Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 548 (JK)

State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Ram Karan Singh

2022-10-07

RAJESH SEKHRI, RAJNESH OSWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT Rajnesh Oswal, J. - The judgment dated 18.02.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in case titled, State of J & K vs. Ram Karan Singh@ Karan Singh for commission of offences under sections 302 and 201 RPC arising out of FIR No. 95/2011 of Police Station, Miran Sahib, has been impugned by the appellant in this appeal on the ground that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and has passed the judgment in a mechanical manner. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that FIR bearing No. 95/2011 dated 12.09.2011 was initially registered under section 307 RPC with Police Station, R.S. Pura against the respondent on the receipt of the statement of Anita Devi, wife of respondent, recorded by Head Constable Jangi Ram in Government Medical College (GMC) Hospital Jammu wherein she had stated that on 12.09.2011 at 12.30 P.M. she asked her husband to take meals but he stated that he would not take the meals of her hands and she asked him as to whether he has kept some other lady. Respondent replied that he has kept some other lady and he would desert her. Thereafter, the accused/respondent gave her some poisonous medicine in the water and she became unconscious. She died in the hospital on 13.09.2011 and offence was converted into 302 RPC. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and during investigation he found that after making his wife to consume poison in a glass of water, the accused threw the glass in the canal. After the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the respondent for commission of offences, under section 302 and 201 RPC before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, R.S. Pura and the same was committed to the trial court. Vide order dated 26.12.2011, the respondent was charged for commission of aforementioned offence. As the respondent did not plead guilty, so the prosecution was directed to lead evidence and all the 14 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined. 3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution has successfully proved the dying declaration but still the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent. 4. As the respondent did not plead guilty, so the prosecution was directed to lead evidence and all the 14 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined. 3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution has successfully proved the dying declaration but still the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent. 4. As this court is dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the acquittal recorded by the trial court, it is apt to examine the scope of interference with judgment of acquittal. In N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N., (2021) 3 SCC 687 , Apex Court has held as under: '20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a 'possible view', having regard to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal. Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeal against acquittal and the appeal against conviction. By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: (SCC p. 432) '42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.' 21. Further in the judgment in Murugesan [Murugesan v. State, (2012) 10 SCC 383 ] relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, this Court has considered the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal recorded by the trial court. In the said judgment, it is categorically held by this Court that only in cases where conclusion recorded by the trial court is not a possible view, then only the High Court can interfere and reverse the acquittal to that of conviction. In the said judgment, distinction from that of 'possible view' to 'erroneous view' or 'wrong view' is explained. In clear terms, this Court has held that if the view taken by the trial court is a 'possible view', the High Court not to reverse the acquittal to that of the conviction. 5. In order to examine as to whether the acquittal of the respondent was justified or not being the possible or plausible view, it is appropriate to have brief resume of the prosecution evidence. 6. 5. In order to examine as to whether the acquittal of the respondent was justified or not being the possible or plausible view, it is appropriate to have brief resume of the prosecution evidence. 