JUDGMENT M.M. Lal, J. - This is an appeal against a judgment and order dated 10-2-1978 passed by Sri Ramji Lal, the then I Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah by which he has convicted all the four appellants under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code and has sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Smt. Rani Devi was the daughter of PW 2 Parshadi Lal complainant and was married to Ram Khilari appellant. Kripal Singh appellant is the elder brother of Ram Khilari appellant. Smt. Joja alias Chameli appellant is the wife of said Kripal Singh appellant. Smt. Jethi alias Bataso appellant is the mother of Ram Khilari and Kripal Singh appellants. 2. The marriage of Smt. Rani Devi with Ram Khilari appellant took place in the month of April 1974. It is said that even at the time of the marriage a dispute had occurred on the question of dowry but some how the matter was settled at that time. However, Smt. Rani Devi was not treated well by her in-laws and in the month of September 1974 her husband Ram Khilari appellant came to Etah and left her at the house of her father Parshadi Lal complainant. During her stay Smt. Rani Devi deceased told her father that she was being harassed by her husband, who had illicit relations with another girl named Mithlesh Kumari, daughter of Master lshwari Prasad, studying at Jalesar. Smt. Rani Devi stayed with her parents for about five months but during the said period none came to fetch her from the side of her in-laws. Ultimately in the month of February 1975 Parshadi Lal complainant, along with some of his relatives, went to village Pasiapur, where the appellants were residing, and collected a panchayat, where the appellants agreed not to harass Smt. Rani Devi in future and also promised to bring Smt. Rani Devi to their house. In persuance of the same Smt. Rani Devi was taken to her in-laws, place in February 1975. However, shortly thereafter Parshadi Lal complainant received a letter dated 19-2-1975 from Ram Khilari appellant to the effect that he was not prepared to keep Smt. Rani Devi in the house and that he would marry the daughter of Master lshwari Prasad and that therefore, he should take away Smt. Rani Devi because otherwise he would not be responsible for her life. Subsequently Parshadi Lal complainant received a letter from his daughter, i.e. Smt. Rani Devi, in which she also wrote that her husband wanted to marry the afore- said Mithlesh Kumari that her life was in danger and that she should, there- fore, be taken away. 3. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 18-3-1975 one Shanti came to the house of the complainant to inform that the condition of Smt. Rani Devi was serious on which Parshadi Lal complainant, along with his brother-in-law Sri Har Prasad PW 8, went to village Pasiapur where they found Sint. Rani Devi lying gravely ill. At that time Smt. Rani Devi informed her father about her ill treatment and the giving of poison to her by the appellants. Parshadi Lai complainant and Har Prasad PW 8 requested the appellants to call a doctor but to no avail. Smt. Rani Devi expired on 19-3-1975 at 5.30 p m. Parshadi Lal PW 2 then went to Police Station Jalesar where he lodged the report of the incident on 20-3-1975 in the morning. When the police did not take any action Parshadi Lal PW 2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah on 14-7-1975, on which this case started. 4. In support of its case the prosecution examined PW 2 Parshadi Lal and his brother-in-law PW 8 Har Prasad who deposed about the harassment of Smt. Rani Devi, receipt of letters and their visit to the house of the appellants to find Mani Devi lying ill and her subsequent death etc. PW I Sheo Swarup Kulshrestha is the clerk in the office of Supdt. of District Hospital, Etah and PW 6 K.P. Singh Yadav is the then compounder of the Police Hospital, Etah. They deposed about the sending of the viscera to the Chemical Examiner. PW 3 Sadhu Ram was examined to depose that Ram Khilari appellant had once come to him to get the letter written from him. PW 4 constable Ramvir Singh bad taken the dead body of Smt. Rani Devi for post-mortem examination. PW 5 Mahesh Prakash, a court reader, was a formal witness. PW 7 Brahma Sharkar Saxena deposed about the performance of the marriage of Smt. Rani Devi with Ram Khilari appellant and some dispute about the dowry at that time. PW 4 constable Ramvir Singh bad taken the dead body of Smt. Rani Devi for post-mortem examination. PW 5 Mahesh Prakash, a court reader, was a formal witness. PW 7 Brahma Sharkar Saxena deposed about the performance of the marriage of Smt. Rani Devi with Ram Khilari appellant and some dispute about the dowry at that time. PW 9 Siya Ram Gangwar was examined to pove the panchanama of the dead body of Smt. Rani Devi prepared by the Gauri Shankar S.I. The vishera was sent for chemical examination and the Chemcial Examiner on chemical examination found poison of Zinc Phosphide in the same. 5. The appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. denied the case of the prosecution. Ram Khilari appellant further stated that the appellants were residing separately, that they had sent Shanti to the house of the complainant on 18-3-1975, that on 18-3-1975 Parshadi Lal and Har Prasad had come to their place, that Smt. Rani Devi had fallen iil and that she was treated. He further stated that both he and Parsadi Lal had gone to call the doctor. The appellants, however, did not produce any evidence in defence. Learned Sessions Judge has believed case setup and the evidence produced by the prosecution and has accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same the appellants have filed this appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the State and have perused the record carefully. 