JUDGMENT : K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, J. 1. This jail appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.384/2007 on the file of the 3rd Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Thodupuzha. 2. The prosecution case is as follows:- In the night on 07.01.2006, accused gave poison namely phorate to deceased Litty by mixing it in the food. Litty is the daughter of her husband in his first marriage. The child died at about 10 a.m. on 08.01.2006, while undergoing treatment at I.C.H. Hospital, Kottayam. PWs1 to 19 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13 and Exts.X1, X2 and X2(a) were marked. MO1 to MO4 were also marked. On the side of the defence, Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. 3. After appreciating the evidence, the court below convicted the accused for murder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, this appeal preferred from jail. 4. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant Adv. Smt.V.K. Hema, who is appointed as State Brief, argued before us that here is a case where the appellant is convicted on grave suspicion. It is the submission that there is no legal evidence. It is also submitted before us that as per the prosecution case, the so-called poison was given to the deceased by mixing the same in food. As per the prosecution evidence itself, it can be seen that the last food was given by none other than PW5. Now, the lower court relied upon the said witness and convicted the accused. 5. It is the submission that practically there is no evidence or chain of circumstances to come to a conclusion that accused poisoned the deceased. It is the submission that without any court charge, the prosecution adduced evidence to show that there were instances of cruelty meted out by the accused towards the deceased. It is the submission that a close scrutiny of such evidence will show that those evidences will not inspire confidence. It is the submission that here is a case where the appellant is entitled for an acquittal as the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused. 6. The Prosecutor admitted that it is true that there are only few circumstances in this case. It is the submission that here is a case where the appellant is entitled for an acquittal as the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused. 6. The Prosecutor admitted that it is true that there are only few circumstances in this case. But the circumstances proved by the prosecution will show that accused is the person who provided food with poison to the deceased. It is the submission that in the house, wherein the child died, there were only two major members residing; one was the accused and the other person was PW5. PW5 was the father of the deceased and the husband of the appellant. Appellant was only a stepmother of the deceased. 7. It is the submission that on 07.01.2006, as per the evidence, it can be seen that PW5 came to the house at about 8.30 hours in the night. By that time, the deceased as well as his younger brother had taken food. Even though they had taken food, PW5 invited them to share the food. As such, they also shared the food from the same plate of PW5. It can be seen that even though food was shared from the same plate, neither the younger brother nor PW5 had any complaint due to poison in the food. Thereafter children went to sleep. It is an indication that the food which was mixed with poison came in the stomach of the deceased prior to the said incident. It is the submission that PW12, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem and proved Exts.P6 and P7 categorically deposed before the court that the death was due to poison. Doctor proved Ext.P7 and deposed before the court that there was phorate poison. It is also the submission that as per the postmortem report it can be further seen that the rice found in the stomach was mixed with black particles. 8. It is the further submission that as per the evidence of PW15, it can be further seen that, after the arrest of the accused, she made a disclosure statement and MO1 bottle was seized. It was recovered as shown by the accused. It was taken out from the concealed area in the presence of the police officer and accused. PW15, the Tester Inspector, Finger Print Bureau, who is an expert, took out MO1 bottle from the concealed area as shown by the accused. It was recovered as shown by the accused. It was taken out from the concealed area in the presence of the police officer and accused. PW15, the Tester Inspector, Finger Print Bureau, who is an expert, took out MO1 bottle from the concealed area as shown by the accused. It is the submission that the said bottle, as per the analysis report, contained phorate poison. It is also the submission made before us that the said phorate poison was detected in the stomach of the deceased. 9. It is also submitted that there is evidence before the court that the said phorate poison was purchased by PW5 and was originally kept on the beam of the roof above the fire area of the house in the kitchen. The said phorate poison was recovered from a concealed area as per the disclosure statement Ext.P4(a) by the accused. When questioned on this aspect during questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused stated before the court that it was concealed by her at that place. Thus what comes out is that PW5 originally kept the said bottle of poison on the beam above the fire area in the kitchen which was recovered as per the disclosure statement of accused from another concealed place. Then the concealed area will not be known to PW5. 10. Thus, the prosecution concluded that the said phorate poison which was concealed by the accused was seen in the stomach of the deceased, that is the poison which caused the death of the deceased. The only inference that can be drawn is that the accused is the person who gave poison to the child. 