JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder he has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/-. 3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the fardbeyan of the informant is that the informant Sonaram Manjhi was informed by Sonaram Soren, who claims to be the brother of the appellant that the appellant has killed her daughter Putul aged about 11 years. On getting the information, the informant-Sonaram Manjhi went to the residential quarter of the appellant-accused at Swarnrekha colony and saw the dead body of Putul lying in that quarter. Froth was coming out from the mouth of the dead body and near the dead body torn pieces of pesticide packet was lying along with some pieces of bread. One spoon and a portion of the pesticide packet was found concealed by the accused-appellant in her sari. It appeared to the informant that the accused-appellant has poisoned her daughter to death. It is also mentioned in the fardbeyan that the deceased Putul was studying in class-IV in Sidhu Kanhu school and was staying in the hostel but she was brought forcibly to her residential quarters by the accused-appellant from the school hostel and the accused-appellant was telling different types of things after the death of Putul. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police registered Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No.264 of 2007 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet in the case. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, the case was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Jamshedpur and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Jamshedpur framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon the accused pleading not guilty to the charges and claiming to be tried, she was put to trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined eight witnesses. No evidence was adduced by the defence in this case. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence only. 6. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined eight witnesses. No evidence was adduced by the defence in this case. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence only. 6. P.W.3-Sonaram Manjhi, is the informant of the case. He has stated that he was informed by Sonaram Soren (P.W.4) over telephone, that the accused person, who used to live in Swarnrekha colony, is telling that she has killed her daughter. On getting the information from P.W.4, P.W.3 informed the police station. P.W.3 and the police reached the house of the appellant. P.W.4 was also there. On opening the door, they found that the dead body of Putul was lying there and froth was coming out from her mouth. A torn packet, a spoon was lying near the dead body which was seized by the police. When police apprehended the accused-appellant, she was found concealing pesticide packet in her sari. Police prepared the seizure list. P.W.3 identified his signature over the seizure list which was earlier marked as Ext. 1/1. He also identified the handwriting of the police officer who recorded his statement and his fardbeyan was marked as Ext. 3. P.W.3 was the secretary of Sidhu Kanhu School and the deceased was the boarder of the hostel of the school. Two days prior to the occurrence, the accused-appellant brought the deceased from the school for performing Puja. P.W.3 identified the accused-appellant who was present in the court. In his cross-examination P.W.3 has stated that he does not know the reason for murder of the deceased. He has further stated that he does not know what was written in the seizure list and he also does not know who were visiting the house of the accused-appellant. 7. P.W.4 – Sonaram Soren claims that the deceased was his niece. He has further stated that one day prior to the occurrence the accused-appellant forcibly brought the deceased from the hostel and in that night the accused-appellant killed her daughter by administering poison to her. P.W.4 came to know about the same on the next day. When the P.W.4 went to the house of the accused-appellant he found the dead body of the deceased –Putul lying there and there was poison in the palm of the accused-appellant. Police came and prepared the inquest report of the dead body. P.W.4 came to know about the same on the next day. When the P.W.4 went to the house of the accused-appellant he found the dead body of the deceased –Putul lying there and there was poison in the palm of the accused-appellant. Police came and prepared the inquest report of the dead body. P.W.4 also signed on the inquest report which on being identified by the P.W.4 was marked as Ext. 1/3. He further stated that on being asked, the accused-appellant did not say anything. In his cross-examination the P.W.4 has stated that the accused-appellant was found in the house of her paternal uncle in village Saldoha which is at a distance of 6 to 7 kilometers from the place of occurrence. He does not know, what was written and just signed as he was told to sign. In paragraph no.10 of his cross-examination he has stated that the accused-appellant, prior to the occurrence used to indulge in vandalism and used to assault others. 2 to 3 years prior to the occurrence, her mental condition was not proper but she was not treated in any hospital rather, she was treated by an exorcist. P.W.3 was knowing that the mental condition of the accused-appellant was not proper. At the time of fits of insanity, she sometimes used to chase others to assault or to bite them. Hence, the P.W.4 stopped going to the house of the accused-appellant. P.W.4 further stated that he was not examined by the police and he has not seen the occurrence. P.W.4 also stated that because of her mental condition, the accused–appellant has committed the offence. In paragraph no.22, P.W.4 has stated that the neighbors of the accused-appellant were annoyed with her behavior and they were pressurizing the P.W.4 to take the accused-appellant to somewhere else from her said residential quarter but as the accused-appellant was residing in her residential quarter, so P.W.4 and others could not shift her anywhere else. P.W.4 further stated that he does not know the persons who were visiting to the house of the accused-appellant. 8. P.W.1 –Nandu Prasad is the witness of seizure of the articles seized by the police and the inquest of the dead body of the deceased. He has identified his signature and the signature of P.W.3 over the seizure list which has been marked as Ext. 8. P.W.1 –Nandu Prasad is the witness of seizure of the articles seized by the police and the inquest of the dead body of the deceased. He has identified his signature and the signature of P.W.3 over the seizure list which has been marked as Ext. 1 and 1/1 and the signature of P.W.1 and P.W.3 over the inquest report have been marked as Ext. 1/2 and 1/3 respectively. 