JUDGMENT - J.N. PATEL, J.:---The appellant, along with one Rajkumar s/o Fagu Kewat, came to be charged for having committed murder of her husband Ganesh Sakharam Bawanthade by administering poison to him, in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1995. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, by his judgment and order, dated 19-8-1995, found the appellant Parbatabai guilty of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, simple imprisonment for six months, and acquitted the co-accused Rajkumar of the charge of having committed offence under section 109 read with section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is this conviction and sentence which is challenged by the appellant before this Court. 2. The prosecution's case is that the appellant-Parbatabai, who was distantly related to deceased Ganesh, got married to him in June 1994. On her marriage, she came to reside with Ganesh for about nine days and then went to her parents place. Sakharam, the father of the deceased Ganesh, went to the parents house of Parbatabai in the month of Kartik so as to bring her back. On 21-11-1994, in the morning, Parbatabai accompanied by a six years old girl, by name Alka, who was related to her as niece, was brought by Sakharam to her matrimonial home at Navegaon (Khurd). In the evening, the appellant Parbatabai prepared meals, i.e., rice and curry, and served it to Sakharam, her father-in-law, and Ganesh, her husband, in two separate plates. While taking meals, Ganesh, the deceased husband of Parbatabai, expressed that it was smelling kerosene. On this Sakharam advised him, not to take food. Sakharam then tested the rice served to Ganesh and confirmed that it was smelling kerosene and, therefore, he told Ganesh to call a dog so that food can be tested, to see whether it is poisonous. On this, the appellant is alleged to have lifted the plate of Ganesh and threw it over the "Kupati" (a place earmarked to dump garbage). In the meantime, the dog of Ramdas brother of Sakharam, was brought. The dog tested the same food and started jumping restlessly. After some time, condition of Ganesh started deteriorating and froth was seen coming out from his mouth and he was beating his arms. The villagers gathered there. In the meantime, the dog of Ramdas brother of Sakharam, was brought. The dog tested the same food and started jumping restlessly. After some time, condition of Ganesh started deteriorating and froth was seen coming out from his mouth and he was beating his arms. The villagers gathered there. Some household treatment was given to Ganesh, but he died within an hour of consuming the food. 3. The dead body of Ganesh was brought to Bhandara. Sakharam (P.W. 1) lodged a report (Exhibit 17) with the police camping at Navegaon (Khurd). API Gedam (P.W. 11), on receipt of the report (Exhibit 39) from Police Patil about the death of Ganesh, got AD (Exhibit 38) registered, and recorded the statement of Sakharam. He conducted an inquest panchanama (Exhibit 27) and the dead body of Ganesh was sent for post-mortem examination API Gedam visited the scene of offence and conducted spot panchanama (Exhibit 28) and seized Articles from the scene of offence, vide seizure memo (Exhibit 29). He also collected sample of food and of mud and the rats which were found lying dead at the place, and these articles and material were then sent to the Chemical Analyser. While conducting spot panchanama, API Gedam also seized a bottle containing liquid, which was also referred to the Chemical Analyser. A Photographer was also called. The appellant/accused came to be arrested. In the course of investigation, API Gedam recorded statements of witnesses. On getting information from the appellant/accused, API Gedam visited Belgaon, a place where the appellant's parents were residing. There, he arrested Rajkumar, on whose information, APT Gedam was able to seize one can of Endosulfan found kept in the roof of the house of Ramprakash Deshmukh of Belgaon. The can of Endosulfan was then sent to the Chemical Analyser. On completing the investigation, API Gedam filed charge-sheet against the appellant/accused and the co-accused Rajkumar. 4. There, he arrested Rajkumar, on whose information, APT Gedam was able to seize one can of Endosulfan found kept in the roof of the house of Ramprakash Deshmukh of Belgaon. The can of Endosulfan was then sent to the Chemical Analyser. On completing the investigation, API Gedam filed charge-sheet against the appellant/accused and the co-accused Rajkumar. 4. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has proved that on 21-11-1994, at about 7.00 p.m., the appellant/accused caused death of her husband Ganesh by serving him food mixed with poison and having found her guilty, convicted and sentenced her for having committed offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas original accused No. 2 Rajkumar came to be acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove that he abetted commission of offence of murder of Ganesh by procuring poison and administering it to Ganesh by appellant/original accused No. 1. 