JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J. :--This is rather an unfortunate case where Vidhya, a young girl of 22 years, lost her life on account of a love affair with a married young man Arjun, who took his own life on learning about the death of Vidhya and now the girl's own father and uncle are charged with the offence of committing her murder. The story of this unfortunate girl starts in April, 1991, when she ran away with Arjun. On making search, the girl's family found them in the house of Arjun's wife. The girl's father Vassudeo, who is accused No. 1, then took Vidhya to her maternal uncle Gopal Katti, who is residing at Hariar. Both Vassudeo and Vidhya stayed with Gopal for a period of one month and then they left Hariar for their village. There appears to be no dispute as far as this part of the story is concerned though the later part of the prosecution case is seriously challenged by the defence. 2. Now the case of the prosecution is that from Hariar Vassudeo took Vidhya to several places and finally they went to Dharwar where Vassudeo's brother Bhimachar, the accused No. 2, was employed in the Health Department. They stayed in Bhimachar's house for few days and then Vassudeo and Bhimachar brought Vidhya to Mollem, Goa, under the pretext of taking her to a temple located in the forest near Mollem. After coming to Mollem in a truck, both the accused took Vidhya, on foot, at about 6.00 p.m. to a culvert beneath the main road and there accused No. 1 made her drink some poisonous substance, causing her to faint and then both the accused went away. After some time, Vidhya recovered her senses and came up to Mollem on foot. There she met Gurudas Narvekar, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, who after learning from the girl that she was administered poison by her father, called the Sarpanch of Mollem, Narayan Gaonkar, who took her to the police outpost, where one Prakash Giri, a Police Constable, was incharge at that time. Constable Prakash Giri recorded the statement of Vidhya and thereafter he sent the girl to the Government Hospital of Ponda in a tempo accompanied by a police constable. Dr. Nutan Deo, who was a Government Medical Officer at that time, treated the girl. Constable Prakash Giri recorded the statement of Vidhya and thereafter he sent the girl to the Government Hospital of Ponda in a tempo accompanied by a police constable. Dr. Nutan Deo, who was a Government Medical Officer at that time, treated the girl. But the condition of the girl became serious on May 21, 1991 and then she was transferred to Goa Medical College Hospital where she died on May 27, 1991. The last step in this unfortunate drama was that Arjun committed suicide by hanging himself on learning about Vidhya's death. 3. The plea of the accused is that none of the accused has been at Mollem at any time and in fact the accused No. 2 was on duty on that day at Dharwar and in order to establish the alibi, the defence examined Dhondiraj Babar, the Health Supervisor, who was the immediate superior of the accused No. 2. The accused flatly denied that they administered poison to Vidhya though they admitted that there was a love affair between Vidhya and Arjun and that the family was opposing this because Arjun was already married. Their defence appears to be that Vidhya accompanied accused No. 1 to Shirshi where they visited a temple and from there she disappeared and since then they did not hear anything about Vidhya till her death. 4. Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses, we might mention that the prosecution case is mainly based upon circumstantial evidence and in order to establish the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 21 witnesses. We would first deal with the evidence of P.W. 4 Gurudas Narvekar because, according to the prosecution, he was the first person to encounter Vidhya after she recovered her senses and came back to Mollem walking. Gurudas Narvekar is the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. He has deposed that on May 17, 1991, he was at the check-post at Mollem along with Inspector Afonso. At about 4.30 a.m., while they were resting in the jeep by the road opposite the Tourist Complex, P.W. 4 saw a girl coming from jungle on foot; she came and stood by the side of a tree at a distance of 2 metres from their jeep. In the meanwhile, a truck came from Karnataka border and P.W. 4 signalled it to stop. In the meanwhile, a truck came from Karnataka border and P.W. 4 signalled it to stop. He asked the driver and owner of the truck for the documents of the vehicle. He requested the owner of the truck to enquire from the girl, who was standing by the side of the tree, as to why she was standing there and on enquiries, the girl told them that she had been brought to Mollem by her father and a relative and taken to a temple where she was made to drink some poison against her wish. But, whatever little poison that was put in her mouth, she spat out and she vomited some portion of it. She said that she was feeling giddy and fell on ground