Ujwala W/O.Sonyabapu Bhujade Vs. the State of Maharashtra - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[arali nagaraj, j.] this mfa is filed u/s 173(1) of m v act, praying to modify the judgment and award dated 28.2.2009 passed in mvc no.432/2007 on the file of the civil judge (s.d.) & motor vehicles accident claims tribunal, holalkere.1. the appellant has questioned the correctness and legality of her conviction for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the ipc, for which she was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine in the sum of rs.250/, in default to suffer si for 7 days. she was also convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 309 of the ipc, for which she was sentenced to pay fine of rs.250/, in default to suffer si for 3 days in sessions case no.279/2007, by the adhoc additional sessions judge aurangabad, vide judgment and order dated 09/04/2009.2. such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal can be summarized as follows :a) on 24/11/2006, mlc report was received in vaijapur police station from rural hospital, vaijapur by nilkanth damodar patil. it was a wireless message, accordingly a.d. was registered vide a.d.no.24/2006, and inquiry was entrusted to him. accordingly, he sent head constable shri.jadhav to draw inquest panchnama and to collect the report of the post mortem examination of the deceased. then he went to the place of incident and drew spot panchnama (exh.16) in the presence of panch witnesses. the spot was a well situated in the field of jagannath narayan bhujade. from the scene of offence, he had seized one bottle said to contain poison article a. on the same day, police naik mundekar produced clothes of the deceased which were seized under the panchnama exh.18. on 26/11/2006, jagannath bhujade lodged the report in vaijapur police station. on the basis of said report, he registered an offence vide cr no.63/2006 for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 309 of the ipc against the appellant. he then recorded statements of certain witnesses. during the investigation, viscera collected during the post mortem of dipali and swati by the medical officer, who had conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies, was sent to the chemical analyser alongwith covering letter. he then arrested the applicant accused on 01/02/2007. on receipt of ca reports, and on completion of investigation, api shri.shaikh filed the charge sheet against the appellant before the court of j.m.f.c. vaijapur, who after passing requisite committal order, committed the trial to the court of sessions, aurangabad,b) on being committal of the trial to the court of sessions, learned adhoc additional sessions judge, aurangabad framed the charge against the appellant vide exh.8 for an offence punishable u/s. 302 and section 309 of the ipc. appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. it appears that during the trial, prosecution has examined in all 11 witnesses. on appreciation of the evidence of prosecution, the learned judge came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the appellants for an offence punishable u/s. 302 and u/s. 309 of the ipc stand proved and convicted the appellant accordingly, which judgment of conviction is impugned in this appeal.c) before appreciation of the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and that of learned a.p.p. for state, it is necessary to advert to the evidence of material witnesses examined by the prosecution before the court below. it appears that the case against the appellant rests on the material evidence of complainant and his son babasaheb bhujade.3. it transpired from the evidence of jagannath narayan bhujade (p.w.no.4) who is father in law of the appellant and grandfather of deceased dipali and swati that appellant got married with his elder son sonyabapu. from the said wedlock, appellant had begotten two daughters by name dipali and swati. he has further stated that the appellant was insisting her husband to stay separately from his parents. he has stated that his son sonyabapu was doing labour work and was also looking after their agricultural land. he has further stated that on the date of incident, there was programme of 10th day ceremony at the house of his cousin brother pandharinath, due to demise of his son ashok. the said ceremony was attended by the mother and sister of the appellant also. after the ceremony was over, mother and sister of the appellant had been to his house. at that time, he told to the mother of the appellant that she should take appellant to her house, to which mother of the appellant refused. he has further stated that on that day, at about 6.00 p.m. or so, he prepared his food and took the dinner. thereafter he noticed that the appellant and her two minor daughters were not present in their house. he started search for the appellant and his grand children in the surrounding area, but unable to trace them. he has further stated that in search of appellant and her minor daughters, he reached towards the well situated in their field, and noticed that the appellant and her two daughters were in the well. he also noticed that appellant had caught the pipe of the electric motor situated in the well and her two daughters were floating in the well water. after seeing this scenario, he started shouting. on hearing his shouts, his son babasaheb bhujade (p.w.no.7) reached at the spot. babasaheb took out 2 minor daughters of the appellant from the well. on hearing his shouts, neighbourers gathered at the spot. the villagers took out the appellant from the well. he found his 2 grand daughters dead at that time. he has further stated that somebody gave information to the vaijapur police station and accordingly police came there and took the appellant and 2 children to the rural hospital at vaijapur. on examination, the medical officer declared that the two minor children are dead. appellant was referred to ghati hospital, aurangabad. then he lodged the complaint at exh.32.he has stated in his cross examination that the depth of the well is 42 ft, and there are no parapet walls to the well. the well water was used for drinking purpose as well as for the crops in their field. he has further stated in his cross examination that electric motor of 3 hp was installed on the said well. he has further stated that at the material time, the height of the cotton crop standing in their field was 11/2 ft. those days are of sprinkling insecticide on the standing crops. according to him, about 150 persons have attended the 10th day ceremony at his cousin's house. the residential house of his cousin was situated adjacent to his field. he has further stated that the appellant has six sisters. parents of appellant own 6 acres of agricultural land, and therefore their financial condition was not sound. as against this, financial condition of his family was sound and all the family members were happy. he has further stated that when police inquired with him, babsaheb sopan bhujade, rakhmaji