JUDGMENT 1. -Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction recorded in Sessions case no. I 1/85 dated 4.11.1985 by the Sessions Judge, Banswara, the appellant now begs to prefer this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also submitted during the course of hearing. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have scrutinised the record and re-appreciated the evidence. The prosecution story, stated briefly, is that on 3.5.1984 at about 8.30 in the evening it was observed by PW I Dr. Sunil Kumar that when he was called to see a serious patient and when he visited the patient he saw that the patient was dead. The deceased was one Navin Kumar husband of the accused Kusumlata. PW 1 has deposed that when he saw the patient, the patient was dead. He did not administer any treatment to the patient. It is pertinent to note that the incident has taken place in May, 1984 and the investigation and prosecution was taken up only in December, 1984. As will be seen from the evidence, even no suspicion was expressed in regard to the commission of any offence by the accused. 3. PW 2 Ishaq is the uncle of the deceased Navin and had brought up the deceased. The witness has deposed that when he met Navin Kumar on the fateful day at about 5.30 in the evening, Navin Kumar was hale and hearty and was not in any manner ill. The witness has charted with the deceased for about half an hour and left him alive. It is deposed by the witness that the marriage between the accused and the deceased had taken place about 15 . years ago and their matrimonial life was normal. Some times there used to be quarrels between the husband and the wife. Navin Kumar had stayed in Kuwait to earn substantial money and used to complain that inspite of his sending so much money there is no account for that money. Even though Ishaq PW 2 has stated in this deposition that he doubted natural death of Navin Kumar, it is pertinent to note that he has no where alleged that he even doubted homicidal death of Navin Kumar caused by Kusumlata, the present accused. Even though Ishaq PW 2 has stated in this deposition that he doubted natural death of Navin Kumar, it is pertinent to note that he has no where alleged that he even doubted homicidal death of Navin Kumar caused by Kusumlata, the present accused. He admits in his cross-examination that his statement was recorded by the police 7 days after the date of incident. It will thus he seen that for more than six months the death of Navin Kumar was considered by all concerned either suicidal or accidental. 4. PW 3 Raju deposes to have heard about the death of Navin Kumar at about 9 in the evening. He stated that Navin Kumar was staying in Kuwait for about 8 years and in his absence two persons who used to visit Kusumlata were regarded by her as her brothers. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was tied Rakhi by Kusumlata and was thus regarding her as her sister. 5. PW 4 Abdul Aziz deposes in his statement that he was known to Kusumlata because she used to travel in his Rikshaw and Kusumlata tied Rakhi in his hand. In his cross-examination he has stated as under:- " ;g ckr xyr gS fd Vsi ugha cspus ij dqlqe ds vkSj uohu ds >xM+k gqvk gks vkSj uohu us dqlqe dks ekjk gksA " This question was obviously asked to the witness to establish motive for Kusumlata to kill Navin Kumar and the denial takes away the motive. This witness has also admitted that his statement was recorded by the Police 7 months after the death of Navin Kumar. 6. PW 5 Abdul Majid is a wholly inconsequential witness who states that he used to take medicines from Kusumlata. We fail to understand as to why this witness was examined at all. PW 6 Jitendra is the son of deceased Navin Kumar. This witness has deposed that when he went to the church there was a man with his father and father was preparing mutton on the stove and the man whose name he did not know was present there. PW 6 Jitendra is the son of deceased Navin Kumar. This witness has deposed that when he went to the church there was a man with his father and father was preparing mutton on the stove and the man whose name he did not know was present there. He has further deposed in his examination in chief as under:- " esjs ikik 3 ebZ dks ejsA esjs ikik dks dksbZ chekjh ugha Fkh ysfdu oks 'kjkc ihrs Fks blfy;s ej x;sA " The witness was declared hostile: He has stated in the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor as under:- " esjs ikik esjh eEeh ls pqids&pqids 'kjkc ihrs FksA " 7. PW 7, Irshad Ahmad is a Tempo Driver. His tempo was used to carry the deceased from his house to the hospital. He is an inconsequential witness. 8. PW 8 Sikander is another such witness who saw the deceased lying unconscious. PW 9 Sewa Singh is a witness to the recovery of soil mixed with vomit of the deceased. The analysis of this soiled vomit proved later on that it was poison. 9. PW 10 Mohd. Ishaq was another person who was responsible for transporting the deceased Navin Kumar to hospital in unconscious state. PW 11 Balu who was regarded as brother by the appellant was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. His evidence is of no consequence in such circumstances. PW 12 Ranjeet Singh is the person who called Dr. Joseph to look at deceased Navin Kumar. He proves nothing. 10. PW 13 is Chandulal. The witness has deposed that Navin Kumar, the deceased had called for two cups of tea. After they took tea, the accused-Kusumlata came to the house, changed her cloths and was asked to serve the food by the deceased. The witness states that the food was rice, meat and bread (Roti). The bread was in tiffin and rice and meat were in different plates. The witness states that rice and meat were served by Kusumlata and brought out in the Varandah. Then the deceased Navin requested his wife to takefood and she replied that she will take food after returning from her mother and pen the witness states that Kusumlata left the house for going to her mother. The witness states that rice and meat were served by Kusumlata and brought out in the Varandah. Then the deceased Navin requested his wife to takefood and she replied that she will take food after returning from her mother and pen the witness states that Kusumlata left the house for going to her mother. The witness then states:- " uohu us pkoy o ehV feykdj nks rhu fuokys [kk;s fQj ihNs cjkens esa x;sA cjkens esa tkdj ns[kk rks uohuth mYVs gq, iM+s FksA " "The witness thereafter called the deceased. Having received no response the witness called the wife of the accused Kusumlata and thereafter assisted the accused in reaching the deceased to the hospital and was present when he was pronounced dead. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that Kusumlata did not prepared food in his presence. He has also deposed that the food was already prepared. It will be pertinent to note that according to this witness accused Kusumlata arrived when he was already sitting with the deceased Navin Kumar. She then changed her cloths and served the food to the deceased. The witness has specifically stated that the food was already prepared. 11. PW 14 Kirti Kumar is witness to the execution of Ex. P/6 and proves nothing. PW 15 Shantilal has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and opined that the death was caused due to poison. 12. PW 16 Bhawani Singh proves taking of the articles for analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory in sealed condition. PW I7 Thawara Ram is the police official who seized the food that were served to the deceased and sent it to the Forensic Science Laboratory. PW 18 Dinesh Chandra proves that the seals of the articles sent for analysis were intact. 13. It is on appreciation of this evidence that the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion of guilt and convicted the appellant as aforesaid. The judgment and order of conviction is assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the following grounds ;- (1) There is no direct evidence of poison being administered by the accused. (2) The circumstantial evidence is hopelessly inadequate to warrant judgment of conviction. (3) The food admittedly was prepared by the deceased and there is no evidence on record that there was any opportunity for the accused to mix poison in the said food. (2) The circumstantial evidence is hopelessly inadequate to warrant judgment of conviction. (3) The food admittedly was prepared by the deceased and there is no evidence on record that there was any opportunity for the accused to mix poison in the said food. PW 13 Chandulal has stated in his statement that the accused came to the house in his presence, changed her cloths and served food to the accused and then left for seeing her mother and it was thereafter that the deceased immediately vomited and was taken unconscious. The entire episode according to the witness occurred in about five minutes. According to the learned counsel, therefore, this evidence does not in any manner implicate the accused as the poison which was the cause of death becomes effective after about 30 minutes of consumption and, therefore, mixing of poison in the food cannot be attributed to the accused and, therefore, the order of conviction is bad. 14. There is evidence of PW 13 Chandulal on record stating that the deceased Navin Kumar consumed tea about half an hour prior to the consumption of food. The possibility of the tea being contaminated tea is not over ruled. There is, therefore, possibility of the deceased being killed by consuming contamited tea. All the circumstances according to the learned counsel, have not been established by the prosecution. 15. Relying on several judgments of the Supreme Court, mainly, Sharad Birdhiehand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , it was contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that all the links necessary for establishing murder by the accused have not been established by the prosecution in the present case. The prosecution has not proved any motive on the part of the accused. The prosecution has not proved that the accused had poison in her possession and she had opportunity to administer this poison to the deceased. According to the learned counsel the poison was such as was to take at-least 30 minutes to be effective and from the evidence established on record it is proved that from her arrival in the house to departure not more than 10 minutes were consumed and factually poison had taken effect on consumption of the food. Consequently, there was no opportunity for her to administer this kind of poison to the deceased. Consequently, there was no opportunity for her to administer this kind of poison to the deceased. According to the learned counsel, therefore, various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence have not been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution and, therefore, the conviction is unsustainable. 16. It is true that there is no evidence established on record to show any motive for the accused to kill the deceased. Mere fact of there being quarrels between the man and wife is grossly insufficient evidence of such motive. There is also no evidence that the accused had in possession of the poison. Evidence regarding administration of such poison by the wife is also lacking. In such circumstances taking into consideration the dicta of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused alone who was responsible for homicidal death of the deceased. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the above case as under:- "It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt." The prosecution has not established by any evidence the fact that the accused had opportunity to make food with poison or that she had been in.possession of poison. The only evidence in this regard is that of PW 13 Chandulal who says that the accused came home, changed her cloths and served food and all this occurred in 10 minutes. From the expert evidence it has come on record that the poison which was found in the meat or the viscera of the deceased was of the kind which would take effect after 30 minutes and consequently the wife could not have mix the food with poison after her arrival. In such circumstances we find it unsafe to convict the accused as it was done by the trial Court. In our opinion the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as was given in the above referred case by the Supreme Court of India. 17. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Since the accused is already on bail, her bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******