JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2013, whereby the accused persons (respondents herein) were acquitted under Sections 302, 328 and 120B of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under: (a) On 01.01.2013 accused Arif Khan called Babu Ram (the deceased), who was father of complainant Harish Singh, on phone for a deal and he (accused Arif Khan) represented that he had 100 sheep and goats. On 02.01.2013 accused Arif Khan again called the deceased and on 03.01.2013, in response to the phone calls, the deceased alongwith his son Harish Singh (complainant) proceeded towards the place of accused Arif Kahan, but accused Arif Khan met them, alongwith his goats and sheep, one kilometer short of his house. The deceased and the complainant had a deal with accused Arif Khan and they purchased 13 sheep and goats for a total consideration of Rs.26,000/- and money was paid in cash. However, the deceased was not satisfied with the deal, as he wanted to purchase more cattle, thus he asked accused Arif Khan to make available cattle, as per the telephonic talk, on this, accused Arif Khan told them to stay for a night at his place and he assured that he would arrange some cattle on the subsequent morning, for which he demanded Rs.50,000/- in advance. It has further come in the prosecution story that in the residence of accused Arif a lady, who was being called sister by him with a teen aged boy, were sent by accused Arif to some place in another village and on return he (accused Arif) telephoned co-accused Abdul Karim to come to his place. Accused Arif asked the deceased that what he would like to have in the dinner and he desired for chicken and quarter bottle of rum. After some time, accused Arif, alongwith co-accused Abdul, came with chicken and liquor and he, after cooking the meal, served the same to victim and complainant. The accused persons offered meal first to the deceased and the complainant and told that they would take meal later on. After some time, accused Arif, alongwith co-accused Abdul, came with chicken and liquor and he, after cooking the meal, served the same to victim and complainant. The accused persons offered meal first to the deceased and the complainant and told that they would take meal later on. (b) Subsequently, the complainant left the place with accused Abdul to the adjoining cowshed and the deceased and accused Arif stayed together. The complainant and accused Adbul slept together. Accused Arif did not consume meal and accused Abdul told that he had meals in his residence. While the complainant was asleep, accused Abdul called accused Arif on phone and they had talk for about 40-45 seconds in their local dialect, which the complainant did not understand. Thereafter, the complainant felt uneasy and had irritation in his tongue and on being told, accused Abdul told him not to worry. After fifteen minutes the deceased called the complainant and he told him that he had uneasy feelings. The deceased fell down and it was difficult for him to even walk. The accused persons were not seen there, but when the deceased and the complainant reached road side, they were already there. The complainant lifted the deceased to the road side and he telephoned one of his relatives Shri Baldev and informed that some poisonous substance has been administered to the deceased. The complainant asked Baldev to bring his vehicle. Thereafter, a Bolero car came from Chamba side and the complainant stood amidst the road and he requested the occupant of the vehicle to take them to Bhalei. Accused Arif Khan boarded the vehicle with Harish and the deceased and accused Abdul Karim fled away from the road. When they reached near Brangal, Baldev alongwith one Ram Krishan came there and the complainant and the deceased alighted from the vehicle. The deceased was shifted to the vehicle of Baldev. Ram Krishan and Baldev asked accused Arif Kahan to accompany them, but he refused. The deceased and the complainant were taken to NHPC Hospital, Kheri, where the deceased was taken to emergency ward and the complainant was admitted in general ward. The deceased was made to vomit, but he died and the complainant was also made to vomit and he was given injection dose. The deceased and the complainant were taken to NHPC Hospital, Kheri, where the deceased was taken to emergency ward and the complainant was admitted in general ward. The deceased was made to vomit, but he died and the complainant was also made to vomit and he was given injection dose. (c) It has further come in the prosecution story that on being informed, the police reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to Hospital at Basholi and he fell unconscious, but on the next day around 12 noon, he regained consciousness and on 04.01.2013 he was discharged. Post-morterm on the corpse of the deceased was conducted and viscera of the deceased was preserved, which was sent to RFSL. On receipt of report, the doctor opined that the deceased died due to organo phosphorus poisoning, which led to cardio pulmonary arrest. Ethyl alcohol was also detected to the extent of 47.17 mg% as per report of the RFSL, Dharamshala. (d) On 04.01.2013, around 03:00 a.m., accused Arif Khan was also brought to the hospital by his relatives with alleged history of poisoning 3-4 hours ago. He was medically examined and admitted in the hospital, but no poison could be detected in the body of accused Arif Khan and his condition at the time of his admission might be due to shock. (e) The police registered a case under the apt Section of IPC