JUDGMENT 1. - This Jail Appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment dated 1.10.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 56/96 convicting the appellant under section 302, IPC and awarding life imprisonment as well as a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, one year's R.I. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the prosecution of the accused-appellant culminating into present appeal are as follows : 3. PW 1 Babu Lal, husband of the appellant, at the relevant time, being a senior teacher in the Education Department of the State Government, was posted at Delwara and was residing there. He lodged Ex. P/1 written report on 9.1.1994 at 3.30 p.m. at the Police Station, Delwara wherein it was alleged that at about 8.30 a.m. in the morning after brushing his teeth and washing face, he came out of his house while the appellant was boiling milk and preparing tea in the house. In the meantime, the appellant, along with their three children (since deceased) Neha, Khushboo and Ankit who were aged about 8, 10 & 5 years respectively, closed herself in a room of the house and she chained the doors from inside. The appellant cried from inside that she had administered poison to her children. Babu Lal rushed towards the room. He found that the door was chained from inside. He asked the appellant to open the door but she did not oblige. He unsuccessfully pushed against the doors and started shouting. It attracted presence of a teacher (PW 8 Rajesh) residing in the house situated opposite to that of Babu Lal. They pushed the doors with force and as a result of which the iron-hook (Nakucha) of the door fell down and the doors opened. They found that the appellant was holding all the three children in her arms and she refused to lease them but, however, with the help of neighbours, who had appeared on the scene hearing cries, took out all the children from the room. The children were vomiting. Since it appeared to be a case of suspected poisoning and, in the meantime, through Gajendra Kumar, the information was sent to the Police Station, Delwara and the police appeared on the scene. 4. The children were vomiting. Since it appeared to be a case of suspected poisoning and, in the meantime, through Gajendra Kumar, the information was sent to the Police Station, Delwara and the police appeared on the scene. 4. It was also alleged that the first informant Babu Lal was partially paralytic and the appellant had developed illicit relationship with one Hanif to which Babu Lal protested and some quarrel ensued in the previous night and so the appellant procured E.D.B. ampules containing Ethylene Dibromide (E.D.B.) a poisonous insecticide from the Mewar Beej Bhandra, Udaipur on 8.1.1994 and the same was administered to the children and with an intent to commit suicide, the appellant also took some dose of the said poison. On this report, Ex. P/2 FIR under sections 307 & 309, IPC was registered by PW 28 Bhawani Singh, Office-in-charge of the Police Station, Delwara and the investigation was started. 5. He inspected the site as per Ex. P/3 memorandum on 10.1.1994. He found vomited matter on the site and took the same into possession. Besides, the ampules of the injunction along with its covering piece of cloth was seized from the spot vide Ex. P/4. 6. The appellant as well as the children were also taken to the Government Hospital, Delwara and, as advised by the Medical Officer, they were further taken to the Government Hospital at Udaipur whereat they were admitted for treatment. While under treatment, Ankit breathed his last on 10.1.1994 and both the remaining children expired on 11.1.1994 and the police prepared Ex. P/5, Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/7 Inquest Reports. Similarly, their Post-mortem Reports Ex. P/13, Ex. P/20 and Ex. P/21 were prepared. The Medical Officer of Udaipur, while all the three children (since deceased) were indoor parents, took viscera, pieces of small intestine, liver, spleen, kidneys, sample of blood as well as vomited matter and the same were separately sealed and packed. All these articles were forwarded to the Rajasthan State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur (for short 'the RSFSL, Jaipur) for chemical examination and analysis. As a result of chemical examination aforesaid articles including visceras, vomited sample, liquid, stomach-wash etc., gave positive test for the .presence of Ethylene Dibromide (E.D.B.). 7. All these articles were forwarded to the Rajasthan State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur (for short 'the RSFSL, Jaipur) for chemical examination and analysis. As a result of chemical examination aforesaid articles including visceras, vomited sample, liquid, stomach-wash etc., gave positive test for the .presence of Ethylene Dibromide (E.D.B.). 7. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under sections 302 Sr 309, IPC was filed in the Court of the then Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara and the same, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Rajsamand. The learned Sessions Judge, Rajasmand, did not proceed to charge-sheet the appellant for alleged commission of offence under section 309, IPC and, instead, straight away charged the appellant with the commission of offence under section 302 IPC simpliciter to which she claimed to be tried. The learned trial judge examined as many as 28 witnesses who are PW 1 Babu Lal, PW 2Inder Mal, PW 3 Basanti Lal, PW 4 Nana Lal, PW 5 Manohar Lal, PW 6 Ramesh Chandra, PW 7 Mansukh Lal, PW 8 Rajesh, PW 9 Suraj Mal, PW 10 Gajendra Kumar, PW 11 Sampat Lal, PW 12 Kishan Lal, PW 13 Lahar Singh, PW 14 Sunil, PW 15 Basanti Lal, PW 16 Vimal Kumar, PW 17 Udai Pal, PW 18 Kushal, PW 19 Dr. Shiv Kumar, PW 20 Dr. Ruchira Sharma, PW 21 Dr. Yogesh Sharma, PW 22 Ratan Lal, PW 23 Hukam Singh, PW 24 Dr. Santosh Kumar, PW 25 Bhagwati Lal, PW 26 Mangi Lal, PW 27 Jodh Singh and PW 28 Bhawani Singh. 8. Besides, Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/38 by way of documentary evidence were produced and relied upon by the prosecution. 9. The appellant was examined under section 313. Cr.P.C. and she denied that she had ever administered any poison to her children. She did not deny deaths of her three children. Besides, she admitted that she also, along with her children, was taken to the hospital and so she claimed total innocence and denied the prosecution story. 10. 10. She examined DW 1 Nathu Lal in her defence who is elder brother of PW 1 Babu Lal himself. 11. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge vide his impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and hence this appeal. 12. 10. 10. She examined DW 1 Nathu Lal in her defence who is elder brother of PW 1 Babu Lal himself. 11. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge vide his impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and hence this appeal. 12. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also perused and considered the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment along with the record of the trial Court. 13. The learned Anions Curiae, while assailing the impugned judgment and order, contended that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its right perspective and, instead, taking a superficial view of the same, proceeded to hold that it was appellant who was responsible for administration of poisonous substance to the deceased children and that, since there is no eye-witness who could have seen the appellant while administering, in what-ever form or manner, any poisonous substance to the children and, instead, the possibility cannot be ruled out out-right that it was PW 1 Babu Lal who had administered the same to his children as well as the appellant who suspected conduct and fidelity of his own wife. Therefore, it has been contended that, in the present circumstances, when this possibility cannot be excluded that the poison could have been administered by any other person excluding the appellant and specially when the appellant being mother of three children was found to be present in the room alleged to have been chained from inside holding her all the three children in her arms and she refused to dispense with their custody, it does not appear natural and probable on the part of the appellant to have, instead, administered poison to her children. Therefore, his submission is that, though unfortunate as it is, three deaths had occurred but the responsibility therefor that of the appellant not having been proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt, the circumstances that have been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge to hold the appellant guilty are not proved to the hilt and, as a result, there is no chain of circumstances which leads to the irresistible conclusion that it was the appellant and none else who was responsible for administering fatal doses of poisonous substance to her children and that none else could have done the same and so the possibility cannot be ruled out that any other person to the exclusion of appellant could have played this mischief. 14. However, the learrid Public Prosecutor on the basis of circumstances and specially there being no rhyme or reason on the part of PW 1 Babu Lal to have falsely implicated his own wife to the exclusion of the real culprit in case the appellant was not the real culprit and instead some body else might have committed these offences and, therefore, there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence duly corroborated by the medical evidence as well as findings of chemical analysis received vide Ex. P/38 leading to the aforesaid conclusion of guilt of the present appellant being responsible for gruesome murder of her three children. 