JUDGMENT : The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02/04/1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Gangangar in Sessions Case No.33 of 1989, by which one of the accused Rajendra has been acquitted and another co-accused Smt. Vimla has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC for life imprisonment coupled with fine of Rs.500/- and in default to pay the fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. In nutshell FIR Ex.P.30 pertaining to the offence reads as under :- ^^lsok eas] Jh eku ,l0 ,p0 vks0 lkgc] Jhxaxkuxj fo”k; %& U;k; fnyokus ckcr rFkk eq> izkFkhZ ds e`rd iq= eukst dqekj dh yk'k dk iksLV ekVZe djokus gsrw %& Jh eku th] fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ lqjthr flag dh <k.kh 3 ,0 NksVh Jh xaxkuxj dk jgus okyk gS rFkk eq> izkFkhZ dk is'kk etnwjh gS vkSj esjh ifRu dk uke foeyk nsoh gS ftlds uktk;t lEcU/k jktsUnz mQZ jkes'oj yky ds lkFk Fks mDr xSj lk;yk esjh ifRu o jktsUnz }kjk vkil esa feydj ds esjs iwjk ifjokj dks [kRe djus dh lkft'k jph Fkh tks fnukad 7-11-88 dks esjs ifjokj dks tku ls ekjus ds fy;s jktsUnz us esjh ifRu dks /krwjk ykdj fn;k vkSj esjh ifRu us esjs ifjokj dks [kkus esa tgj ns fn;k ftlls esjs iwjs ifjokj ds leLr tuksa dks myfV;k¡ gks xbZ vkSj esjk iq= eukst 10 lky ftldh ekSdk ij e`R;q gks xbZA ftldks ckn esa 'ke'kku esa nQu dj fn;k x;k ftldh yk'k dk iksLV ekVZe djokuk cgqr t:jh gS ftlls esjs iq= dh e`R;q dk irk yx ldrk gSA vr% nj0 is'k djds fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ ds yM+ds dh yk'k dk iksLV ekVZe djok;k tkdj jktsUnz mQZ jkess'oj ds f[kykQ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tkosa vkidh vfr d`ik gksxh ekSdk ds xokg 1& :I ukjk;.k 'kekZ 2& ewy flag fuoklh lqjthrflag dh <k.kh gSA fnukad 28-12-88 izkFkhZ sd lqjs'kpUnz 'kekZ iq= Jh d`ik 'kadj 'kekZ fuoklh 3 ,0 dksBh** which goes to indicate that the alleged offence was committed on 07/11/1988 but this F.I.R has been lodged on 28/12/1988, which was registered at Police Station Kotwali Srigangangar under Section 302, 120B and 201 of IPC on 28.12.1988. 3. 3. Heard the arguments of both the sides, it has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that all the witnesses, have become “hostile” despite learned trial Court has wrongly convicted appellant Smt. Vimla Devi, whereas alleged conspirator co-accused Rajendra @ Rameshwar was acquitted, when no crime was found, on the part of co-accused Rajendra @ Rameshwar, then how Vimla Devi could be held responsible for alleged crime, author of the F.I.R. and all important witnesses of the prosecution have not supported, the story of the prosecution, moreover alleged offence has also been reported highly belatedly after lapse of about fifty days, link evidence pertaining to deposit of F.S.L has also shattered and has not been properly connected. Police Statements of Kripa Shankar have also been recorded after prolong lapse of time, nevertheless learned trial Court has faulted in arriving at the findings of guilt, which is not sustainable at all, so the appeal be allowed and conviction be quashed. Learned public prosecutor, contrariwise, has contended that there is no infirmity in the judgment impugned and learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence. Appellant Smt. Vimla Devi wittingly blended poisonous substance in the eatings loafs, which resulted in death of her kid and after exhumation of the body of the deceased, autopsy revealed that poisonous substance atropine (Dhatura @ Datura) was found in the viscera, other family members were also affected and suffered vomiting, but they got spared by the grace of God, otherwise she had machinated to kill entire family and whatever delay is caused is immaterial because it does not impact merit of the case, so there is no error in the findings of learned trial Court, appeal lacks merit, so it be dismissed. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the record and thoroughly examined the evidence, which goes to reveal that PW.1 Ramchandra has become “hostile” and he has denied several important utterances of police statements of Ex.P.1, likewise PW.2 Gurudev Kaur, a neighbour has also turned “hostile”, she too has denied significant versions of police statements and nothing has emerged from the evidence of these two witnesses. 5. 