9. P.W.5 – Bhushan Chandra Kumar has stated that accused appellant killed her daughter by poisoning her. Similarly, P.W.6 –Ranjeet Kumar Sahdeo has also stated that he came to know that the accused killed her daughter by poisoning her. 10. P.W.2, is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Putul. He found the following :- I. On examination no external injury was found over the body. On dissection front of neck was found contused 10 c.m. X 3 c.m., larynx and tracheal wall contused all round, larynx and tracheal mucosa congested and contained regurgitated violet granular fluid. Right side of frontal scalp was contused 2 c.m. X 1 c.m. Right parietal protuberance was contused 2 c.m. X 2 c.m. Brain was highly congested. Left lung was pale, right lung congested, spleen enlarged, stomach contained violet colour granular fluid with offensive smell. He preserved 100 ml. mucosa from stomach and viscera for chemical analysis. According to the P.W.2 the cause of death was due to pressure over neck. He further opined that in ordinary course poisoning is also sufficient to cause death. He requested the I.O. to send viscera for chemical analysis to F.S.L. to know the type of poison. The P.W.2 also stated that all above injuries are ante-mortem in nature and were caused by hard and blunt object. The time since death was approximately 24 hrs. to 36 hrs. P.W.2 further stated that the post-mortem report was in his pen and signature and the same has been marked as Ext.2. 11. P.W.7 – Prabhash Nath Mishra is the main investigating officer of the case. He has stated about the investigation done by him in this case. On being proved by him, inquest report of the dead body has been marked as Ext.1/4. Seizure list has been marked as Ext. 1/5. The forwarding endorsement has been marked as Ext.3/1. The endorsement regarding registration of the F.I.R has been marked as Ext. 3/2. He has stated about the investigation done by him in this case. On being proved by him, inquest report of the dead body has been marked as Ext.1/4. Seizure list has been marked as Ext. 1/5. The forwarding endorsement has been marked as Ext.3/1. The endorsement regarding registration of the F.I.R has been marked as Ext. 3/2. The formal F.I.R. has been marked as Ext.4 and the report of the forensic science laboratory regarding the contents of the torn polythene packet has been marked Ext.5. On the basis of the chemical and instrumental analysis Carbofuran was detected in the said packet. The P.W.7 also described the place of occurrence with its boundaries and has further stated that on 02.11.2017 on his transfer, he handed over the investigation of the case to the in-charge of the police outpost. In his cross-examination he has stated that none of the witnesses in this case is the eye-witness to the occurrence. He did not conduct any investigation regarding the persons who were visiting the house of the accused-appellant but during investigation; he came to know that the accused appellant is a quarrelsome lady who used to quarrel frequently which was not liked by the deceased. Hence, the accused-appellant put the deceased in the hostel. He further stated that he did not conduct any investigation about the relationship between the accused and the informant. 12. P.W.8 – Ram Chandra Razak is the part investigating officer of the case. He has submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 13. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the accused-appellant was recorded wherein she denied the circumstances appearing in evidence against her. Learned trial court after taking into consideration the materials and evidence in record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as already indicated above. 14. Dr. Hasnain Waris, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is major contradiction between the contents of the fardbeyan and the oral testimony put forth by the prosecution. Though in the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext. 3, it has been stated that the P.W.4 came and informed the P.W.3 about the occurrence but in his testimony, P.W.3 has stated that P.W.4 informed him telephonically. Though in the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext. 3, it has been stated that the P.W.4 came and informed the P.W.3 about the occurrence but in his testimony, P.W.3 has stated that P.W.4 informed him telephonically. It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution is that the death of the deceased occurred only because of poisoning but the post-mortem report and the testimony of the P.W.2 clearly goes to show that cause of death was due to pressing the neck of the deceased and the ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body of the deceased was by hard and blunt substance. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that though this is a case based on circumstantial evidence still no evidence regarding the motive for commission of the offence by the accused appellant has been put forth by the prosecution. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that keeping in view the fact that it is not the natural conduct of a mother to kill her own daughter, the case of the prosecution is highly improbable and doubtful hence this is a fit case where the accused-appellant be acquitted by giving her the benefit of doubt. 15. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned Addl. P.P. for the State on the other hand submitted that the P.W.2 though has stated that death of the deceased was caused by pressing her neck yet he has also stated that under normal circumstances the poison found on dissection by him was also sufficient to cause death of the deceased and the circumstances that the accused-appellant brought the deceased on the pretext of performing Puja and the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found in the residential quarter of the accused-appellant, the recovery of torn pesticide packets from the place of occurrence as well as from the accused-appellant and the fact that the medical evidence which has come through the P.W.2 also goes to show that the deceased was administered poison are the circumstances sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused appellant of having committed the murder of her daughter – deceased Putul and hence, learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 16. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, we find that admittedly there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The evidence on record put forth on behalf of the prosecution has established only the following circumstances: (i) The accused-appellant brought the deceased from the hostel to her residential quarter prior to her death. (ii) Dead body of the deceased was found in the residential quarter of the accused-appellant. (iii) There was recovery of torn pesticide packets from the place of occurrence as well as from the accused-appellant which she allegedly kept hiding. (iv) The Doctor has opined that the poison found on dissection was sufficient in ordinary course to cause her death. Pitted against these are the following circumstances, which are in favour of the accused –appellant: (a) There is discrepancy in the evidence as to when the deceased was brought from her hostel by the accused-appellant. Though the P.W.4 stated that she was brought one day prior to the occurrence yet the P.W. 3 stated that she was brought two days prior to the occurrence. (b) There is discrepancy and exaggeration in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as though in the fardbeyan it has been mentioned by P.W.3 that the accused-appellant forcibly brought the deceased to her quarters from the hostel, yet in his deposition the P.W. 3 who was the secretary of the school, from the hostel of which the deceased was brought by the accused-appellant, has not stated about the accused-appellant forcibly bringing the deceased to her quarter. On the other hand the P.W.4 who had no occasion to be present or any scope to know the reason or manner for which the accused-appellant has brought the deceased to her quarter has stated that she forcibly brought the deceased from her hostel. (c) There is absolutely no evidence that when the deceased was last seen with the accused-appellant. (d) The doctor has opined that the death of the deceased was caused by pressing her neck and the ante-mortem injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. There is absolutely no evidence put forth by the prosecution as to how these injuries were caused to the deceased. Further if it is accepted that the death of the deceased was caused by pressing her neck than no way the accused-appellant can be implicated in the charge of her murder. There is absolutely no evidence put forth by the prosecution as to how these injuries were caused to the deceased. Further if it is accepted that the death of the deceased was caused by pressing her neck than no way the accused-appellant can be implicated in the charge of her murder. (e) No investigation has been done by the investigating officer as to the persons who used to visit the residential quarter of the accused appellant to rule out involvement of anybody else than the accused-appellant. (f) There is evidence in the record that after the occurrence the accused-appellant was found in the house of her paternal uncle in village Saldoha at a distance 6-7 Km from the place of occurrence. So it is highly improbable that the accused-appellant carried the torn pesticide packet all along, as if the same is a prized possession. Further here is discrepancy in the evidence in respect of the recovery of the pesticide packet from the accused-appellant. P.W.3 stated that the accused-appellant kept the same hiding in her sari while P.W.4 stated that she kept the same in her palm. (g) There is material contradiction as to the manner the informant first came to know about the incident. Though in the fardbeyan he has mentioned that on being informed by the P.W.4, the P.W. 3 came to the place of occurrence along with the P.W.4 but in his deposition P.W.3 has stated that he informed police station and he and police reached the place of occurrence and P.W.3 was at the place of occurrence by that time. (h) Though the P.W.4 has admitted that he stopped visiting the house of the accused-appellant yet he has failed to disclose how he came to know that the accused-appellant murdered her daughter. (i) There is discrepancy in the evidence as to when the accused-appellant brought her daughter from the hostel. P.W.3 stated that the accused-appellant brought the deceased from the hostel two days prior to the occurrence whereas P.W.4 stated that the accused-appellant brought her deceased daughter one day before the occurrence. (i) There is discrepancy in the evidence as to when the accused-appellant brought her daughter from the hostel. P.W.3 stated that the accused-appellant brought the deceased from the hostel two days prior to the occurrence whereas P.W.4 stated that the accused-appellant brought her deceased daughter one day before the occurrence. (j) Though this is a case based on circumstantial evidence yet no motive for the deceased being murder by her own mother, being accused-appellant has been assigned on the other hand there is evidence in respect of the motive for false implication of the accused-appellant in this case as the P.W.4 has categorically stated that he and the neighbors of the accused-appellant though intended to get her shifted from her said residential quarter yet they could not succeed in doing so. 17. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well-settled. When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1982 SC 1157 . 18. Judging the facts of this case in the touchstone of the settled principle of law as discussed above, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances are not of such nature which unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused-appellant of having committed the offence. So we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the accused-appellant Birmani Tudu be acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by giving her the benefit of doubt. So we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the accused-appellant Birmani Tudu be acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by giving her the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, wherein the learned judge has wrongly mentioned the court as “Principal Sessions Judge” is set aside and acquit the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by giving her the benefit of doubt. The accused-appellant Birmani Tudu is in custody. She is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case. 19. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the court concerned along with a copy of the Judgment forthwith. 20. In the result, this appeal stands allowed.