and after regaining consciousness she came to Mollem on foot. P.W. 4 further deposed that the girl told her story in Kannad language, which was translated to him by the truck driver. Then P.W. 4 told the truck driver to go to the police outpost, which was just across the road, and inform the police about the incident, but the girl pleaded with him not to inform the police as the police would inform the parents and hand her over to them and she would be assaulted and taken home. In the meanwhile, a tourist guide by name Raju (P.W. 7) came there. P.W. 4 told Raju that since the girl was reluctant to go to the police, he should bring the Sarpanch to take necessary action. The Sarpanch Narayan Gaonkar (P.W. 6) then came and took the girl to the police outpost. 5. The testimony of P.W. 4 is supported by Raju (P.W. 7). He says that he had come to Mollem on getting a lift in a truck at about 2.00 a.m. Then he saw the R.T.O. Officer, who he knew due to his frequent visits to Goa, when he approached the R.T.O., he saw a young girl seated beneath a tree. The R.T.O. asked him whether he knew Kannad language, he answered in the negative. Then the R.T.O. asked him if he knew where the house of the Sarpanch was and P.W. 7 answered in the affirmative. Both of them then went to the house of the Sarpanch. The R.T.O. asked him whether he knew Kannad language, he answered in the negative. Then the R.T.O. asked him if he knew where the house of the Sarpanch was and P.W. 7 answered in the affirmative. Both of them then went to the house of the Sarpanch. The R.T.O. told the Sarpanch that there was one girl near the check-post, who appeared to be in trouble and requested the Sarpanch to come with him to the police outpost to lodge a complaint. The Sarpanch came to the spot; a man was brought to translate Kannad into Marathi. The girl spoke through the translator. She told that she was in love with a boy and her family opposed their marriage, as she was of Brahmin community, whereas the boy belonged to some other community. She had been brought to Mollem by her father Vassudeo and uncle Bhimmana under the pretext of showing her a temple. She came to Mollem with her father and uncle in a truck and on alighting there, they took her on foot in the forest saying that they were going to the temple. She further said that inside the forest, she was made to drink poison and then she was hit with a stone on the side of her face. She lost her senses after taking poison. She regained consciousness after some time and found that she was alone. Then she came to Mollem on foot. The witness stated that at this stage a tempo vehicle came from Goa side to go to Karnataka side. He got a lift and went away. 6. P.W. 6 Narayan Gaonkar deposed that on May 18, 1991 at about 5.00 a.m. the R.T.O. Inspector Gurudas Narvekar came to his residence and told him that one young girl had come to the vicinity of the post where there is an electric poll. Narvekar told him that he could not communicate with the girl as she spoke only Kannad, which language he did not understand. Narvekar requested him to accompany him and accordingly they went to the R.T.O. post and he saw there a girl seated on the ground, aged between 18 to 21 years. A vehicle was coming. Narvekar stopped it and on seeing that the person in it knew Kannad, asked him to translate what the girl was saying. Narvekar requested him to accompany him and accordingly they went to the R.T.O. post and he saw there a girl seated on the ground, aged between 18 to 21 years. A vehicle was coming. Narvekar stopped it and on seeing that the person in it knew Kannad, asked him to translate what the girl was saying. The said person said that the girl was requesting Narvekar and him not to hand over her to the police, but to allow her to work that is to give her service. Thereupon, P.W. 6 told her that they could not give any service to her as she was a grown-up girl. He suggested that the girl should be handed over to the police. Then they moved to the police outpost situated at a few metres in distance and told the police in-charge about the incident and handed over the girl to the police. The police also did not know Kannad. Another vehicle was coming and the police halted that vehicle. The driver of the vehicle knew Kannad. The policeman told the driver to ask the girl from where she was coming and why she was there at that time. The girl told, as per the translation of the said man, that she was brought to Goa by her father and uncle on the pretext that they wanted to take her to a temple situated at Dudhsagar. They stopped at Mollem and from there they took her on foot along the highway and then inside the forest existing on the side of the road; and on reaching some distance from the road they made her to drink something from a bottle. After drinking that substance, she fainted and collapsed. When she recovered her senses, she found that it was dark and she was alone. Then she started walking towards the road; that on reaching the road, she came to the border post of the R.T.O. P.W. 6 also deposed