JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.-~By this appeal, the accused has challenged his conviction by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1987 decided on £-2-1988 whereby the accused was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. 2 The facts, in brief, are that the accused was married to Sudarshana. Shri Durga Singh, her father, informed the police telephonically on 17-4-J987 at 3.20 p. m. that his daughter Sudarshana, married to Jeet Singh accused of Lahar, died at the house of her in-laws at 5.00 a. m. so immediate action may be taken by visiting the spot. On receiving this information, the Station House Officer Shri Kashmir Singh conducted inquest proceedings and found that the mother-in-law (Bhago Devi) and sister-in-law (Rekha) of the deceased used to taunt and tease her. She was also blamed for taking away house-hold articles to her parents. The accused, who was in the Army, also mis-behaved with the deceased at the instance of his mother and sister. On 16-4-1987, the deceased was hale and healthy. She did normal work in the fields and went to sleep after taking her meals. After mid-night at about 5.00 a. m. she complained heart pain. The family members were ready to call for the Doctor or Vaid, but in the meantime, she died. It was also observed that there were no visible marks of violence on her body except a black round mark on the neck. The cause of death not known nor there was any rumour in the public that the death had been caused due to violence or poisoning. However, the Investigating Officer found the circumstances leading to her death to be of doubtful nature. 3. Consequently, the body was subjected to post-mortem examination by a team of Doctors, namely, Dr. P. C. Gupta, Dr. N. K. Sharma and Dr. Mrs. S. Patyal on 18-4-1987. Their opinion was that the deceased died of asphyxia due to suffocation caused by smothering and/or internal airway obstruction. The Viscera was preserved, packed and sealed. It was sent to the Chemical Examiner. 4. P. C. Gupta, Dr. N. K. Sharma and Dr. Mrs. S. Patyal on 18-4-1987. Their opinion was that the deceased died of asphyxia due to suffocation caused by smothering and/or internal airway obstruction. The Viscera was preserved, packed and sealed. It was sent to the Chemical Examiner. 4. On 20-4-1987, the medical report was received and formal First Information Report was recorded by the police at 7.30 p.m. The accused was arrested on 2 i-4-1987 and while in police custody, he made disclosure statement in the presence of Jaswant Singh, Ramesh Chand and Santosh Singh, which ultimately led to the recovery of poison, Towel, Vest, Steel Kauli, Steel Tumbler and crushed Misri. These articles were taken into possession. They were duly packed and sealed and meraos duly prepared. On completion of investigation, the prosecution preferred the challan against the accused alongwith his mother and sister. However, mother and sister were discharged by the trial Court thereby leaving only the accused to face the charge against him. 5. In his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused admitted his marriage with the deceased. He denied not only the presence of white patch marks on the chest of the deceased but also the allegation that the deceased used to be teased and taunted on that account by any of the family members including himself. He further explains that the deceased had been taken by her father about 7-8 months prior to her death for treatment and she had joined his family after the treatment. He has also admitted that during the time of incident he was at home, availing his annual leave from the Army and that the deceased harvested wheat crop alongwith his father Mahantu and uncle Nikku on the day prior to her death. He also admits that on 17-4-1987 at about 6.15 a. m. Santosh Singh came to know about her death and found the dead body of the deceased lying in the Overt He states that Kartar Singh and Surinder Pal were sent to the house of his father-in-law Durga Singh by his father and not by Santosh Singh; He has disputed the correctness of Doctors report as to the cause of trie death of the deceased. Disclosure statement as well as the recoveries made consequent upon the same, have been denied. Disclosure statement as well as the recoveries made consequent upon the same, have been denied. It is also denied that he had shared Overt with his wife. According to him, on the night of the incident the deceased had slept in the Overi and he had slept in the outer room Oan Finally, he states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated He has also examined Dr. C Madhav Rao, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicines Indira Gandhi Medical College, Simla in his defence. 6. Prosecution also alleges motive for the commission of the crime It says that the deceased was subjected to ma 1-treatment by the accused his mother and his sister since she was suffering from Leprosy Besides he was suspecting her fedality According to Durga Singh (PW 2) the deceased had white patch mark on her chest and she used to be taunted on this account. He had taken her for treatment 7-8 months prior to her death and after recovery, the deceased was left at the house of the accused It is also stated that the accused was not happy with the deceased since she used to move about without permission Certain Contraceptives recovered through Memo Ex. PK show that they had been kept be her for the purposes of herrelationship with someone other than the accused since no child had been born out of the wedlock by this time, although marriage had taken place 3-1/2 years ago. 7. The prosecution has also seized and produced letters dated 77 19 1986, 13-2-1987, 16-2-1986 and 1 3-1987 (Ex. PF/1 to PF/4) taken in possession vide memo. (Ex. PF) in the presence of Santosh Singh These letters have been admitted by the accused. These letters, according to the prosecution, demonstrate that the accused was not satisfied with the conduct of his wife and was of the opinion that her activities were damaging the image of his family. 