and the investigation commenced. Police visited the place of occurrence, prepared spot map, recorded the statements of the witnesses, clicked photographs and effected relevant recoveries. On 12.01.2013 accused Arif Khan made a disclosure statement to the police, whereupon he got recovered from the kitchen, a polythene bag containing 100 currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each, which were concealed between stone slates stacked there. On 18.02.2013 accused Arif Khan made another disclosure statement to the police that remaining herbal (loong), which was used in the chicken served to the deceased and his son was concealed in his goat shed, of which, he had exclusive knowledge and thereafter, he got recovered the same and it was taken into possession. (f) It had come in the police investigation that both the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased, who paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing goats and sheep. (f) It had come in the police investigation that both the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased, who paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing goats and sheep. The accused persons mixed poison in the chicken which was served to the deceased and the complainant. After completion of the investigation, police presented the charge-sheet in the learned Trial Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined twenty witnesses. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they pleaded not guilty and claimed innocence. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 31.03.2014 acquitted both the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 328 and 120-B IPC, hence the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/State. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts, based upon surmises and conjectures, thus liable to set-aside. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right and true perspective, as such the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set-aside by allowing the instant appeal and the accused persons be convicted. 6. Conversely, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/accused persons contended that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is the result of proper appreciation of the material on record and the same was passed after appreciating the evidence and law in its right and true perspective. He has further contended that the learned Trial Court has passed a well reasoned judgment, which does not require any interference, thus the instant appeal, which is devoid of any merit, be dismissed. 7. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/accused persons and carefully examined the entire records. 8. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. 8. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court 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. Further, if two reasonable views 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, merely because the Appellate Court could have arrived at a different conclusion than that of the Trial Court. 9. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. 10. Now, adverting to the facts of the instant case. The edifice of the prosecution case stands mainly on the testimonies of PW-1 Harish Singh (complainant/son of the deceased), PW-2 Baldev Singh, PW-6, Bashir Mohammad, PW-8 Dr. Om Prakash, PW-9 Dr. Varun Sharma, PW-11 HC Rajinder Kumar and PW-17 HC Ramesh Chand. 11. Shri Harish Singh (complainant/son of the deceased) appeared in the witness-box as PW-1 and deposed that he used to assist his father in purchasing sheep and goats. On 01.01.2013 accused Arif Khan telephoned his father and represented that he had 100 sheep and goats and he invited him to his place for the deal. PW-1 further deposed that on 02.01.2013 accused Arif again telephoned and on 03.01.2013 in response of the call of accused he (complainant) and his father (the deceased) proceeded to village, which was 6 kms ahead of Koti towards Tissa. PW-1 further deposed that on 02.01.2013 accused Arif again telephoned and on 03.01.2013 in response of the call of accused he (complainant) and his father (the deceased) proceeded to village, which was 6 kms ahead of Koti towards Tissa. As per this witness, accused Arif was found with goats and sheep one km short of his house, therefore, the deceased alighted from the vehicle there. There they had a deal with accused Arif and they purchased 13 goats and sheep for a consideration of Rs.26,000/- and the said sum of Rs.26,000/- was given to him in cash. He has further deposed that his father (the deceased) was not satisfied with the deal and he wanted to purchase more cattle, therefore, he asked accused Arif to arrange more cattle, as per the telephone talk, on this, accused Arif asked to stay on that night at his place of residence and on the subsequent morning he would arrange more cattle. He also deposed that accused Arif asked them to give an advance of Rs.50,000/- to him. He has deposed that there was a female in the residence of accused Arif, who was being called as sister, alongwith a teen aged boy and accused Arif sent them to someone else’s residence. Accused Arif called co-accused Abdul Karim to his place and Arif asked the deceased that what would he like to have in the evening meal, whereupon the complainant desired for chicken and a quarter bottle of rum. PW-1 has further deposed that Arif went to bring the chicken and liquor and he brought the same alognwith co-accused Abdul. He further deposed that accused Arif