bhujade, bhimrao bhujade, laxman bhujade and raosaheb bhujade were also present. he has further stated that appellant had also attended the 10th day ceremony of his nephew.4. it is in the evidence of babaheb jagannath (p.w.no.7) that their family was possessing agricultural land at village kanaksagaj. he alongwith his father, brother were residing in the field, in the house erected in the agricultural field. he has further stated that appellant is the wife of his brother sonyabapu and was residing with them. he has further stated that the incident took place on 24/11/2006. on that day, there was 10th day ceremony due to the demise of his cousin brother ashok pandharinath bhujade at the residence of ashok. mother and sister of the appellant also attended the said programme. the programme was over at around 11.00 a.m. thereafter, mother and sister of the appellant visited their house. he has further stated that at that time his father jagannath informed to the mother of the appellant that appellant is not doing household work properly and was also not behaving properly. he has further stated that his father requested mother of the appellant to convince appellant to behave properly. thereafter at about 1.00 p.m., mother and sister of the appellant left their house. he also left his house to do the work in his field alongwith his father jagannath. around 5.30 p.m. or so, they returned to their house. at that time, they noticed that appellant and her two daughters were present in the house. then, he and his father prepared their food. when he came outside the kitchen, he did not found the appellant and her daughters in the residential premises. then they took search for them in the surrounding area and when they reached near the well situated in their field while taking the search, they noticed that 2 daughters of appellant were floating in the well water and the appellant was also present in the well and she had caught the pipe of electric motor. he entered in the well and took out 2 daughters of the appellant from well. both of them were found dead. he has further stated that thereafter, on hearing shouts of his father, neighbourers gathered at the spot and took out the appellant from the well. thereafter, jeep was called and appellant and two minor daughters were taken to the hospital. in the hospital, after examination, medical officer declared both the daughters of the appellant are dead. appellant was then referred to ghati hospital. he has stated in his cross examination that their field is situated at the distance of 1 km from the village. he has further stated in his cross examination that the well situated in their field was not constructed properly and the depth of the well is about 60 ft. and at the material time, 35 ft water was there in the well. the well is situated at the distance of 500700 ft. from their residential house. 5. the evidence of rakhmaji bhujade (p.w.no.5) and laxman karbhari bhujade (p.w.no.6) is on the limited point that on hearing shouts from the field of jagannath, they came at the spot and noticed the dead bodies of 2 daughters of the appellant were kept outside the well and appellant was taken out from the well.6. dr.yogesh rajput (p.w.no.3) medical officer attached to the rural hospital, vaijapur has stated in his evidence that on 25/11/2006, he had conducted post mortem on the dead bodies of dipali and swati. during the post morten, he had not noticed any internal or external injuries on their person. during the internal examination, he found stomach filled with fluid with food particles with unpleasant smelling. accordingly, he prepared post mortem notes at exh.22 and 23. while conducting autopsy, he had collected viscera from both the dead bodies, which was referred to chemical analyser in due course. report of viscera of dipali and swati are at exh.26 and 27 respectively. after going through the report of c.a., he has opined that the cause of death of dipali and swati was asphyxia due to insecticide poisoning. accordingly, he had issued medical certificate. he has further stated in his evidence that on 24/11/2006, police patil of village kanaksagaj has brought the appellant in his hospital for treatment with the history of consumption of poison. at that time, appellant was in semi conscious condition. he has further stated that after giving necessary primary treatment, appellant was referred to ghati hospital, aurangabad for further treatment. accordingly, he had issued medical certificate at exh.49. in his cross examination, he has admitted that on admission of appellant in the hospital, stomach wash was given to appellant, but the contents of the stomach wash were not referred to chemical analyser for chemical examination.7. it is in the evidence of p.w.no.8 dr. mrs.jyoti mohanrao munde that on 24/11/2006, when she was on duty as casualty medical officer at ghati hospital, aurangabad, appellant was brought to ghati hospital, who was referred by the medical officer, vaijapur rural hospital. she was referred for treatment due to poisoning. at the time of her examination, she was conscious. after taking necessary entry in the mlc register, she referred the appellant to the medicine department.8. we have heard submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant followed by the submissions of learned a.p.p. appearing for state. learned a.p.p. in his submissions has supported the reasoning given by the trial court while convicting the appellant for the charges lavelled against her.9. learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged across the bar that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. it is also urged that to prove the motive behind the crime, prosecution has not examined the husband of appellant sonyabapu to establish that there was dispute between appellant and her husband as appellant was insisting her husband for separate residence. it is further urged that the motive behind the crime as stated by the complainant jagannath is not corroborated by the evidence of babasaheb, son of complainant. thus according to her, motive behind the crime is not established. she has further argued that the death of 2 daughters of appellant was occurred due to administration of poison, but prosecution has not brought on record any evidence to show that at the relevant time, appellant was in possession of poisonous substance/insecticide. she has further argued that prosecution has not brought on record that in fact appellant administered the poison to her minor daughters. she has further urged that prosecution has not brought on record that the appellant brought her 2 daughters near the well and also not brought on record any evidence to prove that the appellant jumped with her 2 minor daughters in the well after consuming poisonous substance/insecticide or threw her daughters in well and then she jumped in the well. according to her, the only circumstance against the appellant as revealed from the evidence of prosecution witnesses is that appellant and her 2 minor daughters