8. Although, it is not always necessary for the prosecution to prove motive in a criminal trial, however, this is one of such cases where motive is essential in case the prosecution wants to succeed in its endeavours to prove the case against the accused But, we are not convinced with this kind of motive. 8. Although, it is not always necessary for the prosecution to prove motive in a criminal trial, however, this is one of such cases where motive is essential in case the prosecution wants to succeed in its endeavours to prove the case against the accused But, we are not convinced with this kind of motive. These factors, narrated by the prosecution, are too trivial to be taken note of to establish it They are thoroughly insignificant and do not, in any way, indicate that they could influence the accused to the extent that he would take the extreme step of killing his wife, Recovery of contraceptives does not establish that they were meant to be used with some one other than the accused There is no evidence of her outside relationship Further, there is also no evidence to show that they were not intended to be used with the accused. This fact, pressed to service, by the prosecution is just nothing. Similarly, the fact that she used to be taunted and teased by the family members for the white patch on her body is equally without substance and is, therefore, thoroughly baseless- We have gone through the contents of the letters. They do not show that the accused did not have any quite relations with the deceased. These are normal communications and the contents of these letters do not show any prejudice, or ill-will against the deceased. They are advisory in nature. Particular reference to letter (Ex. PF/I) will show that the accused wanted to take her to live with him for a few days since there was less work at home arid during those days he had the facility of residential accommodation also. The result is, motive part of the prosecution case is not at all convincing and is, therefore, rejected. Let the disclosure statement and recoveries made as a sequel to the same be examined now. According to the prosecution, the accused made disclosure statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act in the presence of Santosh Singh (PW 3), Jaswant Singh (PW 7) and Ramesh Chand (PW 8). Santosh Singh (PW 3) has stated that the accused had not made any disclosure statement in their presence. He has been subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution on being declared hostile at its request and refers to the recoveries made from various places. Santosh Singh (PW 3) has stated that the accused had not made any disclosure statement in their presence. He has been subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution on being declared hostile at its request and refers to the recoveries made from various places. However, during the cross-examination, he stated that the statement of the accused was not voluntary. He did so when he was pressurised and threatened by the police. He states that Lakola (Ventilator) of Cow Shed was without any covering and was open sort of a hole in the wall without any shutters. Towel piece and vest were recovered from the common place where the accused and his uncles throw waste material. Steel tumbler was taken out from Almirah where other utensils were also kept. The Almirah contained house-hold articles including sugar. Bottle (Ex P-5) was concealed near the tree root and covered under bushes That place is used by the family members of the accused exclusively. He further admits that bottle of insecticide was not concealed under the earth. Although, Jaswant Singh (PW 7) and Ramesh Chand (PW 8) have been relied upon by the prosecution to prove these recovers, however, in view of the statement of Santosh Singh (PW 3), their statements have suffered, quite a serious dent. Thus, making the recoveries doubtful. There is no doubt that these places are open and accessible to others These witnesses have also admitted that Lakola is open and visible. They have deviation from the statement of Santosh Singh (PW 3) that the bottle (Ex P-5) was taken by saying that it was taken from tobacco bushes. Jaswant Singh (PW 7) has stated that he could not say whether it was from under the earth. The Almirah from which the steel glass (Ex. P-9) and Misri (Ex. P-10) were taken, is also in an open place whe e other articles are also kept and used by other members of the family. Similar is the position relating to the tin containing Sugar lying in the said Almirah. Almost similar is the version of Ramesh Chand (PW-8). While giving answer to question No. 17, under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused states that the so called disclosure statement was wrong, it was the result of torture by the police and his signatures were obtained by force. Almost similar is the version of Ramesh Chand (PW-8). While giving answer to question No. 17, under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused states that the so called disclosure statement was wrong, it was the result of torture by the police and his signatures were obtained by force. This explanation cannot be considered without any substance in the facts and circumstances of this case, looking to the nature and mode of recoveries in this case. There is no evidence worth reliable to show that the accused not only collected these articles from the kitchen but also kept them at separate places after utilising them. He could have taken enough time in collecting and disposing them at places shown by the prosecution but he was not detected by anyone during all this time. It is just not possible to comprehend that neither any other member of the family nor the deceased could know all this. She could have come to know about it in case it is established that he was sleeping in the same room in which the deceased was sleeping. She could have known all this and protested. This factor rather indicates that the accused was not sleeping in her room and did not know that the deceased had been doing. It is the work of only person who can be none other than the deceased in this case. Recoveries effected in this case, therefore, are not fair and genuine. They are doubtful, exaggerated and manipulated. 