15. At the out set, on the basis of rival contentions raised above, as regards unnatural deaths of Ankit, Neha, Khushboo, there is no challenge from the side of the appellant. The appellant herself in her examination u /s. 313, Cr.P.C. admitted the deaths of her three children. However, her only defence has been that she had never administered the poison to her children. Besides, as stated by PW 1 Babu Lal, PW 8 Rajesh (master), PW 9 Suraj Mal, PW 12 Kishan Lal, PW 15 Basanti Lal, PW 16 Vimal Kumar etc. and so also by DW 1 Nathu Lal, who is elder brother of PW I Babu Lal, but, however, he has been examined in her defence by the appellant, Ankit, Nehea, Khushboo who were children of the appellant and PW 1 Babu Lal, died due to poisoning on 10.1.1994 and 11.1.1994 at the Government Hospital, Udaipur. As stated by PW 28 Bhawani Singh, after death of Ankit, Neha and Khushboo, Inquest Reports Ex. P/5, Ex. P/6 and Ex. As stated by PW 28 Bhawani Singh, after death of Ankit, Neha and Khushboo, Inquest Reports Ex. P/5, Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/7 were respectively prepared by him. Besides Ex. P/14, Ex. P/16 and Ex. P/15 bed-head tickets of the deceased children were prepared at the said Udaipur Hospital along with Medical Reports Ex. P/17, Ex. P/18 and Ex. P/19 and, lastly, Post-mortem Reports Ex. P/13, Ex. P/20 & Ex. P/21 respectively pertaining to Ankit, Neha and Khushboo further leave no doubt that all the three children were brought in a critical condition from Delwara Hospital whereat they were given first aid and referred to for further treatment to Udaipur, had died of poisoning. The statements of PW 19 Dr. Shiv Kumar, PW 20 Dr. Ruchira Sharma, PW 21 Dr. Yogesh Sharma, PW 24 Dr. Santosh Kumar and PW 25 Dr. Bhagwati Lal fully proved the contents of the aforesaid documents prepared at the Hospital. There is nothing against the veracity and reliability of all these medical officers. Besides, as stated by these medical officers and so also PW 28 Bhawani Singh, vomited matter collected vide Ex. P/4 from the house of the appellant as well as stomach-wash, pieces of small intestine, liver, spleen, kidneys as well as blood samples of the deceased persons having been taken and consequently the same having been duly packed and sealed as borne out of Ex. P/12, Ex. P/20, Ex. P/21, Ex. P/23, Ex. P/24, Ex. P/25, Ex. P/26 and Ex. P/28 as well as as stated by PW 28 Bhawani Singh, PW 27 Jodh Singh, H.C., who was officer-in-charge of the Malkhana as well as PW 22 Ratan Lal, Constable, all the 20 articles containing the aforesaid articles were duly packed and sealed and were kept intact and the same were, in the first instance, deposited in the Malkhana of the Police Station and, subsequently, the same were, in the same intact condition, delivered to Ratan Lal who had, through the office of S.P., Udaipur, carried all these articles in duly sealed packets to the RSFSL, Jaipur. As also stated by Ratan Lal and so also borne out of Ex. P/31 letter, all these 20 articles were duly received in a sealed and intact condition at the RSFSL, Jaipur. Besides Ex. As also stated by Ratan Lal and so also borne out of Ex. P/31 letter, all these 20 articles were duly received in a sealed and intact condition at the RSFSL, Jaipur. Besides Ex. P/38 is the report of the Assistant Director (poison), RSFSL, Jaipur who, after chemical examination, as regards the visceras, vomits samples, liquid, stomach washes, gave positive opinion for presence of Ehtylene Dibromide (E.D.B.). Besides, all the Medical Officers, referred to right from the time of admission of the deceased children till their deaths, consistently stated that all the three deceased were treated for having been administered poison and the chemical examination and consequential result of Ex. P/38 against which there is no challenge from the side of the appellant, coupled with the initially prepared Medical Reports, Bed-head Tickets and the Post-mortem Reports as well as the Inquest Reports prepared by the police and so also the direct testimony of the witnesses as also referred to and rightly relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge, leave no doubt that all the three children of the appellant had died due to administration of poison and so the deaths of the children were unnatural. Possibility of consumption of poison of the deceased children themselves is totally ruled out. There is no allegation or even remotest suggestion from the side of the appellant who is responsible for unnatural death of three children by administering fatal doses of poisonous substance to them. 16. Therefore, the core question and controversy that we are confronted with for disposal of this appeal is whether it was the appellant and the appellant alone who had administered the poison to her children and hence she is the author of the crime of murders of three children and none else. 17. Admittedly, as also observed by the learned trial Judge, there is no direct evidence on record of administration of poison to the deceased children and, instead, there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence which leads to the conclusion that it was the appellant and none else who administered the fatal doses of poison to the children. So the fate of this appeal hinges mainty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. So the fate of this appeal hinges mainty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The appellant having admitted such deaths of her children but, at the same time, did not allege that it was her husband or any other relation or any other person who had either any motive to have done these children to death by administering poison to them. However, she denied that she ever administered or gave poison to her children resulting in their deaths. 