6. PW-1 Jangi Ram stated that in the month of September, 2011, he was posted in Police Station, Miran Sahib and received a message that Anita Devi wife of Karan Singh was admitted in GMC Hospital, Jammu and her statement is required to be recorded. He went to hospital on 12.09.2011 for recording her statement and submitted a docket to the medical officer and the medical officer stated that Anita Devi was fit to make statement and thereafter he recorded the statement of Anita Devi. He proved the docket as also the statement of the deceased (Ex. TP JR/1). During cross examination, he stated that he had not received any written order for proceeding to GMC. He had prepared the seizure memo of the docket as well as the statement of the deceased but the same was not found in the file. After recording the statement of the deceased, he returned back to the Police Station Miran Sahib at 10.30 in the night. Investigating Officer had not seized the statement of the deceased and docket from him during investigation. His statement was recorded on 13.09.2011 by the SHO. It is not mentioned in his statement recorded under section 161 CrPC that he had handed over the docket and statement on which date and to whom. He had handed over the docket as well as statement to the Investigating Officer on 13.09.2011. He gave an application to the medical officer for recording the statement of the deceased and at that time, Dr. Sudhir Singh was there, but he was not medical officer. He has no knowledge as to whether Dr. Sudhir Singh was undergoing training at that time or not. When he reached GMC Hospital, Jammu, the deceased was in the emergency ward and was on oxygen. The husband of the deceased was not present there but he was standing outside. He had not obtained the signatures of the relatives on the statement of the deceased. He had not seized the record of Gandhi Nagar Hospital and has also not disclosed the same to I.O. 7. The husband of the deceased was not present there but he was standing outside. He had not obtained the signatures of the relatives on the statement of the deceased. He had not seized the record of Gandhi Nagar Hospital and has also not disclosed the same to I.O. 7. PW-2 Rajesh Kumar stated that the deceased was daughter of his maternal uncle and she was married to the accused 15/16 years prior to her death. He visited the house of in-laws of the deceased occasionally and found that she was depressed and would say that the accused had illicit relations with another lady. On 12.09.2011, he came to know that the deceased was admitted in GMC Hospital and he reached there at 8.30 and talked with the deceased who told him that the accused had forcibly administered some poison mixed in the water to her. During cross examination, he stated that from 12.09.2011 to 24.09.2011, he used to return to his home from his service daily and after occurrence he went to the Police Station, Miran Sahib for the first time on 24.09.2011 and from the day of occurrence till 24.09.2011, the Police never came to him to record his statement. He had not mentioned about illicit relations in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. He had not enquired from the deceased as to whether she was forced to consume poison. 8. PW-3 Swarn Singh (brother of the deceased) stated about the strained relations between the accused and the deceased after four-five years of marriage as the accused had developed illicit relations with other lady and he used to roam in her company and also stayed in her home. He also deposed about the conduct of the accused and the protest raised by his sister about the conduct of the respondent. He further stated that the statement of his sister was recorded in the hospital and she had stated that the accused had forcibly made her to consume poison mixed with the water. He reached the hospital and her sister was conscious and was talking. During cross examination, he stated that from the day of occurrence till 24.09.2011, he was in his home and during this period, he neither went to the Police Station nor did Police call him. He has no personal knowledge about the illicit relations of the accused with other lady. During cross examination, he stated that from the day of occurrence till 24.09.2011, he was in his home and during this period, he neither went to the Police Station nor did Police call him. He has no personal knowledge about the illicit relations of the accused with other lady. He had made statement before the Police that the deceased protested against the illicit relations of her husband with that lady but it has not been recorded by the Police. He had not made any mention in his statement that when he went to Hospital, the deceased was talking. It is correct that the deceased was initially taken to Gandhi Nagar Hospital for treatment before bringing her to GMC Hospital and at that time, Tilak Raj and Sukhdev Singh were with the deceased. The deceased was not in a serious condition when she was brought to GMC Hospital. Mangal Singh, Ajay Singh, Rajesh and Chamail Singh were also present in the hospital, but they did not sign the statement made by the deceased that was recorded by Head Constable Jangi Ram. 9. PW-4 Ajay Choudhary stated that the deceased was his Aunt. He deposed about the strained relationship between the accused and the deceased and the strained relations were due to illicit relations of the accused with other lady. On 12.09.2011, after coming to know that the deceased was admitted in the hospital, he went there and enquired from the deceased as to what had happened and she replied that some poison was administered to her in water by the accused. The Police reached there at 8 PM and after getting fitness certificate from the doctor, recorded her statement. She stated that she asked her husband to take meals but he refused to take meals from her and he stated that he had kept another lady and would bring her to home. She was forcibly made to drink water mixed with some poisonous substance. Thereafter, the deceased put her signature and thumb impression on her statement. During cross examination, he stated that he does not remember as to whether he was in his home from 