JUDGMENT (CAV) Per A.K. Trivedi, J.--Sole appellant Arbind Prasad @ Sushil Kumar Verma being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 30.01.1990 passed by Sessions Judge. Nalanda at Biharsharif in relation to Sessions Trial No. 362 of 1988 holding the appellant guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and directed to undergo R.I. for life, has filed instant appeal. 2. Lakhan Lal (PW 8) gave his fardbeyan (Exhibit-2) on 18.02.1988 at about 10:45 a.m. at his house lying at village Kadirganj before Jamadar of Rahui P.S. disclosing therein that marriage of his daughter Rita Devi (deceased) was solemnized about three years ago with Arbind Prasad of village Barauni. About six or seven months ago his daughter came to his place on account of quarrel between the spouse and since thereafter she was staying at his place. On 17.02.1988 at about 07:00 p.m. his son-in-law (Arbind Prasad) came at his place and after taking meal his son-in-law as well as his daughter has gone in a room to sleep. At about 02:00 a.m. his daughter came out from the room crying "Babuji Bachawa, Chachaji Bachawa". He along with his mother and other family members came near her and on query his daughter disclosed that her husband has administered tablet which struck of in her neck. So she said that she will not survive. During course thereof his son-in-law stealthily tried to slip but was apprehended. Thereafter, he rushed to local quack Anant Pandey who came and directed him to shift the girl immediately and accordingly he took his daughter to Dr. Indradeo Prasad of village Bhagan Bigha who declare her dead. Then thereafter he returned back therefrom and got the matter informed to police through local Chowkidar. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Rahui P.S. Case No. 19 of 1988 was registered followed with investigation as well as submission of charge-sheet against the sole accused/appellant Arbind Prasad who accordingly faced trial and convicted in a manner which is subject matter of instant appeal. 4. The defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as from statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC is of innocence as well as complete denial of occurrence. It has further been submitted that he has been knowingly and intentionally being roped in this case out of malice and grudge. 4. The defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as from statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC is of innocence as well as complete denial of occurrence. It has further been submitted that he has been knowingly and intentionally being roped in this case out of malice and grudge. It has further been submitted that there was cordial relationship between the spouse. It has further been submitted that his apprehension by police at his sasural was effected by way of deceitful means. 5. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court, it has been submitted that the same is based upon presumption as well as assumption without having substantial support with. It has further been submitted that neither cause of death has been ascertained nor there happens to be an eye-witness to occurrence. It has further been submitted that staying of appellant on the alleged date at the place of deceased is not at all found established by cogent reliable evidence. Contrary to it, the appellant during course of his statement under Section 313 of the Cr PC had fully explained how his presence was secured at the place of occurrence by deceitful means therefore no adverse inference could have been drawn against the appellant on that very score. Apart from this, it has further been submitted that the obligation to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies upon the prosecution wherein the prosecution had failed. The judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court appears to be perfunctory and is accordingly liable to be set aside. 6. It has further been submitted that the prosecution witnesses itself admitted about appearing of the appellant in the Matriculation Examination from the jail while he was under trial prisoner and so his status should have been considered by the learned trial Court as a juvenile more particularly when the appellant had specifically disclosed his age as 19 years during course of his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC on 23.01.1990. The alleged occurrence is of dated 17.02.1988 and so on the date he was certainly roaming around 17 years of age. As such, on this score also the plea of the appellant has illegally been ignored ultimately resulting in illegality of the judgment impugned. 7. On the other hand. The alleged occurrence is of dated 17.02.1988 and so on the date he was certainly roaming around 17 years of age. As such, on this score also the plea of the appellant has illegally been ignored ultimately resulting in illegality of the judgment impugned. 7. On the other hand. the learned Additional Public Prosecutor controverting the submission raised on behalf of appellant submitted that mere asserting particular defence will not come to rescue of the appellant unless and until it is found to be properly substantiated. Presence of appellant at the time of arrival of police at the house of informant has itself been admitted by the appellant. If he got any sort of explanation on this score, for that it was expected that it should have been properly explained by the appellant himself. In likewise manner, it has been urged that in spite of his appearing in examination from jail where appellant was languishing as an under trial prisoner, it should have at least suggested the witnesses on this score as well as should have also filed the relevant document in support of his plea of juvenility. Even the appellant has failed to place relevant document before this Court in support of his plea of his juvenility. Mere assertion of or claiming the privilege, is not going to spare the appellant. So far witnesses are concerned, they are firm and consistent on each and every material aspect, hence the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is based upon sound principle of law and should be confirmed accordingly. 8. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution had examined altogether ten PWs out of whom PW 1 is Gaya Mahto, PW 2 is Anant Pandey, PW 3 is Upendra Nath Pandey, PW 4 is Dukhi Paswan, PW 5 is Ram Krishna Prasad, PW 6 is Surendra Kumar, PW 7 is Shalla Devi, PW 8 is Lakhan Lal, PW 9 is Shivpujan Singh and PW 10 is Dr. Surendra Prasad. Side by side had also exhibited Exhibit-1, Signature of informant over fardbeyan, Exhibit-2 fardbeyan, Exhibit-3 Formal FIR, Exhibit-4 Inquest Report, Exhibit-5 P.M. Report. Neither any DW nor any exhibit on behalf of defence has been brought up on record. 9. Coming to the status of witness, PW 1 simply deposed with regard to death of deceased Rita Devi. However, resiled from her earlier statement hence was declared hostile. Neither any DW nor any exhibit on behalf of defence has been brought up on record. 9. Coming to the status of witness, PW 1 simply deposed with regard to death of deceased Rita Devi. However, resiled from her earlier statement hence was declared hostile. The same event is visualizing from the evidence of PW 2. PW 3 stood as hearsay witness while PW 4, chowkidar also appeared to be hearsay witness which is found in conformity with the disclosure of the informant made under fardbeyan. Hence, the case of the prosecution now rests upon the testimony of PW 5 to PW 8 the inmates of the house while PW 9 happens to be the I.O. and PW 10 the doctor. 10. PW 10 had conducted post-mortem over the dead body of Rita Kumari on 18-02-1988 at 05:00 p.m. He had not mentioned the fact whether any external injury was found over the dead body or not. He simply incorporated that rigor mortis was present all over the body. The nails and lips were found cyanosed. On dissection, stomach was found congested, mucosa of stomach was found corroded and congested death. In the opinion of doctor was on account of suspected poisoning and so he preserves the viscera for chemical analysis. Time elapsed since death approximately 24 hours. 11. During cross-examination, PW 10 categorically stated that definite report relating to poisoning could be given only after receipt of chemical analysis report based upon viscera examination. Therefore, the evidence of doctor PW 10 cannot be construed as a conclusive on the part of cause of death. 12. At the present juncture we would like to refer to the evidence of PW 9, the Investigating Authority on account of whose negligence the viscera was not at all sent for chemical analysis. In para-14 of his examination-in-chief he had deposed as "he had perused the post-mortem report and thereafter he came to know that death was on account of poisoning. As such he had not sent the viscera for chemical analysis". By such irresponsible conduct of the I.O. the cause of death remained unsolved, which for the present is found to be major draw back persisting in the prosecution case. 13. Now coming to the ocular evidence, PW 5, who happens to be uncle of deceased, had deposed that Rita Devi was his niece who was married with Arbind about three years ago. 13. Now coming to the ocular evidence, PW 5, who happens to be uncle of deceased, had deposed that Rita Devi was his niece who was married with Arbind about three years ago. On 17.02.1988 at night, while his niece was in a room along with her husband, he heard cry of Rita at about midnight. At that very time he was in his Dalan. After hearing the sound he rushed inside the house and found Rita was crying that poisonous tablet has been administered to her and prayed for water. At that very time froth has come out of her mouth. Other family members including brother and nephew assembled there. Then father and uncle of Rita have gone to call local doctor Anant Pandey who came and said that the patient is out of his control. Then thereafter they took Rita to Bhagan Bigha where the doctor examined him and declared her dead. He further disclosed that they have categorically stated that at the time of occurrence only his wife as well as wife of Lakhan Lal along children were inside the house. He further disclosed that father of deceased namely Lakhan Lal had married twice. The first wife is now dead and Rita (deceased) was sibling from first wife as well as having a son Surendra Prasad, while from second marriage Lakhan Lal has got three children. At para-5 of his cross-examination he had clearly stated that Arbind (accused) was studying at Bihar. He had further disclosed that Arbind had appeared in matriculation examination from the jail itself. He had further disclosed that Biharsarif lies only 4 K.M. from his house. In para-6 he had disclosed that he had not accompanied Rita to Bhagan Bigha. In para-7 had disclosed that he along with his son, nephew Ramji Prasad. Subodh Prasad were sleeping along with him at Dalan. After hearing cry he came out of Dalan but could not see anybody outside house. Thereafter, he directed to open the door which was opened by his wife while his Bhabhi was along with Rita. He had no talk with his wife. When he reached near Rita he has seen wife of Lakhan Lal along with others. At that