Bivision Bench (Crimfnatj 111^^jn®i_CQTJCT,9F,JUDICATURSCFM.P.\ArJABA.PUR . .Criminal Appeal No?3?:3__ of. 1998 , MmiYA @ (Bb.agwati) , . D/o- KaishstewLodhi./ &ged fit)$-i}-t8p'years, . / ili- Cfaotwani, 's- Dhamda, --~ ' • Distt-Durg. M.p. . |.Pii?LLAW rsrjiTri \.- i^-s^. Vii-^S' f,*Ut I)*., ..* .•.•W—B»»N . Tersus T'he State of M.F, Responctent ^K-^J'?^....^. IlRJMINiL_AH:5A_UNDffiJS£n21^7i.L2}^l.THl.^ JF F................Aivoc.i. CRIMI?TA'P]:iOCi!DURS.l?Z3_. r:"a awimmwfv ri-i'.ll XI-HC-22 wien aiw^i 3^ "i<i<<icfM, en-nu'Ko, Rlrilti^ ^e^..^4^ |l2 (c|<)«^ sn^T^r tewsn^T sblichHf^T 3I1^T?^IRT!:;Elf?tT 'bl'Ml'ri-'fl.l 4|l)<-lT^'f3^1'<,RlWK ^srf^iTsn^r DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE MR. L.C. BHADtiO & HON'BLE MR. V.K. SHRIVASTAVA. JJ Smt. UmaTiwari, Shri D.K. GwalreJ State/respondent. Oral judgment dictatetl on Daw. PER L.C. BHADOO, J. coi(nsel for the appellant. Deputy Govt. Advocate for the This appeal is directejd order of sentence dated Sessions Judge, Durg, in S.f Sessions Judge after con'ji offence under Section 302 imprisonment for life. Case of the prosecu^ 9.15 a.m. accused/appellanf namely, Anil Puri (since After eating the bread, Ani| eating bread (Roti) other ^ therefore, they did not ea( children were admitted in day the doctor sent against the judgment of conviction and |9-7-98 passed by the 2nd Additional .|T. No.265/96 whereby learned Additional 't'icting the accused for commission of |of the I.P.C. sentenced her to undergo (ion, in brief, is that on 19-3-96 at about it Muniya gave bread (Roti) to 4 children d^ceased), Ishwari, Tarani and Pitambar. Puri became unconscious whereas, on children found the same to be sore, whole bread. However, all the four the Dhamdha hospital and on the same commtinication (Ex.-P/S) to the Police Station (tft^^teir) -i-«- XI-HC-22 3^ •^i'iiw-ti, yrtly'is, faoiyy 3TT^T^ath HtMWI (htlicb ••••••••••••••••••••• ^ 200 {^% sn^T^r f^wsn^r Sf*li'*iBf?CT aiirai 3n^?T CT3TW trf%(T Dhamdha to the effect that history of vomiting, frothing child is brought dead. Cond dothe needful." One merg inpmation Ex.-P/S was written and other 3 children namely Tarani, unconscious, were medically | was conducted in which no death was given. Howsver, \ obtaining the report from the by the Executive Magistrate were ptaying, Muniyacame, ^iNfn<fl-( wiivfi ff te1^' rfsRzro ^sii^iran^r here 4 child admitted complaining the from mouth since this moming. One ition of 3 child alive. Please come and Pitambar and Ishwari, who were sxamined. The postmortem of Anil Puri aefinite opinion regarding the cause of iscera were preserved. On 22 March 1996 when Tarani and Ishvj'ari regained consciousness and after doctor, their statements were recorded in which they disctosed that when they gave them bread, on account of eating of that bread they became ijnconscious. On enquiry, it was found that Muniya gave some poi^onous substance to the children, as a resultof which Anil Puri died was registered by the Station for commission of offence ur prepared inquest report (Ex D.K. Gupta, Assistant Surge Based onthis report, F.I.R. Ex.-P/12 House Officer, Police Station Dhamdha der Sections 302 and 328 of the I.P.C. The Investigating Officer aftejr giving notice Ex.-P/7 to the Panchas, L-P/8) of the body of Anil Puri. The postmortem on the dead bod^ ofthe deceased was conducted by Dr. on, Primary Health Centre, Dhamdha. He prepared the postmorte|m report Ex.-P/2. The Investigating Officer prepared site plan (E)(.-P/13) ofthe place ofoccurrence. The viscera preserved by the docjtor were sent for chemical examination (^^fe^) XI-HC-22 XI-HC-22 s^BTpn^r, g^F^, f^ngy 3%T -^WId^, !SiTt1^41<o, RfOWy 3H^TM5l<sh KIHWI »>*1|th ••••••••••••••••••••• g^ 200 R(>»A ;S3 3 STI^TW f^iwan^T g>tiw(rf?(T sn^?T gRTOT flf^cT w;ifepf^T'wi?ffft'te^r itezn: ^srf^ITSl^T to the Forensic Science where report dated 28-2-jS examiner opined that Alumii^ the pieces of heart, liver, stomach & pieces pfsmall ir|1 After completion of th{ the Court of Judicial Mag^ committed the case to th< learned 2nd Additional Sessl for trial. The prosecution in of accused examined 10 witit Judge recorded the stateme) Cr.P.C. in which she denied prosecution evidence and s< falsely implicated in the after hearing the argumenl counsel for the accused sentenced the accused as m| We have heard learn^ Learned counsel for whole case rests on the has not been able to establi the accused. Learned Ljaboratory, Sagar under Ex.