JUDGMENT : K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/sole accused in Sessions Case No.514 of 2014 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sessions Court’). 2. The accused was tried and convicted by the learned Sessions Judge vide Judgment, dated 03.12.2015 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for LIFE and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default of payment of fine, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month. 3. The substance of the charge against the appellant/accused is that on 04.10.2013, the accused gave a poisonous injection by force through Intravenous (I.V) Cannula, in order to kill the deceased viz. Sodagudi Vimalamma. The deceased lost her breath while undergoing treatment at Government General Hospital, Guntur. 4. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, P.Ws 1 and 2 are the parents of deceased and accused was the husband of deceased. Marriage of deceased was solemnized with accused about twelve years ago. Accused had a wife and her whereabouts are not known. Thereafter, the deceased got married to the accused and out of wedlock, a male child was born to them. Both of them lived happily till then. After the birth of male child, accused started harassing the deceased by suspecting her character and was threatening her to kill her. P.Ws 1 and 2 admonished the accused, but he did not change his attitude towards the deceased. On 30.09.2013 deceased was taken to the hospital of P.W.4 for her second delivery by P.W.1 and accused. On the same day, at about 8.00 PM, the deceased had underwent a surgery and delivered a female child. Immediately, the deceased underwent a surgery for Tubectomy. It is after delivery, P.W.4 advised P.W.1 to feed food to deceased. After feeding food to deceased in the presence of P.W.2 and accused, P.Ws 1 and 2 along with accused had food. Thereafter, P.Ws 1 and 2 went out of the room leaving the accused and deceased, to wash clothes. One hour thereafter, P.W.1 had come back and found that the deceased and accused alone were present in the room. At that time, P.W.1 observed the deceased was gasping and coughing. Thereafter, P.Ws 1 and 2 went out of the room leaving the accused and deceased, to wash clothes. One hour thereafter, P.W.1 had come back and found that the deceased and accused alone were present in the room. At that time, P.W.1 observed the deceased was gasping and coughing. P.W.1 asked the deceased about her condition, where the deceased informed P.W.1 that accused gave injection to her through Intravenous (I.V) Cannula. P.W.4, the Doctor questioned the accused. He stated that he gave an injection to deceased and saying so, accused gave syringe to P.W.4. On seeing the injection and the condition of the deceased, P.W.4 advised P.W.1 to take her to the hospital of P.W.8. P.Ws 1, 2 and 3 took the deceased to the hospital of P.W.8. The deceased was admitted in the hospital of P.W.8. Thereafter, P.W.8 suggested P.W.1 to take the deceased to the Government General Hospital, Guntur. During the admission of deceased in the hospital of P.W.8, she was examined by police. The deceased survived for one day in the Government General Hospital. Thereafter, she died. P.W.12/Sub-Inspector of Police, Vinukonda Police Station received hospital intimation from the house of P.W.8 regarding treatment of deceased. Ex.P7 is the Hospital Intimation received from P.W.8. Immediately, P.W.12 proceeded to Nursing Home of P.W.8 and with the assistance of P.W.8, P.W.12 identified the deceased and recorded her statement. Ex.P15 is the statement of deceased. Basing on Ex.P15 statement, P.W.12 registered a case in Crime No.283 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against the accused and submitted the original FIR to Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda and copies to all concerned. Again, on the same day, at about 6.00 PM, P.W.12 went to the hospital of P.W.8, examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC. P.W.12 proceeded to the hospital of P.W.4 and secured the presence of P.W.4 and recorded her statement. During examination, P.W.12 seized M.O.1/Syringe and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P11. On 06.10.2013, on receipt of death intimation of deceased, P.W.13/Inspector of Police, Vinukonda PS, reregistered the case and altered the section of law from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC and issued altered FIR to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda and copies to all the concerned. On 06.10.2013, on receipt of death intimation of deceased, P.W.13/Inspector of Police, Vinukonda PS, reregistered the case and altered the section of law from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC and issued altered FIR to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda and copies to all the concerned. On 07.10.2013, P.W.13 visited the Government General Hospital, Guntur and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.10 and two others. During inquest, P.W.13 examined P.Ws 2, 9 and others and recorded their detailed statements. P.W.7, Associate Professor in Forensic Medicine in GMC, Guntur, on receipt of requisition, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. According to him, the cause of death of deceased was due to Chloropyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide poison. Ex.P4 is the Post-Mortem Report. On 12.10.2013 at about 2.30 PM, on receipt of credible information, P.W.13 along with his staff proceeded to Hanuman Nagar of Vinukonda and arrested the accused in the presence of mediators and got remanded him to judicial custody. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 14 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 on behalf of prosecution and M.Os1 to 3 were seized. Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of defence. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant herein/ accused submits that there is absolutely no motive for the accused to cause death of the deceased. According to him, accused and the deceased were living happily and there is no reason or motive for the accused to cause death of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that there are serious inconsistencies and infirmities in the prosecution case. The circumstances that have been alleged are highly artificial and unbelievable, therefore, the question of accused giving an injection to the deceased does not arise. He further submits that because of medical negligence, the deceased died and after due deliberations, the accused was falsely implicated in the said case. 7. Now the point for determination: Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is sustainable or not? POINT :- 8. P.Ws 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased, both of them in one voice deposed that the deceased was admitted in the hospital of P.W.4 for delivery on 30.09.2013. 7. Now the point for determination: Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is sustainable or not? POINT :- 8. P.Ws 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased, both of them in one voice deposed that the deceased was admitted in the hospital of P.W.4 for delivery on 30.09.2013. It is their version that on the said date, P.W.4 had conducted a surgery, where the deceased gave birth to a female child and she was treated as an inpatient in the said hospital. Four days after delivery, P.W.4 advised P.W.1 to feed food to the deceased. After feeding food to the deceased, P.Ws 1, 2 and the accused had their food. Thereafter, P.Ws 1 and 2 went out of the room of deceased to wash clothes, leaving the accused. It is an admitted fact that at that point of time, it is only the accused and deceased were present in the room. After one hour, when the parents of deceased i.e. P.Ws 1 and 2 returned to the deceased room, the deceased was gasping and coughing. When they asked the deceased about her condition, she informed that the accused gave an injection through her Intravenous Cannula. P.Ws.3 and 4 too visited the room of deceased and questioned the accused, he handed over the syringe to P.W.4. P.W.4 took the same, found the liquid containing in it, is pesticide and advised to shift the deceased to the hospital of P.W.8. 9. To corroborate the same, the deceased made a statement to P.W.12. Ex.P15 is the statement. The said statement was recorded by P.W.12 on 04.10.2013 at 5.00 PM, wherein, the deceased categorically stated that on 04.10.2013 at about 12.30 noon when the parents of deceased not present with her, the accused informed the deceased that as she suffered pain in the earlier night, in order to reduce the pain, he gave an injection through I.V Cannula. He tried to administer an injection through I.V. Cannula. At that point of time, the deceased expressed that it is for the Doctor to administer it, she questioned the accused as to why he was administering the injection. The accused stated that there is no necessity of Doctor and by saying that the pains will reduce, he caught hold the hand of the deceased tightly, injected through I.V. Cannula, in order to kill the deceased. The accused stated that there is no necessity of Doctor and by saying that the pains will reduce, he caught hold the hand of the deceased tightly, injected through I.V. Cannula, in order to kill the deceased. Immediately thereafter, the deceased had vomiting and sedation and she questioned the accused as to what injection he administered. Accused informed the deceased not to move. At that point of time, not knowing what to do, the deceased raised hue and cry, came out of the room and had fallen. Thereafter, P.Ws 1 and 2 took the deceased to the hospital of P.W.8, and after treatment, she regained her conscious. The deceased informed to P.W.12 that the accused tried to kill her by administering poisonous injection because of suspicion. The said statement was recorded by P.W.12, is the Dying Declaration. Apart from the same, the deceased made a Dying Declaration to P.Ws 1 and 2, who are her parents. 10. A perusal of evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, they in one voice, deposed that the deceased had categorically stated that accused gave an injection to her through I.V. Cannulaal. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws 1 and 2. The suggestion that is only given to P.Ws 1 and 2 is that the deceased died due to negligent treatment of P.W.4, but the said suggestion was denied. 