were found in the well as deposed by jagannath, the complainant and babasaheb, son of the complainant. according to her, on this solitary circumstance, chain of circumstance was not completed by the prosecution to convict the appellant for the offence of murder of her two daughters and charge of offence to commit suicide initially by consuming poison and then by jumping in the well. hence, she prayed to allow the appeal.10. at this juncture, it is useful to give reference to the observations of the apex court in the matter of ram gopal versus state of maharashtra, (1972) 4 supreme court cases 625 = air 1972 sc, page 656, wherein it is observed by the apex court in para no.14 and 15 that ;"the case depends entirely upon circumstantial evidence. in hanumant v. the state of madhya pradesh, this court had occasion to consider how circumstantial evidence should be dealt with. after pointing out that in such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof, the court recalled the warning addressed by baron alderson to the jury in reg. v. hodge. the mind was apt to take a pleasure in adopting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete. and then the court proceeded to observe :"it is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. in other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."further, this court, in dharambir singh v. the state of punjab, dealing with a case of poisoning observed that where the evidence is circumstantial the fact that the accused had motive to cause death of the deceased, though relevant, is not enough to dispense with the proof of certain facts which are essential to be proved in such cases. three questions arise in such cases, namely (firstly), did the deceased die of the poison in question (secondly), had the accused the poison in question in his possession and (thirdly), had the accused an opportunity to administer the poison in question to the deceased it is only when the motive is there and these facts are all proved that the court may be able to draw the inference, that the poison was administered by the accused to the deceased resulting in his death.11. further it is useful to give reference to the observations of the apex court in the matter of sharad birdichand sarda versus state of maharashtra, air 1984 sc 1622.the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstance evidence can be said to be fully established;(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 to 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. case law discussed.12. it is further useful to give reference to the observations of the apex court in the matter of c.t.ponnappa versus state of karnataka, (2004) 11 supreme court cases 391 wherein it is observed that in cases of circumstantial evidence, link in the chain of circumstances require to be established. the solitary circumstance can not be said to form a chain so as to fasten guilt upon accused. in substance, solitary circumstance is not sufficient to establish the chain of circumstances which can prove the guilt of the accused.13. it is also observed by the apex court in the matter of sashi jena and others versus khadal swain and another, air 2004 sc 1492 that solitary circumstance can not form base of conviction.14. in the light of observations of the apex court in all the rullings cited supra, particularly, in cases of death of victim based due to administration of poison, it is necessary to establish that appellant was in possession of the poisonous substance which was administered by the appellant to the victims. in the case in hand, it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant, that the evidence of p.w.no.4 jagannath bhujade, the complainant and p.w.no.5 babasaheb, the son of the complainant, nowhere established that the appellant was in possession of the poisonous substance/insecticide, as the bottle containing insecticide was not recovered from the residential premises of the appellant, but was found lying near the well, where the appellant and her two daughters were found in the well. it has nowhere came in the evidence of these two witnesses that prior to the incident, they have not seen the empty container of insecticide lying near the well, but they had an occasion to see the empty container of the insecticide only after they saw the appellant and her two daughters in the well. likewise, to prove the motive behind the crime that there was dispute between the appellant and her husband as appellant was insisting her husband for separate residence from his parents, the husband of the appellant was admittedly not examined by the prosecution. likewise, this motive reflected in the evidence of complainant jagannath, but was not corroborated or supported by his son babasaheb. thus, it is clear that prosecution has failed to establish the alleged motive behind the crime. prosecution has also failed to establish that the appellant administered the poisonous substance/insecticide to deceased as and there is no evidence on record indicating that appellant administered poisonous substance/insecticide to her two minor daughters. there is no evidence on record that the witnesses had seen the appellant while proceeding to the well alongwith her daughters and threw her two daughters in the well and then jumped in the well. thus the fact is clear that the chain of circumstances was not established as required to establish as held in the judgment of sharad birdichand sarda (cited supra), then the only circumstance which is against the appellant to prove the charge of section 302 of the ipc is that the appellant and her two daughters were found in the well in the evening of 24/11/2006. in absence of completion of chain of circumstances, and as observed by the apex court in the matter of sashi jena and others versus khadal swain and another, and c.t.ponnappa versus state of karnataka (cited supra), on the basis of solitary circumstance, conviction of the appellant can not be based and benefit of doubt require to be given to the appellant.15. it is clear from the evidence of dr.yogesh rajput (p.w.no.3) that even though stomach wash was given to the appellant, the contents of the stomach wash were not sent to chemical analyser for chemical analysis to establish that in reality, appellant had consumed poisonous substance/insecticide. in absence of such report about consumption of poisonous substance at the hands of appellant, the charge for the offence punishable u/s. 309 of the ipc can not be said to be proved.16. in substance, for the discussion made in all the paragraph supra, we are of the considered view that prosecution failed to establish the charge of an offence punishable u/s. 302 and 309 of the ipc against the appellant, hence order :criminal appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences with which she was charged and convicted. fine, if paid by the appellant, be refunded to her. since the appellant is in jail, she be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the appellant quantified at rs.5,000/

