SHYAM BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Shyam Bai has been convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of her newly born child. The appellant had been deserted by her husband and she admittedly gave birth to an illegitimate child on 19-10- 1979. On 24-10-1979 she left her village with the child for Dhamtari for the childs treatment for some ailment. According to her version the child died a natural death and she, therefore, left the child on the way. However, sometime on 25-10-1979 a child was found lying dead on the road and murg intimation to that effect was recorded, on the basis of which the F.I.R. (Ex. P 6) was recorded on 26-10-79. The postmortem of the dead body so found revealed that the child died on account of asphyxia due to strong ulation. There is no evidence to identify this child as the one born to the appellant.

(2.) The prosecution case rests on an extra judicial confession made by the appellant before a Panchayat which is proved by Pyarelal (P. W. 1), Sunder Ram (P. w. 2). Kashiram (P. W. 3) and Vikram (P. W. 4) in which she is alleged to have admitted throttling the illegitimate child delivered by her about a week earlier. The appellant has stated that she was compelled to make such a statement in a Panchayat after she had initially denied such a suggestion. Unless the extra judicial confession can be accepted there is no reliable basis to uphold the appellants conviction.

(3.) The Murg intimation (Ex. P 5) recorded on 25-10-79 as well as F.I.R. (Ex. P 6) recorded on 26- 10-79 on its basis do not give any indication of the childTs identity. The circumstances in which the extra judicial confession is alleged to have been made by the appellant in a Panchayat do not inspire sufficient confidence to accept the same as voluntary. It appears that the persons present in the Panchayat repeated the suggestion to the appellant that she had killed the child when she returned to the village without the child and it was then after her initial denial that she admitted having done so. There is no corroboration available to the extra judicial confession to make it a safe basis for upholding conviction for murder. We, therefore, considered her unsafe to uphold the appellants conviction on the evidence alone.