11. P.W.1 stated that the accused was harassing the deceased by suspecting her character and was threatening to kill her. P.Ws 1 and 2 and other elders had admonished the accused, but he did not change his attitude towards the deceased. Apart from the same, P.W.9, who is the brother of P.W.1, stated that the accused was harassing the deceased by suspecting her character. He advised the accused to look after the deceased well. 12. A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 goes to show that accused was suspecting the character of deceased and there was a threat to the deceased from the accused. There is absolutely no suggestion to the witnesses to disbelieve the same. When such is the case, the motive for the accused to cause death of the deceased is quite clear to the extent that the accused suspected the character of the deceased. 13. There is absolutely no suggestion to the witnesses to disbelieve the same. When such is the case, the motive for the accused to cause death of the deceased is quite clear to the extent that the accused suspected the character of the deceased. 13. By virtue of the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 9, there appears to be clear motive to accused to administer poison to the deceased. A perusal of Ex.P15 and the statements of P.Ws 1 and 2, during the relevant point of time, it is the accused, who was alone present with the deceased in the said room. The same has been evidenced by P.Ws 1 and 2. Apart from the same, the deceased in categorical terms, gave statement that it is the accused who administered the injection through Intravenous Cannula, in order to kill her. 14. P.W.4, Doctor by profession, stated that the deceased was admitted into her hospital and she conducted surgery on the deceased. At about 7.00 PM, caesarean was done to the deceased and she delivered a female child and thereafter, on the same, simultaneously, P.W.4 performed Tubectomy surgery to the deceased with the consent of accused. In pursuant to the surgery, the deceased was admitted into post operative room in the Nursing Home belonged to P.W.4. On 04.10.2013 accused informed to P.W.4 that the deceased was suffering from headache. P.W.4 examined and found blood pressure was normal and advised her to take Paracetamol tablets and glucose and the same was entered into the case sheet about the treatment given to the deceased. During examination of deceased, P.W.4 has categorically stated that it is the accused who was alone present in the room. Ten minutes thereafter, P.W.4 heard noise from the first floor of Nursing Home and when she went to first floor along with P.W.3, she found P.Ws 1 and 2 were crying and told her that accused gave an injection to the deceased. P.W.4 asked the deceased about her condition, she was anxious and informed accused gave an injection through I.V Cannula. Thereafter, P.W.4 questioned the accused, who was present in the room, as to what injection he administered. The accused gave a syringe and informed that he gave injection to the deceased for her pains. P.W.4 asked the deceased about her condition, she was anxious and informed accused gave an injection through I.V Cannula. Thereafter, P.W.4 questioned the accused, who was present in the room, as to what injection he administered. The accused gave a syringe and informed that he gave injection to the deceased for her pains. P.W.4 asked the accused to show the injection given to the deceased; then, the accused gave 10 ml syringe and informed, with that syringe, he gave injection to the deceased. P.W.4 took the syringe and found liquid in it and on smelling it, P.W.4 has come to a conclusion that it is pesticide. Thereafter, accused disappeared from the Nursing Home. Since there is no facility in the hospital of P.W.4 to treat for poisoning, she referred the deceased to the hospital of P.W.8. 15. The deceased was brought to the Nursing Home of P.W.8 complaining that she was injected poison. P.W.8 gave treatment by giving antidote to the deceased. P.W.8 categorically stated that P.W.12 had visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. P.W.8 stated that he was present when P.W.12 was recording the statement of the deceased. In connection with that, P.W.8 certified on the statement of deceased that she was conscious. As the condition of the deceased was deteriorating, P.W.8 advised the relatives of the deceased to take her to the Government General Hospital, Guntur. 16. This Court perused the evidence of P.Ws 5 and 6. P.W.5 stated that he knows the accused, as the accused was regularly purchasing pesticides from Vishno Fertilizers. It is alleged that in the month of October, 2013, accused purchased Chlorpyrifos pesticide of 250 ml from Vishno Fertilizers. P.W.5 further deposed that he personally sold the pesticide to accused on that day and issued receipt. The said receipt No.5225 issued on 03.10.2013, is marked as Ex.P3. Accused purchased pesticides at about 7.00 PM, at Rs.70/-. 17. This Court perused the evidence of P.W.6, who stated that occasionally, accused was visiting his shop to purchase medicines. On 03.10.2013 accused went to P.W.6 shop and purchased one 3 ml syringe and one 10 ml syringe. He further deposed that he was examined by police one week after purchase of syringes by the accused. 18. 17. This Court perused the evidence of P.W.6, who stated that occasionally, accused was visiting his shop to purchase medicines. On 03.10.2013 accused went to P.W.6 shop and purchased one 3 ml syringe and one 10 ml syringe. He further deposed that he was examined by police one week after purchase of syringes by the accused. 