JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. Sole accused, in Sessions Case No.237 of 2011 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, the appellant herein, was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A, 449 of Indian Penal Code [for short, “I.P.C.”] and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [for short, “D.P. Act”]. 2. Vide its judgment, dated 26.06.2014, the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 449 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. He was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 449 of I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 17.11.2010 at about 2.30 PM, at K. Jagannadhapuram, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, the accused caused the death of his wife Kotana Dhana Lakshmi [here-in-after referred to as “deceased”] by hitting her with a stick on her head and administering Endosulfan poison. 4. The facts, as revealed from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, as under: (i) P.W.1 is the father of the deceased while P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.3 is the cousin of the deceased while P.W.5 is the nephew of P.W.1. The marriage of the deceased with the accused, took place about seven years prior i.e., in the year 2007. At the time of marriage, P.W.1 presented Rs.1,00,000/- cash as dowry, Rs.10,000/- towards Aadapaduchu lanchanalu and one gold chain and gold ring to the accused. They also gave some furniture and sare samanulu worth Rs.50,000/-. Both of them lived happily for some time and they blessed with a female child. Thereafter, disputes arose between them. (ii) It is said that the accused demanded some more dowry to clear his loans. They also gave some furniture and sare samanulu worth Rs.50,000/-. Both of them lived happily for some time and they blessed with a female child. Thereafter, disputes arose between them. (ii) It is said that the accused demanded some more dowry to clear his loans. P.W.1 is said to have pledged his gold articles at Indian Bank and gave Rs.30,000/- to the accused and also Rs.5000/- at the time of birth of his granddaughter. It is also said that at the instance of P.W.1, P.W.2 the brother of the deceased, gave Rs.40,000/- in two spells to the accused, on the demand made by the accused. It is said that because of disputes, the deceased came to the house of P.W.1 along with his grand-daughter. When questioned as to why she came there, it was informed to P.W.1 that she will not go again to the house of the accused. Subsequently, the mother of the accused came there along with the village elders, pacified P.W.1 and his daughter and took her back stating she would treat her well. (iii) At the time of festival, P.W.1 brought his daughter to his house. Later, the accused came and took his granddaughter on the pretext of birth day function of his niece. Sometime later, the mother of the accused called P.W.1, stating that the accused is threatening to commit suicide by consuming poison and also administer poison to the daughter of P.W.1, (deceased). On hearing the same, P.W.2 and his wife (G. Demudamma) and one Y. Mahalakshmamma (P.W.5) went to the house of the accused in an Auto and brought her back. (iv) On the early morning of next day, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and when he was about to leave at 8.00 AM, the accused was asked as to where he was going. The accused informed that he will be back at 11.00 AM. At about 11.00 AM, the accused came and enquired about his wife. P.W.1 who was present in the house, informed the accused that his daughter and daughter-in-law went to fields for cutting the crop. But the accused asked P.W.1 to call the deceased from the fields, stating that only then he will have his food. P.W.1 brought his daughter and subsequently noticed a quarrel near the grass heap. P.W.1 who was present in the house, informed the accused that his daughter and daughter-in-law went to fields for cutting the crop. But the accused asked P.W.1 to call the deceased from the fields, stating that only then he will have his food. P.W.1 brought his daughter and subsequently noticed a quarrel near the grass heap. (v) It is said that sometime later on hearing cries, P.W.1 ran to his house and when he was near grass heap, his daughter came, fell on him and vomited. He also noticed an injury on her head. The injured informed P.W.1 that the accused beat her and also administered poison forcibly. When P.W.1 questioned the accused, he left the place asking P.W.1 to do whatever he like’s to do. The Hysulfan tin containing endosulfan 35% and a wooden handle of the cot which were used for beating the deceased (M.Os.1 & 2) were found nearby the scene. Thereafter, the neighbours and relatives of P.W.1 rushed to the place and called for an Ambulance. But, as there was some delay in the arrival of Ambulance, the injured was shifted in goods auto of P.W.6 to the hospital. (vi) It is said that when the auto reached Kotha Agraharam, 108 Ambulance is said to have dashed the mirror of the auto, pursuant to which, P.W.6, the driver of the auto received injuries. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted into another auto and taken to Government hospital at K. Kotapadu Village where the doctors declared her brought dead. The dead body of the deceased was brought back to the village. 5. P.W.1 is said to have set the law into motion by lodging a report Ex.P1 before P.W.14 - Sub-Inspector of Police on 17.11.2010 at 9.00 PM. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.29 of 2010 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A of IPC. Ex.P32 is the F.I.R. Thereafter, P.W.14 issued the requisition to the Mandal Executive Officer, for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased. On 18.11.2010, the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) came to the scene of offence and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.8. Ex.P32 is the F.I.R. Thereafter, P.W.14 issued the requisition to the Mandal Executive Officer, for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased. On 18.11.2010, the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) came to the scene of offence and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.8. After inquest, the body was sent to Post Mortem examination, P.W.11-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Chodavaram conducted autopsy over the dead body and opined that the deceased would have died because of respiratory failure followed by cardiac arrest due to Taxamic, traumatic asphyxia caused by injury to neck, head and ingestion of the insecticide poison. He further opined that the chemical analysis revealed the presence of Endosulfan poison. 6. P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police conducted panchanama of the scene in the presence of the mediators and the same is marked as Ex.P33. On 21.11.2010 he arrested the accused and seized Ex.P8 receipt evidencing purchase of Endosulfan from the shop of P.W.7. He recorded the confession of the accused in the presence of the mediators which is placed on record as Ex.P11. After collecting all the necessary documents, more particularly, the reports of the Forensic Lab which is placed on record as Ex.P31, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.09 of 2011 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chodavaram. 7. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to him. As the offences are triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 8. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P38 and M.Os.1 to 4. After the closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which he denied. 9. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P38 and M.Os.1 to 4. After the closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which he denied. However, he did not adduce any evidence in support of his plea. Relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 coupled with the evidence of doctor (P.W.11) which corroborates the oral evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Sections 302 of I.P.C and 449 of I.P.C. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 10. Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel appearing for appellant, mainly submits that the daughter of P.W.1 did not die in the manner projected by the prosecution. He would submit that while the injured was being taken in a goods auto to the hospital, the same met with an accident due to hit by an Ambulance, as a result of which, she fell down from the auto and died at the spot itself. Thereafter, she was shifted into another auto and taken to the hospital where she was declared brought dead. From the above, he would submit that if only the side mirror of the auto was damaged, as projected by the prosecution, definitely there was no necessity for the injured to be shifted to another auto. Be that it may, he would contend that the medical evidence totally falsifies the case of the prosecution. According to him, the evidence of P.W.1 would show that there was only one injury on her body, but the Post Mortem certificate disproves the same. According to him, there were five injures on the body of the deceased and all the injuries were due to the dragging and accident. 11. Coming to administration of poison, he would submit that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was in possession of the poison and purchased the same from the shop of P.W.7. Referring to the evidence of P.W.7 vis-a-vis recovery of M.O.1-Tin in which Endosulfan was carried, he submits that there is no evidence to show that it was the same tin which was purchased from the shop of P.W.7. Referring to the evidence of P.W.7 vis-a-vis recovery of M.O.1-Tin in which Endosulfan was carried, he submits that there is no evidence to show that it was the same tin which was purchased from the shop of P.W.7. The accused being an agriculturist would have purchased some endosulfan for agricultural purpose, but that by itself does not mean that the tin which do not contain either the expiry date or the manufacturing date, was the one purchased by the accused. 