Judgment:
1. The appellant has questioned the correctness and legality of her conviction for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of The IPC, for which she was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.250/, in default to suffer SI for 7 days. She was also convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 309 of The IPC, for which she was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.250/, in default to suffer SI for 3 days in Sessions Case No.279/2007, by The Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge Aurangabad, vide judgment and order dated 09/04/2009.

2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal can be summarized as follows :

a) On 24/11/2006, MLC report was received in Vaijapur Police Station from Rural Hospital, Vaijapur by Nilkanth Damodar Patil. It was a wireless message, accordingly A.D. was registered vide A.D.No.24/2006, and inquiry was entrusted to him. Accordingly, he sent Head Constable Shri.Jadhav to draw inquest panchnama and to collect the report of the post mortem examination of the deceased. Then he went to the place of incident and drew spot panchnama (Exh.16) in the presence of panch witnesses. The spot was a well situated in the field of Jagannath Narayan Bhujade. From the scene of offence, he had seized one bottle said to contain poison Article A. On the same day, Police Naik Mundekar produced clothes of the deceased which were seized under the panchnama Exh.18. On 26/11/2006, Jagannath Bhujade lodged the report in Vaijapur Police Station. On the basis of said report, he registered an offence vide CR No.63/2006 for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 309 of The IPC against the appellant. He then recorded statements of certain witnesses. During the investigation, viscera collected during the post mortem of Dipali and Swati by the Medical Officer, who had conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies, was sent to The Chemical Analyser alongwith covering letter. He then arrested the applicant accused on 01/02/2007. On receipt of CA reports, and on completion of investigation, API Shri.Shaikh filed the charge sheet against the appellant before the Court of J.M.F.C. Vaijapur, who after passing requisite committal order, committed the Trial to the Court of Sessions, Aurangabad,

