Page No.1 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 2025:CGHC:32572-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [Arising out of judgment dated 05th May, 2016, passed in Sessions Case No.45 of 2014 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Sunita Lahare and another) by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Korba (CG)] Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2016 Manharan Ratre S/o Amruram Ratre Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Baksara, O.P. Pantora, P.S. Baloda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh --- Appellant (On Bail) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The O.P. Rampur, Police Station Kotwali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh --- Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WITH Criminal Appeal No. 751 of 2016 Smt. Sunita Lahare W/o Ishwari Lahare Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sakti Stationpara, P.S. Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---Appellant (On Bail) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Out Post Rampur, Police Station Kotwali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh --- Respondent SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Prashant Dansena, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board (14.07.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J (1) Regarding being had to the similitude of the questions of fact and law involved and being arising out of a common impugned judgment dated 05.05.2016, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, both these criminal appeals are clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. (2) Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, these 02 criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been filed by the appellants- Smt. Sunita Lahare (A-1) and Manharan Ratre (A-2), calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and 05th May, 2016, passed in Sessions Case No.45 of 2014 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Sunita Lahare and another) by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Korba (CG), whereby they both have been convicted and sentenced as under: As regards: Smt. Sunita Lahare (A-1) Conviction Sentence U/s. 120-B of IPC Imprisonment for life with fine of Page No.3 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 01 year. U/s. 302 of IPC Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 01 year. U/s. 506 (Part-2) of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 03 months. [All the sentences were directed to run concurrently] As regards: Manharan Ratre (A-2) Conviction Sentence U/s. 120-B/34 of IPC Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 01 year. U/s. 302/34 of IPC Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 01 year. U/s. 506 (Part-2) of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 03 months. [All the sentences were directed to run concurrently] (3) The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 19.04.2013, at about 12:00 PM, at Rajeev Vihar, Rampur Basti, Page No.4 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 Korba, the two accused/appellants, in furtherance of their common object, administered poison to Malti Devi (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) and caused her death and, further, in order to screen themselves from the legal punishment, tried to hide the evidence relating to the crime and, thereby, said to have committed the offences. (4) It is further case of the prosecution that on being informed by Dhananjay Lahre (PW-06) and Ku. Akriti Lahre (PW-07), the dead- body of the deceased was exhumed on 19.06.2013 and exhumation panchnama was prepared to that effect vide Ex.P/17. Thereafter, on the basis of information given by Narayan Prasad Lahre (PW-01), marg. intimation (Ex.P/01) was registered and, wheels of investigation stated running, in which site map was prepared vide Ex.P/06. Summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/03 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/04. Panchnama was also prepared vide Ex.P/02. FIR was registered vide Ex.P/27. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. R.K. Singh (PW-17). As per postmortem report of the deceased (Ex.P/05), cause of death remains open and nature of death has also not been mentioned. However, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. Thereafter, the appellants were arrested vide Ex.P/17 & Ex.P/18. Further, viscera preserved from the dead-body of the deceased was sent for Page No.5 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 chemical analysis and, as per FSL report (Ex.P/25), it has been opined that chemical substance, namely, Organophosphorus insecticide (Mythyle Parathion) was found in viscera of the deceased. The clavical bone of the deceased and blood sample of Mr. Ishwari Prasad Lahre (PW-01) were collected/seized and sent for DNA profiling and, according to DNA report (Ex.P/23) it has been opined that the DNA test performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that the biological relationship of parent (mother) and child (son) exists between the source of exhibit A (deceased) and exhibit B (Mr. Ishwari Prasad Lahre). Statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences before the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. (5) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents, whereas the appellants in support of their defence examined 01 witness and exhibited 11 documents. (6) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the Page No.6 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 appellant- Smt. Sunita Lahare (A-1) for offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 302 & 506 (Part-2) of IPC, whereas convicted appellant- Manharan Ratre (A-2) for offence punishable under Sections 120-B/34, 302/34 & 506 (Part-II) of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in Para-2 of this judgment, against which these 02 appeals have been preferred by the appellants-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. (7) Mr. Somnath Verma and Mr. Prashant Dansena, learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants would jointly submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for