5. PW.3 Roop Naraian brother of accused Vimla has said that accused Rajendra was named by Suresh for targeting firing upon him and a dispute has took place between them, he has further said that at about ten months back, his nephew died, when he came there, Manoj was lying dead, his brother-in-law Suresh, daughter of Suresh and father of Suresh were vomiting, then Vimla was present there and his brother-in-law had informed him that after taking meals, vomiting started, he has also said that Vimla too was ailing of vomiting at that time, next day body of Manoj was buried, he has further said that Suresh told him that somebody gave them poisons in meals, on contradicting vitals of police statements Ex.P.3, he has been declared “hostile” and has denied several important statements recorded under the police statements. 6. PW.4 Smt. Soma Devi has also remained “hostile” and has not accepted several utterances of Ex.P.4 police statements, likewise PW.5 Mal Singh has also remained “hostile”, he too has denied several statements of Ex.P.5 police statements and denied having been recorded, such statements before the police. PW.6 Mahadev has also turned “hostile” and has not supported the police statements and has also said that Vimla Devi did not show growth of “Dhatura @ Datura” trees before him nor any spot map was drawn before him. PW.7 Subhash Chand has also turned “hostile” and has said that his signatures were taken on certain papers in Kotwali only, as such, Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.9 have not been supported by this witness. PW.8 Kishanpuri has also become “hostile” and denied Ex.P.8. 7. PW.9 Gurucharan Singh a recovery witness has also turned “hostile” and denied factum of any recovery before him, as such Ex.P.11, Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14 have not been proved and he has said that these papers were got signed by force without his free will. 8. PW.12 Gurucharan Singh has also turned “hostile” and has said that he signed on Ex.P.7, 8 and 10 on the insistance of police, he has also said that at the time of burial of dead body of Manoj, Suresh-father of Manoj did not go alongwith by saying that it was customary amongst them that father did not accompany with the dead body of son. 9. PW.10 Dr. 9. PW.10 Dr. K.N. Markandey has said that he had conducted postmortem of Manoj aged ten years on 30/12/1988, he has said that apart from some parts, rest of the parts of the body, were decomposed, and time of death was not able to be ascertained, few rampants of viscera were taken and sealed for examination, postmortem report is Ex.P.15, in his cross-examination, he has said that he does not remember that the body was got exhumed from beneath the earth and also does not remember signing any paper thereto, he has said that he remained in the cemetery for about one and half hours, he has also said that “Dhatura @ Datura” trees are common trees and they grow, hither and thither, on the roads in Jungle and drainage area, automatically and in Gangangar such trees could be found common. A kid may consume these trees, perceiving them to be edible and in such a position symptoms of consuming of “Dhatura @ Datura” would develop, he has further said that he is not aware about the quantum of fatal dose of “Dhatura @ Datura” and has said that he has not read much literature about this poison, but he is aware of the symptoms, which commonly develop after using “Dhatura @ Datura”, he has further said that he is not certain that “what material/substance” was consumed by the deceased and he has again said that he is not able to say as to how much quantum of “Dhatura @ Datura” seed could be fatal, it depends on the Constitution of body. 10. Analysis of evidence of this medical expert discloses that “Dhatura @ Datura” trees have been opined to be Jungle trees growing automatically, hither and thither and he was not aware about fatal dose of this poison, he has also said that if kid consumes “Dhatura @ Datura” mistakingly, then its symptoms would occur, he has also said that he is not sure that what material/substance was consumed by the deceased and at what time. 11. 11. PW.13 Sughan Singh constable has said that on 16/03/1989, he was posted at Sriganganagar Kotwali, on that day, some packets pertaining to F.I.R No.525/88 were given to him for depositing in the FSL, Jaipur, which were deposited in FSL on 17/03/1989 in sealed condition and its receipt Ex.P.28, was submitted at thana, in cross-examination, he has said that he is not aware, as to how many seals were there on the packets, but he had obtained the samples from Malkhana incharge. 