JUDGEMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J. :---Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3rd February 1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 100 of 1983, acquitting the respondent for an offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. the appellant has come up in appeal before us, under section 378(1) Cr.P.C. 2.Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under : The deceased Anusaya was the wife of the respondent. Both of them were staying in village Kapuskhed in a room constructed in a cattle shed. It appears that the first four years of their married life were happy, but thereafter cracks started surfacing in their marital relationship. The reason was two fold- (a) the respondent had developed illicit intimacy with one Balabai residing in his village; and (b) he kept on making repeated demands from the father of his wife and the same could not be satisfied. It is said that once the respondent started assaulting Anusaya with a wooden log. One Vishnu Jadhav P.W. 5 who was present there tried to dissuade him from doing so but he reprimanded him on the ground that he had no right to interfere. It is said that the respondent told him that one day he would murder his wife Anusaya. It is said that the incident was communicated to Anusaya's father Nivruti and when the latter came to protest the respondent rushed towards him with an axe in his hand. Persons present intervened. A day prior to the incident a quarrel between Anusaya and her mother in law took place. Thereafter a quarrel between her and the respondent took place. Suman Patil P.W. 3, a neighbour of the respondent, on the night of the incident saw the respondent and Anusaya quarreling. The respondent was threatening Anusaya to leave the house. At about 11.30 p.m. Vilas Patil P.W. 4, another neighbour of the respondent, who came out of his house to ease, heard the threats given by the respondent to Anusaya. Neighbours are also alleged to have heard her cries. The next day at about 7 a.m. people heard cries from the room in the cattle shed. They found Anusaya's corpse lying on a cot. Anusaya's father Nivruti came there. He found that his daughter had sustained injuries on her left elbow and left thigh and froth was coming out of her mouth. The next day at about 7 a.m. people heard cries from the room in the cattle shed. They found Anusaya's corpse lying on a cot. Anusaya's father Nivruti came there. He found that his daughter had sustained injuries on her left elbow and left thigh and froth was coming out of her mouth. He also found that the respondent was not present in the house. 3.The evidence on record shows that the respondent had gone to Islampur Police Station where he lodged the F.I.R. about the death of Anusaya. It appears from the statement of P.S.I. Sawant P.W. 6 that the respondent came to lodge the F.I.R. on 21-9-1982 some times prior to 1 p.m. On the respondent's F.I.R. P.S.I. Sawant registered a case of accidental death. The F.I.R. Exhibit 20 shows that when on the morning of 21-9-1982 the respondent got up he found that Anusaya's body was cold and she could not speak. Then he discovered that she was dead. 4.After registering the case on the basis of the F.I.R. at about 1 p.m. P.S.I. Sawant visited the spot and prepared the spot panchanama. He thereafter sent the corpse for autopsy. 5.The post mortem examination of the dead body of Anusaya was conducted on 21-9-1982. The autopsy surgeon found that she had sustained the following two injuries on her person : 1.Abrasion on the left elbow joint posteriorly about 1/2" x 1/4" in size, 2.Contusion on the left thigh at laterally about 1" in diameter. He opined that the probable cause of death was due to organo-phosphurus compound poisoning. However, he opined that viscera be preserved for chemical analysis. 6.It appears that Anusaya's family members were not satisfied with the investigation. Consequently her brother Bajirao P.W. 2 gave an application to the Chief Minister. That resulted in C.I.D. investigation. P.W. 7, P.I. Shanker Patil of C.I.D. took over the investigation on 3-12-1982. After recording the statements of the witnesses he submitted a chargesheet against the respondent. 7.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the trial Court the respondent was charged on a dual count, viz. under sections 302 201 I.P.C. To the said charges he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial in all the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. 7.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the trial Court the respondent was charged on a dual count, viz. under sections 302 201 I.P.C. To the said charges he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial in all the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. It is pertinent to point out that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. In defence no witnesses were examined. The learned trial Judge after recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution and hearing submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, acquitted the respondent vide the impugned judgment which has been assailed through the present appeal. 8.We have heard Mrs. Jyoti S. Pawar for the appellant, State of Maharashtra, and Ms. S. D. Khot for the respondent. We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the impugned judgment. After thoughtfully reflecting over the matter we are constrained to observe that there is no merit in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. 