that the girl told him that on the eve when she had alighted at Mollem with her father and uncle and when they had started walking, she had seen him riding a scooter. She even showed with her hand the direction in which he had gone on his scooter; the direction was the usual way he used to go on his scooter to and fro between his house and the restaurant. She even showed with her hand the direction in which he had gone on his scooter; the direction was the usual way he used to go on his scooter to and fro between his house and the restaurant. When the girl told him about this, the witness also tried to recollect and in fact remembered that, on the previous evening, he has seen the girl with two men walking along the road. He stated that at that stage he went to his restaurant. The girl remained at the police check-post. At about 9.00 a.m. when he was going home he stopped at the check-post and asked about the girl and he was informed that she was removed to the hospital. Subsequently, he came to know that she died in the hospital. 7. P.W. 17 Prakash Giri is the police constable, who was in-charge of Mollem police outpost in May 1991. He has stated in his deposition that on May 18, 1991 at about 6.00 a.m. the Sarpanch of Mollem, Narayan Gaonkar (P.W. 6) came to the outpost accompanied by a girl. The Sarpanch told him that the staff of the R.T.O. Post at Mollem had asked him to look after the said girl. P.W. 17 further stated that the girl was about 22 or 23 years old; that she was dishevelled and her clothes were dirty. He started interrogating the girl, but she was not able to give any answer as she was able to speak only Kannad, which language he did not know. The Sarpanch also did not know that language; then P.W. 17 made a passing truck to stop and asked the driver in Marathi whether he knew Kannad and the driver replied in affirmative. Then he called the driver inside the outpost and started interrogating her through the said driver. The girl gave her name as Vidhya; that she gave the name of her father as Vassudeo Ibrahimpur and the name of uncle as Bhimrao Ibrahimpur and she told that she had been brought to Mollem by her father and uncle to visit a temple in Goa; that they had come from Dharwad in a truck and after alighting at Mollem they had tea in a tea shop. They told her that they will have to go on foot up to the small temple of Dudhsagar Deu. They told her that they will have to go on foot up to the small temple of Dudhsagar Deu. P.W. 17 stated that in fact there exists a small temple, dedicated to Dudhsagar Deu, in the jungle at about 2 kms. distance from Mollem village. P.W. 17 further stated that the girl told that after walking for some distance along the said road towards Anmod her father and uncle had taken her out of the road and then, had walked up to a culvert of the same road. There her father had given her a bottle saying that she should drink the liquid contained in the bottle; that she had asked the father what the liquid was and that he got angry and told her to drink the liquid failing which he would kill her with stones. It is also the case of P.W. 17 that while the girl was narrating this incident one could see that she was not feeling well; that she appeared to feel giddy. P.W. 17 further stated that the girl said that she drank the contents of the bottle and soon after she fell to the ground losing her senses. She further said that when she regained her senses both her father and uncle were not there; that she came back to the road and from there she came running to the village where the houses and outpost are situated. P.W. 17 stated that after narrating this incident the girl collapsed and again lost senses. At this stage, he made a tempo coming from Karnataka border to stop. He wrote down a memo addressed to the Government Hospital of Ponda, put the girl in the tempo along with Police Constable No. 1204 and sent her to the said Government Hospital. 8. The prosecution has also examined one lady by name Minaxi Verenkar, P.W. 2, who is having a tea stall at Mollem opposite the police check-post. She has stated in her evidence that her stall faces the road and that on May 17, 1991 at about 4.30 p.m. while she was standing in front of her shop, she saw both the accused going towards the forest area, that there was a girl with them. They went ahead towards the forest; that both the accused were wearing white lungi and white shirts while the girl was wearing a blouse and gagra having small flowered design. They went ahead towards the forest; that both the accused were wearing white lungi and white shirts while the girl was wearing a blouse and gagra having small flowered design. She further stated that on the next morning the girl was brought to the police outpost at Mollem, that on seeing her, she (P.W. 2) told the police that it was the same girl who was accompanied by both the accused. P.W. 2 also deposed that subsequently she was called to Collem Police Station for identification parade. She said that there were many persons called; that in the presence of Mamlatdar she was asked whether she could identify the persons who had accompanied the girl; that she said that she could identify. At that time all the persons were called and made to stand in a row. She identified both the accused. Both the accused were asked their names on that occasion and they gave their names, however, she remembered the name of only one of them, which was accused No. 1 Vassudeo. The prosecution has also examined the Mamlatdar, P.W. 21, who has conducted the identification parade at Collem Police Station. There are some apparent contradictions in the identification parade, which we will discuss at a later stage. 