18. In criminal jurisprudence, the burden of proving the guilt of the appellant is always on the prosecution and the same has to stand on its own legs and the weakness of the defence cannot be a substitute for weakness, if any, in the prosecution case. 19. As already observed, since this case mainly hinges on circumstantial evidence and, therefore, the prosecution, in order to bring home guilt beyond reasonable manner of doubt of the accused-appellant, has to prove the following essential ingredients by circumstantial evidence:- (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved; (2) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; (3) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence; (4) the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. ( State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, 1992 AIR SCW 2417: 1992 SCC (Cri.) 642). 20. The circumstantial evidence which is relied upon by the prosecution has to be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant though it does not mean that the prosecution himself should meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. 21. Now, reverting to the case in hand, PW 1 Babu Lal is the husband of the appellant. They are the parents of the deceased children. They were residing at Delwara at the relevant time. PW 1 Babu Lal, as also stated by PW 26 Mangi Lal and others, was suffering from paralysis for about 4 to 5 years prior to the incident and the appellant often quarrelled with her husband Babu Lal and she had even turned out Babu Lal from her house and the witnesses had to intervene. PW 1 Babu Lal, as also stated by PW 26 Mangi Lal and others, was suffering from paralysis for about 4 to 5 years prior to the incident and the appellant often quarrelled with her husband Babu Lal and she had even turned out Babu Lal from her house and the witnesses had to intervene. As regards the fateful incident, PW 1 Babu Lal has clearly stated that at about 8.30 a.m. while he was brushing his teeth, he heard the shouting of the appellant that she had given poison to her children. On return to the door of the room wherein the children used to reside and study, he found the door chained from inside and so he shouted for help and, accordingly, PW 8 Rajesh who has been described as Masterji by Babu Lal in Ex. P/1 Report lodged with the police, came there. 22. PW 10 Gajendra Kumar, PW 12 Kishan Lal, PW 15 Basanti Lal and PW 16 Vimal Kumar, whose statements have been found to be reliable by the trial Court and rightly too, have consistently stated that, at the relevant time, since the appellant had closed herself alongwith her three children inside the room and she also chained doors of the gate from inside and, accordingly, two flaps of the gage were pushed forcibly inside resulting in giving way to the chain and its hook from inside and, on entering the room the appellant was found holding three children in her arms and she, in the first instance, did not allow them to free the children to be taken out. However, subsequently, firstly, Ankit, who was youngest of the children,'was taken out and hen the appellant along with her two children came out to another room. All the three children were vomiting while the appellant herself was in an abnormal condition. Babu Lal despatched PW 10 Gajendra Kumar, as also stated by Gajendra Kumar, to Police Station, Delwara who informed PW 28 Bhawani Singh about the incident. Bhawani Singh accompanied by his subordinates reached the house of PW 1 Babu Lal in a jeep. All the three children were vomiting while the appellant herself was in an abnormal condition. Babu Lal despatched PW 10 Gajendra Kumar, as also stated by Gajendra Kumar, to Police Station, Delwara who informed PW 28 Bhawani Singh about the incident. Bhawani Singh accompanied by his subordinates reached the house of PW 1 Babu Lal in a jeep. He also found said children of the appellant in a precarious condition and after being taken to Delwara Hospital, they were all, as also stated by the aforesaid witnesses, taken to the Government Hospital at Udaipur whereat they were admitted for treatment but, unfortunate as it is, they did not survive and died as mentioned hereinbefore. However, the appellant, who was also admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital, was discharged on 27.1.1994 when she was arrested vide Ex. P/12. 23. These statements could not be denied by the appellant herself. As a result, at the time of breaking open the door of the room wherein appellant along with her three children had closed herself from inside, she was all alone and was holding her three children in her arms, the children were vomiting, as also stated by PW 28 Bhawani Singh. This statement of Bhawani Singh is supported from Ex. P/3 Site-plan as well as Ex. P/4 Recovery Memo relating to the vomiting matter collected from the room. 24. Besides, as also borne out of Ex. P/3, Ex. P/4 and stated by' PW 1 Babu Lal, PW 28 Bhawani Singh and others, an ampoule in the shape of glass tube which has been found to be containing a poisonous substance used as insecticide for the protection of food-grain etc. being emptied was lying by her side. She had not given any explanation for the same. Thus, in the aforesaid circumstances, none else had any access to the room whereat the appellant along with her children was found sitting and the children were vomiting. She did not allege that it was either PW 1 Babu Lal or any body else who had had any occasion or motive to have administered poison to her children. All the children were in her custody. She did not allege that it was either PW 1 Babu Lal or any body else who had had any occasion or motive to have administered poison to her children. All the children were in her custody. Besides, she was holding the children in her arms and she had closed herself in the room by closing the door from inside and Babu Lal, as stated by his neighbours, forced open the door and there is no any other circumstance to hold that any body else and not the present appellant had the only opportunity to have administered poison to her children. 