very moment, accused Arbind was also present there. At that very time wife of Lakhan Lal was shouting but none of person of the boundary has arrived. He had no talk with his wife. When he reached near Rita he has seen wife of Lakhan Lal along with others. At that very moment, accused Arbind was also present there. At that very time wife of Lakhan Lal was shouting but none of person of the boundary has arrived. There happens to be contradiction on the score that Rita Devi had disclosed that Arbind had administered poison. Then at para-9 had said that after returning from Bhagan Bigha, they have locked Arbind inside room. 14. So from his evidence, it is evident that he had deflected from the First Information Report on the point of coming out froth from his mouth as well as with poisonous tablet was administered to her. 15. PW 6 is Surendra Kumar, full brother of deceased Rita Devi. He had narrated that Rita Devi has been murdered. Her marriage was solemnized with Arbind about three years ago. On the alleged date and time of occurrence while he was sleeping at his Dalan adjacent to his house, he heard cry of Rita "Bachaw-Bachaw". After getting the door opened he has gone inside room of Rita who disclosed that Arbind has administered a tablet which got stuck in her neck. At that very time apart from Arbind his youngest uncle and father, sister Subodh and Ramjee were present. Rita was taken to Bhagan Bigha where doctor had declared her dead. Rita was residing at her house since a year as she was not welcomed at her sasural. During cross-examination had stated that his statement was taken up by the police on the following day along with his other family members. Arbind was present there. Then therefore happens to be contradiction. At para-6 he had deposed that Arbind used to come to his place every month. In spite of insistence by his father to take away Rita at his house, he was not acceding therewith. Further he disclosed that when he came inside his house he found murder. When he came inside the room of Rita, she was unconscious. Then had denied that to save his step mother, his father falsely implicated. 16. In spite of insistence by his father to take away Rita at his house, he was not acceding therewith. Further he disclosed that when he came inside his house he found murder. When he came inside the room of Rita, she was unconscious. Then had denied that to save his step mother, his father falsely implicated. 16. So from his evidence, it is apparent that he had not supported the evidence of PW 5 with regard to coming of froth from the mouth of deceased rather during cross-examination he had admitted that when he came inside room of Rita he found Rita unconscious. 17. PW 7 is the step mother of deceased. She had deposed that Rita was daughter of her husband begotten from first wife. She was married to Arbind Prasad about three years ago prior to her murder. On the alleged date and time of occurrence couple were inside room. At about midnight Rita began to cry "Papajee, Mamajee Jan Bachaiye Jahar Ki Goli Khila Diya". She rushed to the room where Rita was sleeping. At that very time Rita was incenses and disclosed indicating her husband Arbind that he had administered poison. They have taken away Rita to Bhagan Bigha Hospital where .she was declared dead. Rita was driven away from her sasural. Arbind was trying to slip but was apprehended, locked and was taken into custody subsequently by the police. During cross-examination she had admitted that husband of Rita was not giving her proper response contrary to it within then she was acknowledging him. Then had denied the suggestion that accused was residing at Biharsharif for the purpose of studying. In para-6 she had deposed that times without number she had requested husband of Rita to take her away to his place but the aforesaid offer was always rejected by her son-in-law saying that Rita happens to be dwarf hence he will not carry her. However, husband of Rita regularly visited her place at due interval. Whenever he came he used to stay with Rita in a separate room where he was looked. She further disclosed that on the date and time of occurrence none of male members were inside her house. She slept along with her youngest Gotani. Then at para-7 had disclosed that after hearing cry of Rita she along with her Gotani came out from the room. She further disclosed that on the date and time of occurrence none of male members were inside her house. She slept along with her youngest Gotani. Then at para-7 had disclosed that after hearing cry of Rita she along with her Gotani came out from the room. She found the door of room wherein Rita had slept open. She along with her Gotani and mother-in-law went inside the room. At that very time they have no talk with husband of Rita. Froth was coming from the mouth of Rita. Rita remained in that room. Local doctor Anant Pandey had visited her place and after his advice Rita was taken to Bhagan Bigha who the doctor declared her as dead. Then there happens to be contradiction. She had denied the suggestion that after death of Rita. Arvind was called through deceitful means. 