12. PW.14Kripa Shankar is an important witness, who is grand-father of the deceased kid Manoj, he has said that near to the festival of Deewali on 5/11/1988, he came Sriganganagar to fetch kids, since Suresh had asked to come Sriganganagar and fetch them, he had made programme to return for 07/11/1988, and they were to leave by train Udhyan Abha, but at 6 due to indisposition of Suresh, they changed their programme, his daughter-in-law “Vimla” had prepared meal on that day, because their programme was cancelled, so all ate together, Vimla did not take meal on that day, he has further said that after taking meal, Suresh became sick, Lilla also started vomiting, he and Suresh took care of daughter, then he too started vomiting, Manoj who had slept after taking meal, awakened and felt after being unconscious, they asked water from “Vimla”, who did not yield to serve, Manoj died after half an hour. Night had fallen, so Manoj was buried next day, he has further said that he does not know as to what happened to Manoj, he has further said that they made programme for 11th to leave from Sriganganagar, he has further said that Vimla did not inform him as to what happened to Manoj, he has further said that he was told by his son Suresh that his wife had gone to the house of Rajendra, few days prior to the death of Manoj and he went to call her, then Vimla and Rajendra beaten him and Suresh fired upon him with pistol. He has further clarified that Vimla did not confess anything before him nor she narrated reason of death of Manoj, but perusal of Ex.P.32 police statements, which have been recorded on 01/03/1989 discloses something otherwise, which pertains to extra judicial confession of Smt. Vimla stating therein that “Vimla had subsequently informed him that blunder was committed by her, she made them eaten seeds of “Dhatura @ Datura”, which was given her by Rajendra @ Rameshwar and Suresh informed him that he had found Vimla, slept with Rajendra in Rajendra’s house and he caught them under suspicious circumstances, then Rajendra had fired at him with pistol”, but nothing of this nature has been narrated in his testimony by this witness, so he was asked to be declared “hostile” and this witness has contradicted several important aspects of Ex.P.32, he has further said that he got sick on that day and did not take any treatment and got relieved automatically. According to the statements of this witness attitude and candidness of his daughter-in-law “Vimla” has not remained fair and bonafide, but nothing naturing positive and beyond the domains of reasonable doubt has come from the evidence of this witness, as to show Vimla administered “Dhatura” poison to all family members by serving meals blended with “Dhatura” poison, if we weigh evidence of PW.3 Roopnaraian, then we find that he has narrated that Vimla too was vomiting, when he visited, whereas Kripa Shankar says that she had not taken meals, as such, contradictory evidence has been produced by the prosecution giving rise to a reasonable doubt, this witness has also contradicted his police statements relating to alleged extra judicial confession, which too weakens creditworthiness of this witness. 13. PW.15 Suresh Chand husband of accused Vimla and father of deceased boy Manoj, has said that he had got married with Vimla on 19/01/1973, he was having full faith upon his wife without any suspicion, he had given a room shop on rent to Rajendra. 13. PW.15 Suresh Chand husband of accused Vimla and father of deceased boy Manoj, has said that he had got married with Vimla on 19/01/1973, he was having full faith upon his wife without any suspicion, he had given a room shop on rent to Rajendra. Vimla and Rajendra used to behave relationship of brother and sister, he has further said that on 30/09/1988, when they were asleep, his elder daughter Leena started weeping at 12 night, so he awakened, Vimla was not there, on search she was found in the house of Rajendra, when he tried to fetch Vimla, Rajendra fired at him, he brought his wife and admonished her, she sworn upon “Ramayana” by saying that she was not having illicit relations with Rajendra, he has further said that so, he had asked his father to fetch kids and on that day, Vimla had prepared meals after consuming it, all became sick, he has further said that on the day of demise of Manoj, they did not suspect anything against Vimla, his wife never informed him, as to how and why Manoj died and he lodged report against her on the basis of doubt. He has said that on 12/11/1988, he had lodged report regarding absconding of Vimla. He has further said that dead body of his kid was exhumed before him and fard Ex.P.6 was prepared, Panchnama is Ex.P.8 and spot map is Ex.P.17, which contains