt. Kausalya by administering poison to her. The learned counsel have also placed reliance on the statement of the respondent before the committal court and have submitted that the inculpatory part of that statement should be taken into consideration because the exculpatory part of the said statement is inherently improbable and that on the basis of the inculpatory part of the statement it is established that the respondent was responsible for administering poison to Smt. Kausalya. 8. 8. Shri Karnailsingh, the learned counsel for the respondent, has supported the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge and has submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for holding that the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the respondent for the offence u/s 307 I. P. C. and that no ground is made out for interference, in appeal, with the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the only evidence that has been produced by the prosecution to establish its case that the respondent had administered poison to Smt. Kausalya is the statement of Smt. Kausalya and that even though Smt. Kausalya had regained conscious on 27th March 1972, her statement was recorded only on 30th March, 1972 i. e. after a lapse of three days. According to the learned counsel the explanation that has been offered by the prosecution for this delay in recording the statement of Smt, Kausalya viz that Smt. Kausayla regained consciousness only on 29th March, 1972 is not true and that in the circumstances no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Smt. Kausalya. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the evidence of Smt. Kausalya is highly improbable and is belied by the medical evidence. The learned counsel has also submitted that the' conduct of the respondent in taking Smt. Kausalya immediately to the hospital for treatment as well as in providing medicines for her treatment is completely in consistent with the case of the prosecution that the respondent had administered poison to her. With regard to the letter Ex. P. 2. the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that the explanation offered by Smt. Kausalya for writing the said letter and for putting her signatures on the same cannot be accepted and has rightly not been accepted by the Additional Sessions judge and that the aforesaid letter fully establishes the case set up by the respondent that Smt. Kausalya had attempted to commit suicide. 9. In view of the evidence of Dr. A. R. Das P.W 7, the statement of Dr, Shyamsunder Singh recorded before the committal court, which has been entered in evidence during the course of the trial, as well as the bed head ticket (Ex. 9. In view of the evidence of Dr. A. R. Das P.W 7, the statement of Dr, Shyamsunder Singh recorded before the committal court, which has been entered in evidence during the course of the trial, as well as the bed head ticket (Ex. D.6) and the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex,P.l I) it must be held that Smt, Kausalya was brought in an unconscious condition to the General Hospital, Sri Ganganagar on the morning of 26th March 1972 and she was admitted in the said hospital at 8 A. M. on 26th Mach 1972. After the admission in the hospital, the treatment was started and initially it was suspected to be either a case of poisoning or of encephalitis but at about 120 clock in the noon encephalitis was ruled out by Dr. Shyam Sunder Singh who was treating her and Dr. A. R. Das, Medical Jurist was called. Dr. A. R. Das examined Smt. Kausalya at about 1.50 a m. and suggested that stomach wash should be preserved and he sent a letter Ex. p. 7 on 26th March, 1972, at 2 p. m. to the S. H. O. police station Sadar, Ganganagar intimating that a case of suspected poisoning, named Smt. Kausalya, had bean admitted in the hospital at 8 a. m. on that date in an unconscious state. Dr. Shyamsunder singh, taking into consideration the general condition of the patient, noted that she would not be able to tolerate stomach wash and further that it was useless to do the stomach wash since more than 12 hour had elapsed since she became unconscious and the stomach must now be empty of poison. Thereupon Dr. A. R. Das directed that sample of blood and urine be taken and in pursuance of the said direction the blood sample was taken and scald in the presence of Dr. A. R, Das on 26th March, 1972 at 7. 45 p.m. and urine was preserved and sealed in presence of Dr. A. R. Das on 27th March, 1972 at 10.30 p.m. The aforesaid samples of blood and urine were sent by Dr. A. R, Das to the S, H. O., P. S. Sadar and they were forwarded for examination to the Department of chemical Examiner Jaipur. The report Ex. 45 p.m. and urine was preserved and sealed in presence of Dr. A. R. Das on 27th March, 1972 at 10.30 p.m. The aforesaid samples of blood and urine were sent by Dr. A. R, Das to the S, H. O., P. S. Sadar and they were forwarded for examination to the Department of chemical Examiner Jaipur. The report Ex. p, 16 of the Department of Chemical Examiner shows that the samples of blood and urine were negative for arsenic, antimony, Mercury, Dhatura and opium and the samples of the blood were also negative for barbiturate but the sample of urine was positive for barbiturate. The evidence