9.As observed earlier the evidence adduced by the prosecution is entirely circumstantial in nature. It consists of three circumstances : (a) motive; (b) the quarrel between the respondent and the deceased at 11.30 p.m. on the date of the incident witnessed by Vilas Patil P.W. 4 who stated about it and the fact that the next morning at about 7 a.m. Anusaya was found dead; and (c) The absence of any insecticides by the side of the corpse. The learned trial Judge has succinctly dealt with each of the circumstances in a short but well reasoned judgment. 10.In paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment the learned trial Judge has dealt with the motive. He has rightly held that the prosecution has established that there were bad relations between the respondent and Anusaya. Again he has rightly held that on account of the said circumstance the respondent may have committed murder of Anusaya or Anusaya, fed up with her existence may have committed suicide. Consequently the learned trial Judge concluded that this circumstance did not incriminate the respondent. 11.The learned trial Judge has not chosen to place any reliance on circumstance (b) and very rightly in our judgment because the statement of P.W. 4 Vilas Patil who was examined to prove it was recorded during investigation on 21-2-1993 (sic. Consequently the learned trial Judge concluded that this circumstance did not incriminate the respondent. 11.The learned trial Judge has not chosen to place any reliance on circumstance (b) and very rightly in our judgment because the statement of P.W. 4 Vilas Patil who was examined to prove it was recorded during investigation on 21-2-1993 (sic. 83), i.e. over 4 months after the incident. We wish to emphasise that there is inordinate - unexplained delay in recording of the statement of this witness under section 161 Cr.P.C. Naturally a suspicion creeps in the mind of the Court that this witness may be a got up one. The other reason why the learned trial Judge rejected the testimony of this witness was that during his cross-examination he admitted that till he was interrogated by the police he did not disclose the incident to any one. In these circumstances the learned trial Judge felt that the prosecution had not established circumstance No. b. Circumstance (c) viz. that near the dead body of Anusaya no insecticide was found, in our judgment does not incriminate the respondent. We cannot persuade ourselves to agree with the learned trial Judge that had it been a case of suicide then insecticides would have been found near the corpse and absence of the same eliminates the possibility of suicide and shows that it was a case of homicide. In our judgment it may be that Anusaya may have gone to the place where the insecticide were stored and after consuming them came and laid on the place of the incident. The conduct of the respondent also shows that he was not guilty. The evidence is that next morning he went to the Police Station and lodged an F.I.R. detailing therein that when he got up he found that his wife was dead. 12.The post mortem report of the deceased, in our judgment is also compatible with the inference of suicide. Mrs. Jyoti S. Pawar strenuously urged that this was not so. She based her submission on the two ante mortem injuries suffered by the deceased which we have extracted in paragraph 5 above, of our judgment. She urged that these injuries show that the respondent first belaboured his wife Anusaya and thereafter either forcibly or surreptitiously, while she was sleeping, administered poison to her. We have given adequate thought to the said submission of Mrs. She urged that these injuries show that the respondent first belaboured his wife Anusaya and thereafter either forcibly or surreptitiously, while she was sleeping, administered poison to her. We have given adequate thought to the said submission of Mrs. Pawar and we regret that we cannot accede to it. When the dimensions of both the injuries sustained by the deceased are borne in mind it becomes clear that they could have been a sequel to the impact of the deceased falling on the cot after consuming the poison. These injuries are not of such a nature that they necessarily incriminate the respondent. For these reasons we reject the said submission of Mrs. Pawar although we frankly admit that on the first blush we found it to be attractive. 13.The learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment has also stated, and rightly in our judgment, that the prosecution has failed to establish the various ingredients which it has to in a case of death by poisoning. In the decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court, page 1622 (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra)1, in paragraph 163 it has been observed 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." In the instant case although the prosecution has established firstly and thirdly it has not established secondly. 14.For the said reasons in our view the impugned judgment has been correctly recorded and warrants no interference. The view of acquittal was not only a possible view but a wholly plausible one. In law we cannot interfere with it. 15.In the result this appeal is dismissed. The acquittal of the respondent for offences under section 302 and 201 I.P.C. is confirmed. The respondent is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. In law we cannot interfere with it. 15.In the result this appeal is dismissed. The acquittal of the respondent for offences under section 302 and 201 I.P.C. is confirmed. The respondent is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Before parting with this judgment we would like to put on record our appreciation for the enormous assistance rendered to us by the learned Counsel for the parties in the disposal of this appeal. In case an application for a certified copy of this judgment is made the same shall be issued expeditiously. Appeal dismissed. *****