PUNIMATI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT 's learned counsel argued that Pilabai's parents were present at the hospital. They did not disclose any suspicion against the appellant. The relation between the deceased and her mother -in -law were normal. It was the appellant herself who immediately rushed the deceased to hospital when she complained of Nausea. The medical evidence shows the Pilabai remained unconscious through out her stay in the hospital. The dying declaration said to have been made to Kamalabai (PW -l) was not disclosed to the police or the hospital authorities immediately.

(2.) THEREFORE , the same is subject to doubt but even if it is held to be truthful, it does not furnish basis for appellant's conviction because assuming that Pilabai started feeling nausea after eating the rice mixed with milk given by the appellant, the possibility of the poison having been mixed with either the rice or the milk accidentally cannot be ruled out. This is more so because the relations between the deceased and her mother -in -law were not strained. We have perused the statement of Kamalabai, she has admitted in Para -4 of her statement that Pilabai never made any complaint against her husband and members of his family. She has also admitted that Pilabai was being treated nicely by her in -laws. She has aded that the appellant used to ask Pilabai to get up early in the morning in the interest of household work which the later was not able to comply with. In our considered opinion this by itself cannot be considered sufficient to furnish motive to the appellant to commit the murder of her daughter -in - law. On its basis the impact of Kamalabai's statement that Pilabai was treated nicely by her in -laws is not washed away.