b) On being committal of the trial to the Court of Sessions, learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad framed the charge against the appellant vide Exh.8 for an offence punishable u/s. 302 and section 309 of The IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. It appears that during the trial, prosecution has examined in all 11 witnesses. On appreciation of the evidence of prosecution, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the appellants for an offence punishable u/s. 302 and u/s. 309 of The IPC stand proved and convicted the appellant accordingly, which judgment of conviction is impugned in this appeal.

c) Before appreciation of the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and that of learned A.P.P. for State, it is necessary to advert to the evidence of material witnesses examined by the prosecution before the Court below. It appears that the case against the appellant rests on the material evidence of complainant and his son Babasaheb Bhujade.

3. It transpired from the evidence of Jagannath Narayan Bhujade (P.W.No.4) who is father in law of the appellant and grandfather of deceased Dipali and Swati that appellant got married with his elder son Sonyabapu. From the said wedlock, appellant had begotten two daughters by name Dipali and Swati. He has further stated that the appellant was insisting her husband to stay separately from his parents. He has stated that his son Sonyabapu was doing labour work and was also looking after their agricultural land. He has further stated that on the date of incident, there was programme of 10th day ceremony at the house of his cousin brother Pandharinath, due to demise of his son Ashok. The said ceremony was attended by the mother and sister of the appellant also. After the ceremony was over, mother and sister of the appellant had been to his house. At that time, he told to the mother of the appellant that she should take appellant to her house, to which mother of the appellant refused. He has further stated that on that day, at about 6.00 p.m. or so, he prepared his food and took the dinner. Thereafter he noticed that the appellant and her two minor daughters were not present in their house. He started search for the appellant and his grand children in the surrounding area, but unable to trace them. He has further stated that in search of appellant and her minor daughters, he reached towards the well situated in their field, and noticed that the appellant and her two daughters were in the well. He also noticed that appellant had caught the pipe of the electric motor situated in the well and her two daughters were floating in the well water. After seeing this scenario, he started shouting. On hearing his shouts, his son Babasaheb Bhujade (P.W.No.7) reached at the spot. Babasaheb took out 2 minor daughters of the appellant from the well. On hearing his shouts, neighbourers gathered at the spot. The villagers took out the appellant from the well. He found his 2 grand daughters dead at that time. He has further stated that somebody gave information to the Vaijapur Police Station and accordingly Police came there and took the appellant and 2 children to the Rural Hospital at Vaijapur. On examination, the Medical Officer declared that the two minor children are dead. Appellant was referred to Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad. Then he lodged the complaint at Exh.32.