12.09.2011 to 02.10.2011 or had gone out. During this period Police never came to him. He went to Police on 2.10.2011 for recording his statement. Thereafter, the deceased put her signature and thumb impression on her statement. During cross examination, he stated that he does not remember as to whether he was in his home from 12.09.2011 to 02.10.2011 or had gone out. During this period Police never came to him. He went to Police on 2.10.2011 for recording his statement. The Doctor issued the certificate in his presence that the deceased was fit to make statement but it is not mentioned in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. He does not have personal knowledge about the illicit relation of the accused with other lady. He subsequently came to know that the deceased was shifted from Gandhi Nagar Hospital to GMC Hospital in serious condition. 10. PW-5 Mangal Singh (brother of the deceased) stated that the relationship between the accused and the deceased after 4/5 years of marriage got strained. After 4/5 years of marriage, he came to know that the accused had illicit relations with some other lady and when his sister came to know about it, she asked the accused about that lady and then accused started harassing and beating her. On 12.09.2011 at about 11 AM, his sister asked the accused to take meals and he said that he would not take meals from her hands. His sister replied that he had kept a mistress and he should take meals from her hands. The accused said that he would desert her and thereafter, relations between the accused and his sister became more strained and controversy flared up. At about 4 PM, he came to know that his sister was admitted in the GMC Hospital and he went there. She was admitted in emergency ward and he enquired from her as to what had happened and she replied that the accused had forcibly administered her poison mixed in water. After two hours, the Police came to the hospital and Head Constable recorded the statement of his sister and at that time, Dr. Sudhir Singh was also present there. Except him, his son Ajay and relative Chamail Choudhary were also present there. His sister signed the statement in English and also put her thumb impression. His statement was also got recorded before the Magistrate. Sudhir Singh was also present there. Except him, his son Ajay and relative Chamail Choudhary were also present there. His sister signed the statement in English and also put her thumb impression. His statement was also got recorded before the Magistrate. During cross examination, he stated that on 12.09.2011 till 08.10.2011 he remained present in home and never went out and during this period, he visited Police Station twice or thrice on the summoning of the Police. His statement was recorded by the Police before the Magistrate on 08.10.2011. When he was confronted with the statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. it was found that there was no mention in the said statement that 'his sister asked the accused to take meals and he refused to take meals. However, when his sister asked him he had some other lady, the accused said that he had kept a mistress and he would desert her'. It is also not mentioned in his statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. that the Head Constable recorded the statement of his sister in the hospital. He admitted that he never made any statement before the Magistrate that when Head Constable was recording the statement of his sister, Dr. Sudhir Singh was also present. The presence of his son and relative Chamail Singh at the time of recording the statement, has also not been mentioned in his statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. It is also not mentioned in his statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. that the deceased made the dying declaration in his presence which was signed by the deceased and she also put thumb impression on it. 11. PW-6 Chamail Singh stated that both accused and the deceased were known to him. He has stated that after coming to know that Anita Devi was admitted in the hospital, he along with his son went to the hospital and he found the name and address of the deceased wrongly written in the file and he got it corrected. Police also came there and recorded the statement of the deceased. He further stated that except this, he does not know anything. Deceased and the accused are his relatives and he would not favour any of them. During cross examination, he has stated that from 12.09.2011 to 08.10.2011, he was present in his house. Police official had recorded his statement but he did not sign it. 12. He further stated that except this, he does not know anything. Deceased and the accused are his relatives and he would not favour any of them. During cross examination, he has stated that from 12.09.2011 to 08.10.2011, he was present in his house. Police official had recorded his statement but he did not sign it. 12. PW-7 Bahadur Singh proved the seizure memo of the dead body. However, he denied the contents of the seizure memo, cloth of the deceased, but he identified his signatures. In cross examination, he stated that he is the Sarpanch of the village and he never received any complaint either from the accused or from the deceased-Anita Devi that their relations were not cordial. 