served them chicken and rice and they asked to have meals, but he told that he would take later on. As per this witness, after taking meal, he alongwith Adbul went to chow shed, which was adjoining the kitchen, and the deceased went to sleep with accused Arif Khan together in the kitchen. Accused Adbul told that he had meals at his residence and accused Arif did not have meals in his presence. Accused Abdul was acquainted to them, as earlier the deceased had deal with him qua the purchase of goats and sheep. Accused Adbul told that he had meals at his residence and accused Arif did not have meals in his presence. Accused Abdul was acquainted to them, as earlier the deceased had deal with him qua the purchase of goats and sheep. He deposed that when he went to sleep with accused Abdul, he (accused Abdul) telephoned accused Arif on his phone and had a talk for about 40-45 seconds in their local dialect, which he could not understand. Thereafter, he felt uneasy and irritation in his tounge, but accused Adbul advised him not to worry, but after 15 minutes the deceased also called him and told that he was feeling uneasy. Thereafter, he went to the deceased and he was putting shoes, but he found it difficult, so he helped him. The deceased fell down and he also found difficult to walk. At that time both the accused persons were not seen there, however, they reached the road side before their arrival. He lifted the deceased to the road side and called one of his relatives Baldev (PW-2) to come there in his vehicle. Accused Arif started crying pretending that he was also having stomach ache. Subsequently, a Bolera car came from Chamba side and he (PW- 1) stood amidst the road and bolero driver agreed to take them to Bhalei. Accused Arif also accompanied them and accused Abdul fled away. He also deposed that on reaching near Brangal, Baldev came across and he was being accompanied by another person, namely, Ram Krishan. The deceased was shifted to the vehicle of Baldev. Accused Arif, on being asked by Baldev and Ram Krishan to accompany them, refused staying that he had to look after his belongings. The deceased was taken to NHPC Hospital Khairi, where he was admitted in emergency ward, whereas he (PW-1) was admitted in general ward. The deceased died in the hospital and he was given some injection dose. As per this witness, doctor informed the police and the police recorded his statement, Ex. PW- 1/A. He further deposed that doctor advised him full medical checkup and his cousin Shankar took him to J & K State to a hospital at Basoli. He fell unconscious and only regained consciousness next day around 12 noon. He remained admitted in the hospital till 04.01.2013 and performed last rites of his father on 05.01.2013. PW- 1/A. He further deposed that doctor advised him full medical checkup and his cousin Shankar took him to J & K State to a hospital at Basoli. He fell unconscious and only regained consciousness next day around 12 noon. He remained admitted in the hospital till 04.01.2013 and performed last rites of his father on 05.01.2013. He also deposed that on 10.01.2013 police called him and he alongwith Sarpanch went to the police. They went to the place of accused Arif and identified the place. However, they did not find their belongings. Subsequently, they went to the place of the father of accused Arif, where their belongings were lying which were taken into possession. PW-1 in his cross-examination deposed that the deceased disclosed him that he had given advance of Rs.50,000/- to accused Arif. He further deposed that the chicken was being cooked in a major vessel on hearth, while accused Arif was sitting close and next to him he and the deceased were sitting. 12. PW-2 Shri Baldev Singh deposed that the complainant was his distant cousin and on 03.01.2013, at 10:30/45 p.m., the complainant informed him on phone that he came to Kandal alongwith the deceased for some business deal and the person, with whom they stayed, served something in meals. He further deposed that the complainant asked him to bring his vehicle, therefore, he alongwith one Ram Krishna immediately left. He was also told by the complainant that he would be on highway with all the indicators on. Near Bhalei the complainant and the deceased came across and the complainant conversed with him, while the deceased was unconscious. Thereafter, they proceeded towards hospital at Khairi, where the complainant was taken in a separate room and the deceased was taken inside. He also deposed that in the interregnum police came there and the family of the complainant also came. He feigned his ignorance as to when he left the place whether the deceased was alive or had died. As per this witness, one of the accused persons accompanied them in the vehicle, who complained that he was having stomach ache. 13. Shri Basheer Mohammad appeared in the witness-box as PW-6 and deposed that he owned transport vehicle, having Registration No. HP-01C-0388. As per this witness, one of the accused persons accompanied them in the vehicle, who complained that he was having stomach ache. 13. Shri Basheer Mohammad appeared in the witness-box as PW-6 and deposed that he owned transport vehicle, having Registration No. HP-01C-0388. On 03.01.2013 he had gone to Dalhousie to drop labourers and during his return late night at village Rampur, around 11:30 p.m., a young boy intercepted his vehicle and asked to take his father towards Khairi and he called another vehicle, which might be on the way. He further deposed that there was one more person alongwith the father of the boy, who was complaining stomach ache. He took them towards Khairi and ahead of Bhalei another vehicle arrived and the ailing father of the boy, who was conscious and conversing, was shifted to that vehicle. Accused Arif Khan was sent back by that boy and he accompanied his vehicle. Accused Arif did not offer himself to accompany the ailing person and he alighted from his vehicle at Koti. 14. PW-8 Dr. Om Parkash, who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased and gave final opinion, after receipt of RFSL report, deposed that organo phosphorus insecticide was detected in the contents of exhibits sent by him, hence, in his opinion, the deceased died of organo phosphorus poisoning, which led to cardiopulmonary arrest and death. 