18. PW 8 is the informant. He had deposed that Rita Devi was his daughter who was married with accused Arbind in the year 1985. She had been murdered. On the alleged date and time of occurrence Rita along with her husband was inside the house. Rita began to cry at midnight "Babujee Goli Khila Diya Bachaiye". He rushed to the room of Rita where she was lying on the ground and was crying "Babujee, Chachajee, Bachaiye". She further disclosed that her husband administered poison. He rushed to Anant Pandey local quack who came and seeing the condition of Rita advised him to take her away for medical treatment. Then he rushed along with Rita to Bhagan Bigha where Dr. Indradeo had declared her dead. Then they returned back along with dead body of Rita. He informed the Chowkidar and further requested to inform local police after whose arrival he had given his fardbeyan. During cross-examination at para-7 had disclosed that accused had visited a month prior to the alleged Occurrence before the date of occurrence. His son-in-law (accused) regularly visited once in a month. He does not know whether accused used to come from Biharsarif. He does not know where accused was carrying on his study. He had gone to sasural of Rita only once for the purpose of Roksadi. At the time of marriage his son-in-law was student of matriculation. On the alleged that of occurrence his son-in-law has come at evening hour. At that very time he was teaching children. He does not know where accused was carrying on his study. He had gone to sasural of Rita only once for the purpose of Roksadi. At the time of marriage his son-in-law was student of matriculation. On the alleged that of occurrence his son-in-law has come at evening hour. At that very time he was teaching children. He slept in separate room away from his wife after taking meal. He had met with Rita before going to sleep. After hearing cry she came out from the room and rushed to the room where his daughter was sleeping along with her husband. He found his mother. Bhabhu and wife along with Arbind Kumar (accused) and his daughter. His daughter was crying. Then thereafter he had gone to call the local quack. In para-9 had said that his daughter has said to him that she is feeling that something has stuck in her neck so water be given. He rushed doctor, hence he could not provide water. He did not tell his son-in-law to accompany to Bhagan Bigha on account of the fact that he was trying to flee. He had denied the suggestion that his daughter had committed suicide being frustrated at the ruthless behaviour of his wife. 19. PW 9 happens to be the Investigating Officer who had come to the place of occurrence after registering the case. Before coming to the place of occurrence, the other police official had already taken custody of the accused from the place of occurrence. He interrogated the accused. After reaching to place of occurrence he recorded further statement of informant and visited place of occurrence. He took statement of the witnesses. He had seen the post-mortem report and coming to know therefrom that deceased had died on account of poison, he submitted charge-sheet. During cross-examination he had admitted that he had not taken statement of Dr. Indradeo Prasad of Bhagan Bigha. He further admitted in para-17 that the Additional S.P. had directed him during course of supervision to investigate the case after going at the sasural of deceased and trace out why deceased was not inclined to stay there but he failed. He had also admitted that he had not gone to Biharsarif to inquire from Manoj with whom the accused was residing at Biharsarif and was appearing candidate of matric. He had also admitted that he had not gone to Biharsarif to inquire from Manoj with whom the accused was residing at Biharsarif and was appearing candidate of matric. He further disclosed that he had not found bed of Rita Devi in disordered manner. He had further admitted in para-20 that he had not taken statement of the persons residing in the neighbourhood. Para-21 to 24 happens to be the statement of respective witnesses used as a contradiction. 20. From the evidence of the doctor, it is evident that he had suspected it a case of poisoning and so viscera was preserved for chemical analysis which the I.O. failed to get it examined in the background of the fact that he had wrongly concluded that the post-mortem report was itself sufficient to indicate it a case of poison. Certainly, there happens to be negligence/defect in the investigation at the hands of PW 9 the I.O. and that could not be seen in light of the judicial pronouncement laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in following way. In C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567 this Court has clearly stated the principle that: (SCC p. 589, para 55) "55......The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal jus lice administration would be eroded," Similar view was taken by this Court in Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 3 SCC 654 wherein the Court held that: (SCC p. 671, para 47) "47.....The failure of the investigating agency to hold a test identification parade does not, in that view, have the effect of weakening the evidence of identification in the Court. As to what should be the weight attached to such an identification is a matter which the Court [would] determine in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case." Similarly, failure to make reference to the FSL in the circumstances of the case is no more than a deficiency in the investigation of the case and such deficiency does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that the prosecution case is totally unworthy of credit. 21. 21. There happens to be consistent evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution with regard to presence of appellant Arbind at the place of occurrence and stay with the deceased inside a room, Apprehension by the police on the following day from the house of prosecution party is also admitted by the appellant with certain explanation that he was deceitfully brought to her sasural by his father-in-law and got him apprehended during course of statement under Section 313 of the Cr PC but without having any supportive material. 