11. In this case, the relevant evidence is as follows:- PW1 is the person who gave F.I. Statement. His evidence is that in the morning of 8.01.2006 he was called by PW5 saying that his daughter Litty is in the hospital and he required money. He went to the hospital with money and the child was taken to Medical College Hospital. Injection ampule was purchased. The child died about 15 minutes thereafter. Then his evidence is that he took the accused to the house and his further evidence is that:- xxx xxx xxx 12. He went to the hospital with money and the child was taken to Medical College Hospital. Injection ampule was purchased. The child died about 15 minutes thereafter. Then his evidence is that he took the accused to the house and his further evidence is that:- xxx xxx xxx 12. PWs2, 3 and 4 are examined by the prosecution to show the subsequent conduct after death of deceased as well as attitude and behaviour of the accused towards the deceased child, which was very cruel. 13. PW5 is the husband of the appellant. His evidence is that he had married earlier and in that marriage there are two children. He further deposed before the court that the accused is his second wife. There is a child in that marriage. It is also his evidence that the attitude of the accused towards the deceased was very cruel. Further he deposed that on 7.01.2006, he plucked a jack fruit for preparation of food. He deposed that he came back, on that day, at about 8.30 in the night. At that time children were seeing T.V. and he further enquired to the accused whether food was given to the children. Thereafter while he was taking food, he invited the children and they also came and shared the food and thereafter they went to sleep. 14. It is also his evidence that by 2'0 clock in the night the deceased told him that there is pain on the legs. At first he applied some oil and even thereafter there was pain. He took the deceased twice to the toilet. Then the child was taken to the hospital. First they went to Chazhikattu Hospital wherein she was not admitted. As such, they took the child to Holy Family Hospital. There also she was not admitted. Then the child was taken to St. Mary's Hospital where the doctor told him that child had consumed poison. The stomach was washed. It is the evidence of the witness that he called PW1. PW1 also came therein and thereafter the child was taken to the Medical College Hospital and by 9.30 the child died. It is the evidence of PW5 that he asked PW1 to take the accused to the house. 15. PW6 is a salesman, who during the relevant period was working in a shop namely Rubber Point. His evidence is that he sold phorate pesticide to PW5. It is the evidence of PW5 that he asked PW1 to take the accused to the house. 15. PW6 is a salesman, who during the relevant period was working in a shop namely Rubber Point. His evidence is that he sold phorate pesticide to PW5. PW7 and PW8 are attestors to the scene mahazar and seizure mahazar respectively. PW9 is the Village Officer who prepared the plan. PW10 is a nearby resident who is also examined to show that the attitude towards the deceased and subsequent conduct of the accused after the death of the child. PW11 is the person for whom actually PW5 purchased the pesticide. He deposed that he entrusted PW5 to purchase pesticide to use it in his garden land. 16. PW12 is the Police Surgeon who conducted the post-mortem. He opined that the death was due to poison. PW13 is the chemical examiner, who issued Ext.P8 which shows that on analysis, phorate, a toxic organo phosphorous compound, was detected in the viscera. PW14 is a tester who accompanied PW15, while MO1 was recovered on the strength of a disclosure statement made by the accused. PW15 is the Sub Inspector who conducted the major portion of the investigation in this case. 17. PW16 is the doctor attached to the St. Mary's Hospital, Thodupuzha. According to his evidence, Litty, aged about 10 years was brought to the hospital by her mother at about 5.30 hours in the morning. According to his evidence, father came first and after sometimes alone the mother came therein. In his own words what he stated is that……. His further evidence is that it was not a case of food poison but the symptoms pointed out organo phosphorous poisoning. According to his evidence, he asked the parents about the possibility of taking poison by the child. They, at first, denied any possibility. Thereafter he asked specifically whether any pesticides are kept in the house. Then PW5 answered that……….. Even at that point of time, the accused said that there is no such poison in the house. The Doctor further deposed before the court that stomach wash was done and the stomach wash sample was collected and the case was referred to higher centre. PW16 also marked Ext.X1 case sheet brought from the hospital. 18. Then PW5 answered that……….. Even at that point of time, the accused said that there is no such poison in the house. The Doctor further deposed before the court that stomach wash was done and the stomach wash sample was collected and the case was referred to higher centre. PW16 also marked Ext.X1 case sheet brought from the hospital. 18. PW17 and 18 are Circle Inspectors who conducted the further investigation as well as PW18 is the person who filed the charge. PW19 is the doctor who treated the child at the Medical College Hospital. According to her evidence, the child was brought therein in a gasping state and the doctor also marked Ext.X2 case sheet brought from the hospital. 19. In this case, the doctor who conducted postmortem deposed before the court that the death was due to poison. He also opined that the death was due to phorate poisoning. 