5. Mr. Sandeep Jaiswal, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove their case against the appellant/accused, having failed to establish that she had necessary motive and required intention to administer poison to Ganesh. According to Mr. Jaiswal, it is highly improbable that a young girl of 18 years, who was recently married, would poison her husband without any cause. 6. Mr. Jaiswal submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish that the appellant/accused was in possession of the poison which she could have administered to Ganesh. Mr. Jaiswal pointed out that it is the case of the prosecution that API Gedam seized the bottle containing the poison from the scene of offence, while conducting spot panchanama (Exhibit 28) under seizure memo (Exhibit 29), which is negatived by the panch Kumbhare (P.W. 7) himself, when in cross-examination, he specifically admitted that the bottle was not found; and further, if one examines the evidence of Nirmalabai (P.W. 2) and Lalitabai (P.W. 3), it is obvious that the alleged bottle containing poison was picked up by the witnesses and the villagers present on the scene of offence, and there is no explanation as to where the bottle was left till the time API Gedam came to the scene of offence and seized the same and, therefore, this, itself, is sufficient to disbelieve the case of the prosecution that the appellant was in possession of the poison. 7. 7. Another aspect, which has been pressed into service by Mr. Jaiswal, is that the prosecution has also failed to establish the source from which Parbatabai has procured the poison and that the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the prosecutions case as to recovery of poison at the instance of original accused No. 2 Rajkumar and, therefore, acquitted Rajkumar of having abetted the commission of offence by supplying poison to Parbatabai. According to Mr. Jaiswal, when the trial Court had disbelieved the prosecution's case as to the source of poison, then it ought to have given benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant/accused and acquitted her. 8. Mr. Deepak Thakre, learned A.P.P., submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant/accused by examining the witnesses, namely, Sakharam (P.W. 1), the father of deceased Ganesh, in whose presence Ganesh, after consuming the poisonous food, suffered pangs of poisoning and died; Nirmalabai (P.W. 2) and Lalitabai (P.W. 3), who are the witnesses to the incident of the appellant/accused throwing the bottle containing poison, which was seized by the police in the course of investigation. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the prosecution has sufficiently proved that the appellant/accused had poison in her possession, which she administered to Ganesh and that Ganesh died due to poisoning, which has been established by examining the Medical Officer, Mr. Yadao (P.W. 4) and placing on record the Chemical Analyser's Report (Exhibit 22) and, therefore, even if the trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution's case as to the source from which the appellant/accused procured poison, it will not, in any manner, affect the finding of the trial Court insofar as it relates to the appellant/accused. 9. Mr. Thakre, learned A.P.P., submitted that it is not necessary that in each and every case, the prosecution may be able to place on record the motive for committing such heinous offence. It is submitted that it was within exclusive knowledge of the appellant/accused as to why she murdered her husband by administering poison. According to Mr. 9. Mr. Thakre, learned A.P.P., submitted that it is not necessary that in each and every case, the prosecution may be able to place on record the motive for committing such heinous offence. It is submitted that it was within exclusive knowledge of the appellant/accused as to why she murdered her husband by administering poison. According to Mr. Thakre, the only indication, which can be found as to the cause why appellant Parbatabai would kill her husband, is in the evidence of Sakharam (P.W. 1), the father of deceased Ganesh, and the report (Exhibit 17) promptly lodged by him in the Police Station; and from it, it can be inferred that the marriage between Parbatabai and Ganesh was performed without obtaining their willingness. Mr. Thakre has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh)1, 1999(2) Crimes 31 S.C., in which the Supreme Court held as under: "It is not the requirement of law that unless prosecution establishes a motive of the accused to murder the deceased prosecution must necessarily fail. No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dismension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended." Mr. Thakre, therefore, prays that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. We propose to examine the case of the prosecution by putting it to the following tests, i.e. whether the prosecution has been able to establish that (i) the death took place by poisoning, (ii) the appellant/accused had the poison in her possession and (iii) the appellant/accused had the opportunity of administering poison to the deceased? 