the offences in question, as the prosecution has failed to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. They vehemently argued that 04 important circumstances laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1 i.e. (i) there is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased; (ii) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered; (iii) that the accused had the poison in his possession and (iv) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased, are not at all established in the present case. It is also submitted on behalf of appellant- Manharan Ratre (A-2) that only used to work part-time as Driver in 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 Page No.7 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 the house of the deceased and there is no evidence available on record to show that both the appellants were having relationship with each other otherwise than marriage. Though call details of the appellants’ mobile phone were also seized vide Ex.P/29, but it would not been proved that at any point of time appellant- Manharan Ratre (A-2) had made phone call to appellant- Smt. Sunita Lahare (A-1) and had conversation. As such, both the appellants are entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt and present appeals are liable to be allowed. (8) Per-contra, Mr. HAPS Bhatia, learned State counsel, supported the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that in view of statements of prosecution witnesses coupled with other evidence available on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence mentioned herein- above and, therefore, the present appeals are liable to be dismissed. (9) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Questions for consideration :- (10) The two integral questions that arise for consideration in Page No.8 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 adjudication of both these appeals would be - (i) whether deceased died on account of poison said to have been administered to her ? (ii) Whether it was the appellants who administered the poison to the deceased and thereby, murdered her ? Answer to Question No. (i) :- (11) In the case at hand, according to FSL report (Ex.P/25) chemical substance, namely, Organophosphorus insecticide (Mythyle Parathion) was found in viscera of the deceased, therefore, it is a case of death by poisoning. Hence, question No.(i) is answered accordingly. Answer to Question No. (ii) :- (12) In order to arrive at the answer to this question, it would first be relevant to notice a few decisions rendered by the Supreme Court which would apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. (13) In the matter of Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay2, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have 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 2 AIR 1960 SC 500 Page No.9 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 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 by their Lordships :- “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. ” (14) Thereafter, in the matter of Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra3, which was a case of cyanide poisoning, for which, the husband of the deceased was tried for murder, their Lordships of the Supreme Court stressed that the Court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the four important circumstances which 3 (1984) 4 SCC 116 Page No.10 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 alone can justify a conviction. The following was thus held in paragraph 165 :- “165. 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.” (15) The principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Anant Chintaman Lagu (supra) and Sharad Birdichand Sarda (supra) was subsequently followed in the matter of Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab4, in which, it was held that even if there is failure of the prosecution to prove the possession of poison with the accused, the same is not fatal, if the prosecution clearly proves that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. The following has thus been held in paragraphs 26 and 27 :- “26. The poison murder cases are not to be put outside the rule of circumstantial evidence. There may be obvious very many facts and circumstances out of which the Court may be justified in drawing permissible inference that the accused was in possession of the poison in question. There may be 4 (1988) 3 SCC 513 Page No.11 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 very many facts and circumstances proved against the accused which may call for tacit assumption of the factum of possession of poison with the accused. The insistence on proof of possession of poison with the accused invariably in every case is neither desirably nor practicable. It would mean to introduce an extraneous ingredient to the offence of murder by poisoning. We cannot, therefore, accept the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. The accused in a case of murder by poisoning cannot have a better chance of being exempted from sanctions than in other kinds of murders. Murder by poisoning is run like any other murder. In cases where dependence is wholly on circumstantial evidence, and direct evidence not being available, the Court can legitimately draw from the circumstances an inference on any matter one way or the other. 