20. The prosecution is mainly relying upon the following circumstances:- (a) In the house in question there were only two major members; one is the accused and the other is PW5. (b) PW5 is the person who took the child to the hospital when it was found that the child was vomiting as well as the child was having pain on the leg and there was also loose motion. Thus, the possibility of PW5 administering poison by mixing the same in the food can be ruled out. (c) As per the evidence of PW12, the doctor, who conducted post mortem, it can be seen that it was not a natural death. But the death was positively due to poison. He categorically deposed before the court that the death was due to poison. (d) PW5 brought poison for agricultural purposes. But it was kept at a very safe place. His evidence. (e) The said bottle of poison was recovered on a disclosure statement of accused, that also from a concealed place. The said poison is the cause of death. 21. PW12, who conducted the post-mortem deposed before court that cause of death is phorate poison. PW5 brought phorate to the house. He kept the same in a very safe place away from the children. He deposed before the court that the said bottle was seen by him in the police station. The said poison is the cause of death. 21. PW12, who conducted the post-mortem deposed before court that cause of death is phorate poison. PW5 brought phorate to the house. He kept the same in a very safe place away from the children. He deposed before the court that the said bottle was seen by him in the police station. Thus what comes out is that the very same bottle of poison which was kept by him in the kitchen over the beam of roof was seen by him thereafter only from the police station. PW15 deposed before the court that MO1 was recovered on the disclosure statement of the accused. When this aspect of evidence of PW5 was put to the accused during questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the stand taken by the accused was that it was not told to her by the witness. In this aspect for appreciation of evidence, paragraph 16 of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhu alias Madhuranatha and Anr. v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2014 SC 394 is relevant which states that “it is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence, to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete”. In this case, it can be seen that even though the stand of the accused was that she was not told by her husband about the poison being kept in the house, it can be further seen that, as per the evidence of PW15, the bottle identified by PW5 as MO1 was recovered on a disclosure statement of the accused. 22. As per the evidence of PW15, the Investigating Officer, it can be seen that the accused made a disclosure statement after arrest to the effect that:- As led by accused, they reached on the backside of the house along with a Tester Inspector who is examined as PW14. It can be further seen that as per the evidence of PW15 the stone by which the hole was concealed was removed by the accused. It can be further seen that as per the evidence of PW15 the stone by which the hole was concealed was removed by the accused. As the chance finger has to be collected, the Tester Inspector took it from the concealed place in the presence of the accused and the police and a mahazar was prepared for the same which is marked as Ext.P4. PW8, who is the attester to the same deposed before the court that he is a witness for the same and he identified his signature also in Ext.P4. Now, when this aspect was put in questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to the accused, she admitted before the court that it was she who concealed the bottle of poison therein. The question No.41 and the answer of the accused to the same when questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Similarly question No.43 and its answer is as follows:- It can be seen that as the accused admitted recovery of the bottle from a hole wherein it was concealed, the evidence tendered by PW14 and PW15 in this regard need not be doubted and can be relied on. 23. Thus, it can be seen that the bottle of poison which was brought by PW5 in the house and kept on the beam of the roof was not there as it was taken by the accused and concealed in a hole on the mud wall on the backside of the house. The poison contained in the said bottle is now seen as the cause of death of the deceased Litty. 24. Thus, the only inference that can be drawn from the above facts and circumstances is that the person who concealed the poison will be the “only person” having the knowledge regarding the poison in the concealed area. Thus, such a person will be the person who mixed poison in the food of the deceased. 25. The following circumstances are also relevant in appreciating the above circumstances:- (i) PW5, father of the deceased is the person who took the deceased to the hospital. (ii) Except the deceased no other person was having any symptom of poisoning. (iii) There is evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW10 regarding the subsequent conduct of the accused which will be admissible under Section 8 of Evidence Act. (ii) Except the deceased no other person was having any symptom of poisoning. (iii) There is evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW10 regarding the subsequent conduct of the accused which will be admissible under Section 8 of Evidence Act. (iv) Even though PW5 is also residing in the house and even though he is the person who brought the poison to the house, as it was concealed by accused its whereabouts was only known to the accused on the date of incident. 26. Thus, appreciating all these facts and circumstances, the only inference that can be drawn is that the person who concealed the poison, administered the said poison in the food given to the child, who is none other than the appellant herein. 27. Even when there is only one major or star circumstance which points out to the culpability of the accused, it will be sufficient to convict, when no other plausible explanation is forthcoming suggesting the innocence of the accused. 28. From the above discussions, it can be seen that the lower court has not committed any error in appreciating evidence and materials and there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal dismissed. Before parting with the file it will be improper not to mention the able assistance rendered by the State Brief Counsel Smt. V.K. Hema.