-P/14 from 197 was received in which chemical ium Phosphaide (Sulphas) was found in lungs, kidney, spleen, and pieces of testine. investigation, charge sheet was filed in strate, First Class, Durg, who in tum Sessions Judge, Durg, from where ^on Judge received the case on transfer counfeel \<iw to establish thecharge against the kesses. Learned Additional Sessions of accused under Section 313 of the |the material appearing against her in the iated that she is innocent and has been Learned Additional Sessions Judge of Additional Public Prosecutor and perusal of the record convicted and ^ntioned in earlier part ofthis judgment. counset for the parties. jthe accused/appellant argued that the i|imstantial evidence and the prosecution ^h that the poison was in possession of i^el for the appetlant further argued that cnnte arid (ifti^^) V.'- </'^-n^/~. 'ssf •^MW{\, aifl'y'is, Rfciiyy STT^T^^ch <ll*<wi shllth ••••••••••••••••••••• ^p^ 200 f^5% •w^rqir R-fi+sn^r ghW* (rf^r 3n^T?RtTwn1?(T rriatter triat no motive has been establis^ poison to the children. On the other hand, supported the judgment of tl-|< Having heard learn^d perused the record. tn orde) Hon'bte Apex Court in the State of Bombay reported that the prosecution must e{ death took place by poisonirte; his possession; and (c) administer the poison to th( further held that these thrt always, the sufficiency of establish murder by poisonirlg If the evidence in a particula( death is the result of poi^ prosecution to prove the f^i circumstantiat evidence, thert given to the accused persor). absence of direct proof of th< court ean unhesitatingly administration of poison (th< *^td4)^ WIRff ff fe^ <[al'LAK ^srf^IT 311^1 led by the prosecution for administering l^arned counsel for the State/respondent |e trial Court. counsel for the parties, we have to rest conviction in a poison case, the of Anant Chintaman Lagu V. The in AIR 1960 Supreme CourtSOO held ptablish in a case of poisoning: (a) that ); (b) that the accused had the poison in the accused had an opportunity to deceased. The Hon'ble Apex Court |e propositions must be kept in mind evidence direct or circumstantial, to will depend on the facts of each case. case does not justify the inference that soning because of the failure of the f^ct satisfactorily, either directly or by the benefit of the doubt will have to be But if circumstantial evidence, in the i^ three elements, is so decisive that the Ihold that death was a result of (ugh not detected) and that the poison tltie 11 (tft^y^) XI-HC-22 XI-HC-22 a^r^T R-fi+sn^T gillWHfScT 3^airaT?W, snfl'y'is, Riciiyy 3<1^1 M^ch H11MI sh*<l«) ••••••••••••••••••••• ^pj- 200 fsre% SI^T ?;RITW Hf^tf w^s must have been administet conviction can be rested on i( In the light of above pf we examine the evidence as to whether the death of administration of poison isj playing with deceased Anil along with Golu, Tarni and the accused came and shel bread, he found the bread t<t and he left for the house. giddiness. Thereafter, he Raju (Anil Puri) died, Simila( also playing with the deceas|i Puri was her brother and (Roti) which was eaten by found the bread to be sore) which she took water and after taking bread went tow^ day. She was taken to the she has stated that Muniya] house. She has further Muniya gave pieces of breac) these two witnesses the l^ • sH® <*l<lfa41-1 HWVli W fS^ <f-3|'('<;l< ^srf^iTsn^?! [•ed by the accused person, then the rincipte enunciated by the Apex Court, if av^iilable on record, as far as the point that Anit Puri was caused on account of concerned, PW-4 Ishwari, who was F|uri, has stated that on the fateful day he R|aju (Anil Puri) were playing, at that time, gave them bread. When he ate the be sore, therefore, he threw the bread Tllereafter, he started vomiting and feeling taken to the Dhamdha hospital where is the evidence of PW-5 Tarni who was »s|ed. She has stated that deceased Anil knows Muniya Bai, She gave bread pitambar and Ishwari. On eating, she and she started feeling giddiness, on ^he also gave water to Pitambar. Anil (rds Dai Para and he died on the samc Cjhamdha hospital. In cross-examination, Igave bread in front of the door of the stjated that when all four were playing, to all of them. In cross-examination of defeince has not been abte to elicit that their ^/ (<N^^) I'Q XI-HC-22 6 3:5TBTT21RTO', aifl^'16, [a|clly^< 311^1 ^ach HWWI sn*llch -••-••-•••••••••••••• ^FJ- 200 Rl<>«A SIT^T^T f^iwsn^r shH (rf?cT 3n^T?