of Dr. A. R. Das shows that barbiturate is a drug found in sleeping pills and that about 20-30 grains of the same would be fatal and that the usual fatal dose is 60 grains. In view of the evidence aforesaid it must be held that Smt, Kausalya had become unconscious on the night of 25th and 26th March 1972 as a result of administration of barbiturate, a drug found in sleeping pills, which if taken in large quantity can prove fatal. In order to establish the guilt of the respondent the prosecution will have to establish that the respondent has administered barbiturate to Smt. Kausalya and that the quantity of barbiturate which was administered was sufficient to cause the death of Smt. Kausalya, 10. The first question which need to be determined in the case is whether the barbiturate that was found in the body of Smt. Kauslya had been administered by the respondent on the evening of 25th March, 1972 at about 11. P.M. as claimed by the prosecution. The only evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution to prove that it was the respondent who had administered the said drug to Smt. Kausalya is the statement of Smt. Kausalya herself as P. W. 1. P.M. as claimed by the prosecution. The only evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution to prove that it was the respondent who had administered the said drug to Smt. Kausalya is the statement of Smt. Kausalya herself as P. W. 1. In her statement Smt. Kausalya has stated that at about 10.30 p.m. on 25th March, 1972, while she was sleeping in her room the respondent came with a cup of milk and mixed a greenish powder in the milk and asked her to drink it and that when she refused to take it the respondent gave a few slaps and said that if she would not drink he would kill her and there upon she drank the milk containing the medicine treating it as a medicine because on that day she was not feeling well and after five to ten minutes, she became unconscious and that she regained consciousness in that hospital. During the course of cross examination Smt. Kausalya has stated the earlier also the respondent had given her medicine whenever she was ill and that she would not have taken the medicine on the day of the incident, if she had not been unwell. During the course of cross examination Kausalya has further stated that earlier also she had refused to take the medicine but the respondent had not slapped her. She has also stated that when the respondent slapped her she did not raise a cry. She has also admitted that the parents of the respondent were living in the same house. 11. The prosecution has sought corroboration of the testimony of Smt. Kausalya from her statement (Ex. P. 1) recorded by Sahiram, A S.I., P.S., Sadar, Ganganagar on 30th March, 1972 which forms the basis of the F.I.R. (Ex.P.12). In her aforesaid statement Smt. Kauasiya had stated that at about 11, p.m. on 25th March, 1972 while she was sleeping in her room the respondent came in the room with a cup of milk and mixed a greenish powder in it and asked her to take it and when she refused to take it respondent gave 2-4 slaps and also said that if she would not take the same he would kill her, and due to fear she took the milk and 4-5 minutes thereafter she became unconscious and she regained consciousness in the hospital. With regard to the aforesaid statement (Ex. With regard to the aforesaid statement (Ex. P. 1) of Smt. Kausalya, which was recorded by Sahi Ram P. W. 12, on 30th March 1972 it my be observed that according to the bed head ticket (Ex.D. 6) and the statement of Dr. Shyamsunder Singh, who was treating her, Smt. Kausalya had started regaining consciousness on the morning of 27th March 1972 and that in the morning of 27th March, 1972 she was conscious and was responding to question and was able to swallow, that on the evening of 27th March, 1972 she was fully conscious and was complaining of pain on the body that she continued to be fully conscious on 28th March and 29th March 1972 and that on 30th March 1972 her condition became normal and she was discharged from the hospital. Smt. Kausalya has stated that she had regained consciousness in the hospital a day prior to the recording of her statement by the police and has denied that she had regained consciousness three days prior to the making of her statement. Ramdittaram P. W.2 the father of Smt. Kausalya, had also stated that Smt. Kausalya had regained consciousness one day prior to making of the statement ExP.l and has denied that she had regained consciousness on 27th March, 1972. Sahiram P.W. 12, who was A.S.I., P.S. Sadar, Ganganagar and has recorded the statement (Ex.P. 1) of Smt. Kausalya, has also stated that he received information about Smt. Kausalya, having regained consciousness, on 29th March, 1972 and that there upon he had gone to the hospital on 29th March at about 2 P.M. to record the statement of Smt. Kausalya and he returned from the hospital at about 6 p.m. but did not record the statement of Smt. Kausalya as the respondent was present and Smt. Kausalya said that she could not make the statement in the presence of the respondent and that she would make the statement on the next day in the presence of her father. Sahiram had first denied that he had visited the hospital on 27th and 28th March but when