22. As such, from the evidence available on the record, it is crystal clear that staying of appellant in the fateful night along with deceased at his sasural no more remains under controversy. When the couple that means to say deceased along with appellant slept inside a room then in that event the happening/miss-happening visualizing therefrom is to be properly explained and the burden lies upon him. It is also to be taken into consideration as is coming out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses itself that none is an eye-witness to occurrence that means to say none seen the appellant administering poison to the deceased. Hence, in the aforesaid facts it happens to be a case based upon circumstantial evidence and the requirement thereupon is to be taken into consideration as reported in (2012) 6 SCC 174 , Munna Kumar Upadhyay v. State of A.P. 24. A case of circumstantial evidence is primarily dependent upon the prosecution story being established by cogent, reliable and admissible evidence. Each circumstance must be proved like any other fact which will upon their composite reading, completely demonstrate how and by whom the offence had been committed. This Court has clearly stated the principles and the factors that would govern the judicial determination of such cases. 25. Reference can be made to Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B., (2010) 8 SCC 249 , where the Court held as follows: (SCC pp. 260-61. paras 2728) "27. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. 25. Reference can be made to Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B., (2010) 8 SCC 249 , where the Court held as follows: (SCC pp. 260-61. paras 2728) "27. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. It is a settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye-witness in the case. It is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to the satisfaction of the accepted principles in that regard. 28. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 held as under: (SCC pp. 184-85. paras 152-54) '152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 . This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date for instance. Tufail v. State of U.P., (1969) 3 SCC 198 and Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan. J. has laid down in Hanumant case, AIR 1952 SC 343 (AIR pp. 345-46. para 10) "10.....It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the observations were made: [SCC p. 807, para 19 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] "19.......Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (emphasis in original) (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis bf the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." 23. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." 23. Apart from this when prima facie the case of the prosecution is found to be comprehensively and reliably placed, then in that event the burden shift from the shoulder of prosecution to accused in case the accused is found accountable therefor. Whatever event has been narrated by the prosecution is an outcome of the situation having been faced by the deceased while she was in company of appellant inside a room. From the suggestion as well as from the post-mortem report apart from ocular evidence, the death of deceased is not under challenge nor the apprehension of the appellant is found to be challenged at the end of appellant. In the aforesaid background, it is the appellant who has to explain the event whatever ensuing in a closed room occupied by the couple and that happens to be the requirement of law as provided under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 24. In Dharmveer Singh v. State of Punjab bearing Cr. Appeal No. 98 of 1958 which was also a case of poisoning and was decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein following requirements have been perceived three questions arise in all such cases viz, firstly did the deceased died of the poison in question? Secondly had the accused poison in question in his possession and thirdly, had the accused an opportunity to administer the poison in question to the deceased? Therefore, along with the motive, the prosecution has also to establish that the deceased died of a particular poison said to have been administered, that the accused was in possession of that poison and that he had the opportunity to administer the same to the deceased. 25. On account of administering poison and the circumstances necessitate for proving the same has been taken into account in a case Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1960 SC 500 . 58. Our findings thus substantially accord on all the relevant facts with those of the two Courts below, though the arrangement and consideration of the relevant evidence on record is somewhat different. It is now necessary to consider the arguments which have been advanced on behalf of the appellant. 