He has stated in his cross examination that the depth of the well is 42 ft, and there are no parapet walls to the well. The well water was used for drinking purpose as well as for the crops in their field. He has further stated in his cross examination that electric motor of 3 HP was installed on the said well. He has further stated that at the material time, the height of the cotton crop standing in their field was 11/2 ft. Those days are of sprinkling insecticide on the standing crops. According to him, about 150 persons have attended the 10th day ceremony at his cousin's house. The residential house of his cousin was situated adjacent to his field. He has further stated that the appellant has six sisters. Parents of appellant own 6 acres of agricultural land, and therefore their financial condition was not sound. As against this, financial condition of his family was sound and all the family members were happy. He has further stated that when police inquired with him, Babsaheb Sopan Bhujade, Rakhmaji Bhujade, Bhimrao Bhujade, Laxman Bhujade and Raosaheb Bhujade were also present. He has further stated that appellant had also attended the 10th day ceremony of his nephew.

4. It is in the evidence of Babaheb Jagannath (P.W.No.7) that their family was possessing agricultural land at village Kanaksagaj. He alongwith his father, brother were residing in the field, in the house erected in the agricultural field. He has further stated that appellant is the wife of his brother Sonyabapu and was residing with them. He has further stated that the incident took place on 24/11/2006. On that day, there was 10th day ceremony due to the demise of his cousin brother Ashok Pandharinath Bhujade at the residence of Ashok. Mother and sister of the appellant also attended the said programme. The programme was over at around 11.00 a.m. Thereafter, mother and sister of the appellant visited their house. He has further stated that at that time his father Jagannath informed to the mother of the appellant that appellant is not doing household work properly and was also not behaving properly. He has further stated that his father requested mother of the appellant to convince appellant to behave properly. Thereafter at about 1.00 p.m., mother and sister of the appellant left their house. He also left his house to do the work in his field alongwith his father Jagannath. Around

5.30 p.m. or so, they returned to their house. At that time, they noticed that appellant and her two daughters were present in the house. Then, he and his father prepared their food. When he came outside the kitchen, he did not found the appellant and her daughters in the residential premises. Then they took search for them in the surrounding area and when they reached near the well situated in their field while taking the search, they noticed that 2 daughters of appellant were floating in the well water and the appellant was also present in the well and she had caught the pipe of electric motor. He entered in the well and took out 2 daughters of the appellant from well. Both of them were found dead. He has further stated that thereafter, on hearing shouts of his father, neighbourers gathered at the spot and took out the appellant from the well. Thereafter, jeep was called and appellant and two minor daughters were taken to the hospital. In the hospital, after examination, Medical Officer declared both the daughters of the appellant are dead. Appellant was then referred to Ghati Hospital. He has stated in his cross examination that their field is situated at the distance of 1 km from the village. He has further stated in his cross examination that the well situated in their field was not constructed properly and the depth of the well is about 60 ft. and at the material time, 35 ft water was there in the well. The well is situated at the distance of 500700 ft. from their residential house.

5. The evidence of Rakhmaji Bhujade (P.W.No.5) and Laxman Karbhari Bhujade (P.W.No.6) is on the limited point that on hearing shouts from the field of Jagannath, they came at the spot and noticed the dead bodies of 2 daughters of the appellant were kept outside the well and appellant was taken out from the well.