27. The view that we have taken gets support from the decision of this Court in Ananth Chintaman Laguy v. The Staet of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 where Hidayatullah, J., has given an anxious consideration to the three propositions laid down in Dharambir Singh case. The learned Judge did not consider them as invariable criteria of proof to be established by the prosecution in every case of murder by poisoning. The learned Judge said (at p. 519-520): “It is now necessary to consider the arguments which have been advanced on behalf of the appellant. The first contention is that the essential ingredients required to be proved in all cases of murder by poisoning were not proved by the prosecution in this case. Reference in this connection is made to a decisio fo the Allhahabd High Court in Mt. Gajrani v. Emperor, AIR 1933 All 394, and to two unreported decisions of this Court in Chandrakant N Nyalchand Seth v. The State of Bombay, Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1957 decided on Feruary 19, 1958 and Dharambir Singh v. Teh State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1958, Page No.12 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 decided on 4.11.1958. In these cases, the court referred to three propositions which 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. The case in Dharambir Singh v. State of Punjab turned upon these three propositions. There, the deceased had died as a result of poisoning by potassium cyanide, which disbelieved the evidence which sought to establish that the accused had obtained potassium cyanide, but held, nevertheless that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the accused in that case. This Court, did not, however, accept the circumstantial evidence as complete. It is to be observed tha the three propositions were laid down not as the invariable criteria of proof by direct evidence in a case of murder by poisoning, because evidently if after poisoning the victim, the accused destroyed all traces of the body, the first proposition would be incapable of being proved except by circumstantial evidence. Similarly, if the accused gave a victim something to eat and the victim died immediately on the ingestion of that food with symptoms of poisoning and poison, in fact, was found in the viscera, the requirement of proving that the accused was possessed of the poison would follow from the circumstances that the accused gave the victim something to eat and need not be separately proved.” The learned Judge continued : “The cases of this Court which were decided processed upon their own facts, and though the 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 Page No.13 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 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 the absence of direct proof of the three elements, is so decisive that the Court can unhesitatingly hold that the death was a result of administration of poison (though not detected) and the poison must have been administered by the accused person, then the conviction can be rested on it. ” (16) The present is a case of death by poisoning which is based upon circumstantial evidence. In that view of the matter, the five golden principles which constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and which have been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) in paragraph 153 are as under: - “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra5 where the following observations were made: Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court 5 (1973) 2 SCC 793 Page No.14 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (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.” (17) However, the learned trial Court has culled out following five incriminating circumstances available in the present case against the appellants, in Para-22 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under: “1. अभियुक्त मनहरण द्वार सह अभियुक्त सनता लहर स फोन पर बाताचीता कर मताक मलता देवी लहर क जहर सवीन करयु जन क षड्यं त्र करन ताथा अभियुक्त मनहरण एवी अभियुक्त सनता लहर क मताक मलता देवी द्वार आपत्ति&जनक अवीस्था म( देखे जन क करण षड़यु त्र कर उसक, हत्यु करन ? 2. उक्त समन्यु आशयु क अग्रशरण म( अभियुक्त सनता लहर द्वार मताक क जहर क सवीन करयु जन? 3. उक्त समन्यु आशयु क अग्रशरण म( अभियुक्त सनता लहर द्वार मताक क लकड़ क पट्टे स त्तिसर पर मरपट करन एवी लकड़ क पट्टे क Page No.15 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 सक्ष्यु भिवीलभिपता करन क आशयु स जलकर नष्ट करन? 4. अभियुक्त मनहरण द्वार फोन पर सह अभियुक्त सनता लहर स क, गई बाताचीता क सनन क करण सक्षी धन जयु लहर क उक्त बाता( भिकस क बातायु जन पर जन स मरन क, धमक, भिदेयु जन? 5. अभियुक्त सनता लहर द्वार फोन स आरप मनहरण स फोन पर क, गई बाताचीता क आक भिता लहर द्वार सन जन पर सह अभियुक्त द्वार उस जन स मरन क, धमक, भिदेयु जन?” (18) Now, we will consider the case of the appellants in light of the above quoted 04 incriminating circumstances, as laid down in Sharad Birdichand Sarda (supra), in order to verify whether the appellants have rightly been convicted for the offences in question or not. (I) There is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased: (19) It is the case of the prosecution that appellant- Smt. Sunita Lahare (A-1) has developed illicit relationship with her driver i.e. appellant- Manharan Ratre (A-2) and the deceased had seen them in objectionable position and, therefore, the appellants have clear motive to commit murder of the deceased by administering poison. However, in this regard it is quite pertinent that the incident occurred on 19.04.2013 at about 12 PM and, on being informed by Dhananjay Lahre (PW-06) and Ku. Akriti Lahre (PW-07), the dead- body of the deceased was exhumed on 19.06.2013 vide Ex.P/17 i.e. after a period of 02 months. For the aforesaid period of 02 months, Page No.16 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 Dhananjay Lahre (PW-06) and Ku. Akriti Lahre (PW-07) did not disclose anything to anyone about the relationship. Furthermore, Narayan Prasad Lahre (PW-01), who is husband of the deceased, in Para-03 of his statement has only stated that appellant- Manharan Ratre (A-2) used to teach driving skill to his son- Ishwari Prasad Lahre (PW-02) and, in the meanwhile, he developed relationship with appellant- Smt. Sunita Lahare (A-1) and the deceased has seen them in a compromising position. Similar statement has also been made by Ku. Akriti Lahre (PW-07), daughter-in-law of the deceased, whereby in Para-07 she has stated that while her father used to go for night duty, she alongwith her sisters used to sleep in one room, but her mother (appellant- Smt. Sunita) used to sleep in the computer room, where appellant- Manharan Ratre (A-2) used to stay. As such, even thereafter, appellant- Manharan Ratre (A-2) used to work in the house of Narayan Prasad Lahre (PW-01) as driver, which is quite unnatural that after getting the knowledge about illicit relationship between both the appellants and seeing them in compromising position by the deceased, Narayan Prasad Lahre (PW- 01) further allowed appellant- Manharan Ratre (A-2) to continue to work as servant/driver in his house. (20) In