JUDGMENT 1. - This is a case of wife administering poison to her husband on account of which he died. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, who tried the appellant has found her guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months in case of default in the payment of fine. Against this conviction and sentence made on 23rd August, 1993, the appellant has preferred this appeal through jail. 2. The deceased husband of the appellant is Ram Hans. He was admitted to the Government Hospital at Nadoti where he gave his statement to the doctor on 7th January, 1991 at 5.00 a.m. He stated that on the previous night his wife Kampuri gave him food consisting of Bajra Roti and Gur. He ate it and after a while he started feeling uneasy and he told and abused his wife that she had given him poison in the Roti. Then Ram Khiladi, Jagram and Bharosi took him in a camel cart and brought to the hospital for treatment. He specifically stated that his wife had poisoned him. The statement was sent to the police station Nadoti where a case was registered. Rain Hans died at about 8.10 a.m. His viscera were preserved and also stomach wash and the substance vomited by him. These were sent for chemical examination and were found positive for the presence of Aluminium Phosphide. Besides the statement of Ram Hans made before the Doctor, which can be said to he in the nature of dying declaration, there are other witnesses who have stated that the deceased told them that his wife had given him poison in the food. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had relied upon the dying declaration of the deceased and also the statements of the witnesses in whose presence the deceased stated that his wife has poisoned for arriving at the conclusion of the guilty of the accused. Besides this, there is one affidavit Ex.P. 19 sworn and verified by the accused in which there is admission of her guilt. 4. Besides this, there is one affidavit Ex.P. 19 sworn and verified by the accused in which there is admission of her guilt. 4. The learned Amicus Curiae pointed out in the case first of all the principles which govern the cases of death by poison and relying upon Sharad v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 ) stated that four circumstances are to be considered in a case of administration of poison and the court must carefully appreciate the evidence in this connection. These four circumstances are (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. In State v. Fateh Bahadur and others, AIR 1958 All. 1 ) it has been stated that in a case of arsenic poison it has to be proved that a lethal does of arsenic, that is, two grains or upwards had been administered. The admissibility of the report of the F.S.L. has also been challenged. It is pointed out that under section 293 Cr.P.C. the reports made by the Government Scientific experts are admissible. However, it is contended that under Section 51 of the Evidence Act, the grounds on which the opinion is based are relevant and the Expert has to give the kind of experiments for purposes of arriving at his opinion. According to him, the tests performed by the expert have not been disclosed and the opinion cannot be said to be accepted. 5. As far as the report of the F.S.L. is concerned, we may say that it may be used in evidence under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and if the basis of the report is considered necessary then the expert can be summoned before the court for clarification and cross-examination so that the matter may be clear. The tests which are performed for purposes of arriving at his opinion are relevant and can be considered if the same are disclosed. Under Section 293 Cr.P.C. the report would not become inadmissible merely because, the tests performed have not been mentioned. The tests which are performed for purposes of arriving at his opinion are relevant and can be considered if the same are disclosed. Under Section 293 Cr.P.C. the report would not become inadmissible merely because, the tests performed have not been mentioned. If the accused had applied or the court had considered it proper, it could have summoned and examined the expert but no such doubt was suggested or found at the time, the report was received in evidence and even if today the appellant can satisfy that the conclusion requires further clarification then we can call the expert but in our opinion when the finding is clear and the presence of Aluminium Phosphide is positive in all pieces which were sent for test then we do not consider it necessary to call the expert. 6. We have to first of all find out what was the motive on account of which the appellant wanted to eliminate her husband. When we come to this question the answer is not there. The deceased Ram Hans again and again said that his wife has poisoned him but he never gave out as to why would she poisoned him. In the prosecution evidence it has come out that P.W. 1 Bharosi, P.W. 5 Ram Khilari and P.W. 6 Jagram were the persons who had taken Ram Hans to the hospital and all three of them have signed Ex.P. 1 which is dying declaration recorded by the Doctor. It is surprising that out of 100 persons who had collected at the house of Ram Hans these three persons, who were involved in a case for the abduction of the appellant Kampuri were the persons who accompanied the deceased and were present at the time his statement was recorded. P.W. 6 Jagram has even denied his presence at the time the statement Ex.P .1 was given by the deceased. A look at the statement Ex.P. 1' also shows that some space has been left after the matter and the signatures and thumb impression which are obtained after leaving some blank space. This makes the document suspicious. P.W. 6 Jagram has even denied his presence at the time the statement Ex.P .1 was given by the deceased. A look at the statement Ex.P. 1' also shows that some space has been left after the matter and the signatures and thumb impression which are obtained after leaving some blank space. This makes the document suspicious. The deceased reached at the hospital at 4.20 a.m. and immediately the treatment was started and injunction of calm pose was also given to him at 5.00 a.m. The doctors would be more interested in treatment to save his life rather than to ask him to make statement in writing if at all he had already declared that his wife had poisoned him. If at all Ex.P. 1 can be said to be the statement of the deceased then it has come in the evidence that Ram Khiladi, Bharosi and Jagram were with him when he was taken to the hospital and his statement could not have been without influence on the part of these three persons. 7. Ex. P. 19, affidavit is also very relevant in this case though it cannot be said to be admissible as evidence of confession made by the appellant. This is an affidavit which was passed to her when she was in the jail of Gangapur City and the Oath Commissioner, who attested the same does not say that this was verified in the jail. According to P.W. 10 Mohd. Ismile this affidavit was sworn at his seat when Kampuri came to him. When she was accompanied by policemen also along with others. Even according to what Kampuri told him the affidavit was to save her son from being ejected from some property. However, the affidavit shows that Shri Roop Narain gave her four tablets to administer them to Ram Hans with the roti and at that time Darab Singh and Nihal Singh were with him. She ground the tablets and mixed with the flour and made roties which were eaten. Who are these three persons Roop Narain, Darab Singh and Nihal Singh and how they are connected with the deceased has not been investigated at all and there is no explanation about it. If the poison was administered at the instance of these persons then they should also have been made accused. Who are these three persons Roop Narain, Darab Singh and Nihal Singh and how they are connected with the deceased has not been investigated at all and there is no explanation about it. If the poison was administered at the instance of these persons then they should also have been made accused. If Kampuri wanted to make a confession about the crime committed by her then she should have been taken before a Magistrate instead of making an affidavit prepared while in the jail under the influence of the police. The confession made before the police is not admissible in evidence. Even in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Kampuri has stated that for the last three-four years she was not living with her husband and that she had instituted cases against Ram Khiladi and Bharosi and for this reason they have made false story that she administered poison to her husband. She has also stated that after she was sent to the prison Ram Khiladi has pressurised her children and her land has been transferred by registered deed. 8. Looking to the nature of the evidence, we come back to the point from where we started that what was the motive on account of which the appellant administered poison to her husband. The answer found is blank. From where she brought the poison has also not been established. If it was a clear cut case then the police would have collected evidence of the utensils in which the poison was ground and flour was kneaded to show that it was in these utensils that the food was prepared. We have discussed the prosecution evidence above and we found the statement Ex.P. 1 of suspicious nature on basis of the document which does not stand corroborated by any other evidence, we are unable to hold the accused guilty of poisoning her husband. The threads which are woven in the evidence show that Ram Khiladi and Bharosi have been playing an important role and these persons were involved in a case in which the appellant is said to have been abducted. It is natural for them to depose against her. 9. For all the above reasons, we are unable to accept the case of the prosecution. This appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused appellant is set aside. It is natural for them to depose against her. 9. For all the above reasons, we are unable to accept the case of the prosecution. This appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused appellant is set aside. She shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.Appeal Allowed *******