12. He further submits that the entire case of the prosecution is a complete improvement from what has been stated in the F.I.R. Even, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 is silent with regard to the injuries on the body of the deceased prior to the accident. Hence, when the medical evidence does not corroborate the oral evidence, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt, more so, having regard to the findings given by the Trial Court in “paragraph No.101”, which substantially falsifies the prosecution case. 13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same, contending that the evidence of P.W.1 clinchingly establishes the involvement of the accused in the crime. According to him, the statement made by the deceased, describing the manner in which the incident took place to P.W.1 can be treated as an oral Dying Declaration and if the said oral Dying Declaration inspires confidence, the same can be made the basis to convict the accused. He further submits that when the evidence of P.W.6 only discloses the damage to the side glass of the auto, the plea that injuries on the body of the deceased, are due to accident cannot be accepted. According to him, when the deceased was administered poison by the accused, she would not have been in a position to disclose the entire incident in detail to P.W.1. By the time, P.W.1 and others went into the house after hearing the cries, substantial part of the incident was over by then. The accused who was present left the place when he was questioned about the incident. Having regard to all the circumstances stated above, more particularly, the vomiting and the purchase of poison from the shop of P.W.7, he would contend that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such pleads that conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court warrants no interference. 14. Having regard to all the circumstances stated above, more particularly, the vomiting and the purchase of poison from the shop of P.W.7, he would contend that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such pleads that conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court warrants no interference. 14. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 15. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence available on record. 16. The first circumstance to be established by the prosecution is, whether the accused was present in the house along with the deceased at that relevant point of time? 17. P.W.1 who is the father of the deceased, in his evidence, deposed that on the fateful day i.e., on 17.11.2010, the accused came to his house in the early morning and at about 8.00 AM, left the house. At that time he was asked as to where he was going. The accused informed P.W.1 that he will return back by 11.00 AM. At that time, P.W.1 alone was present in the house. At about 11.00 AM, the accused returned back and enquired about his wife. When the accused was informed that the deceased along with the daughter-in-law of P.W.1 went for cutting the crop, the accused asked P.W.1 to get his wife. P.W.1 immediately brought his daughter. 18. P.W.1 was cross-examined at length, but nothing incriminating came to be established to discredit his testimony. On the other hand, it was elicited that on that day, the accused came to the house at 11.00 AM and at that time P.W.1, his deceased daughter and grand-daughter were present. It was further elicited that after his daughter returned to the house, P.W.1 went to his neighbours’ house where there was a function relating to marriage alliance. 19. It was further elicited that at about 3.00 or 4.00 PM, P.W.1 came back to the house and found the accused and his daughter present at the grass heap where she informed P.W.1 about the accused administering pesticide. He also informed the Police about the accused beating his daughter. From the answers elicited, the evidence of P.W.1 makes it clear that the accused was present in the house along with the deceased on 17.11.2010 from 8.00 AM to 2.30/3.00 PM. He also informed the Police about the accused beating his daughter. From the answers elicited, the evidence of P.W.1 makes it clear that the accused was present in the house along with the deceased on 17.11.2010 from 8.00 AM to 2.30/3.00 PM. The said evidence of P.W.1 also gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W.2, who in his evidence deposed that at about 11.00 AM while he was proceeding to Chodavaram, the accused called him and enquired about his presence in the house. Later on, P.W.1 called him and informed about the accused administering poison to the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1, gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to they going to the house of the accused and bring back the deceased to the house and the accused calling him on the next day, when he is there in the house. 20. The evidence of P.W.2 not only discloses about P.Ws.1 and 2 bringing the deceased back to the house, on the previous day, but also shows that the accused followed them, stayed on the terrace, left the house in the early hours and subsequently came to the house at 11.00 AM, by which time P.W.2 was proceeding to Chodavaram. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 establish the presence of the accused in the house of P.W.1 on the fateful day. It also stands established that except P.Ws.1 and 2 none else were present in the house during the said period. 