9. Now, the medical evidence in this case may be seen As already observed, the post-mortem examination in this case was undertaken by three Doctors. They say that the deceased died on account of Asphyxia due to suffocation caused by smothering and/or internal airway obstruction. Dr S. Patial has stated that it was her first autopsy. She simply assisted Dr. P. C. Gupta (PW 5) in this examination According to her, poison itself could cause death by asphyxia She states that the injuries on the person of the deceased were caused by some weapon. Organo Phosphorus compound is normally used in committing suicide or it can be administered forcibly. Dr. P. C. Gupta (PW 5), in his statement mentioned the following injuries on the body of the deceased :— 1. Three bruises 1/4" x 1/4" each on left upper nasolabial area. 2. Organo Phosphorus compound is normally used in committing suicide or it can be administered forcibly. Dr. P. C. Gupta (PW 5), in his statement mentioned the following injuries on the body of the deceased :— 1. Three bruises 1/4" x 1/4" each on left upper nasolabial area. 2. Three bruises 1/4" X 1/4" each on left side just below the angle of mouth. 3. A semi-circular and curved bruise 1.5" X 1/2" obliquely placed along the face extending between right molar bone to right angle of mouth. 4. Four bruises 1/4" X l/4f each on right side just below and lateral to angle of mouth. 5. Multiple linear abrasion looking like scratch marks were present over dorsum of hands and fore-arms, varying in size from pin head to 3" in length. 6. Five bruises were present on lateral aspect of right thigh, measuring 1/2" X 1/4" each. 7. Two bruises 1/2" x 1/4" were present on the anterior aspect of left leg. 8. Linear bluish discolouration on right iliac fossa along the inguinal ligament. 10. Probable time that elapsed between the injury and the death was Jess than two hours and between the death and post-mortem less than 48 hours. The Chemical Examiners report No. 931-P dated 3-9-1987 relating to contents of Exs. 1, 2 and 3 gave positive test for halogenated Organic Phosphorous compound group insecticide, whereas Ex 4 gave negative test for the same and positive for salinte. According to him, it is possible that the injuries described against mouth and Pharynx could be caused by smothering. Injuries described under external appearance could be caused due to smothering and struggle. Internal Airway obstruction could be caused due to the inhalation of vomitus, could be due to smothering. 11. In cross-examination, he states that inhalation of the poisonous matter in the internal Airway passage could cause asphyxia and death. Organo Phosphorous poison is used for suicidal as well as homicidal purposes. It is pungent in taste but can be administered and swallowed if the person administering is bent upon to do so and/or person taking has intention to take it. He can be administered forcibly and signs of struggle could be present. Dr. N. K. Sharma (PW 6) admits that poison given in fatal doze causes death by asphyxia. It is pungent in taste but can be administered and swallowed if the person administering is bent upon to do so and/or person taking has intention to take it. He can be administered forcibly and signs of struggle could be present. Dr. N. K. Sharma (PW 6) admits that poison given in fatal doze causes death by asphyxia. He also admits that it is not easily possible to administer Organo Phosphorous poison to a healthy person as it is pungent. 12. On the other hand Dr. C. Madhav Rao, State Medico Expert Professor and Head of Department of Forensic Medicines, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Simla, while appearing in defence of the accused, has stated that after going through the original post-mortem report (Ex. PB), the Inquest report (Ex. PC) and Chemical Examiners report (Ex. PZ), smothering causes death within one or two minutes or maximum of five minutes. Sometimes, it may kill instantaneously. He admits that the colour of injury No. 8 was recorded as bluish and that some colour changes take place in injuries with the passage of time. Injury becomes blue after few hours. It may be possible that injury No 8 and smothering may not be simultaneous because age of this injury was not specifically recorded and also the interval between the injury and death was recorded as less than two hours, which is not consistent with smothering. 