his signature. He has further said that on receipt of postmortem report, it could be known that his kid Manoj died of poison and has said that we had taken Puries, Sabji and Halwa etc. on that day, his wife did not reveal reason of Manoj’s death. At this stage, this witness has been declared “hostile” and has further cross-examined and has denied recital of Ex.P.30 pertaining to alleged administration of poison (Dhatura @ Datura) by his wife to kid Manoj and has said that this kind of text allegation was written on the say of companions, he signed on Ex.P.30 and was not personally aware about the facts stated therein. He has further said that his wife was beaten by the police before him, but she did not utter that Rajendra brought and consigned Dhatura @ Datura to her. He has further said that his wife was beaten by the police before him, but she did not utter that Rajendra brought and consigned Dhatura @ Datura to her. He has also denied part of Ex.P.33 that “at that time his wife and Rajendra had advised to kill his family and he did not render this statements to police”. Apart from it, several important recitals of Ex.P.33 have also been denied by this witness. Further he has also denied significant recitals of Ex.P.34, which pertains to alleged involvement of his wife in giving poison to the family and hatching any such plan executed. Appreciation of entire evidence of this witness, who is an important witness in this matter, suggests that this witness has contradicted several important recitals of his police statements and has also become “hostile” and has remained lacking, which does not connect the accused directly with the alleged crime and a definite doubt arises on alleged involvement on the basis of analysis of the evidence. 14. PW.16 Tarsemram is a Malkhana incharge who has said that on 02/01/1989, one sealed duby powder packet and a packet of doda skin of Dhatura @ Datura, two sealed jars of viscera, one packet and certain other sealed packets were deposited by Abdul Aziz, SI, which were registered at S.No.785 in Malkhana register and were deposited and seven sealed packets were given to constable Jai Singh for depositing in FSL, who after depositing the same, delivered its receipt, which is entered in Malkhana register Ex.P.39 and its copy Ex.P.39A, which contains his signatures, in his cross-examination, he has said that Malkhana register was prepared in simple plain papers and it is not printed nor having any serial numbers. He has further said that it is correct that “sealed is mentioned against item No.1, 2 and 3 and no such word is mentioned against item No. 4 to 7 and has said that he might have slipped to mention it”. He has further said that he does not remember that how much seals were there on the samples and at what spots those were placed. 15. He has further said that he does not remember that how much seals were there on the samples and at what spots those were placed. 15. PW.11 Abdul Aziz Investigating Officer of the case has said that on 28/12/1988, he was S.I. at Police Station Kotwali Srigangangar and investigation was given to him by C.I. Richpal Singh and after visiting the place of occurrence, he drawn Ex.P.17 spot map and recorded the statements of several witnesses. He has further ratified other exhibits relating to investigation, likewise Ex.P.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 18A and other documents relating to the investigation and has narrated the sequence and chronology undertaken during the course of investigation, in cross-examination, he has denied a suggestion that he had dug out and exhumed three dead bodies. 16. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that Rajendra @ Rameshwar son of Ramlal co-accused has been acquitted and another accused Smt. Vimla Devi-appellant of this appeal has been held guilty, but so far as evidence is concerned, it has come in totality against both the accused persons. 