21. The second circumstance would be whether the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased? 22. Before dealing with the same, it would be appropriate for us to deal with the accident, which took place while the injured/deceased was being shifted in the goods auto of P.W.6 to the hospital. It is in the evidence of P.W.6 that on 17.11.2010 while he was in the village, he heard cries from the house of P.W.1, rushed there and when questioned, he was informed about the accused administering poison and beating the deceased on the head. As there was some delay in 108 Ambulance reaching to the house of P.W.1, P.W.6 was requested to shift the injured in his goods auto to the hospital. When the goods vehicle of P.W.6 reached Kotha Agraharam, 108 ambulance is said to have dashed the mirror of the auto, as a result of which, P.W.6 sustained injuries. As there was some delay in 108 Ambulance reaching to the house of P.W.1, P.W.6 was requested to shift the injured in his goods auto to the hospital. When the goods vehicle of P.W.6 reached Kotha Agraharam, 108 ambulance is said to have dashed the mirror of the auto, as a result of which, P.W.6 sustained injuries. According to P.W.6, they shifted the injured into another auto and took her to Government hospital at K. Kotapadu Village where the doctor declared her brought dead. 23. In the cross-examination, P.W.6 denied the suggestion of deceased receiving injuries because of ambulance hitting the goods auto. He further admits that he has not given any report to the Police about the said accident. A suggestion that the major accident took place between the ambulance and the auto was denied. ADMINISTERING OF POISON 24. As stated earlier, the main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the deceased died in the accident and the prosecution has suppressed the material relating to the said accident. In order to appreciate the same and also as to whether the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased, coupled with the circumstance of accused purchasing poison from the shop of P.W.7, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and 7 has to be appreciated. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that when he was near the grass heap, the deceased fell on him and vomited. He noticed an injury on her head and the injured/deceased informed him about accused beating her and also administering poison forcibly. At that point of time, the accused left the place. 25. P.W.3 in his evidence deposed that at about 2.00 or 2.30 PM, there was a lunch arranged at his house. While he was making arrangement for lunch, he was informed that the deceased fell down and vomited. He immediately sent his female members of his family, rushed towards P.W.1 and called for 108 ambulance. As there was some delay in ambulance reaching the place, they shifted the injured in the goods auto of P.W.6 along with female members. He escorted them on his two wheeler to the hospital at K. Kotapadu wherein, the nurse informed about the death of the deceased. As there was some delay in ambulance reaching the place, they shifted the injured in the goods auto of P.W.6 along with female members. He escorted them on his two wheeler to the hospital at K. Kotapadu wherein, the nurse informed about the death of the deceased. However, in the cross-examination he admits that the deceased was taken to the hospital prior to he reaching the hospital and when he reached the hospital he was informed about the death of the deceased. 26. The evidence of P.W.2 may be not much of relevance as he was not present at the time when P.W.1 entered the house. 27. The evidence of P.W.4 is also hearsay, as he came to know about the quarrel between the deceased and the accused and the accused administering poison to the deceased. 28. The evidence of P.W.5 is of some importance as she in her evidence deposed that on the date of incident she went to the house of P.W.1 and called the deceased, for cutting the crop. She also enquired about the accused with P.W.2, who stated that the accused left the house. She left the house asking the deceased to come over to the fields. Sometime later, the deceased joined her in the fields. According to her, at about 11.30 AM, P.W.2 came to the fields and requested the deceased to come to the house as the accused is insisting her presence to have food. As such, the deceased went to the house of P.W.1. Though, P.W.5 was cross-examined, nothing useful was elicited to discredit her testimony. The suggestion that the deceased consumed the poison on her own was denied. She also denied the suggestion that the deceased died because of the accident which took place while she was being taken to the hospital in the auto. She also denied the suggestion that she also sustained an injury, which she is suppressing. 29. From the evidence of these witnesses, it not only establishes that the accused was present in the house of P.W.1 on the fateful day but the deceased going to the house of P.W.1 from the fields. 