confronted with the entries in the roznamcha he had to admit that he had gone to the hospital on 27th and 28th March to see Smt. Kausalya and had also met the medical jurist but he has denied that Smt. Kausalya was conscious on 27th and 28th March, From the evidence it appears that even though Smt. Kausalya had regained full consciousness on the evening of 27th March, 1972 her statement was not recorded till 30th March 1972, and the explanation that has been offered by the prosecution for not recording the statement of Smt. Kausalya on 28th March, 1972 or on 29th March, 1972 viz., unconsciousness of Smt. Kausalya, cannot be accepted as true. The aforesaid circumstance, i.e. delay in recording the statement of Smt. Kausalya by the police assumes importance because the case of the respondent is that earlier Smt, Kausalya was not willing to implicate the respondent and it was only under pressure from her father that she ultimately agreed to implicate the respondent and there after the statement (Ex. P. 1) was recorded on 30th March 1972 in the presence of Ramditta Ram, the father of Smt. Kausalya. In this regard it may also be pointed out that Smt. Kausalya has stated that even though her statement was not recorded on 29th March 1972 but she had told to the police officer everything which was recorded on the next day in her statement (Ex. P. 1) and that she had also stated that a greenish medicine was administered to her by the respondent. Sahiram P.W. 12 has on the other hand, stated that on 29th March 1972 Smt, Kausalya did not say that the respondent had administered poison to her and that at that time she had only refused to make a statement before the respondent. The aforesaid statement of Sahiram (P.W. 12) finds support from the entry (Ex. P. 14) dated 29th March 1972 in the roznamcha of P. S. Sadar. The said entry records the gist of the conversation between Sahiram and Smt. Kausalya and it does not make any mention of the respondent having given poison to Smt. Kausalya. Ramditta Ram P. W. 2. has also stated that after Smt. Kausalya regained consciousness he had asked her she narrated to him that whole incident. The said entry records the gist of the conversation between Sahiram and Smt. Kausalya and it does not make any mention of the respondent having given poison to Smt. Kausalya. Ramditta Ram P. W. 2. has also stated that after Smt. Kausalya regained consciousness he had asked her she narrated to him that whole incident. During the course of cross examination he has further said t hat on 29th March, 19/2 Smt. Kausalya had told him that she had been administered poison but he has admitted that in spite of the aforesaid statement he did not lodge any report with the police. He was confronted with his statement Ex. D. 3 recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. before the police and the statement Ex. D. 4 recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C. before the Magistrate and he has admitted that in the aforesaid statements he had not stated that Smt. Kausalya had told him that she had been administered poison. This would show that both Smt. Kausalya and Ramditta Ram have falsely tried to show that Smt. Kausalya did not regain consciousness till 29th March, 1972 and that after regaining consciousness on 29th March, 1972 she had disclosed, on the same day, that the respondent had administered poison to her. Further more from the evidence of Sahiram it appears that the only reason why he did not record the statement of Smt. Kausalya on 29th March 1972 was that the respondent was present in the hospital at that time and Smt. Kausalya did not want to make a statement in the presence of the respondent' and she wanted to make the statement in the presence of her father who was not present at that time. From the evidence of Sahiram it further appears that at the time when the statement (Ex. P. l)of Smt. Kausalya was recorded on 30th March, no doctor, nurse or compounder was present and that only Ramdittaram, the father of Smt. Kausalya, was present. The circumstances referred to above, in our opinion, indicate that the statement (Ex. P. I) of Smt. Kausalya was recorded under the influence of her father Ramitta Ram, P. W. 2 and that till 30th March, 1972 Smt. Kausalya did not come out with the story that she had been administered poison by the respondent. In this context it would be relevant to note soon after the statement (Ex. P. I) of Smt. Kausalya was recorded under the influence of her father Ramitta Ram, P. W. 2 and that till 30th March, 1972 Smt. Kausalya did not come out with the story that she had been administered poison by the respondent. In this context it would be relevant to note soon after the statement (Ex. P 1) had been recorded by the police on 30th March, 1972 her statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. was also recorded before the Magistrate on 1st April 1972. There could be no reason for recording the statement of Smt. Kausalya ;.under section 164 Cr. P. C. except to tie her down to her statement (Ex. P. 1) recorded by the police. 