11. 10. We propose to examine the case of the prosecution by putting it to the following tests, i.e. whether the prosecution has been able to establish that (i) the death took place by poisoning, (ii) the appellant/accused had the poison in her possession and (iii) the appellant/accused had the opportunity of administering poison to the deceased? 11. Sakharam Urkuda Bawanthade (P.W. 1), the father-in-law of the appellant/accused and the father of deceased Ganesh, in his evidence before the Court, has stated that after Ganesh ate the food served by the appellant/accused, his condition became precarious, he was beating his arms and froth was coming out of his mouth. He was unable to speak. Though some household treatment was given to him, Ganesh breathed his last within one hour after taking the food. Immediately after Ganesh died, Sakharam had lodged a report (Exhibit 17), and on getting the information, API Gedam (P.W. 11) visited the scene of offence and conducted inquest panchanama (Exhibit 27). The inquest panchanama (Exhibit 27) was witnessed by the panchas, out of whom, the panch Kumbhare (P.W. 7) has been examined. The inquest panchanama (Exhibit 27) clearly records that on examining the dead body of deceased Ganesh, it was found that his face was appearing pale and dull, his eyes were closed, his mouth was partly open and white froth was coming out from his nostrils and mouth; the nails of fingers and toes were appearing bluish and blackish and the lips had a blackish appearance; and on this, the panchas, as well as API Gedam felt that Ganesh might have died due to poisoning. 12. API Gedam (P.W. 11) had sent the dead body of Ganesh for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Yadao (P.W. 4). Dr. Yadao, in his evidence, before the Court, has stated that on 23-4-1994, he conducted the post-mortem on the dead boy of Ganesh Bawanthade and found that blood was oozing from the mouth and nostrils. The internal examination disclosed congestion of lungs; blood-stains found oozing from both the lungs and sub-pleural petechial haemorrhagic spot present on both the lungs. As he suspected the case of poisoning, he collected viscera organs and reserved his opinion. Viscera was sent to the Chemical Analyser for analysis. He has prepared the Post-mortem Report which is at Exhibit 21, which sufficiently corroborates his evidence before the Court. As he suspected the case of poisoning, he collected viscera organs and reserved his opinion. Viscera was sent to the Chemical Analyser for analysis. He has prepared the Post-mortem Report which is at Exhibit 21, which sufficiently corroborates his evidence before the Court. The Chemical Analyser's Report (Exhibit 22) gives the result of analysis of the Viscera, as a result of detection of organochloro insecticide Endosulfan (Thiodan) and Petroleum hydrocarbons in Exhibits Nos. (1) and (2) are positive. It also states that the level of Endosulfan detected in Exhibit Nos. (1) and (2) is of the same order as that found in fatal poisoning cases involving Endosulfan. This, of course, sufficiently establishes that Ganesh died due to poisoning. 13. The next thing will be, as to whether the appellant/accused Parbatabai had poison in her possession. In order to establish this fact, the prosecution has examined Nirmalabai (P.W. 2) and Lalitabai (P.W. 3). Both these witnesses are neighbours of Sakharam (P.W. 1), and when Sakharam found that his son was behaving in an unnatural way after consuming the food, he called the villagers and that is how, Nirmalabai and Lalitabai came to his house, along with others, and saw Ganesh breathing his last. It has come in their evidence that after the death of Ganesh, the Police Patil of the village, who happened to be the brother of Sakharam (P.W. 1), had come there. He told them, not to leave the house of Ganesh and keep a watch on the appellant/accused. They noticed that at about 4.00 a.m., in the morning, the appellant/accused, on the pretext of going to ease herself, went outside the house, and after crossing the courtyard, she suddenly took out a bottle tugged in her waist and threw it. As these witnesses were told to keep watch on her, they followed her and found her doing so, and so they called Parbatabai and enquired from her, but she did not say anything. Therefore, these witnesses picked up the bottle and smelt it and, according to them, it was smelling like poison, i.e., insecticide. The witnesses have identified the bottle (Article 1) before the Court as the same bottle which they saw Parbatabai throwing away by taking out from her waist. API Gedam, when came to the spot, he was able to seize this bottle under the Seizure Memo (Exhibit 29), while conducting the spot panchanama (Exhibit 28). The witnesses have identified the bottle (Article 1) before the Court as the same bottle which they saw Parbatabai throwing away by taking out from her waist. API Gedam, when came to the spot, he was able to seize this bottle under the Seizure Memo (Exhibit 29), while conducting the spot panchanama (Exhibit 28). 