15. PW-9 Dr. Varun Sharma, who medically examined accused Arif Khan, deposed that on 04.01.2013, around 03:00 a.m., accused Arif was brought to the hospital by his relatives with alleged history of unknown poisoning 3 to 4 hours ago. He further deposed that as per the history the person was alone and had consumed something given to him by someone. He received application, Ex. PW-9/A, from police for the medication examination of accused Arif. As per his final opinion, no poison could be detected in the body and the condition of the patient at the time of the admission could be due to shock. 16. PW-11 HC Rajinder Kumar No. 98 deposed that on 04.01.2013 a telephonic message was received from SMO, NHPC, Hospital Chamera Samleu and pursuant thereto rapat, Ex. PW-11/A, was entered at PS Khairi. Thereafter he, alongwith HHC Kamal Kashyap proceeded to NHPC Hospital, Khairi, and recorded the statement of Shri Harish Singh (complainant) under Section 154 Cr.P.C.. 16. PW-11 HC Rajinder Kumar No. 98 deposed that on 04.01.2013 a telephonic message was received from SMO, NHPC, Hospital Chamera Samleu and pursuant thereto rapat, Ex. PW-11/A, was entered at PS Khairi. Thereafter he, alongwith HHC Kamal Kashyap proceeded to NHPC Hospital, Khairi, and recorded the statement of Shri Harish Singh (complainant) under Section 154 Cr.P.C.. Subsequently, rukka, Ex.PW-11/B, was prepared and sent to the Police Station Sadar, Chamba, for registration of FIR. As per this witness, while the complainant was making statement, another person, who was admitted in the emergency ward was reported to have died. The corpse of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination to Dalhousie and the complainant was got medically examined. 17. PW-17 HC Ramesh Chand No. 27, deposed that on 12.01.2013 accused Arif Khan, while in police custody, made a disclosure statement before SI Shakti Singh Pathania under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in his and in presence of Shri Shashi Pal, wherein he stated that after putting 100 currency notes of Rs.500/- in a white carry bag, he had concealed it in stone slates stacked in the kitchen of his house and he could get the same recovered. He further deposed that SI Shakti Singh Pathania took accused Arif Khan with him in the vehicle to his house and he, Constable Rumel Singh and one Home Guard official accompanied them. He also deposed that on the way Shri Man Singh Pradhan and one Shri Rajinder were associated and the accused got recovered a white carry bag, which was concealed in between stone slates kept in the corner, from his kitchen. As per this witness, the said bag was found containing 100 currency notes of Rs.500/- and the same were taken into possession. 18. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record and from the closure scrutiny thereof, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence in this case and in order to establish the charges against the accused, the case of the prosecution depends only on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence in this case and in order to establish the charges against the accused, the case of the prosecution depends only on circumstantial evidence. In the matter of Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters to be established by the prosecution in case of murder by poisoning and it has been held that the prosecution must establish in a case of poisoning that the death took place by poisoning; the accused had the poison in his possession; and that the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. In the aforesaid matter, the following has been observed: "The prosecution must establish in a case of poisoning (a) that death took place by poisoning; (b) that the accused had the poison in his possession and (c) that the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. Though these three propositions must be kept in mind always, the sufficiency of the evidence direct or circumstantial, to establish murder by poisoning will depend on the facts of each case. If the evidence in a particular case does not justify the inference that death is the result of poisoning because of the failure of the prosecution to prove the fact satisfactorily, either directly or by circumstantial evidence, then the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused person. But if circumstantial evidence, in absence of direct proof of the three elements, is so decisive that the court can unhesitatingly hold that death was a result of administration of poison (though not detected) and that the poison must have been administered by the accused person, then the conviction can be rested on it." 19. Thereafter, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines as to how the circumstantial evidence has to be appreciated in a case. 152. … … … … … … … … “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. 