12. Apart from these circumstances referred to above, relating to the recording of the statement (Ex. P. 1) there are certain intrinsic features in the said statement which show that no reliance can be placed on the statement of Smt. Kausalya. According to Smt. Kausalya the statement of Smt. Kausalya the respondent use to say that if she would die he would marry again and that 10-15 days before this incident the marriage of the sister of the respondent had been performed and at that time respondent had told her that after the marriage of his sister he would deal with her. Smt. Kausalya has also stated that when she refused to take the milk containing the medicine, the respondent slapped her and had also threatened to kill her and therefore, she took the milk containing the medicine. In our opinion it is highly unlikely that in this background of strained relations in her past Smt. Kausalya would have taken the milk containing the greenish medicine after the respondent had extended threat to kill her and had also slapped her. One would have normally expected that Smt. Kausalya, on being slapped and on being threatened by the respondent would have raised a hue and cry aDd would have complained about it to the parents of the respondent who were present in the house and would not have taken the milk containing the greenish substance. Further more, the evidence of Smt. Kausalya that she was administered a greenish substance with the milk is belied by the medical evidence. According to the medical evidence all that can be said to have been administered to Smt. Kausalya was barbiturate and Dr. Further more, the evidence of Smt. Kausalya that she was administered a greenish substance with the milk is belied by the medical evidence. According to the medical evidence all that can be said to have been administered to Smt. Kausalya was barbiturate and Dr. A. R. Das has stated that barbiturate is a white substance drug which may be in the form of powder or in the shape of tablets. In view of the circumstances referred to above we are in agreement with the finding recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Smt. Kausalya that it was the respondent who had administered poison to her as a result of which she had became unconscious. 13. We may now deal with the circumstantial evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution in support of its case. The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the strained relationship between the respondent and Smt. Kausalya and the threat extended by the respondent to Smt. kausalya that he would deal with her after the marriage of his sister. In this regard the prosecution has examined Smt. Kausalya, her father Ramditta Ram P. W. 2, her brother Shantila P. W. 3, Sunderdas P. W. 4 and Pokhardas P.W. 5. Sunderdas, Ramdittaram and Pokhardas have been examined to show the relations of Smt. Kausalya and the respondent were not good and that 2-4 month prior to the incident Ramditta Ram along with 4-5 persons including Pokhardas and Sunderdas had gone to the house of the respondent and had met the respondent as well as his parents and had complained to them that Smt. kausalya was being ill treated and that the parents of the respondent and the respondent had assured them that there would be no cause for complaint in the future. Smt. Kausalya, Ramditta E.am and Shantilal have sought to prove that 4-5 days prior to the incident Shantilal has visited the house of the respondent and on that time Smt. Kausalya had told him that the respondent had threatened that he would deal with her after the marriage of his sister and that Shantilal after returning home had informed his father Ramditta Ram about this talk and that thereafter Ramditta Ram had come to the house of the respondent on 25th March 1972 in the morning, and met the parents of the respondent and that the parents of the respondent had given an assurance to him that nothing will happen in the future. 14. With regard to the meeting which took place between Ramdittaram, Sunderdas and Pokhardas and Some other persons with the parents of the respondent and the respondent 2-4 months prior to the incident, learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to the various infirmities in the statement of Sunderdas P. W. 4 and Pokhardas P. W. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that the case of the prosecution that the relations between the respondent and Smt. Kausalya were strained Is belied by the statement of Smt. Kausalya who has stated that 25 days prior to the recording of her statement before the trial court on 18th December 1972, She had given birth to a child indicating that Smt. Khusalya was pregnant at the time when the incident had occurred, and the respondent, aid Smt. Kausalya were having a normal sexual relationship. The aforesaid contentions cannot be said to be without substance. We do not consider it necessary to deal with these contentions because even if the evidence adduced by the prosecution, with regard to strained relationship between the respondent and Smt. Kausalya is accepted, the said circumstance viz., strained relations, is a neutral circumstance which is also consistory high the de egan case that Smt. Kausalya had attempted to commit suicide. 15. 