6. Dr.Yogesh Rajput (P.W.No.3) Medical Officer attached to the Rural Hospital, Vaijapur has stated in his evidence that on 25/11/2006, he had conducted post mortem on the dead bodies of Dipali and Swati. During the post morten, he had not noticed any internal or external injuries on their person. During the internal examination, he found stomach filled with fluid with food particles with unpleasant smelling. Accordingly, he prepared post mortem notes at Exh.22 and 23. While conducting autopsy, he had collected viscera from both the dead bodies, which was referred to Chemical Analyser in due course. Report of viscera of Dipali and Swati are at Exh.26 and 27 respectively. After going through the report of C.A., he has opined that the cause of death of Dipali and Swati was asphyxia due to insecticide poisoning. Accordingly, he had issued medical certificate. He has further stated in his evidence that on 24/11/2006, Police Patil of village Kanaksagaj has brought the appellant in his hospital for treatment with the history of consumption of poison. At that time, appellant was in semi conscious condition. He has further stated that after giving necessary primary treatment, appellant was referred to Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad for further treatment. Accordingly, he had issued medical certificate at Exh.49. In his cross examination, he has admitted that on admission of appellant in the hospital, stomach wash was given to appellant, but the contents of the stomach wash were not referred to Chemical Analyser for chemical examination.

7. It is in the evidence of P.W.No.8 Dr. Mrs.Jyoti Mohanrao Munde that on 24/11/2006, when she was on duty as Casualty Medical Officer at Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad, appellant was brought to Ghati Hospital, who was referred by the Medical Officer, Vaijapur Rural Hospital. She was referred for treatment due to poisoning. At the time of her examination, she was conscious. After taking necessary entry in the MLC register, she referred the appellant to the Medicine Department.

8. We have heard submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant followed by the submissions of learned A.P.P. appearing for State. Learned A.P.P. in his submissions has supported the reasoning given by the Trial Court while convicting the appellant for the charges lavelled against her.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged across the bar that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is also urged that to prove the motive behind the crime, prosecution has not examined the husband of appellant Sonyabapu to establish that there was dispute between appellant and her husband as appellant was insisting her husband for separate residence. It is further urged that the motive behind the crime as stated by the complainant Jagannath is not corroborated by the evidence of Babasaheb, son of complainant. Thus according to her, motive behind the crime is not established. She has further argued that the death of 2 daughters of appellant was occurred due to administration of poison, but prosecution has not brought on record any evidence to show that at the relevant time, appellant was in possession of poisonous substance/insecticide. She has further argued that prosecution has not brought on record that in fact appellant administered the poison to her minor daughters. She has further urged that prosecution has not brought on record that the appellant brought her 2 daughters near the well and also not brought on record any evidence to prove that the appellant jumped with her 2 minor daughters in the well after consuming poisonous substance/insecticide or threw her daughters in well and then she jumped in the well. According to her, the only circumstance against the appellant as revealed from the evidence of prosecution witnesses is that appellant and her 2 minor daughters were found in the well as deposed by Jagannath, the complainant and Babasaheb, son of the complainant. According to her, on this solitary circumstance, chain of circumstance was not completed by the prosecution to convict the appellant for the offence of murder of her two daughters and charge of offence to commit suicide initially by consuming poison and then by jumping in the well. Hence, she prayed to allow the appeal.

10. At this juncture, it is useful to give reference to the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Gopal versus State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 Supreme Court Cases 625 = AIR 1972 SC, page 656, wherein it is observed by the Apex Court in para no.14 and 15 that ;

"The case depends entirely upon circumstantial evidence. In Hanumant V. The State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court had occasion to consider how circumstantial evidence should be dealt with. After pointing out that in such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof, the Court recalled the warning addressed by Baron Alderson to the jury in Reg. V. Hodge. The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adopting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete. And then the court proceeded to observe :

"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

Further, this Court, in Dharambir Singh V. The State of Punjab, dealing with a case of poisoning observed that where the evidence is circumstantial the fact that the accused had motive to cause death of the deceased, though relevant, is not enough to dispense with the proof of certain facts which are essential to be proved in such cases. Three questions arise in such cases, namely (firstly), did the deceased die of the poison in question (secondly), had the accused the poison in question in his possession And (thirdly), had the accused an opportunity to administer the poison in question to the deceased It is only when the motive is there and these facts are all proved that the court may be able to draw the inference, that the poison was administered by the accused to the deceased resulting in his death.