this regard, Narayan Prasad Lahre (PW-01) was being confronted with relation to the merg report (Ex.P/01), lodged at his instance, he has stated that all these facts about illicit relationship Page No.17 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 between the appellants and seeing them in compromising position by the deceased, has been informed to the police, but if the said facts are missing in the merg report (Ex.P/01) he is not aware. Similarly, though Ku. Akriti Lahre (PW-07) has stated that in Para-07 that both the appellants herein used to sleep together in absence of her father- Ishwari Prasad (PW-02), but on being confronted on the said point, in Para-22 of her statement, she clearly stated that she has informed about the said fact while recording her police statement (Ex.D/09), but if the said fact is missing in her police statement (Ex.D/09), she could not say anything. As such, from the above evidence available on record, it is not proved that the appellants have clear motive to cause death of the deceased by administering poison to her. It is held accordingly. (II) That the deceased died of poison said to have been administered: (21) In the present case, though as per postmortem report of the deceased (Ex.P/05), cause of death remains open and nature of death has also not been mentioned, however viscera of the deceased was preserved and sent for chemical analysis and, according to FSL report (Ex.P/25), it has been opined that chemical substance, namely, Organophosphorus insecticide (Mythyle Parathion) was found in viscera of the deceased. However, it is not proved that the said chemical substance/poison was administered by the appellants Page No.18 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 herein, as it is the case of the prosecution that the appellants consumed liquor and served omelet to the deceased and, immediately after eating said omelet, the deceased became unconscious and died. But fact remains that immediately after the death of the deceased, no suspicion was raised and the deceased was buried on the same day and, only, after a period of 02 months, suspicion was raised and after getting permission of the competent authority, the dead-body of the deceased was exhumed, which was subjected to postmortem and merg enquiry was conducted and, thereafter, viscera of the deceased was preserved and sent for chemical analysis, whereby it has been opined that chemical substance was found in viscera of the deceased. As such, though it is proved that the deceased died due to poisoning, but it is not established that the said poison was administered by the appellants herein. It is held accordingly. (III) That the accused had the poison in his possession: (22) Since the present case, the incident is said to have been occurred on 19.04.2013 and the dead-body of the deceased was exhumed on 19.06.2013 and, thereafter, merg inquiry was conducted and viscera of the deceased was preserved and sent for chemical analysis, whereby vide FSL (Ex.P/25), it has been opined that chemical substance, namely, Organophosphorus insecticide (Mythyle Page No.19 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 Parathion) was found in viscera of the deceased. However, no seizure of poison has been affected by the present appellants in the instant case, which is said to have been administered by them to the deceased. As such, it could not be established that the appellants herein had the poison in their possession. It is held accordingly. (IV) That he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased: (23) In the present case, though appellant- Manharan Ratre (A-2) used to only work as a driver in the house of the deceased, but since appellant- Smt. Sunita Lahre (A-1), who is daughter-in-law of the deceased and used to reside with the deceased in one house, therefore, the fact that appellant- Smt. Sunita (A-1) had opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased cannot be ruled out, but in absence of any clinching evidence with regard to the incident of appellant- Smt. Sunita Lahre (A-1) administering poison to the deceased and, in absence of any other corroboration, it could not be established that appellants had opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased, more particularly, as per the statement of Ku. Akriti Lahre (PW-07), apart from appellant- Smt. Sunita (A-1) and deceased other family members (i.e. her sisters etc.) also used to reside. (24) Apart from the above, though call details of the appellants’ mobile phone being No.78984563954, 9669856292 & 8435267465 Page No.20 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 respectively were also obtained/seized vide Ex.P/29, but it could not been proved from the same that at any point of time appellant- Manharan Ratre (A-2) had made phone call to appellant- Smt. Sunita Lahare (A-1) and had conversation with her. As such, it also creates a doubt upon the prosecutions story that both the appellants have illicit relationship with each other. (25) In view of foregoing analysis, we are unable to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the five golden principles to constitute the ‘panchsheel’ of proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), in absence of which, the learned trial Court is unjustified in convicting the appellants for the offences in question in light of above-mentioned incriminating circumstances and same is liable to be set aside. (26) Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of appellant- Smt. Sunita Lahare (A-1) for offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 302 & 506 (Part-2) of IPC and that of appellant- Manharan Ratre (A- 2) for offence punishable under Sections 120-B/34, 302/34 & 506 (Part-II) of IPC, as imposed upon them by the learned trial Court, are hereby set aside. They are acquitted of the said charge on the basis of benefit of doubt. Since the appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, they need not to surrender. But their bail bonds shall Page No.21 of 21 IN CRA-741-2016 & CRA-751-2016 remain in force for a further period of six months in light of provisions contained under Section 437-A of CrPC. (27) Both the criminal appeals are allowed. (28) Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge s@if