58. Our findings thus substantially accord on all the relevant facts with those of the two Courts below, though the arrangement and consideration of the relevant evidence on record is somewhat different. It is now necessary to consider the arguments which have been advanced on behalf of the appellant. The first contention is that the essential ingredients required to be proved in all cases of murder by poisoning were not proved by the prosecution in this case. Reference in this connection is made to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Mt. Gajrani v. Emperor, AIR 1933 All 394 and to two unreported decisions of this Court in Chandrakant Nyalchand Seth v. The State of Bombay, Cr. A. No. 120 of 1957, decided on February 19, 1958, and Dharambir Singh v. The State of Punjabm, Cr. A. No. 98 of 1958, decided on 4-11-1958. In these cases, the Court referred to three propositions which the prosecution must establish in a case of poisoning : (a) that death took place by poisoning: (b) that the accused had the poison in his possession; and (c) that the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. The case in Cr. A. No. 98 of 1958, D/-4-11-1958 (SC) turned upon these three propositions. There, the deceased had died as a result of poisoning by potassium cyanide, which poison was also found in the autopsy. The High Court had disbelieved the evidence which sought to establish that the accused had obtained potassium cyanide, but held, nevertheless, that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the accused in that case. This Court did not, however, accept the circumstantial evidence as complete. It is to be observed that the three propositions were laid down not as the invariable criteria of proof by direct evidence in a case of murder by poisoning, because evidently if after poisoning the victim, the accused destroyed all traces of the body, the first proposition would be incapable of being proved except by circumstantial evidence. It is to be observed that the three propositions were laid down not as the invariable criteria of proof by direct evidence in a case of murder by poisoning, because evidently if after poisoning the victim, the accused destroyed all traces of the body, the first proposition would be incapable of being proved except by circumstantial evidence. Similarly, if the accused gave a victim something to eat and the victim died immediately on the ingestion of that food with symptoms of poisoning and poison, in fact, was found in the viscera, the requirement of proving that the accused was possessed of the poison would follow from the circumstance that the accused gave the victim something to eat and need not be separately proved. There have been cases in which conviction was maintained, even though the body of the victim had completely disappeared, and it was impossible to say, except on circumstantial evidence, whether that person was the victim of foul play, including poisoning. Recently, this Court in Mohan v. State of U.P., Cr. A. No. 108 of 1959, decided on November 5, 1959, held that the proof of the fact of possession of the poison was rendered unnecessary, because the victim died soon after eating pedas given by the accused in that case, and he had not partaken any other food likely to contain poison. In Dr. Palmer's case Notable Trials Series, strychnine was not detected, and the accused was convicted by the jury after Lord Chief Justice Campbell (Cresswell. J. and Mr. Baron Alderson concurring) charged the jury that the discovery of the poison on autopsy, was not obligatory, if they were satisfied on the evidence of symptoms that death had been caused by the ministration of strychnine. The conduct of Palmer, which was also significant, was stressed inasmuch as he had attempted to thwart a successful chemical analysis of the viscera, and had done suspicious acts to achieve that end. In Dr. Grippen's case Notable Trials Series, the conduct of the accused after the death of Mrs. Grippen in making the friends and relatives believe that Mrs. Grippen was alive, was considered an incriminatory circumstance pointing to his guilt. No doubt, in Dr. Grippen's case, Notable Trials Series, the body was found and poison was detected, but there was no proof that Dr. Grippen in making the friends and relatives believe that Mrs. Grippen was alive, was considered an incriminatory circumstance pointing to his guilt. No doubt, in Dr. Grippen's case, Notable Trials Series, the body was found and poison was detected, but there was no proof that Dr. Grippen had administered the poison to her, that being inferred from his subsequent conduct in running away with Miss Le Neve. In the second case of this Court the poison was available to the victim, and it was possible that she had taken it to end an unhappy life. 26. The Hon'ble Apex Court had perceived certain exigencies falling in between as well as taking into account the conduct of the accused while administering poison and in the aforesaid background the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharmveer Singh v. State of Punjab bearing Cr. Appeal No. 98 of 1958 decided on 04-11-1958 has been diluted to some extent as is evident from para-65. (supra). 65. A case of murder by administration of poison is almost always one a secrecy. The prisoner seldom takes another into his confidence, and his preparations for the commission of the offence are also secret. He watches his opportunity and administers the poison in a manner calculated to avoid its detection. The greater his knowledge of poisons, the greater the secrecy, and consequently the greater the difficulty of proving the case against him. What assistance a man of science can give he gives, but it is too much to say that the guilt of the accused must, in all cases, be demonstrated by the isolation of the poison, though in a case where there is nothing else such a course would be incumbent upon the prosecution. There are various factors which militate against a successful isolation of the poison and its recognition. The discovery of the poison can only take place either through a post-mortem examination of the internal organs or by chemical analysis. Often enough, the diagnosis of a poison is aided by the