9. Now we shall proceed to deal with the evidence of the relations of the girl and the boy, who were examined by the prosecution. P.W. 10 Shivaputrappa is the brother of Arjun, who was having a love affair with Vidhya. Shivaputrappa has narrated the story about their love affair, but it is not necessary to refer to this evidence in detail as it is not disputed by the defence that Vidhya had an affair with Arjun, who was married and this fact was not liked by the girl's family. Shivaputrappa has also deposed about the tragic death of Arjun, who committed suicide after learning about Vidhya's death. Shivaputrappa has produced on record a letter written by Vidhya to Arjun, which is of some importance. The translation of the letter does not appear to be correct, but the sum and substance of the letter is that Vidhya intended to commit suicide as she was separated from Arjun and nobody, including her parents, is to be blamed for her death. 10. P.W. 11 Gopal Katti is the maternal uncle of Vidhya. The translation of the letter does not appear to be correct, but the sum and substance of the letter is that Vidhya intended to commit suicide as she was separated from Arjun and nobody, including her parents, is to be blamed for her death. 10. P.W. 11 Gopal Katti is the maternal uncle of Vidhya. He stays at Hariar in Chitradurga District at a distance of about 60 Kms. away from the village where accused No. 1, his wife and Vidhya were living. He says that one day in April, 1991, Vidhya had come to his place alongwith accused No. 1. Both of them stayed with him for about one month and thereafter they went back to the village. He has further stated that 15 days later accused No. 1 came to his place again, he, P.W. 11, asked him where Vidhya was and the reply of accused No. 1 was that when Vidhya was with him at Shirshi bus stand she had disappeared. Accused No. 1 stayed with him for 2 to 3 days and then went away. 11. The mother of Vidhya Ramabai, P.W. 12, has deposed about the love affair between Vidhya and Arjun. She stated that Vidhya ran away with Arjun and after making some search both of them were found in Arjun's wife's house. Thereafter accused No. 1 took Vidhya to her brother Gopal. Some time thereafter accused No. 1 came back and told her that Vidhya had disappeared while she was at the bus-stand at Shirshi. She came to know about the death from the police when they came to the village. 12. Turning then to the medical evidence, which is of extreme importance in poisoning cases, the prosecution has firstly examined P.W. 3 Dr. Nutan Deo, a Government Medical Officer, who, at the relevant time, was working at the I.D. Hospital of Ponda and who treated Vidhya at the said hospital. Dr. Deo has stated in her evidence that in the month of May, 1991, she was posted at I.D. Hospital temporarily. She had examined Vidhya on May 18, 1991 at 9.15 a.m. Vidhya was brought on complaint of something given to drink by her father on the previous evening. Dr. Dr. Deo has stated in her evidence that in the month of May, 1991, she was posted at I.D. Hospital temporarily. She had examined Vidhya on May 18, 1991 at 9.15 a.m. Vidhya was brought on complaint of something given to drink by her father on the previous evening. Dr. Deo says that the patient was conscious and co-operative and answering to all questions; pulse was normal, blood pressure was normal, pupils of the eyes were normal, per abdomen there was no tenderness, no neurological deficit; respiratory system, cardio vascular system was also normal. Reflexes were normal and there were no obstretics any gynaec findings. There was 1 cm. cut on left side of the chin, which was clean cut. There was no bleeding at the time of examination and the wound was simple one. Dr. Deo states that the patient told her that she vomited soon after she was given something to drink by her father. Patient further told her that she had vomited three times before she was admitted. According to Dr. Deo, on admission Vidhya was quite normal except for little drowsiness, which the doctor thought was because of Hypoglycomia as she had not taken food and she was awake all night. Dr. Deo states that the patient was kept under observation and was given something to drink like tea, coffee, besides she was given canjee. On the next day she was not on duty as she had gone back to her regular duty at Volvoi. In between some other medical officer was on duty at the I.D. Hospital. She