13. PW-8 Tilak Raj stated that after receiving phone from the accused that the deceased had consumed something and driver of the bus has alighted her at Miran Sahib, he went to Miran Sahib, where the deceased was lying unconscious and they brought her to Gandhi Nagar Hospital from where she was referred to SGMS Hospital, Jammu in serious condition. In the hospital, the doctor put her on oxygen and he and the accused remained in the hospital for the whole night. The paternal family of the deceased arrived at 11 in the night. He proved the seizure memo of the dead body as also the receipt of the dead body. In cross examination, he stated that the Police came to the hospital on the day of occurrence at about 9.30. The deceased did not make any statement before the Police as she was unconscious and was put on oxygen immediately after her arrival in the hospital. He had made such statement before the Police but cannot say as to why it was not recorded. 14. PW-9 Swarn Lal proved the receipt of the dead body. During cross examination, he stated that he is the real brother of the accused. There was no complaint on behalf of the deceased that the accused had illicit relation with other lady. 15. PW-10 Dr. Sudhir Singh stated that he was undergoing 3rd year course in PG, GMC Hospital and on 12.09.2011, he was on night duty in the hospital. He issued the fitness certificate on the docket dated 12.09.2011 and he proved the said certificate. 15. PW-10 Dr. Sudhir Singh stated that he was undergoing 3rd year course in PG, GMC Hospital and on 12.09.2011, he was on night duty in the hospital. He issued the fitness certificate on the docket dated 12.09.2011 and he proved the said certificate. On 12.09.2011, Jangi Ram, HC recorded the statement of the deceased in his presence and the deceased put her thumb impression and signature on the statement which was attested by him. During cross examination, he stated that it is correct that on 12.09.2011, he was not posted as Medical Officer in GMC Hospital but was PG student there. His statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 16.09.2011, but in his statement it was not written/mentioned that he attested the statement of the deceased. He stated that the deceased was brought from Gandhi Nagar Hospital to GMC Hospital in a serious condition and her condition was not serious when her statement was recorded. He further stated that when the deceased was brought to GMC, she was on oxygen which was removed on his direction at the time when her statement was recorded and after recording her statement, she was again put on oxygen. 16. PW-13 Deepa Hans stated that on 13.09.2011, she was posted as Lecturer GMC Forensic Medicines, Jammu and on the said date, she conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased-Anita Devi and sent viscera for chemical analysis and report was received on 12.11.2011 and as per FSL report, the cause of the death of the deceased was consumption of Aluminium Phosphide poison. She proved the post-mortem report. During cross examination, she stated that as per FSL opinion, after consumption of poison, the deceased-Anita Devi died at an early stage and consumption of aforesaid poison was bound to result in immediate fall of blood pressure and other related consequences and in that circumstances, it was not possible for Anita Devi, to make any kind of statement as to why she consumed poison. 17. PW-12 Rohit Koul stated that on 21.09.2011 he was posted as Assistant Scientific Officer, FSL Jammu. In connection with the viscera of Anita Devi, three sealed packets marked as Bottle Nos. 1 to 3 were forwarded to the laboratory. After chemical examination, Aluminium Phosphide was detected in the aforesaid packets. 18. PW-14 Nazir Ahmed stated that he in the year 2011 was posted as SHO Police Station, Miran Sahib. In connection with the viscera of Anita Devi, three sealed packets marked as Bottle Nos. 1 to 3 were forwarded to the laboratory. After chemical examination, Aluminium Phosphide was detected in the aforesaid packets. 18. PW-14 Nazir Ahmed stated that he in the year 2011 was posted as SHO Police Station, Miran Sahib. On receipt of statement of deceased, the FIR No. 95/2011 for commission of offence under section 307 was registered and on 13.09.2011, Anita Devi died. He prepared the seizure memo of the dead body, clothes and receipt of the dead body. He recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. The site plan was also prepared by him. He got the statement of the deceased Anita Devi attested through Dr. Sudhir Singh. He proved the offences under section 302 and 201 RPC against the accused and produced the charge sheet in the court of law. During cross examination, he stated that it has not come in his investigation that in whose presence the accused administered poison to the deceased because he could not find any proof on the spot. He also did not enquire as to from where the poison was purchased. It is wrong that Head Constable, Jangi Ram produced the statement of the deceased in the Police Station on 13.09.2011. He went to the hospital on 12.09.2011 after the statement of the deceased was recorded and recorded the statement of HC Jangi Ram on 13.09.2011. He recorded the statement of PWs Sarwan Singh, Rajesh Kumar on 24.09.2011 and Ajay Kumar on 02.10.2011 and also recorded the statement of Dr. Sudhir Singh on 16.09.2011. He had given the statement before him that the patient was fit for making