information which may be furnished by relatives and friends as to the symptoms found on the victim, if the course of poison has taken long and others have had an opportunity of watching its effect. Often enough, the diagnosis of a poison is aided by the information which may be furnished by relatives and friends as to the symptoms found on the victim, if the course of poison has taken long and others have had an opportunity of watching its effect. Where, however, the poison is administer in secrecy and the victim is rendered unconscious effectively, there is nothing to show how the deterioration in the condition of the victim took place and if not poison but disease is suspected, the diagnosis of poisoning may be rendered difficult. In Chapman's case Notable Trials Series, the victim (Maud Marsh) was sent to Guy's Hospital, where the doctors diagnosed her condition to be due to various maladies "including cancer that doctors can be deceived by the symptoms of poison into believing that they have a genuine case of sickness on hand. In Dr. Palmer's case Notable Trials Series, two medical witnesses for the defence diagnosed the case from the symptoms as being due to Angina Pectoris or epilepsy with the tetanic complications. 27. Lastly the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded the issue in following manner: 68. Circumstantial evidence in this context means a combination of facts creating a net-work through which there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt. To rely upon the findings of the medical man who conducted the post-mortem and of the chemical analyser as decisive of the matter is to render the other evidence entirely fruitless. While the circumstances often speak with unerring certainty, the autopsy and the chemical analysis taken by themselves may be most misleading. No doubt, due weight must be given to the negative findings at such examinations. But, bearing in mind the difficult task which the man of medicine performs and the limitations under which he works, his failure should not be taken as the end of the case, for on good and probative circumstances, an irresistible inference of guilt can be drawn. 28. In the present case as is evident that prosecution has conclusively proved its case by cogent and reliable evidence presence of appellant and further enjoying the company of deceased in a room where none other than the appellant and deceased being spouse were present has been established. 28. In the present case as is evident that prosecution has conclusively proved its case by cogent and reliable evidence presence of appellant and further enjoying the company of deceased in a room where none other than the appellant and deceased being spouse were present has been established. As referred to above though the doctor had opined suspected case of poisoning but due to failure/negligence on the part of I.O., the viscera so preserved was not sent for chemical analysis. However, the factum of death is not under controversy. 29. Though the appellant by putting such suggestion as well as during course of his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC had tried to explain his presence at the house of deceased but it remained mere an assertion without having been proved by cogent and reliable evidence. 30. With regard to plea of juvenility, as is evident the Court had assessed age of appellant as 25 years as againstl9 years shown by appellant himself. Not only this, when the appellant was produced before the learned C.J.M., it is evident that he was not found juvenile. Therefore, prima facie sufficient material are available on record to infer that the appellant was not juvenile at the date of occurrence. 31. In a decision Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 201 , it has been held : 33. Similarly, if the conduct of an accused or the method and manner of commission of the offence indicates an evil and a well-planned design of the accused committing the offence which indicates more towards the matured skill of an accused than that of an innocent child, then in the absence of reliable documentary evidence in support of the age of the accused, medical evidence indicating that the accused was a major cannot be allowed to be ignored taking shelter of the principle of benevolent legislation like the Juvenile Justice Act, subverting the course of justice as statutory protection of the Juvenile Justice Act is meant for minors who are innocent law-breakers and not the accused of matured mind who use the plea of minority as a ploy or shield to protect himself from the sentence of the offence committed by him. 34. 34. The benefit of benevolent legislation under the Juvenile Justice Act obviously will offer protection to a genuine child accused/juvenile who does not put the Court into any dilemma as to whether he is a juvenile or not by adducing evidence in support of his plea of minority but in absence of the same, reliance placed merely on shaky evidence like the school admission register which is not proved or oral evidence based on conjectures leading to further ambiguity, cannot be relied upon in preference to the medical evidence for assessing the age of the accused. 32. Thus, taking into account the evidence on record as referred above as well as giving minute observation thereof, it is found and held that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequent thereupon appeal is dismissed. Appellant is on bail hence his bail bond is cancelled. Hence, directed to surrender before the learned lower Court to serve out remaining part of the sentence. Shyam Kishore Sharma. J. - I agree. Appeal dismissed.