¥(ITWHf?cT wrfrPft^ WRff ^'fec^ rfSFKIT ^srf^iTsn^r evidence regarding giving br^s any infirmity. These witness^ there was no occasion for tt implicate ti.e accused/appell evidence inspire full confider|ce Muniya Bai gave pieces of them was deceased Anil Pu| estabiished that Muniya Bai mixed with bread. Equally fi| that Muniya Bai had an o( children. Apart from that, Dr| 19-3-96 he was in the P( conducted postmortem on request of police statkin. On| was dilated, nails became Uj\ was no injury present on congested, both the lungs kidney were also congestejd. regarding cause of death. chemical examination. His S.H.O., Dhamdha has stat^d examination to the Forensic receipt of the same is Ex.-P/) in earlier part of this judgn|i< ^ad to all the four children suffers from ^s are children of 6-7 years of age and |em to give false evidence in order to l^nt in a false case. Therefore, their of the Court that on the fateful day tiread to all the 4 children one among 1-i. Therefore, from this evidence, it is (vas in possession of poison which was tom this evidence it is also established to administer the poison to these D.K. Gupta (PW-8) has stated that on (imary Health Cenfre, Dhamdha. He dead body of the deceased on the lexamination, he found that pupitof eye luish, whole body became pale, there body of the deceased, brain was |and heart were congested, liver and He was unable to give opinion |Therefore, viscera were preserved for isEx.-P/2. PW-IOSuresh Tiwari, that viscera were sent for chemical icience Laboratory under Ex.-P/14 and 15. Report of the viscera, as mentioned ient, is to the effect that on chemica: ppoftunity tlke the r^port (•^y^) aB&.^uA«! XI-HC-22 STI^T^T R-ii+sn^T *fT^i wtif?cr 3^'sfraT^ra', si'dly'iti, Rfdiuy 3TT^?T<^ach HWPII sh><ich ••••••••••••••••••••• ^F]- 200 f^s Sn^T^tTRRflfN' examination, in the pieces stomach, small intestine found. Therefore, from the pieces of bread containing was the deceased who unconscious and before he dead. Two witnesses hav^ bread, they felt giddiness, b^ to the hospital. Thereafter, by Dr. D.K. Gupta (PW| Phosphaide (Sulphas) was| report. Therefore, in viewt ingredients stands satisfied) consumption of poison i.e. accused had an opportur(ity substance; and the accusec) bread. As far as argument] accused/appellant that th^ establish motive behind th^ case based on the circl established then that is a| accused based on that. Bihl 'M<<F<i<fl-< iwRTf iffs^i rfSresrc ^3T|^IT3n^T of heart, liver, lungs, kidney, spleen, ^luminium Phosphaide (Sulphas) was ^bove evidence that Muniya Bai gave |)oison to the children one among them ^te the pieces of bread, he became (?as taken to the hospital, he was already stated that after eating the pieces of ^came unconscious and they were taken 1/iscera of the deceased were preserved 1-8) and in those viscera Aluminium found as per the chemical examiner of the above evidence, all the three i.e. the deceased died on account of Aluminium Phosphaide (Sulphas); the to administer the said poisonous was in possession of poison mixed with advanced by learned counsel for the prosecution has not been able to crime is concerned, it is true that in a imstantial evidence if the motive is strong circumstance for convicting the t at the same time, it is settled law that ('fliy^) —m^oi-uie XI-HC-22 sn^rqiT f^iwan^T a?qN;gfer Ban/e .0 ~^ 3^ '<<l<4|iv)'4,'®Tflw<tiS,f^diy^ 3TI^T<^ach H11WI StlHlch •----•-•••••••••••••• ^pj. ^Q f^>% sii^i ^iwHftcr is clear, cogent, and reliab tn the result, we do qiPriwto ITPRfffffet^ rf^FRK ^srf^R'sn^r the motive is always hiddeiji in the mind of the accused and it is difficutt to know motive of th^ accused that what was prevailing in the mind of the accused at th|e time of commission of crime which prompted him/her to comn^it crime. Merely, if the motive is not proved and other satisfactor^ circumstantial evidence is available on record,conviction can be b^sed on that. In the present case, there e evidence that the accused was only person who administered p^ison to the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution based on the afcjove evidence has been able to esteblish the case against the accuse^l. not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court, a|s such, the appeat being devoid of merit, fails and same is dismissed.l .__,^-~;——-———————;• • .^^ L.C.^DOO (^- 1 '4K'SSta"~ Judge T . (Ift^^f^) /' ^i/nne "^tWff-,