REKHA RAJENDRA MAGAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-original accused herein is a lady. She has directed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 143 of 2002. By the said judgment and order, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302, 307 and 309 of Indian Penal Code. For offence under section 302 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default RI for one year. For the offence under section 307 of IPC he was sentenced to RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default RI for one year. For the offence under Section 309 of IPC the appellant was sentenced to RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300 in default to suffer RI for three months. Learned Sessions Judge directed the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under :- The appellant was married to PW-3 Rajendra on 7.12.1996. They had two children i.e. one daughter Komal, aged 3 years and one son Ranjit, who was aged 10 months at the time of incident. The appellant was residing along with her husband PW-3 Rajendra, her mother-in-law PW-4 Kamal Magar and her children at Phaltan. PW-5 Anuradha was residing in the house adjoining the house of the appellant. On the day of the incident, PW- 3 Rajendra left his house to go for work at about 10-30 am. His mother PW- 4 Kamal left the house at about 11-00 am to go to the field for grazing sheep. Thereafter only the appellant and her two children were alone in the house. At about 2:30 pm, PW-5 Anuradha, neighbour of the appellant heard shouts of the children of the appellant, hence she went running to the house of the appellant. She called the appellant and asked her to open the door as the door was latched from inside. The appellant did not open the door. The appellant did not say anything from inside the house. PW-5 Anuradha gave call to Komal and asked her to open the door. On that Komal opened the door. When PW-5 Anuradha entered the house, she saw that appellant Rekha and Ranjit were lying in the house, yellowish foam was coming out of their mouth. There was a strong smell of some poisonous medicine. Anuradha lifted the small boy Ranjit and brought him outside the house. Anuradha took out his clothes and washed his body, because it was smelling of said poisonous medicine and was covered with vomit. She then took Ranjit to hospital. While she was giving wash to Ranjit, somebody had taken the appellant Rekha and Komal to the Government Hospital. When Anuradha reached the Government Hospital, Phaltan she saw the appellant Rekha and Komal were already inside the hospital. PW-6 PSI Govind Omase lodged FIR. Thereafter, investigation commenced. The appellant was in unconscious condition. Komal was also admitted in the hospital. However, condition of Ranjit was serious, hence it was advised that he be taken to a bigger hospital in Pune. Accordingly, PW-3 Rajendra left with Ranjit to go to Pune but Ranjit died on the way. The dead body of Ranjit was sent for postmortem. Postmortem notes shows that the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to organo phosphrous poisoning. No injury was seen on the dead body of Ranjit. Komal came to be discharged from the hospital after 17 days. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.

(3.) Charge came to be framed against the appellant-original accused under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for causing the murder of her son Ranjit, under Section 307 of IPC for attempting to commit murder of daughter Komal, charge was also framed under section 309 of IPC against the appellant for attempting to commit suicide. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. Further defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication. Defence of the appellant is that her husband used to beat her and harass her. On the day of the incident her mother-in-law and her husband told her to go bank to withdraw the amount. She said to her mother-in-law that after preparing the food, she will go to the bank to withdraw the amount. Then the mother-inlaw told the appellant that she will prepare food and sent the appellant to the bank to withdraw the amount. The appellant returned from the bank. She breast fed Ranjit. Thereafter, she and Komal consumed the food prepared by her mother-in-law. She fell unconscious. She does not know what happened thereafter. After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the defence raised by the appellant original accused, learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph no.1 above, hence this appeal.