statement and her statement was recorded in his presence. He never gave such statement that he had attested the statement of the deceased. He never enquired from Jangi Ram, Head Constable as to why did he not obtain the signatures of the witnesses or legal heirs of the deceased on her statement. There was delay in getting the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. as they appeared before him quite late for recording their statements. He expressed ignorance as to whether the deceased was referred from Gandhi Nagar Hospital to GMC Hospital in serious condition. There was delay in getting the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. as they appeared before him quite late for recording their statements. He expressed ignorance as to whether the deceased was referred from Gandhi Nagar Hospital to GMC Hospital in serious condition. He did not seize any record of the said hospital and as such, he cannot say as to whether the deceased was fit to make statement when she was admitted in Gandhi Nagar Hospital. He did not make any effort to find out the lady with whom the accused was alleged to have illicit relations, but the prosecution witnesses Mangal and Chamail Singh revealed about it before him. 19. PW Muzaffar Iqbal Khan stated that he was posted as Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, R.S. Pura and he recorded the statements of witnesses under section 164-A Cr.P.C. 20. The respondent has also produced two defence witnesses in his defence i.e. DW - Sukhdev Singh and DW Isha Chowdhary 21. DW-1 Sukhdev Singh stated that on 12.09.2011, he received a telephonic call from the accused that the deceased had consumed something and she was lying near hand pump, Bus Stand Miran Sahib and he asked him to take her to the hospital. He further stated that the relations between the accused and the deceased were cordial. 22. DW-2 Isha Choudhary (daughter of the deceased) too has stated that relations between her parents were cordial and they never quarrelled with each other. She also stated that the signature appended upon the statement (Ext. P JR/1) of the deceased does not belong to her mother. In cross examination, she stated that it is wrong that she is making statement in order to save her father from the legal punishment. 23. This is the whole evidence led by the parties before the learned trial court. As is evident from the prosecution story, the whole case of the prosecution is based upon the dying declaration. There is no direct evidence against the respondent. Besides dying declaration, the prosecution has also made an attempt to prove the motive behind the murder of the deceased i.e. the illicit relationship between the respondent and one lady. 24. In order to prove the allegations against the respondent, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the dying declaration beyond any reasonable doubt. Besides dying declaration, the prosecution has also made an attempt to prove the motive behind the murder of the deceased i.e. the illicit relationship between the respondent and one lady. 24. In order to prove the allegations against the respondent, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the dying declaration beyond any reasonable doubt. It is to be seen whether the dying declaration was made by the deceased in a free state of mind or not. There are two important witnesses i.e. PW Jangi Ram and PW Dr. Sudhir Singh so far as the dying declaration is concerned. A perusal of Ex. TPW-JR-1 reveals that there is no attesting witness to the dying declaration except PW Dr. Sudhir Singh and as per the statement, the same has been attested on 12.09.2011. PW-Jangi Ram made an application to the medical officer seeking his opinion for the purpose of recording the statement of the deceased. A perusal of the docket Ext. P-JR reveals that there is endorsement that the patient is fit for statement. The said docket was addressed to medical officer but in the evidence, it has come on record that PW-Dr. Sudhir Singh was never the medical officer. Further, the statement of the deceased has been attested by Dr. Sudhir Singh. Dr. Sudhir Singh in his deposition has admitted that his statement was recorded on 16.09.2011 but in his statement, it was not mentioned that he had attested the statement of the deceased. In this context, the statement of PW-12 Nazir Ahmed is very relevant as he has categorically stated that he got the statement of Anita Devi attested through Dr. Sudhir Singh on duty and it was got attested by him personally. This raises doubt about the attestation of the statement of the deceased as the statement was recorded by Jangi Ram but was got attested by PW Nazir Ahmed. There is no explanation as to why the statement of the deceased was not got attested by Jangi Ram himself and it casts the doubt about the recording of the statement of the deceased. Also it is not understandable as to why Jangi Ram did not get the statement of the deceased attested from the medical officer who was on duty and also got the fitness certificate from Medical Officer. Also it is not understandable as to why Jangi Ram did not get the statement of the deceased attested from the medical officer who was on duty and also got the fitness certificate from Medical Officer. The evidence with regard to the condition of the deceased at the time of making statement also raises the doubt about