152. … … … … … … … … “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 20. In the aforesaid matter of Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which was also a case of poisoning the deceased, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further laid down as to what must be the nature of the evidence for the purpose of convicting a person against whom the prosecution alleges that he has committed murder of a person by poisoning. The Supreme Court stressed that the Court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction The Supreme Court has laid down as follows : "164. So far as this matter is concerned, in such cases the court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction: (1) there is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased, (2) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered, (3) that the accused had the poison in his possession, (4) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased." 21. It is now to be seen as to how far the prosecution could bring home the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the respondents/accused. On the law as laid down above we would proceed, at first, to examine if the prosecution has been able to establish the above mentioned four circumstances/elements, in the present case. 22. It is now to be seen as to how far the prosecution could bring home the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the respondents/accused. On the law as laid down above we would proceed, at first, to examine if the prosecution has been able to establish the above mentioned four circumstances/elements, in the present case. 22. In order to establish the first element as to whether there was a clear motive for the accused to administer poison to the deceased, the prosecution had examined PW-1 Harish Singh, who is the son of the victim-Babu Ram. On the point of motive, the case of the prosecution is that the accused Arif Khan had entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Abdul Karim to eliminate victim Babu Ram and his son Harish Singh (PW-1) in order to grab a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The further story of the prosecution is that 13 goats were also not delivered to victim-Babu Ram and his son which were purchased by them for a consideration of Rs.26,000/- which amount had already been paid in cash. However, after scanning the entire evidence on record, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive. The story of the prosecution that a sum of Rs.50,000/- advanced to accused Arif Khan by PW-1 Harish Singh and his father, has not been proved and to that effect, recovery of Rs.50,000/- has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.As per the case of the prosecution, the recovery of Rs.50,000/- was in consequence of the disclosure statement made by accused Arif Khan, Ex. PW-17/A. However, the disclosure statement allegedly made by accused Arif Khan has not been proved by the prosecution beyond shadow of doubt. There are material contradictions with respect to the recovery of Rs.50,000/- from the place shown in the site plan, Ex. PW-18/F. The learned Trial Court had elaborately discussed and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to attribute any motive to the both accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased-Babu Ram. 23. Now, adverting to the second element, i.e., whether the death of Babu Ram took place by poisoning. As per the case of the prosecution, on reaching his residence, accused Arif Khan rang up co-accused Abdul Karim and called him to his place. 23. Now, adverting to the second element, i.e., whether the death of Babu Ram took place by poisoning. As per the case of the prosecution, on reaching his residence, accused Arif Khan rang up co-accused Abdul Karim and called him to his place. Thereafter, accused Arif Khan asked the victim-Babu Ram as to what he would like to have in the evening meals and he desired to have chicken and quarter bottle of rum. On this, accused Arif Khan brought chicken and liquor, while accused Abdul Karim had accompanied him. Accused Arif Khan cooked chicken and rice in the evening and served it to victim-Babu Ram and his son Harish Singh (PW-1). After some time PW-1 Harish Singh felt uneasy and after about fifteen minutes thereof, victim-Babu Ram also felt uneasy. Thereafter, the son of the victim-Harish Singh as well as victim-Babu Ram, were brought to the hospital. Victim-Babu Ram was taken to emergency ward, while Harish Singh was taken to general ward. The doctor who attended Babu Ram made him to vomit, but in the meanwhile he died. The same doctor had also attended his son (Harish) and made him to vomit and gave him injection. In the meanwhile, the police was also informed and the police came there, where they recorded the statement of PW-1 Harish Singh, Ex. PW-1/A. 24. PW-8 Dr. Om Parkash, conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased-Babu Ram and issued post mortem report, Ex. PW-8/B. Viscera was sent to RFSL and report Ex. PX was received. In the aforesaid report, Ex. PX, Organo Phosphorous Insecticide was detected in the vessels containing baked rice and bones and chicken. Organo Phosphorous Insecticide was also found in viscera of deceased Babu Ram. However, the quantity of Organo Phosphorous Insecticide has not been mentioned in the aforesaid report. It has not been mentioned in the report as to how much quantity of Organo Phosphorous Insecticide