17. Evaluation of whole of the aforesaid evidence goes to reveal that almost all the witnesses of the prosecution have turned “hostile” and they have not supported, version of the prosecution. Author of the F.I.R Ex.P.30 Suresh Chand, who too has been examined as PW.15 has said that her wife was beaten by the police and she did not confess anything before him and has specifically said that the incriminatory material, which was mentioned in Ex.P.30. F.I.R was not based on his personal knowledge, but it was written on say and wish of his companions. He has contradicted his police statements, as well as, vital parts of Ex.P.30, Ex.P.31, Ex.P.33 and Ex.P.34 and has also been declared “hostile”. PW.14 Kripa Shankar has also not supported his police statements and contradicted several important aspect of his police statements and has been found “hostile” by the prosecution, so it was prayed before the trial Court to declare this witness as hostile. He has also said that Vimla too did not reveal as to what had occurred with Manoj. He has also said that Vimla did not confess anything before him. Dr. He has also said that Vimla too did not reveal as to what had occurred with Manoj. He has also said that Vimla did not confess anything before him. Dr. K.N. Markandey PW.10 has said that the dead body was highly decomposed and it was not definite that what substance or material has been taken by the deceased and at what time before the death. He has also said that he is not in a position to say about the fatal doze of “Dhatura @ Datura”, he has also opined that “Dhatura @ Datura tree is a common jungle tree, which often grow in waste area and in Ganganagar such trees also grow and abundantly available. He has also said that a kid may mistakingly eat it assuming it to be edible. He has further said that he is not definite as to how much quantity of “Dhatura @ Datura” seeds could cause death. Thus, all the important witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the story of the prosecution. All have become “hostile” even author of the F.I.R, who is none-else but father of deceased kid and husband of accused appellant Vimla has also not supported the stand of the prosecution. He has contradicted several important aspects of police statements, as well as, gave a twisting say with respect to the F.I.R and police statements he has even uttered several important aspects, incriminatory in nature, were also lodged by him, on the say of certain companions and he was not aware about the verity of the same, which is enough to suggest that the story of the prosecution, is not at all believable and such evidence too has not been adduced, which could invariably connect the accused with the crime beyond the contours of reasonable doubt. It has also been asserted by the husband of the appellant that his wife was in custom to observe “Virrat (Fast), which rather goes to indicate, status of austerity and pious way of living, dispelling inferences and assumptions of being unchast, converse to which are the allegations levelled. 18. In catena of judgments predominantly in Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 ; Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ; Upendra Pradhan Vs. 18. In catena of judgments predominantly in Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 ; Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ; Upendra Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 and in Golbar Hussain & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Anr., (2015) 11 SCC 242, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted” 19. In Jiten Besra v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 2 S.C.C. (Cr.) 438 and in Kamla Devi vs. State of Delhi, 2012 (2) J.C.C. 1457 (Delhi) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that once it is found that circumstance could not point out towards guilt of accused, without any other inference being probable, the accused must get the benefit of doubt and in Baijnath & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2017 1 SCC 101 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that in the cases of deficiencies of proof, benefit would be available to the person charged and in Narendra Singh & Another v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that in event of there being two possible views, one supporting the accused should be upheld and Hon’ble the Supreme Court has recognized presumption of innocence as a human right. Upon considering entire material and evidence as analyzed above, it is manifest that prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused-appellant and conviction could not sustain on the basis of evidence as produced and keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt, which she deserves to be extended with under the Circumstances and evidence being unreliable. For the foregoing reasons we, allow this appeal thereby setting aside the judgment impugned and acquit the accused-appellant of the charge levelled under Section 302 of IPC, appellant is already on bail, so she is not required to surrender, her bail bonds are discharged. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.