again resumed her duty at I.D. Hospital on May 21, 1991 at about 9.00 a.m. When she saw the patient, she was quite serious. The patient was, therefore, transferred to Goa Medical College Hospital. Dr. Deo states that she opined that it was a case of poisoning without the effect of poison probably because the patient had vomited. In her cross-examination she admitted that she did not find any symptom of poisoning when she examined the patient first. She also admitted that she had given her opinion because patient had told her that she had vomited after something was given to drink. She also stated that information, that she was given something to drink by her father, was given to her by the patient herself and not by any other person. She also admitted that she had given her opinion because patient had told her that she had vomited after something was given to drink. She also stated that information, that she was given something to drink by her father, was given to her by the patient herself and not by any other person. She admitted that she does not know Kannad language; that whatever information the patient gave was interpreted to her by a servant in the hospital who knew Kannad. She could not give the name of the said servant as she was posted temporarily, hardly for a month in I.D. Hospital. To an answer given to Court question she stated she could have given some medicines to confirm about poisoning but she had given coffee because patient was hungry. 13. Next witness Dr. Usgaonkar is P.W. 5, who has performed the post-mortem. Dr. Usgaonkar states in his evidence that he performed post-mortem on the dead body of Vidhya on May 31, 1991 at the request of Collem Police Station. Then he goes on to describe the external injuries on the dead body, which are really not relevant for our purposes. He then states that on internal examination, he found that there were no injuries, no fracture of skull bone, membrane was congested and brain was idimature. There was no mark in the neck, there was no fusion of blood in the sub cutaneous of tissues, hyoid bone was intact. He states that in the larynx and trachea nothing abnormal was detected. Nothing abnormal was detected from the walls, ribs, pluerae, trachea and bronchi. Both lungs were odemutus on cutting, there was oozing of reddish frothy fluid. From the abdominal walls, peritiun cavity and assofagus nothing abnormal was detected. There was congestion of mucosul walls of the stomach and the greater curvature in the funds and pyloric region. Sub musal pechial haemorrhages present in the area stomach contained 50cc of yellowish biles coloured fluid. Small intestine contained fluid yellowish coloured on walls. Mucosa showed congestion with sub-mucosal pethecial. Liver spleen and kidneys also showed congestion. Dr. Usgaonkar further states that the opinion as regards the death was reserved pending reports of Histopatology and chemical analysis and also histopatological examination. Small intestine contained fluid yellowish coloured on walls. Mucosa showed congestion with sub-mucosal pethecial. Liver spleen and kidneys also showed congestion. Dr. Usgaonkar further states that the opinion as regards the death was reserved pending reports of Histopatology and chemical analysis and also histopatological examination. He certified the cause of death as follows:-- "Taking into consideration clinical observation, post mortem findings and histopatological examination, the death was due to hypoxia as a result of some poisoning the nature of which could not be established in view of negative chemical analysis." In the cross-examination, Dr. Usgaonkar admits that after performing post-mortem, he could not come to conclusion about the cause of death. He states that symptoms of hyposis are signs of bluing of lips, nail peds, general congestion of the organs. Bluishness of lips and nail peds would be easily detectable if a person is fair complexioned. In the present case, he has not detected these symptoms. He states :-- "After performing post mortem I could not come to the conclusion the case of death. Symptoms of hyposis are signs of bluing of lips, nail peds, general congestion of the organs. In case of poisoning the persons dies immediately of poison, there may be traces of poison in the brain and also in any other parts of the body, but if the person survives for some time then the poison be vomited or neutralised or may be metapolished and in such cases we will not get traces of poison. Person taking barbiturates depends on the person and quantity consumed. After poison is neutralised it depends on the body of person for his death on a number of days which cannot be fixed, in a given case. Sodium is a preservative used for visera while sending to chemical analyser and it acts as a control sample. Bluishness of lips and nail peds would be easily detectable if a person is fair complexioned, in the present case I have not detected." Then in the further cross-examination, he admitted:- "I cannot say cent per cent that the death was caused in this case due to poisoning. Even after receipt of analysist I could not come to conclusion about the cause of death. Even after receipt of analysist I could not come to conclusion about the cause of death. In my final report I excluded other deceases because chemical analysis was negative and histopatological did not reveal any significant pathology." (Emphasis supplied) We will have to examine the prosecution case mainly in the light of the medical evidence since the prosecution is required to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the death was due to poisoning. 