RAM BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5-3-1992passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No. 104 of 1991.

(2.) IN brief the case of prosecution is that on 17-11-1987, the parents of Kallu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') went to their work place and in the house the deceased who was aged eight years and his sister Nan Bai aged 10 years were present. At 8 a. m. the accused/appellant gave a dish of rice and fish to eat to the deceased and one Manoj, thereafter Nan Bai and the deceased went to graze she-goats in the jungle. In the jungle one Gopal was also grazing the catties. As the deceased was complaining of fever, he was brought back to his house, thereafter he started vomitting and suffered from an attack of diarrhea. The parents of the deceased also returned home and found their son (the deceased) in serious condition. According to the prosecution, Nan Bai told her parents that the accused had given fish and rice to eat to the deceased which he had eaten. The inhabitants of the village Brijnandan (P. W. 11) and Mohd. Hanif (P. W. 5) also arrived at the house of the deceased. Ramchandra Baiga and Devlal Goud put the deceased to exorcism. But, at 7 in the evening the deceased passed away. On the next day, i. e. , 18-11-1987 Jagdish lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P-1) and in this manner the criminal law set in motion. The police arrived at the spot and prepared the 'panchnama' of the dead-body and sent the same for the post- mortem. In the post-mortem the cause of death could not be ascertained by the doctor and, therefore, the viscera of the internal organs were seized and they were sent for chemical examination. The chemical examiner while examining the pieces of heart, lungs, stomach, intestine, liver, spleen and kidney found the presence of aluminium phosphite (sulphas pesticide ). The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of the investigation filed the charge-sheet before the Competent Court which committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was sent to the Trial Court for the trial.

(3.) A charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused/appellant which she abjured. Her defence is of maladroit implication. In order to prove the charge the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and placed Exs. P-l to P-12 the documents on record. The learned Trial Judge after scanning the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant did commit the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and eventually convicted her of the said offence and directed her to suffer rigorous imprisonment of life. Hence, this appeal.