18. On a perusal of material on record goes to show that the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 9, could prove that the accused married the deceased for second time and he was harassing the deceased by suspecting her character. A perusal of evidence of P.Ws 1 to 9, it can be safely inferred by this Court that there is motive for the accused to cause death of the deceased. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and evidence of P.Ws 3 and 4, respectively would prove that the deceased was admitted in the hospital for delivery on 30.09.2013. P.W.4 conducted caesarean to deceased and the deceased gave birth to a female child. On the same day, P.W.4 further conducted Tubectomy operation. In pursuant to that, the deceased was admitted in post operative room. 19. The evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 goes to show that on the date of incident i.e. on 04.10.2013 accused was alone present along with the deceased. The deceased categorically stated vide Ex.P15 that the accused forcibly administered an injection and because of the same, the deceased had a vomiting sensation and she made hue and cry, came out of the room and fell down. The said statement was made by the deceased to P.W.12. Apart from the same, P.Ws 1 to 4 had categorically deposed that the deceased expressed, that it is the accused who administered the injection through I.V Cannula, to P.Ws 1 to 4. 20. A perusal of the aforesaid material goes to show that the finger points towards the accused and it is accused alone, who caused the death of deceased by administering Chlorpyrifos pesticide through I.V Cannula. Except the accused herein, it is not the case of prosecution that any other person was present at the scene of offence. To corroborate the same, P.W.7, the Doctor who conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, was examined and he issued Post Mortem Report to the extent that the deceased died due to Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide poison. 21. To corroborate the same, P.W.7, the Doctor who conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, was examined and he issued Post Mortem Report to the extent that the deceased died due to Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide poison. 21. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for State relied upon a decision in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Rajiv Jassi , 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 809. , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.22 held as thus: “This Court has considered in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra , (1984) 4 SCC 116 , a case of murder by administering poison and dealt with mode and manner of proof in such cases. Four circumstances are to be examined before recording a conviction: (i) There was a clear motive for the accused to administer poison to the deceased; (ii) The deceased died of poison said to have been administered; (iii) That the accused had poison in his possession; and (iv) That he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. 22. To sum up, there is a motive for the accused to cause death of the deceased by virtue of the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 9. The accused had purchased the poison from P.W.5 on 03.10.2013 and the same was administered to the deceased on the very next day i.e. on 04.10.2013. On the said date of incident, it is only the accused, who was alone present at the scene of offence i.e. in theroom of the deceased and he administered the poison. To that extent, the deceased herself categorically stated in her statement vide Ex.P15 recorded by P.W.12 that it is the accused who forced to administer the poison to the deceased. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant herein/accused placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Mohd. Rafiq Alias Kallu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706 . By relying upon the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant herein/accused advance his argument that the appellant herein/accused did not have any previous quarrel with deceased, there was lack of animus. This Court perused the facts of the above proposition of law relied upon by the learned counsel. By relying upon the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant herein/accused advance his argument that the appellant herein/accused did not have any previous quarrel with deceased, there was lack of animus. This Court perused the facts of the above proposition of law relied upon by the learned counsel. The facts of the said case are not applicable to the facts of the present case, for the reason that, since P.Ws 1, 2 and 9 have categorically, in one voice deposed that accused was suspecting the character of the deceased and he was trying to kill the deceased. 24. The learned Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, had rightly found the appellant/accused guilty of the offence and accordingly, convictedthe accused of the charge levelled against him, which warrants no interference by this Court. 25. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.805 of 2016 is dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 03.12.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.514 of 2014 by the learned XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.