14. As already noted the prosecution case is solely based on circumstantial evidence. The law regarding the nature and character of proof of circumstantial has been settled by several authorities of the Supreme Court. The most fundamental and basic decision of the Supreme Court is in the case of (Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh)1, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 343. This case has been uniformly followed and applied in large number of later decisions. In Hanumant's case, the legal position has been summed up by Mahajan, J., as follows:-- "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 15. In (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra)2, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1622 : 1985(1) Bom.C.R. 208 , Fazal Ali, J., on close examination of some earlier decisions held that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established-- "(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." Fazal Ali, J., described these principles as five golden principles constituting the panchsheel of a proof of case based on circumstantial evidence. 16. In Sharad's case, Fazal Ali, J., also reiterated the well settled principles that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. In paragraph 151 of the said judgment, Fazal Ali, J., observed:-- "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 17. In (Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh)3, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2773, the Supreme Court made the following observations:-- "Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 18. It will be also useful to make reference to a recent judgment of the Apex Court in (Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh)4, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1890. The Supreme Court held that circumstances relied upon must be firmly established and same must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and should form a complete chain indicating that accused alone and none else committed the crime. It was held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests :-- "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." 19. We now come to the mode and manner of proof of cases of murder by administration of poison. In (Ramgopal's case)5, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 656, the Supreme Court held thus : "Three questions arise in such cases, namely (firstly), did the deceased die of the poison in question? (secondly), had 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 inference, that the poison was administered by the accused to the deceased resulting in his death." 20. 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 inference, that the poison was administered by the accused to the deceased resulting in his death." 20. In (Smt. Phino v. State of Punjab)6, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1327, the Supreme Court emphasised that it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the death was caused by the poison alleged to have been administered to the deceased by the accused and if the possibility of death is due to any different cause other than the one attributable to poison cannot be ruled out, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. 21. These decisions were followed in Sharad's case where the Supreme Court observed that in such cases (death by poisoning) the Court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the following four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction :-- (1) there is a clear motive for the 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; and (4) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. 22. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in (Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab)7, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 945, the death was caused due to Cyanide poisoning. The prosecution mainly relied upon the circumstances that the accused could have come into possession of Potassium Cyanide as much as he was working in the factory where Potassium Cyanide was used for heat-treatment of steel. It was, however, mentioned in the Chemical Examiner report that what was found was only 'Cyanide' and the sample collected from the factory contained 'Potassium Cyanide'. It was held that in the absence of a clear note that what was found in the stomach was only Potassium Cyanide, it cannot straightway be inferred that the accused who could have come into possession of Potassium Cyanide have administered the same. It was held that in the absence of a clear note that what was found in the stomach was only Potassium Cyanide, it cannot straightway be inferred that the accused who could have come into possession of Potassium Cyanide have administered the same. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed : "That apart, the fact that the presence of the mother of the accused who was also prosecuted has created a doubt, as to whether it was the mother or the son who administered the poison to the deceased. No doubt, even in such a case the appellant would also be responsible, but unless the prosecution clearly establishes that the death was not due to suicide and it was only homicidal by administration of Potassium Cyanide, he cannot alone be held liable. From the circumstances which have been relied upon by the prosecution and the courts below, it would show that the entire reasoning proceeds on the footing that the accused could have come into possession of Potassium Cyanide, therefore, the inference is that the accused must have administered the same. In the absence of medical evidence establishing that the death caused was only due to Potassium Cyanide, such a hypothetical inference cannot be drawn, particularly so in a case of the circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in cases of circumstantial evidence, every circumstance has to be established by clinching evidence and not by mere conjectures." 23. Bearing in mind the above decisions, we proceed to consider the evidence and determine the four important circumstances, which alone, as laid down in Sharad's case, can justify a conviction. 24. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimony of P.W. 4 Gurudas Narvekar, a Motor Vehicle Inspector, in order to show that on May 17, 1991 the girl came from the forest. From her appearance she appeared totally distressed and her clothes were shabby. On making inquiries through the truck driver, who was passing by the road, P.W. 4 came to know from the girl that she was taken to the forest by her father an another relation under the pretext of visiting a temple and near a culvert she was forcibly made to drink some poisonous substance and on drinking the said substance she vomited and fainted. After recovering her senses she found that her father and the uncle had left and then she came to Mollem on foot. Evidence of P.W. 4 is supported by the evidence of P.W. 6 Narayan Gaonkar, the Sarpanch of the village, who also remembered that he had seen the girl on the earlier day going towards the forest with the two persons. The girl narrated her story in presence of P.W. 6 when P.W. 7 Raju, a tourist guide, was also present. Prakash Giri, P.W. 17, who was in-charge of Mollem Police Outpost at the relevant time, has also deposed that the girl narrated to him her story how her father forced her to drink some poisonous substance, which made her faint and that after regaining consciousness she came to Mollem on foot. 25. P.W. 2 Minaxi Verenkar has testified that she saw the girl going towards the jungle with two persons and in identification parade she has identified the accused as the persons accompanying the girl. P.W. 21 Atchut Hegde Dessai is the Mamlatdar, who has conducted the identification parade. As far as the identification parade is concerned, we find that there are serious lacuna in the conduct of the parade. In the first place, P.W. 2 says that the identification parade was held in open space while the Mamlatdar maintains that he held the parade in a room near the Police Station. The evidence of P.W. 2 also shows that the other persons who were made to stand with the accused at the time of the identification parade were all local persons from Mollem who were more or less known to P.W. 2 and, therefore, the identification parade does not inspire much confidence. 26. The evidence of P.W. 11 Gopal Katti, the maternal uncle of the girl and P.W. 12 Ramabai, the mother of the girl is mainly relied upon by the prosecution to show that the accused No. 1 took the girl to P.W. 11's village where they stayed for about a month and then they left and then the accused No. 1 returned home alone and on inquiry about Vidhya he gave a false explanation that he had taken Vidhya to Shirshi to visit a temple and there she disappeared from the bus-stand. According to the prosecution, the story given by the accused No. 1 appears to be totally false as the accused No. 1 would not have kept quite if the girl had really disappeared from the bus-stand at Shirshi as it was expected of the accused No. 1 at least to file a police complaint. The defence has tried to explain this circumstance by contending that the police were not approached because they were afraid about their reputation and secondly Vidhya was in the habit of running away from the house, since she had developed relationship with Arjun. The defence also relied upon the letters written by Vidhya disclosing her intention of committing suicide. 