15. As regards the threat said to have been extended by the respondent to Smt. Kausalya that he would deal with her after the marriage of his sister had been performed, it may be mentioned that if the said threat had been extended as claimed by Smt. Kausalya and Ramditta Ram, then Ramditta Ram would have certainly lodged a report against the respondent immediately after Smt. Kausalya was admitted in the hospital in an unconscious condition on 26th March. But no such report was lodged by Ramditta Ram on 26th March 1972. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the aforesaid evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to respondent having extended a threat to Smt. Kausalya) a that he would deal with her after the marriage of his sister had been performed. The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution in support of its case is the conduct of the respondent after the incident. In this regard the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of Kishan Chand P.W. 6 who has deposed that he was passing by the house of the respondent at about 5. 30 a.m. on 26th March 1972 and that he heard the respondent and his father talking and when the witness asked the respondent, the respondent told him that he was getting ready to go to the college. During the course of cross examination the said witness has stated that he did not tell about this to anybody. He has also stated that he had an oral talk with the police on the next day but his statement was recorded after 12-13 days. From the evidence of Kishan Chand it does not appear that he has any close relations with the respondent and his family. The respondent might have thought it prudent not to say anything about the unconsciousness of his wife to Kishan Chand, who was an outsider and, therefore, the mere fact that the respondent did not disclose about the unconsciousness of his wife to Kishan Chand on the morning of 26th March 1972, does not indicate, that the respondent was responsible for the unconsciousness of Smt. Kausalya. With regard to the conduct of the respondent it has also been submitted that there was long delay in taking Smt Kausalya to the hospital and further that no steps were taken by the respondent to inform the parents of Smt. Kausalya. With regard to the conduct of the respondent it has also been submitted that there was long delay in taking Smt Kausalya to the hospital and further that no steps were taken by the respondent to inform the parents of Smt. Kausalya. In this connection it may be observed that there is no dispute that it was the respondent who had taken Smt. Kausalya to the hospital and got her admitted in the hospital in the morning of 26th March 1972 at 8 a. m. It cannot be said that there was undue delay in taking Smt. kausalya to the hospital because the house of the respondent is situated in village kalia which is at a distance of about 8 kms from Sri Ganganagar and arrangement had to be made for the transport of Smt. kausalya from kalia to Gangnagar. The respondent in his statement before the committal court has stated that after getting Smt. kausalya admitted in the hospital he arranged for the medicines which were required for her treatment while she was in the hospital. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the medicines for the treatment of Smt. kausalya were arranged by her father Ramditta Ram. In our view the fact that the respondent took steps to bring Smt. Kausalya and got her admitted in the hospital and also made arrangements for the medicines required for her treatment while she was admitted in the hospital is a.conduct which negatives the case of the prosecution that it was the respondent who had administered poison to Smt. Kausalya. If the respondent was the person who had administered poison to Smt. Kausalya he would not have taken steps to bring her to the hospital for treatment because the treatment in the hospital would disclose that poison had been administered to Smt. Kausalya and this would have led to his being implicated in the case. 16. As regards failure on the part of the respondent to inform the father of Smt. Kausalya about her condition it may be observed that Roop Chand, the brother of Ramditta Ram P. W. 2 was employed as a class IV servant in the hospital and that Ramditta ram has stated that he had received information about Smt. Kausalya having been admitted in the hospital from his brother Roop Chand at about 11 a. m. and within 10-15 minutes he reached the hospital. According to Shatilal P.W.3 be had reached the hospital between 11-11-30 a.m. This would show that within 3 to 4 hours of Smt. Kausalya being admitted in the hospital both Ramditta Ram and Shantilal had reached the hospital. In this context it my also be noted that on the morning of 26th March 1972 the condition of Smt. Kausalya was quite serious and at that time the immediate concern of the respondent was that the life of Smt. Kausalya should be saved and for that purpose the respondent may have been busy arranging for the medicines and other treatment for Smt. Kausalya. In our opinion, therefore, the failure on the part of the respondent to inform Ramditta Ram about the condition of Smt. Kausalya after she had been admitted in the hospital till they reached the hospital 3-4 hours is not a circumstance which may lend any assistance to the case of the Prosecution. 