SIMMOBAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Simmobai challenges her conviction under section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment awatded by judgment dated 10.8.1985 passed in Sessions Trial No.6 of 1985 of Seoni Sessions Division. The fact that on 4.10.1984 the appellant gave birth to a child who was alive has been admitted. It is also not in dispute that at that time Simmobai was a widow and had conceived as a result of her illicit relationship with one Amarlal. The delivery had taken place at the residence of Amarlal when Mullabai (P.W. 3) village Kotwar had visited the residence of Amarlal she was informed of the birth of child by the later and had herselfseen the child sleeping with the mother. Next day the child died. The story is that Simmobai was widowed about a decade before the incident. After she conceived during her widowhood she was deserted by his in -laws. She then started living with one Fagnibai and gave birth to an illegitimate child arid she was turned out by Fagnibai also. Being rendered completely helpless she went and stayed with Amarlal. It appears' Amarlal too intended to drive her out of his house. In such circumstances Simmobai is alleged to have throttled the newly born child to death on 5.10.1984. When the matter was reported to the police, the dead body of child was sent for post -mortem examination. The evidence of Dr. Sengar (P.W. 4) who conducted the post -mortem examination on 7.10.1984 the fact that the child was strangulated to death stands fully proved. The matter went to trial and the trial Judge concluded that though the offence under section 302 I.P.C. was proved beyond all reasonable doubt, yet the circumstances of the case warranted leniency and, therefore, recommended commutation of sentence by the State Government as the ratio of Gyarsibai v. The State (AIR 1953 M.B. 61) was attracted.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant could not assail the correctness of the finding of guilty recorded by the trial Judge. However, the submission is that this Court should exercise its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and suitably reduce the sentence to meet the ends of justice. We are afraid this submission is basically misconceived. The inherent powers of the Court to do justice does not mean doing justice against specific provisions of statute. In result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed as for an offence of murder no punishment lesser than life imprisonment is permissible in law. However, we agree with the learned trial Judge that it is a case which warrants leniency on human consideration. It is a case of a helpless aboriginal lady pitted against ruthless forces of our male dominated society and, therefore, we reiterate the recommendations made in this behalf for sui~1hle reduction in sentence by the State Government under section 432 Cr.P.C.