27. But, assuming for the worse that the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses is truthful, all that it shows is that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 took Vidhya to a forest and that there they made her to drink some liquid contained in a bottle and after drinking she vomited and fainted. The crucial question is whether this evidence is sufficient to convict the accused for causing death of Vidhya by poison in the absence of clear proof of (1) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered and (2) that the accused had poison in their possession. There is not an iota of evidence to show that either the accused were in possession of poison or it was available to them. Although the prosecution case is that the accused No. 1 forced Vidhya to drink poison from a bottle, the possibility of the accused administering some portion to Vidhya in the earnest belief that it has magical qualities and it would change Vidhya's mind cannot be ruled out. It is also possible that after Vidhya fainted the accused panicked and fled away from the scene. In the absence of clear evidence that the accused was in possession of poison or it was available to them, it is difficult to accept the prosecution case that the accused were guilty of administering poison to the deceased. 28. Again the most crucial link in the prosecution case, viz., that the death was caused by the poison allegedly administered by the accused is not established by the prosecution. It is seen from the evidence of Dr. 28. Again the most crucial link in the prosecution case, viz., that the death was caused by the poison allegedly administered by the accused is not established by the prosecution. It is seen from the evidence of Dr. Deo that on physical examination of the girl she found that the girl was conscious and co-operative and answering to all questions. Her pulse and blood pressure were normal, pupils of the eyes were normal. There was no tenderness on the abdomen. Her reflexes were also normal. Dr. Deo has categorically admitted that she did not find any symptom of poisoning. She also admitted that she gave the opinion that the patient was given poison because the patient had told her that she had vomited after she was made to drink the substance from the bottle given to her by accused No. 1. Turning then to the evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Usgaonkar, who performed the post-mortem, it is clear that he is not in a position to state with certainty that the death was due to poisoning. Dr. Usgaonkar has given sufficient details of the external and internal examination of the dead body but it does not disclose any symptom of poisoning. In fact Dr. Usgaonkar was not sure about the result of the examination and, therefore, he delayed the preparation of the post-mortem report till the receipt of the finding from the Chemical Analyser. There is no dispute that the Chemical Analyser's report states that no recognisable poison was detected. Dr. Usgaonkar has candidly admitted in the cross-examination that he cannot be cent per cent sure that the death was caused due to poisoning and even after receipt of the Analyser's report he could not come to the conclusion about the cause of death. On perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is no doubt, a strong suspicion arises. But the question is whether the chain is complete so that the accused can be held guilty of administering poison causing Vidhya's death. The prosecution has failed to establish the most important link in the chain, namely, that the death is due to poison administered by the accused. It is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn, should be fully and cogently established. The prosecution has failed to establish the most important link in the chain, namely, that the death is due to poison administered by the accused. It is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn, should be fully and cogently established. The proved circumstances should be of conclusive nature and definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilty of the accused. They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. If any of the circumstances proved in a case is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused or the chain of the continuity of the circumstances is broken, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thus considered, we find that the chain of the circumstances was broken without connecting the accused to the commission of the alleged crime, as the prosecution has failed to prove the important circumstances, namely, that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered and that the accused had poison in their possession beyond all reasonable doubt bringing home to the guilt of the accused and to prove that the accused alone had committed the crime. Therefore, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 29. For these reasons the Appeal succeeds. The conviction of the accused is set aside and the accused shall be released forthwith unless they are required in some other case. Appeal succeed. *****