17. Reliance had also been placed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the statement (Ex. P. 15) of the respondent recorded before the committal court and it has been submitted that certain portions of the statement lend support to the case of the Prosecution. In this regard the learned Public prosecutor has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Nishi Kant. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1969 S. C. 422) wherein it has been laid down that inculpatory part of the confessional statement can be accepted if the exculpatory portion of the said statement is found to be inherently improbable. We have gone through the statement of the respondent recorded in the committal court and we are unable to find any inculpatory part in the said statement which my lend support to the case of the Prosecution. 18. The only circumstance that remains to be considered is the letter (Ex.P.2), which was produced by the respondent at the time of his arrest on 6th April 1972. The said letter is admittedly written by Smt. Kausalya and bears her signatures. It does not bear any date. The contents of the said letter would show that Smt. Kausalya suffered from a guilt complex and she wanted to commit suicide. According to the respondent the said letter was found under the pillow of Smt. Kausalya. The said letter is admittedly written by Smt. Kausalya and bears her signatures. It does not bear any date. The contents of the said letter would show that Smt. Kausalya suffered from a guilt complex and she wanted to commit suicide. According to the respondent the said letter was found under the pillow of Smt. Kausalya. The explanation that has been offered by Smt. Kausalya for this letter is that she had written it under the dentation of the respondent at the time when the respondent was studying at Jaipur and that the respondent had told her that the said letter was being written on behalf of the ailing wife of his friend. Smt. Kausalya has further stated that two days after the letter had been written the respondent had obtained her signatures on it at two places. During the course of cross examination Smt. Kausalya has stated that one or two days after she had put her signatures on the letter, (Ex. P, 2) the respondent went to Jaipur. She has also stated that she did not ask the respondent as to why he was asking her to write such letter if the wife of his friend was ill. She has also said that she did not enquire from the respondent the particulars of his friend and his wife and she did not ask him later as to what happened to the letter. The Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the explanation offered by Smt. Kausalya for writing the letter Ex. P. 2 and putting the signatures on the said letter was unbelievable. The learned Public Prosecutor has challenged the afore said finding and has submitted that the aforesaid explanation given by Smt. Kausalya must be accepted. In this regard the learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the said letter does not bear any date and further that the ink of the signatures on the said letter differs from the ink of the contents of the letter which indicates that the signatures were not put at the same time when the letter had been written. After having considered the letter as well as the reasons given by the addl. After having considered the letter as well as the reasons given by the addl. Sessions Judge for rejecting the explanation offered by Smt. Kausalya for writing the letter and putting the signatures on it we are in agreement with the finding recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge that the explanation offered by Smt. Kausalya for writing the letter Ex. P. 2 cannot be accepted as true. 19. Another contention that has been urged by the learned Public Prosecutor with regard to the letter Ex. P. 2 is that the respondent did not produce the said letter before the police till 6th April, 1972 which shows that there was undue delay on the part of the respondent in the production of the said letter. The respondent in his statement has explained that he did not produce the letter earlier for the reason that the production of the said letter would have involved Smt. Kausalya in a criminal case for having attempted to commit suicide and he did not want her to be involved in a criminal case and that after Smt. Kausalya had made the statement dated 30th March 1972 implicating him, he produced the said letter when the police decided to proceed against him and arrested him on 6th April 1972. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid explanation given by the respondent for not producing the letter till 6th April is a reasonable explanation and no inference can be drawn against the respondent for non-production of the letter during the period from 26th March to 6th April, 1972. 20. On a consideration of the circumstantial evidence that have been produced by the prosecution we are of the view that the circumstances sought to be relied upon by the prosecution do not advance the case of the prosecution. It must, therefore, be concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, its case that it was the respondent who had administered poison (barbiturate) to Smt. Kausalya and no ground is made out for interference with the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent of the offence under section 307 I.P.C. 21. The appeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******