30. As stated earlier, the evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that on hearing the cries, he went to his house at which point of time the deceased who was at the grass heap, fell on him and then vomited on his shirt. 30. As stated earlier, the evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that on hearing the cries, he went to his house at which point of time the deceased who was at the grass heap, fell on him and then vomited on his shirt. She also disclosed about accused beating her with a stick and also administering poison forcibly. 31. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there is no evidence to show that the accused was in possession of the poison and that the poison which he purchased at the shop of P.W.7, is the poison that was administered to the deceased. 32. The evidence of P.W.7 would establish that at the time of sale, they took the signature of the purchaser in the receipt book along with the name of the purchaser. When the receipt Ex.P8 was confronted to him, he admits that it was issued by his shop and it contains the signature of the purchaser. According to him, he cannot identify the person who purchased the said tin but the person who signed on it is the purchaser. He further submits that the purchaser was in a drunken state and when P.W.7 refused to sell the same, the said person informed him that he is a resident of his neighbouring village. As such, sold the pesticide. P.W.7 in his cross-examination admits that the particulars as to the batch number, date and date of expiry are not mentioned in the tin, as mentioned in the receipt Ex.P8. According to him, the said particulars would be on the top or bottom of the tin but the same are not found on M.O.1. However, to a suggestion that at the instance of Police, he has created the receipt Ex.P8 was denied by him. From the evidence of this witness it is contended that recovery of M.O.1 does not in any way establish that the accused purchased M.O.1 from the shop of P.W.7 and that he was in possession of the same. 33. However, the evidence of P.W.13-Assistant Director of RFSL, Visakhapatnam, clearly establishes that there is no possibility to erase the batch number or any print marks on the tin. He further states that the same may contain or may not. 33. However, the evidence of P.W.13-Assistant Director of RFSL, Visakhapatnam, clearly establishes that there is no possibility to erase the batch number or any print marks on the tin. He further states that the same may contain or may not. According to him, if the batch number is mentioned, it would be noted in Lab worksheet and he can produce the worksheet if it is called for. It is to be noted here that this witness was not cross-examined. Therefore, from the evidence in chief-examination of this witness, it is clear that M.O.1 may contain batch number and print marks or may not contain. Therefore, the argument for the learned counsel for the appellant that there is any amount of doubt with regard to usage of M.O.1-Tin containing endosulfan may not be accepted, more so, when the evidence of P.W.7 establish that it was procured by a person whose signature is present on Ex.P8. The evidence of the mediators and the Investigating Officer further establish that Ex.P8 was recovered from the possession of the accused and P.W.7 identified the same as being issued by their shop. Therefore, the evidence on record establish beyond reasonable doubt that endosulfan was purchased by the accused from the shop of P.W.7. 34. In so far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence with regard to accused being in possession of endosulfan, it is to be noted that the accused left the house of P.W.1 at 8:00 AM, informing that he will be back at 11:00 AM. Since it is only a tin, which carries 100 ML. of endosulfan, P.W.1 might not have seen the same with the accused, as there is every possibility of accused concealing the same in his pant pocket or at any other place in between 8:00 AM to 11:00 AM when he went out. Further, no person would carry a poisonous substance in his hands displaying it to public and family members of the deceased. 35. Coming to administration of poison, as stated by us earlier, the presence of the accused in the house stands established through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. It also stands established that only accused and the deceased were present in the house on that day after 11.00 AM. 35. Coming to administration of poison, as stated by us earlier, the presence of the accused in the house stands established through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. It also stands established that only accused and the deceased were present in the house on that day after 11.00 AM. The evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of the neighbour, in whose house the function was going, also establish that on hearing the cries of the deceased, P.W.1 rushed into his house and at that time noticed the deceased coming towards him and then informing him about the assault by the accused and forcible administration of the poison by him. It is not the case of the accused that the deceased consumed endosulfan on her own. No such suggestion was given to P.W.1 on this aspect. On the other hand, it was suggested to P.W.1 that accused was not present in the house and he is innocent of the offence. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant suggestion which is as under: “It is not true to suggest that the accused did not administer any pesticide and nor the accused was present at that time”. 36. The evidence of Post Mortem doctor coupled with the evidence of Forensic Expert established that the vicera of the deceased contains endosulfan. When the evidence on record show that the deceased and the accused alone were present in the house at that time, the accused cannot simply suggest his absence. At least, the accused ought to have explained or atleast suggested as to consumption of endosulfan, if any, by the deceased herself. In the absence of any explanation and having regard to the nature of suggestion given to P.W.1, the plea taken with regard to his innocence cannot be accepted. 37. Further, the circumstances which show forcible administration of poison by the accused to the deceased would be the injuries found by the Post Mortem doctor. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that the injuries found on the body of the deceased are possible in the accident that took place with the Ambulance, but strangely it was not even suggested to the doctor about the same. As seen from the evidence of Post Mortem doctor that there were five external injuries and four internal injuries on the body. The same are as under: 1. As seen from the evidence of Post Mortem doctor that there were five external injuries and four internal injuries on the body. The same are as under: 1. Black colour bruise and swelling at center of the neck. 2. Semicircular oblique incised deep wound size 2 ½ x 1 x 1 and depression of the underlying bone dull sound on tapping bleeding was present. 3. An oblique abrasion size 3” x 1”, over left fore arm at middle 3rd underlying muscles were damaged. 4. Bluish colour dilated virus were present over the both shoulders. 5. Head freely moving. The internal injuries were: 1. Laryngeal muscles of both sides of trachea damaged hyoid bone fractured on left and blood in trashed canal corresponds to ext injury No.1. 2. Size 1” x 1” fracture of the Skell bone and Haematoma underlying the scalp corresponds to ext. Injury No.2. 3. Muscles of the fore arm on left at middle 3rd move damaged and bleeding was present corresponds external injury No.3. 4. Cervical bones were dislocated at C3-C4 level corresponds to ext injury No.5. 38. A perusal of the injuries found on the body of the deceased would show there was a black colour swelling at the centre of the neck. This in all probability could have been sustained when the accused tried to forcibly administer poison to the deceased. The internal injury number one correspondence to the external injury number one, amply supports the version of the deceased that she was forcibly administered poison. The second internal injury noticed by the Post Mortem doctor, namely fracture of skull bone and Haematoma underlying the scalp corresponds to external injury number two, which could have been caused by the attack on the deceased with the stick. The third and fourth internal injuries could have been, as a result of the accident, of course, but such suggestion were given. However, the cause of death was not only due to Taxamic, traumatic asphyxia caused by injury to neck but also due to ingestion of insecticide poison. The chemical analysis reveal existence of Endosulfan, an insecticide poison, in the viscera. Therefore, the medical evidence amply supports the case of the prosecution with regard to the cause of death of the deceased. Things would have been different had the cause of death was due to some other injury. The chemical analysis reveal existence of Endosulfan, an insecticide poison, in the viscera. Therefore, the medical evidence amply supports the case of the prosecution with regard to the cause of death of the deceased. Things would have been different had the cause of death was due to some other injury. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant tried to rely upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 in support of his plea but the same in our view may not be of any help to the counsel for the appellant for the reason that the prosecution was able to prove not only administration of poison but also its purchase and in possession of the said poison by the accused. 39. At this stage, one other circumstance which assumes lot of significance is that oral dying declaration made by the deceased to P.W.1. Though, it is a weak piece of evidence, but if found reliable can be acted upon or atleast take as one of the circumstance to connect the accused with the crime. The evidence on record, which we are referred to earlier, more particularly, the evidence of P.W.1 would clearly show that the deceased made an oral dying declaration before P.W.1 explaining the attack and administration of poison, which version is consistent all through. 40. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 41. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the judgment, dated 26.06.2014, in Sessions Case No.237 of 2011 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.