JUDGMENT
C.K. Prasad, J.
1. Sole appellant, being aggrieved by his conviction for offence under Sections 328/111 and 115 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each of the
offences, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, passed by the Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No. 53/89, by judgment dated 1-9-1989, has preferred this appeal.
2. According to the prosecution, deceased Revti Bai had illicit relationship with the appellant since six months prior to the date of incident and the said fact was known to her husband P.W. 1 Gangaram. According to the prosecution, Gangaram however did not make any report of the said fact believing that it would defame them. Gangaram had purchased a land from the father of the appellant, but formal documentation of the sale-deed had not taken place and according to the prosecution, appellant used to promise that he will get the sale-deed registered and on that pretext, continued with the illicit relationship with Revti Bai. On 20-4-1988, according to the prosecution, Gangaram was going towards Amarwara in connection with the registration of the sale-deed and hardly he had travelled for two furlongs, his son P.W. 2 Dashralh came and informed him that Revti Bai had consumed something. Gangaram returned immediately and on enquiry, Revli Bai told him that it was the appellant who had given poison to be administered to him, which she had consumed. Thereafter, Revti Bai became unconscious and proper treatment being not available in the village, Gangaram started for hospital for her treatment, but she died in the way. Gangaram gave report to the Police Outpost, Singaudi and on receipt thereof, P.W. 8 Ramesh Singh, Head Constable came to the place of incident and prepared the inquest report. He also seized a bottle containing poison and sent the dead-body for post-mortem examination. Post-mortem was conducted by P.W. 4 Dr. S.K. Gupta, who found no external or internal sign of poisoning but preserved the viscera. The same was sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory and poison was found on it.
3. Police after usual investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and he was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions to face the trial. Appellant denied to have committed any offence and his plea was that he had not given poison to Revti Bai to be administered to her husband Gangaram. His further plea was that Gangaram had forcibly taken possession of the land and he had been falsely implicated in the case.
4. Prosecution in support of its case had altogether examined 8 witnesses. No defence witness had been examined. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence led before it, held that Revti Bai committed suicide by consuming poison which was given to her by the appellant to be administered to her husband. For coming to this conclusion that Revti Bai had committed suicide, it had placed reliance on the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as also the evidence of her husband P.W. 1 Gangaram, son P.W. 2 Dashralh and brother-in-law P.W. 3 Sevakram.
5. Mr. S.K. Tiwari appears on behalf of the appellant, whereas Shri S.K. Gangrade, Panel Lawyer appears on behalf of the Slate. In fairness lo Shri Tiwari, he concedes that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that Revti
Bai committed suicide is based on the evidence on record and he cannot legitimately call for its reversal in the present appeal. I have perused the record. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory clearly shows trace of poison in the viscera. I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the report and in agreement with the Trial Court, I hold that Revti Bai committed suicide by consuming poison.
6. Mr. Tiwari submits that the story propounded by the prosecution that it was 1 he appellant who had given poison to Revti Bai to be administered to her husband is absolutely untrue. He submits that as the husband of Revti Bai i.e., P.W. 1 Gangaram suspected that she had illicit relationship with the appellant and was intending to report the matter and hold Panchayat, she had committed suicide. Mr. S.K. Gangrade, however, submits that from the evidence of witnesses, it is evident that it was the appellant who had given poison to Revti Bai to be administered to her husband but the same was consumed by her.
7. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of Shri Tiwari. P.W. 2 Dashrath, who is none other than the son of the deceased had clearly stated in his evidence that while his father P.W. 1 Gangaram was going, the deceased stated that he was going to lodge report. Further, this witness has stated in Paragraph 3 of his cross-examination that after consuming the poison, Revti Bai poured kerosene oil on her body. P.W. 1 Gangaram in Para 7 of his evidence had also stated that after hearing from P.W. 2 Dashrath while he returned, Revti Bai stated to him that as he was going to make report and hold Panchayat, she had consumed the poison. From what has been found above, it seems that Revti Bai believed that her husband Gangaram shall hold Panchayat and report the matter on account of her illicit relationship with the appellant and therefore in order to avoid humiliation, she had committed suicide. According to the prosecution itself, enmity existed between the appellant and Gangaram on account of purchase of land.
8. Aforesaid infirmities in the case of the prosecution leave me in doubt and I am of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt. I grant it accordingly.
9. In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appellant is on bail, he shall be discharged of his bail bond.