Judgment ( 1. ) AGGRIEVED by his conviction, the appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 15-5-1998 of the learned Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No. 58/1997, by which, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to serve out additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year. ( 2. ) THE facts of the prosecution case lie in a narrow compass. It is alleged that deceased Sushila Bai alongwith her mother-in-law Noni Bai had gone to Village Hindoria for treatment of Noni Bai and had returned from there on 13-3-97. While they were returning to their village, the accused gave two betels to Sushila Bai (deceased) stating that she may have one and the other one was for her husband Kishori Lal. Sushila Bai consumed one, but while she was on way, she fell sick and consumed another. In the village her condition started deteriorating and she was taken to the hospital where her stomach was washed by the attending doctor, Dr. L. K. Tiwari (P. W. 9), who prepared the medical report (Ex. P-11) in which he mentioned that she had been kept as an indoor patient in the hospital and on the basis of her condition, she was discharged on 8-4-97 in the evening. Since no mode of conveyance was available on that date, she went by bus the next day but enroute, her condition worsened with the result when they were taking her in a bullock cart, she died. ( 3. ) HER death was reported by Kishori Lal and merg was registered vide Ex. P-4 at Police Station, Simriya. The witnesses were called and inquest report was prepared. Spot map (Ex. D-2) was prepared and, thereafter, the dead body was forwarded with the requisition (Ex. P-17) for post-mortem examination. The Autopsy Surgeon Dr. D. K. Tiwari (P. W. 13), vide his report (Ex. P-21) opined to the effect that her death could have been homicidal. The viscera of the deceased was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory from where report (Ex. P-16) was received to the effect that although the stomach washing, marked as d, did not contain any poison, the viscera contained toxic substance namely; Arsenic Oxide. After collection of evidence, the accused was prosecuted. ( 4. The viscera of the deceased was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory from where report (Ex. P-16) was received to the effect that although the stomach washing, marked as d, did not contain any poison, the viscera contained toxic substance namely; Arsenic Oxide. After collection of evidence, the accused was prosecuted. ( 4. ) THE accused was charged for an offence under Section 302, IPC. The accused pleaded that he had not committed any offence and that he was innocent. He also stated that he had been falsely implicated. The learned Trial Judge, however, convicted and sentenced him, on trial as stated hereinabove. It is this order of the Sessions Court which the appellant is assailing in the present appeal. ( 5. ) IT is not in dispute that Sushila Bai has died as stated by the prosecution, but the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that from the evidence on record it has been clearly spelt out that her death was homicidal. The learned Govt. Advocate, per contra, submits that it was only after the accused offered paan that she fell sick and her condition progressively deteriorated till she succumbed to the poison administered by the accused and, therefore, there can be no doubt whatsoever that her death was homicidal. ( 6. ) IN the present case it would be seen that from the prosecution evidence itself it becomes doubtful that her death was on account of any poisonous substance administered by the accused to the deceased. The first doubt is created by the report (Ex. P-10) sent by the first medical expert who attended the deceased. In Ex. P-10 it has clearly been conveyed to the police that the deceased was admitted in the District Hospital in female ward in serious condition on account of consumption of some unknown substance. Had it been true, that she had complained that it was on account of the paan which she had eaten that she had become sick, the doctor would not have stated in his letter that it was some unknown substance which had resulted in the toxicity. The other circumstance which militates against the prosecution evidence is the report (Ex. P-16) of the Forensic Science Laboratory. In this report 4 articles, including viscera, were examined and the contents of vomit marked as d, on examination did not reveal any poison. The other circumstance which militates against the prosecution evidence is the report (Ex. P-16) of the Forensic Science Laboratory. In this report 4 articles, including viscera, were examined and the contents of vomit marked as d, on examination did not reveal any poison. Thus, the doubt is created by the evidence on record with regard to the stomach contents of the deceased containing any poisonous substance. It is for this reason that Dr. D. K. Tiwari (P. W. 13), Autopsy Surgeon, has given guarded report and has stated that in the post-mortem symptoms of poisoning by arsenic were not found. Even in the post-mortem report (Ex. P-12) he had opined that the nature of death, although can not be ascertained by post-mortem, homicidal assault can not be excluded and circumstantial evidence will confirm the exact nature. From these factors enumerated hereinabove, a reasonable doubt is crated with regard to her death being homicidal; atleast not on account of the arsenic having been surreptitiously administered in the paan given to her. ( 7. ) IF the matter is examined, from another perspective, we find that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that her death was homicidal, it is seen that she had consumed paan on 30-3-1997, on 31-3-97 she was admitted and on 8-4-97 she was discharged from the hospital. Nothing has been brought on record by examining the medical expert to suggest that anything administered 9 days ago would have the consequence as late as on the 9th day. It was only a rustic guess or suspicion of the deceased that the paan had caused sickness on the basis whereof the prosecution proceeded without probing into the matter as to the real cause of her death. In the dying-declaration (Ex. P-1) recorded on 31-3-97 she has stated that the accused gave her the paan to eat and, therefore, it caused sickness. She also stated that the accused had enmity with her husband. We fail to appreciate how she would be disposed to accept a paan from a person having inimical relations with her husband and consuming not one but both the paans, even the one that was meant for her husband and that too when after eating the first she had felt uneasy. ( 8. We fail to appreciate how she would be disposed to accept a paan from a person having inimical relations with her husband and consuming not one but both the paans, even the one that was meant for her husband and that too when after eating the first she had felt uneasy. ( 8. ) FROM the above circumstances we are clearly of the view that although it is doubtful that the death of Sushila Bai was homicidal, but even if we were to think it was so, the circumstances do not indicate that the death had any connection with the alleged paan (betel) offered to her by the accused, if at all, the other circumstance also do not indicate that it was on account of any act of the accused, that resulted in her death. In any case, in view of the circumstances on record, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, we find that he is entitled to be acquitted of the charge against him. ( 9. ) THIS appeal is, therefore, allowed. Appellants conviction under Section 302, IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. He be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other matter.