DUKALHIN BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant Kanshram (PW-1) and the accused/appellant herein are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law in relation living under the same roof at the relevant time. As per the case of the prosecution, on 27/11/1996 at about 4 PM the complainant (PW-1) made his one and half month old son Rajesh sleep on the cot and left for his household related daily chores putting his another 10 years old son Satyanarayan (PW-5) on guard to take care of him. When PW-1 returned home from the grain-yard he saw the accused/appellant hastening out of the room where Rajesh was asleep. In the meanwhile, he heard the broken cries of Rajesh emanating from the said room and when he along with his mother Malti (PW-7) and another sister-in-law Krishna (PW-6) went inside the room to take stock of the situation they all felt an odour of insecticide emanating therefrom as also from the mouth of infant Rajesh. Thereafter the complainant and his wife took the child to hospital where he remained admitted from 27/11/1996 to 29/11/1996. It is alleged that about a year prior to the date of incident there used to be some quarrel with the accused and the complainant's family as she did not take proper interest in the household work and it is for that she administered insecticide to Rajesh. On the basis of Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P-1) lodged by Kanshram (PW-1) FIR (Ex.P-1A) was registered for the offences under Ss. 328 and 307 IPC. Further investigation culminated in filing of charge-sheet and framing of charge against the appellant under these Sec. .

(2.) Having examined number of witnesses and gone through the evidence collected by the prosecution learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellant under Ss. 328 and 307 IPC with imposition of sentence of RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000.00, plus default clause under Sec. 307 IPC. However, being the cognate offence, no separate sentence was imposed under Sec. 328 IPC.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that though none has seen the accused/appellant administering insecticide on the infant child yet the Court below has erroneously held her guilty for that by the judgment impugned. According to him, as there is no motive on the part of the accused/appellant to eliminate a child in his infancy, the view taken by the Court below convicting and sentencing her as mentioned above is not worthy of approval by this Court. His overall submission is that the view taken by the Court below being contrary to the evidence on record cannot be allowed to stand as it would result in miscarriage of justice.