was detected in the parcels which were sent to RFSL. PW-8 Dr. Om Parkash, after receipt of RFSL report, Ex. PX, gave his final opinion that since Organo Phosphorous Insecticide was detected in the contents of the exhibits sent to the laboratory, hence in his opinion, the deceased died of organo phosphorous poisoning which led to cardiopulmonary arrest and death. Thus, in view of the RFSL report, Ex. PX, and as per the statement of PW-8 Dr. PX, gave his final opinion that since Organo Phosphorous Insecticide was detected in the contents of the exhibits sent to the laboratory, hence in his opinion, the deceased died of organo phosphorous poisoning which led to cardiopulmonary arrest and death. Thus, in view of the RFSL report, Ex. PX, and as per the statement of PW-8 Dr. Om Parkash, it has been established that the death of the deceased was due to eating of chicken containing Organo Phosphorous Insecticide, a poisonous substance. 25. Now let us examine as to whether the prosecution has established third and fourth element, i.e. whether the prosecution has established that the accused persons had the poison in their possession and whether they had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. 26. From the perusal of the entire record, we found that there is no evidence to demonstrate that Organo Phosphorous Insecticide was either seized from the possession of accused Arif Khan or accused Abrul Karim. The prosecution has not led any evidence to show that they had in their possession the aforesaid poison in question. Hence, in the absence of any cogent and satisfactory evidence on record, it becomes difficult for us to find with reasonable certainty that the accused persons had in their possession this poison at the relevant time. Therefore, the above mentioned element, that the accused persons had the poison Organo Phosphorous Insecticide in their possession, has not been established. 27. As per the disclosure statement, Ex. P-18/G, made by accused Arif Khan, he brought two packs of loong (herbal) from Pangi-Jot (Pass) and he had mixed one pack in the food served to PW-1 and his father Babu Ram and he had hidden the second pack in the cattle shed near to the house of Chandu Ram and he had exclusive knowledge of the same. Now, the above disclosure statement completely destroys the prosecution case. In fact, the prosecution story is based upon the disclosure statement, Ex. P- 18/G, made by accused Arif Khan that a pack of loong (herbal) was recovered from the house of Chandu Ram consequent upon such disclosure statement of accused Arif Khan and the recovered pack of loong (herbal), after recovery was sent for chemical analysis, however, as per RFSL report, Ex.PY, no poison was detected in the recovered loong (herbal). Thus, disclosure statement, Ex. Thus, disclosure statement, Ex. PW-18/G, that Arif Khan mixed loong (herbal) in the food served to the complainant (PW-1) and his father, as a poison, stands falsified. 28. The perusal of the entire evidence on record reveals that the complainant and the deceased were sitting throughout with the accused persons while the chicken was being cooked. The complainant-Harish (PW-1) in his cross-examination deposed that chicken was being cooked in a big vessel on hearth and at that time accused Arif Khan was sitting close-by and next to him was his father, he himself and co-accused Abdul Karim. This witness also deposed that during the cooking of the chicken, the deceased remained throughout in the kitchen. 29. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, as discussed hereinabove, it was crucial for the prosecution to prove that how the accused administered poison by pouring the same in the chicken, when the same was being cooked. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW-1 observed any poison being poured in the chicken at the time of cooking. 30. Thus, it is clear from the statement of PW-1 that the accused persons had no opportunity to administer/mix poison in the chicken, while it was being cooked. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that accused Arif Khan or co-accused Abdul Karim had an opportunity to administer Organo Phosphorous Insecticide, a poisonous substance in the chicken. Hence, the fourth element that the accused persons had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased has also not been established. 31. On a thorough consideration of the entire evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that all the four elements stated above, which have been laid down by the Supreme Court in Anant Chintaman Lagu (supra) and Sharad Birdichand Sara (supra), have not been satisfied in the present case and thus, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 32. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we hold that the trial Court was justified in acquitting both the accused and there are no grounds for us to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, dated 31.03.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2013 (Regd. No. 59/2013). 32. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we hold that the trial Court was justified in acquitting both the accused and there are no grounds for us to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, dated 31.03.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2013 (Regd. No. 59/2013). The view taken by the learned Trial Court was the only possible view, as such the appeal, which is devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 33. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.