14. There is some discrepancy in the prosecution's case as to from where the bottle (Article 1) has been seized. The prosecution's witnesses Nirmalabai (P.W. 2) and Lalitabai (P.W. 3) have rather come with a story that they had picked the bottle from where it was thrown and kept it on the eaves of the roof, it has come in their evidence that it was handed over to the police. On the other hand, API Gedam has stated that it was seized from the spot. An attempt was made to discredit Lalitabai (P.W. 3), by suggesting that she has not seen the appellant/accused while throwing the bottle, but that itself would not discredit her evidence before the Court. The fact, remains that the bottle (Article 1) was seized from the spot. We find sufficient assurance from the evidence given by Nirmalabai and Lalitabai as regards the bottle (Article 1) being in the possession of the appellant/accused, which, they had seen her throwing and which they collected from the spot and preserved it till it was handed over to the police. This was a quite natural conduct on their part, as they were told to keep watch on Parbatabai and, therefore, though panch Kumbhare (P.W. 7) does not support the prosecution as regards the seizure of the bottle (Article 1) not being found on the spot, it is sufficiently explained by the prosecution relying on the evidence of Nirmalabai (P.W. 2) and Lalitabai (P.W. 3). 15. This bottle (Article 1), after its seizure by the police, was sent to the Chemical Analyser, and the Chemical Analyser's Report, dated 21-2-1995 (Exhibit 43) in respect of the bottle (Article 1), which is one catechu coloured small bottle containing liquid, clearly shows result of detection of organochloro insecticide Endosulfan (Thiodan) and petroleum hydrocarbons in Exhibit No. (1) are positive. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the bottle (Article 1) containing Endosulfan-poisonous substance, was in possession of the appellant/accused. 16. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the bottle (Article 1) containing Endosulfan-poisonous substance, was in possession of the appellant/accused. 16. The question now remains to be examined is whether the appellant had an opportunity to administer poison to the deceased and, in our opinion, the prosecution has successfully established it by examining Sakharam (P.W. 1), who stated in his evidence that he returned with his daughter-in-law, i.e., the appellant/accused Parbatabai, from Belgaon on the fateful day and she was accompanied with Alka, a six years old girl (the niece of the appellant/accused). On the very evening, the appellant/accused cooked food and served it in two separate plates, one for his son Ganesh and one for him. When they were sitting for taking meals, the deceased called Alka (i.e., the girl who accompanied the appellant/accused from her parents place) to join him for the meals, but, at that time, the appellant/accused asked Alka not to dine with Ganesh but dine with Sakharam. After taking two morsels of food, Ganesh, the deceased, made a grievance that the food was smelling of kerosene, so the witness told him that there was no smell of any kerosene in his food. By this time, Ganesh had already swallowed some food. So he advised Ganesh that if it was smelling of kerosene, he should not eat the food. In order to test whether the food served to Ganesh was smelling of kerosene, he took a small quantity of food himself and he also felt that it was smelling of kerosene. He spat the food. Thereafter, he told Ganesh to call a dog and let them feed it to him to see whether it was poisonous. On this, the appellant/accused Parbatabai immediately lifted the food-plate of Ganesh and threw it towards 'Kupati'. When the dog came and tested the food, he started jumping here and there restlessly. Therefore, Sakharam told Ganesh not to take food any more. On this Ganesh got up and went away and sat on a cot. Thereafter, condition of Ganesh became precarious, he was beating, his arms and frothing from his mouth. Therefore, Sakharam called villagers, because Ganesh was unable to speak. They applied some household treatment to him but he breathed his last within one hour after taking food. 17. We have no reason to disbelieve Sakharam (P.W. 1), who is a natural witness to the incident. Therefore, Sakharam called villagers, because Ganesh was unable to speak. They applied some household treatment to him but he breathed his last within one hour after taking food. 17. We have no reason to disbelieve Sakharam (P.W. 1), who is a natural witness to the incident. Though he is the father of deceased Ganesh, we do not find that he has any reason to falsely implicate his own daughter-in-law for whose marriage he was himself instrumental. The very fact, that food was cooked by the appellant/accused Parbatabai and served by her to her father-in-law as well as Ganesh, gives sufficient opportunity to the appellant/accused to poison the food served to Ganesh. The conduct of the appellant/accused Parbatabai, which has come on record and as observed by Sakharam himself in the process of