13. Organo Phosphorus compound being pungent and unpleasant smell like kerosine is difficult to administer it to healthy adult deceitfully, though it may be administered sometimes by mixing with other substances like Alcohol, to minimise its smell. He has doubted whether the Doctors who conducted the autopsy had considered all the aspects including the age of injuries and time taken to cause death before writing the report, although he admits that Laceration of inner surface of lip is an indication of struggle including smothering, but admits that every cause of death has its own distinct features. He has not ruled out the possibility of injury around the mouth in a case of poisoning, if the administration is by force. In answer of the question by the Court, that if injury No. 8 is separated in point of time whether other injuries indicate death by poisoning, he states that this could be possible provided the other injuries were all fresh at the time of death. In answer of the question by the Court, that if injury No. 8 is separated in point of time whether other injuries indicate death by poisoning, he states that this could be possible provided the other injuries were all fresh at the time of death. But in the present case, after going through the Chemical Examiners report, his opinion was that the poison was responsible for the death rather than smothering. Further, in his opinion, it will be correct to assume death by poison. The strongest argument pressed by the prosecution in this case is that the accused administered the poison by force. Medical opinion on this aspect is divergent. It appears from the statement of Prof. C. Madhav Rao (DW 1) that the Doctors who conducted the post-mortem examination did not carefully see the respective ages of the injuries. It was vital for the determination of the prosecution version of the case that these injuries were the result of forcible administration of poison to the deceased by the accused. Going through the report of Prof. C. Madhav Rao (DW 1), it is a death by poisoning rather than smothering. Injuries pointed out by the Doctors who conducted the post-mortem examination have been linked with force that found existing by the accused against the deceased. The accused, in these circumstances, is exonerated for causing the injuries. It cannot be ruled out that these could be caused only by the accused by administering the poison. It may be that the deceased may have gulped sufficient quantity of the poison and while vomiting out, some part of it tried to press her mouth to prevent the poisonous substance coming out and secondly, it may not have been a painless and struggleness death obviously, she may have moved her limbs and struggled before she died. The possibility of presence of the accused in the room of the deceased for administering the poison has already been ruled out for reasons already given in the preceding part of the judgment. Secondly, he was sleeping in different accommodation. The possibility of presence of the accused in the room of the deceased for administering the poison has already been ruled out for reasons already given in the preceding part of the judgment. Secondly, he was sleeping in different accommodation. Thirdly, Birbal (PW i 0), whose house is adjoining to the house of the accused with a common courtyard could have noticed something of this incident when he could very well notice, as he states, that the accused had slept alongwith his wife inside the Oven, although on that fact also, his latter version is that he had not gone to verify that the accused had slept with his wife inside the room. 14. At this stage, it is helpful to quote para 163 and 164 of AIR 1984 SC 1622, Sharad Birdhichand Sardad v. State of Maharashtra 2— "163. We now come to the mode and manner of proof of cases of murder by administration of poison. In Ramgopal’s case AIR 1972 SC 656, (supra) this Court held thus (at p. 659):— "three questions arise in such cases namely (firstly), did the deceased die of the poison in question ? (secondly), he the accused the poison in question in his possession ? and (thirdly), had the accused an opportunity to administer the poison in question to the deceased ? It is only when the . motive is there and these facts are all proved that the Court may be able to draw the interference, that the poison was administered by the accused to the deceased resulting his death." 164. So far as this matter is concerned, in such cases 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, 4. that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased," 15. Examined with reference to these principles, the prosecution has failed to prove first, third and fourth points out of the four in the present case. In such a situation, it is difficult to conclude from the evidence of the prosecution that it was the accused who was responsible for the com mission of the crime. Examined with reference to these principles, the prosecution has failed to prove first, third and fourth points out of the four in the present case. In such a situation, it is difficult to conclude from the evidence of the prosecution that it was the accused who was responsible for the com mission of the crime. We were then requested to examine the conduct of the accused. On this aspect also, the learned Counsel for the State failed to convince us that the conduct of the accused prior or subsequent to the commission of the crime was some-way blameworthy. We have already examined the motive from various aspects and found nothing. Necessary information to the police by the father of the deceased did not say any thing against the accused. The Inquest report did not record anything against him, although something could be gathered by the police during this course. There was neither a rumour nor whisper against him ; rather it appears that the deceased complained pain in the heart and the family members wanted to seek the services of Doctor or Vaid. The accused was weeping at the incident. Further it is also in evidence that the parents of the deceased were informed at the instance of the accused and his father and their bus fare was also met by the father of the accused. In light of the evidence that has come on the record of this case, it may be said that the deceased died of poison but it is difficult to conclude that the death was homicidal. As a matter of fact, it appears that it is a case of suicide for which the accused cannot be held to be responsible. 16. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is merit in this appeal and the same is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. In case he is in jail, he be set free forthwith. Appeal allowed.