25. This fact is borne out of Ex. P/1 Report on the basis of which Ex. P/2 FIR was registered by PW 28 Bhawani Singh. This report was signed and loged by PW 1 Babu Lal with PW 28 on 9.1.1994 at 3.30 p.m. at Udaipur Hospital itself. Since the appellant is wife of PW 1 Babu Lal and mother of the deceased children and, therefore, Babu Lal lost no time to inform the police about the incident through PW 10 Gajendra Kumar, as also stated by Gajendra Kumar, so far as formal report is concerned, looking to the grave condition of his all the children and so also his wife, it was not unnatural on his part to have delayed in lodging of the report. The idea of lodging report against his wife in which her children were the victims could not have been immediately crept in his mind and, instead, it was most natural on his part to have lodged the report with the police as above. 26. Though, in his cross-examination, PW 1 Babu Lal stated that the police came to the spot immediately after being informed about the incident and the report might have been taken even on the next day but having regard to the statements of PW 10 Gajendra Kumar and so also PW 28 Bhawani Singh, besides, Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2, there is no doubt left that PW 1 Babu Lal lodged report with PW 28 Bhawani Singh on 9.1.1994 itself and not subsequent thereto. Ex. P/1 report also substantially corroborates the statement of PW 1 Babu Lal. 27. As regards the cause of death, as referred to above, and so also borne out of Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2, there is no doubt left that PW 1 Babu Lal lodged report with PW 28 Bhawani Singh on 9.1.1994 itself and not subsequent thereto. Ex. P/1 report also substantially corroborates the statement of PW 1 Babu Lal. 27. As regards the cause of death, as referred to above, and so also borne out of Ex. P/38 result of chemical examination, as referred to above and so also the medical evidence given by the Medical Officers, it fully leaves no doubt that the three children died of poisoning and this could not be denied by the appellant herself. 28. The appellant had procured this poison as stated by PW 1 Babu Lal and so also corroborated by PW 10 Gajendra Kumar and it was on 8.1.1994 that the appellant went to Udaipur after forcing PW 1 to dispense with a sum of Rs. 50/- to purchase poisonous substance from Udaipur. PW 14 Sunil had stated that he had sold an ampoule of EDB used as an insecticide on 8.1.1994. As stated by PW 28 Bhawani Singh, after arrest of the appellant vide Ex. P/12 on 27.1.1994, the appellant gave information that she had procured the ampoule of EDB from the shop of Mewar Beej Bhandar at Udaipur which she could lead to and, subsequently, it was at her instance that Bhawani Singh reached the premises of the shop of Mewar Beej Bhandar whereat pw 14 Sunil was found present and he admitted having sold an ampoule of EDB on 8.1.1994 as well and gave Ex. P/28-A copy of cash memo issued in such matters. Besides, the entries of stock register Ex. P/27 and Ex. P/29 further lend support to the statement of Sunil. 29. As stated by PW 28 Bhawani Singh, PW 1 Babu Lal, PW 8 Rajesh as well as PW 10 Gajendra Kumar an emptied ampoule (glass-tube) was lying at the spot which was so seized by Bhawani Singh vide Ex. P/4. Since this was an emptied tube and, therefore, as a result of chemical examination, no remnants of poison were found in the same but, since, as already concluded hereinbefore, it was the appellant who had procured this ampoule containing poisonooc substance as confirmed from the result of Ex. P/4. Since this was an emptied tube and, therefore, as a result of chemical examination, no remnants of poison were found in the same but, since, as already concluded hereinbefore, it was the appellant who had procured this ampoule containing poisonooc substance as confirmed from the result of Ex. P/38 chemical examination and she had had the only opportunity to have administered the same to her children with an intent to kill them and, simultaneously, to have consumed the same and, therefore, this circumstance has also fully established that it was the appellant who had procured the poisonous substance so administered to her children and there is nothing against it. 30. Besides, in the aforesaid circumstances, when the, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable manner of doubt, as above, that the aforesaid circumstances lead to the only conclusion that it was the appellant who alone could have administered the poisonous substance to her children resulting in their deaths and hence, though it is not incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove motive for commission of crime in every case but when the prosecution has been able to prove its case as concluded hereinbefore, the proof of motive further lends strength and corroboration to the prosecution story. Presently also, as stated by PW 1 Babu Lal and so also corroborated by the statements of PW 8 Rajesh, PW 9 Su raj Mal, PW 10 Gajendra Kumar, PW 12 Kihsan Lal, PW 15 Basanti Lal, PW 16 Vimal Kumar, PW 18 Kushal and PW 26 Mangi Lal and also alleged in Ex. P/2 FIR, since Babu Lal was paralytic for quite some time and, as also stated by him, he was not allowed to have sex with the appellant by the latter and, in the meantime, the appellant fell in love with one Hanif, also resident of Delwara residing at a distance of about one kilometer from the residence of the appellant and she had established close illicit relationship with Hanif inspite of serious objections from the side of PW 1 Babu Lal but the appellant did not oblige. All the aforesaid witnesses, time and again, intervened and made unsuccessful attempt to request the appellant not to carry on illicit relationship which brought a bad name, ill-reputation as well as disgrace to the family of Babu Lal and herself as well. All the aforesaid witnesses, time and again, intervened and made unsuccessful attempt to request the appellant not to carry on illicit relationship which brought a bad name, ill-reputation as well as disgrace to the family of Babu Lal and herself as well. However, the appellant withstood all these oppositions and suggestions there against sticking to her stand that she would at all cost continue her illicit relationship with Hanif and she could not oblige Babu Lal and she could sacrifice anything for the same. As also stated by PW 18 Kushal and others, since hotel of Kushal was situated opposite to the residence of PW 1 Babu Lal whereat Hanif used to often frequent and in absence of Babu Lal, Hanif often visited the house of appellant. 31. The appellant also did not vehemently deny this allegation that she was eloping with and carrying on illicit relationship with Hanif, as above. She had also, on more than one occasion, driven out PW 1 Babu Lal taking advantage of his handicap condition as mentioned above. 32. On the basis of aforesaid discussion of the prosecution evidence, there is no escape from arriving at the conclusion that the appellant had had a very strong motive to have finished her three children to death and, simultaneously, giving an impression that she was also attempting to commit suicide and, any how, she could survive but, however, her three innocent children of tender age met with their unfortunate deaths at the hands of their own mother who is appellant before this Court. 33. These circumstances, as referred to above and alleged in the FIR by PW 1 Babu Lal and so also stated before the Court, have been substantially further corroborated by none but DW 1 Nathu Lal who was examined by the appellant herself in her defence. His statement also does not run counter to the prosecution story, and instead, the same, in substance, lends partial support to the prosecution story. 34. His statement also does not run counter to the prosecution story, and instead, the same, in substance, lends partial support to the prosecution story. 34. Resultantly, on the basis of evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, whose testimony could not be successfully challenged by the defence before the trial Court and hence the same found acceptance with the trial Court, we also do not have any cogent and substantial ground to dis-agree with the conclusion one arrived by the learned Sessions Judge while holding that it was the appellant who had authorised this crime resulting in deaths of three innocent children at the llhands of their mother and none else. 35. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has proved all the essential ingredients in an attempt to prove guilt of the accused-appellant by way of circumstantial evidence which are conclusive in nature and the facts so proved are consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence of the appellant. These circumstances are, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused-appellant being responsible for commission of the offence with which the appellant was charged, tried and, resultantly, found guilty giving rise to the present appeal. 36. On the basis of aforesaid resume of circumstantial evidence along with medical as well as chemical evidence besides a well proved motive for the appellant for killing her three children to elope with Hanif, we hold-that the impugned judgment suffers from no illegality, infirmity or incorrectness warranting any interference by this Court. 37. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed except to the extent of order of sentence of fine. 38. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal affirming the impugned judgment and order of sentence of life imprisonment under section 302, IPC but, at the same time, being unwarranted, modifying the order of sentence of fine partially thereby reducing the quantum of fine of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 100 /- only and, in default, 7 days' rigorous imprisonment.Appeal dismissed. *******