6. It is not in dispute in this case that Suit. Rani Devi daughter of Parshadi Lai complainant, was married to Ram Khilari appellant No. 1 in the month of April 1974 and that having become critically ill she expired on the evening of 19-3-1975 at the house of the appellants. As Dr. S.N. Bhatnagar Dy. C.M,O. PW 10 could not determine the cause of death at the time of conducting the post mortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Rani Devi, hence be had preserved her viscera. The said viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner. The report of the Chemical Examiner shows that on chemical examination poison of Zinc Phosphide was found in the said viscera. It is thus established in this case that the death of Smt. Rani Devi took place due to poison. The said viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner. The report of the Chemical Examiner shows that on chemical examination poison of Zinc Phosphide was found in the said viscera. It is thus established in this case that the death of Smt. Rani Devi took place due to poison. It is not a case of direct evidence, where any one may have seen the appellants administering the poison to Smt. Rani Devi. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. It has to be determined as to whether the circumstances in this case prove the guilt of the appellants. Two strong pieces of circumstantial evidence which have been relied upon by the trial court are firstly a letter (Ex ka 6) of Smt. Rani Devi deceased, which she was alleged to have written to her father a few days prior to this incident, and secondly is the conversation which Parshadi Lal complainant had with the deceased when she was lying on death bed. As regards the letter Ex ka 6, it is written in the same that Ram Khilari appellant wanted to marry Mithiesh Kumari and that the appellants were bent upon to kill Smt. Rani Devi and that, therefore, if she was desired to be seen alive, she should be taken away. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that the said letter was not a genuine letter written by Suit. Rani Devi and that the said letter had been prepared for the purposes of this case only. The said argument does not appear to be without substance. The fact that the said letter was originally not in possession of the complainant is borne out from two circumstances; firstly, that the said letter had not been handed over by the complainant to the police after he had lodged the report of the incident. Secondly, there was a reference to illicit relations between Ram Khilari appellant and Mithlesh Kumari and had the said letter been in possession of the complainant, then he would have made reference to the said illicit relations in his first information report. Therefore, we find it difficult to place reliance upon the said letter. 7. Second important circumstance on which the learned trial court has placed reliance is the utterances which Smt. Rani Devi had made to her father when she was lying on death bed on the night of 18/19-3-1975. Therefore, we find it difficult to place reliance upon the said letter. 7. Second important circumstance on which the learned trial court has placed reliance is the utterances which Smt. Rani Devi had made to her father when she was lying on death bed on the night of 18/19-3-1975. It is said that it was at that time that Smt. Rani Devi deceased had told about the poison given to her and the hand of the appellants in the same. The evidence of PW 2 Parshadi Lal complainant with respect to the same is not consistent and therefore, we find it difficult to place any reliance upon it. In parall of his complaint Parshadi Lal stated that at that time her daughter had told him that it appeared to her that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, which meant Smt. Jethi alias Bataso appellant No. 3 and Smt. Joja alias Chameli appellant No. 4, had given her something in food on account of which she would now not recover. As against the same complainant stated in his F.I.R. that she had told him that it appeared to her that she had been made to eat some such thing which had made her condition bad. It may be noted that in the F.I.R. name of any appellant having administered any poison was not disclosed. As against the same in his Examination-in-Chief Parshadi Lal PW 2 deposed that at that time her daughter had told him that the accused persons (which means all of them) had given her some poison in the food. When Parshadi Lal PW 2 has cross examined he deposed that her daughter had told him that firstly, she was beaten, then her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had prepared food, that something was mixed in the said food and that in the same there was a consent of all the appellants. These different versions about the words spoken by Smt. Rani Devi show that probably Smt. Rani Devi was either too ill to speak anything or she had not told any such thing to her father. These different versions about the words spoken by Smt. Rani Devi show that probably Smt. Rani Devi was either too ill to speak anything or she had not told any such thing to her father. PW 8 Har Prasad who had accompanied the complainant had stated in para 4 of his evidence that both of them had reached village Pasiapur at about 8 in the night PW 2 Parshadi Lal in an unguarded moment has stated in para 15 of his evidence that whole of the night Smt. Rani Devi was lying unconscious and crying and that from 5 in the morning of 19-3-1975 Smt. Rani Devi became speechless. In our view if the complainant and Har Prasad PW 8 had reached at about 8 in the night and during the night Smt. Rani Devi remained unconscious and thereafter she became speechless, there was no occasion for her to make any disclosure or utterance to the complainant etc. Therefore, it is not proved in this case that prior to her death Smt. Rani Devi had told to her father etc. that she had been poisoned by the appellants or any of them. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that in this case of death by poison there were two possibilities : - One of ad- ministering poison to Smt. Rani Devi by someone and second of Smt. Rani Devi taking the poison herself due to frustration in married life. In our view in the case of murder by poison it is very relevant to determine as to whether the accused person was in possession of the poison and in case no evidence is lad on the point that the accused persons had poison in their possession at the relevant time, the case of the prosecution would become highly doubtful. In this respect reliance is placed upon AIR 1984 SC 1622 -Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra where it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the cases of murder by administration of poison the court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction ; (1) there is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased. (2) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered. (3) that the accused had the poison in his possession. (2) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered. (3) that the accused had the poison in his possession. (4) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. Relying upon the same we are of the opinion that when in this case it has not been proved that the appellants or any of them had poison in their possession, their guilt cannot be made out. There are also two other circumstances which favour the appellants and go against the prosecution. Firstly, it may be observed that when the condition of Smt. Rani Devi became bad, the appellants had sent one Shanti to the village of the complainant to give the information to him regarding the condition of Smt. Rani Devi. Although PW 2 Parshadi Lal informant had deposed that it was only to save his own skin that Shanti had come to his village to give him the aforesaid information on 18-3-1985 yet his said assumption is without basis. In our view if Shanti had conspired along with the appellants to administer poison to Smt. Rani Devi he would have been last person to go to Parshadi Lal even before Smt. Rani Devi had expired. The appellants on their part had stated that they had sent Shanti to the complainant. In our view the fact that Shanti had come to the complainant to give information regarding the illness of Smt. Rani Devi shows that the conduct of the appellants was fair because otherwise their would not have sent Shanti at that time to the complainant but on the other hand would have waited till her death. Secondly, it has come on record that the appellants had not burnt the dead body of Smt. Rani Devi soon after her death. Although PW 2 Parshadi Lal had tried to depose that by making some excuse or other he had prevented the appellants from burning the dead body of Smt. Rani Devi yet we are of the opinion that had the appellants so desired, they would have quickly burnt the dead body of Smt. Rani Devi especially after the complainant had left the village. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the State has, however, urged before us that the facts that the death of Smt. Rani Devi had occurred within one year of her marriage, that there was some dispute regarding dowry and that the married life of Smt. Rani Devi was not happy lead to the conclusion that they were the appellants who had administered poison to her and had taken her life. In our opinion in a case of circumstantial evidence the said circumstances alone cannot go so far as to make out the guilt of the appellants. To sum up, we are of the opinion that when in this case the genuineness of the letter Ex. Ka 6 alleged to have been written by Smt. Rani Devi a few days prior to the incident is doubtful and also when it is difficult to believe the prosecution evidence that immediately before her death Smt. Rani Devi had named the appellants or any of them having administered poison to her, the case of the prosecution against the appellants or any of them is not made out specially when there is no evidence that the appellants were at any time in possession of any poison, when soon after condition of Smt. Rani Devi became serious they had sent a word to her father and also when the appellants had not taken steps to burn her dead body immediately after her death. The case of the prosecution against the appellants or any of the appellants is thus not made out beyond reasonable doubt. 10. Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the convictions and sentences of the appellants under Sections 302/34 [PC are set aside. They are held not guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and they are accordingly acquitted thereof. They are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds, which, hereby stand discharged.