having meals, also points at her guilt, the first of it being that when Ganesh called the little girl Alka to have food with him, it is Parbatabai, the appellant/accused, who told Alka not to sit with Ganesh and share his food, but she should share her food with Sakharam. It was a gesture shown by Ganesh to Alka, who had accompanied his wife, which is customary and humane. However, interception at the behest of Parbatabai in not allowing Alka to have her food with Ganesh, sufficiently indicates that she had the knowledge that the food served to Ganesh was poisonous and it would not be safe for Alka to have it and that, except for Parbatabai, the possibility of someone else mixing poison with the food served to Ganesh is ruled out. Secondly, when Sakharam became suspicious about the food served to Ganesh, as the latter complained of obnoxious smell coming out of it, which fact was verified and confirmed by him, by tasting it, and when he told Ganesh to summon a dog to taste the food; Parbatabai immediately lifted the plate in which the food was served to Ganesh and threw it away. This conduct of Parbatabai also shows that it was she who was instrumental in administering poison to Ganesh. 18. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant/accused Parbatabai, not only had an opportunity to administer poison to her husband Ganesh but was also successful in administering it which caused his death. 19. The contention of Mr. 18. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant/accused Parbatabai, not only had an opportunity to administer poison to her husband Ganesh but was also successful in administering it which caused his death. 19. The contention of Mr. Jaiswal, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, that the prosecution having failed to prove motive, makes its case suspect insofar as culpability of Parbatabai is concerned, cannot be accepted. While appreciating the prosecution case, proof of motive would satisfy any judicial mind about the authorship of the crime, but absence of it does not ipso facto result in the acquittal of the accused. 20. At this stage, we may venture to say that the investigation in this regard has been sluggish. Though API Gedam was successful in tracing out the source of poison, but he did not find it necessary to carry out thorough investigation so as to place on record, as to what was the motive for Parbatabai, a newly married young girl, to have poisoned her husband. In our considered opinion, the prosecution has furnished the link in procuring of the poison by the appellant/accused from the co-accused Rajkumar who has been acquitted by the trial Court by disbelieving the seizure of can containing Endosulfan, which was on the basis of information given by the appellant/accused. The trial Court was swayed away by the fact that the panch witness relating to the recovery of the can on the information given by Rajkumar (original accused No. 2), having turned hostile, felt that it was not safe to rely on this recovery of the can containing Endosulfan. The police, after seizure of the can, from which source, according to the prosecution, the appellant/accused could procure poison, had forwarded it to the Chemical Analyser for analysis and the Chemical Analyser's Report, dated 21-2-1995, (Annexure 43), clearly records the results of analysis as detection of organochloro insecticide Endosulfan (Thiodan) and Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Exhibit Nos. (1) and (2), are positively. Why Parbatabai administered poison to her husband remains a mystery. (1) and (2), are positively. Why Parbatabai administered poison to her husband remains a mystery. But it has come in her statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that the original accused No. 2 Rajkumar is related to her as uncle, whereas the two panch witnesses, who have turned hostile, i.e., Tularam Mukaji Wadadkar (P.W. 9) and Vithal Kashiram Mate (P.W. 10), have stated that the accused No. 1 is sister in relation to accused No. 2. Well, while inferring anything as regards the relationship between the two, would be merely to draw conjectures. But, one thing is certain that Parbatabai could procure poison only with the assistance of Rajkumar, as the poison detected in the bottle (Article 1) and that in the can recovered at the instance of Rajkumar had identical characteristic and the whole exercise was out of the information the police could gather from the appellant/accused Parbatabai. In the facts and circumstances, though the trial Court has acquitted the original accused No. 2 Rajkumar, we do not find that it can be of any help to the appellant/accused, against whom the prosecution has independently proved the charge of committing murder of her husband, by administering poison. 21. To conclude, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant/accused Parbatabai is guilty of committing murder of her husband Ganesh Bawanthade, by poisoning him, and the trial Court was, therefore, right in convicting and sentencing her for having committed the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----