11. Further it is useful to give reference to the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of Sharad Birdichand Sarda versus State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622.

The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstance evidence can be said to be fully established;

(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 to 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. Case law discussed.

12. It is further useful to give reference to the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of C.T.Ponnappa versus State of Karnataka, (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 391 wherein it is observed that in cases of circumstantial evidence, link in the chain of circumstances require to be established. The solitary circumstance can not be said to form a chain so as to fasten guilt upon accused. In substance, solitary circumstance is not sufficient to establish the chain of circumstances which can prove the guilt of the accused.

13. It is also observed by the Apex Court in the matter of Sashi Jena and others versus Khadal Swain and another, AIR 2004 SC 1492 that solitary circumstance can not form base of conviction.

14. In the light of observations of the Apex Court in all the rullings cited supra, particularly, in cases of death of victim based due to administration of poison, it is necessary to establish that appellant was in possession of the poisonous substance which was administered by the appellant to the victims. In the case in hand, it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant, that the evidence of P.W.No.4 Jagannath Bhujade, the complainant and P.W.No.5 Babasaheb, the son of the complainant, nowhere established that the appellant was in possession of the poisonous substance/insecticide, as the bottle containing insecticide was not recovered from the residential premises of the appellant, but was found lying near the well, where the appellant and her two daughters were found in the well. It has nowhere came in the evidence of these two witnesses that prior to the incident, they have not seen the empty container of insecticide lying near the well, but they had an occasion to see the empty container of the insecticide only after they saw the appellant and her two daughters in the well. Likewise, to prove the motive behind the crime that there was dispute between the appellant and her husband as appellant was insisting her husband for separate residence from his parents, the husband of the appellant was admittedly not examined by the prosecution. Likewise, this motive reflected in the evidence of complainant Jagannath, but was not corroborated or supported by his son Babasaheb. Thus, it is clear that prosecution has failed to establish the alleged motive behind the crime. Prosecution has also failed to establish that the appellant administered the poisonous substance/insecticide to deceased as and there is no evidence on record indicating that appellant administered poisonous substance/insecticide to her two minor daughters. There is no evidence on record that the witnesses had seen the appellant while proceeding to the well alongwith her daughters and threw her two daughters in the well and then jumped in the well. Thus the fact is clear that the chain of circumstances was not established as required to establish as held in the judgment of Sharad Birdichand Sarda (cited supra), then the only circumstance which is against the appellant to prove the charge of section 302 of The IPC is that the appellant and her two daughters were found in the well in the evening of 24/11/2006. In absence of completion of chain of circumstances, and as observed by the Apex Court in the matter of Sashi Jena and others versus Khadal Swain and another, and C.T.Ponnappa versus State of Karnataka (cited supra), on the basis of solitary circumstance, conviction of the appellant can not be based and benefit of doubt require to be given to the appellant.

15. It is clear from the evidence of Dr.Yogesh Rajput (P.W.No.3) that even though stomach wash was given to the appellant, the contents of the stomach wash were not sent to Chemical Analyser for chemical analysis to establish that in reality, appellant had consumed poisonous substance/insecticide. In absence of such report about consumption of poisonous substance at the hands of appellant, the charge for the offence punishable u/s. 309 of The IPC can not be said to be proved.

16. In substance, for the discussion made in all the paragraph supra, we are of the considered view that prosecution failed to establish the charge of an offence punishable u/s. 302 and 309 of The IPC against the appellant, hence order :

Criminal Appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences with which she was charged and convicted. Fine, if paid by the appellant, be refunded to her. Since the appellant is in jail, she be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the appellant quantified at Rs.5,000/