the authenticity of the statement of the deceased as PW Dr. Sudhir Singh on one hand stated that the deceased was brought in a serious condition to the GMC Hospital and was kept on oxygen and on other hand he states that the condition of the deceased was not so serious when her statement was recorded. He further stated that when the deceased was brought to the GMC Hospital, she was put on oxygen and that was removed only for recording of her statement and after recording the statement, she was again put on oxygen. The statement of Dr. Deepa Hans who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased is also very relevant as she has stated that the deceased had died at an early stage and consumption of poison was bound to result in immediate fall of blood pressure and other related consequences and in that circumstances, it was not possible for the deceased to have made any kind of statement in this respect as to why she consumed poison. 25. Thus, there is dispute with regard to the authenticity of the dying declaration in absence of any witness to the dying declaration coupled with the fact that the condition of the deceased was serious particularly when she was on continuous oxygen support and the same was removed only for the purpose of recording statement and in light of deposition of Dr. Deepa Hans, it would not be safe to place reliance upon the said dying declaration to convict the accused/respondent. From the statement of the Investigating Officer, it is clear that the statement of PWs Swarn Singh and Rajesh Kumar were recorded on 24.09.2011 whereas the statement of Ajay Kumar was recorded on 02.10.2011 and the occurrence is of 12.09.2011 meaning thereby that there is delay in the recording of the statement of the said witnesses and the only explanation by the Investigating Officer is that they came late to him for recording their statement. It needs to be noted that the deceased was initially taken to Gandhi Nagar Hospital from where she was referred to GMC Hospital and no record has been procured from Gandhi Nagar Hospital with regard to the status of the patient and it also creates doubt about the fitness of the deceased to make statement. 26. Another important issue is that PW Tilak Raj has categorically stated that the husband of the deceased called him on phone and he told him that his wife had consumed something and driver has alighted her from bus at Miran Sahib and she was lying there unconscious. He went to Miran Sahib and then he and the accused brought her to Gandhi Nagar Hospital from where she was referred to GMC Hospital. This statement of PW Tilak Raj is corroborated by the statement of DW Sukhdev Singh who has also deposed on similar lines with regard to the deceased lying unconscious at Miran Sahib. The presence of Sukhdev Singh and Tilak Raj at the time of taking the deceased to hospital has been admitted by the brother of the deceased PW Mangal Singh. It is also required to be taken note of that as per the dying declaration when the deceased asked the accused that he should take meal from the hands of other lady, the accused mixed poison in the water and made her to drink. In her statement, there is no whisper that when the accused made her to drink poisonous water, she raised any protest or showed any resistance and also it is not mentioned that the accused forcibly made the deceased to drink poisonous water. This also makes the prosecution story doubtful because as a normal course of human conduct, a person would not consume a poison at the hands of some other person knowingly that he/she is being poisoned unless the poison is mixed without the knowledge of the person consuming it, which is not the instant case. 27. In this context, it is apt to take note of the judgment of the Apex Court in Meera v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1879, para 19 of the reporting read as under: '19. There is another aspect of the matter for which there is no explanation. 27. In this context, it is apt to take note of the judgment of the Apex Court in Meera v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1879, para 19 of the reporting read as under: '19. There is another aspect of the matter for which there is no explanation. This is not a case where, according to the prosecution, the poison was administered to the deceased without her knowledge or suspicions. If one is to believe the dying declaration one fails to understand why the deceased would have swollen the poison given by her mother-in-law when she had seen, as claimed by her, that what was being given to her was poison meant for killing rats. All these facts create a serious doubt in our mind as to whether the dying declaration was really recorded in the manner alleged and also as to the veracity and truthfulness of the said dying declaration.' 28. We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court and the learned trial court has meticulously examined the evidence and has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant is not guilty of the commission of offences under section 302 and 201 RPC. We have examined the judgment of the trial court on the touchstone of law laid down by Apex Court and we do not find that there is any perversity in the judgment impugned that warrants interference. 29. For all what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal, as such, the same is dismissed.