Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maya Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15885
1 CRA-3241-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3241 of 2014
MAYA DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Brijesh Kumar Mishra - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Akshay Namdeo - Government Advocate for State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.09.2014 by which the appellant was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant wanted to argue on the application for suspension of sentence. He stated that the appellant has already completed almost 13 years of the sentence. However, going through the evidence on record, this Court decide the appeal itself be heard by consent of both the counsels.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the father of the deceased is stated to have separated from the appellant herein almost 20 years before the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 21-04-2025 11:14:33 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15885 2 CRA-3241-2014 incident. In his Court testimony, he states that he had got married at the age of 7 or 8 to the appellant and in 1993, the appellant came to his house and stayed with him, till she was made an accused in a dowry case lodged against the appellant by her sister-in-law. Due to the criminal case against the appellant, the complainant renounced his relationship with the appellant and as per the decision of the panchayat, it was agreed that he would meet her requirements for her livelihood, and she was given a piece of land away from their house by the complainant.
4. He has also stated that the appellant used to visit his family once in every two or three months. He has further stated that on 21.02.2012, the appellant came to the house of the complainant (PW-1). The deceased who the eight-year-old child of the complainant and his second wife, told his mother that he was feeling hungry and desired to eat parathas. PW-1 states that, the appellant herein took out parathas which she had brought with her and gave it to both the children, i.e. to the victim and his elder brother (aged eleven years). The victim ate the paratha whereas the elder son did not and instead gave it to his mother. As the child was eating the paratha, PW-2 Jyoti, the mother of the child, took away the half-eaten paratha from the victim stating that she would make fresh parathas for him.
5. Thereafter, PW-1 says that he went to the washroom to carry out the morning hygiene rituals when he was called by PW-2 saying that the victim was vomiting. When he went there, he saw that the child had vomited, and a small puppy nearby had eaten a part of the vomit. He immediately took the child to the hospital, where he was given saline and certain medication after Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 21-04-2025 11:14:33 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15885 3 CRA-3241-2014 which his condition improved for a couple of hours, and so the child was taken back home. Thereafter, about one and a half hours later, the child started screaming for PW-1, and so he was taken back to the same hospital. The doctors opined that perhaps the child was suffering from pneumonia and started treatment for the same. However, half an hour later, the child died. PW-1 suspecting that the child was a victim of poisoning as he had eaten the paratha brought by the appellant, informed the police.
6. The 174 Cr.P.C. proceedings were started on 21.02.2012 itself and the body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem report is Ex. P-11-A, which reflects that the child died due to asphyxia which may have been the result of poisoning. The doctor based his opinion on the appearance of the body, which showed cyanosis on the face and bluishness over his body. Thereafter, the viscera was sent to the FSL, which reported that zinc phosphide, an insecticide, was detected in the child's viscera.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated as PW-1 wanted to deprive her of the property that was given to her in the time of separation, and that the actual perpetrators of the crime are PW-1 and PW-2.
8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the said suggestion was given to PW-1 in paragraph No.14 of the cross examination in which he has specifically denied it. Learned counsel for the State also submits that PW-1 and PW-2 are consistent in the material aspects relating the offence and have corroborated each other and there is no reason to doubt on them.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 21-04-2025 11:14:33NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15885 4 CRA-3241-2014
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of learned trial Court.
10. PW-1 and PW-2 are consistent in their statements as already recorded hereinabove, that on the date of the incident, the appellant came to the house of PW-1 and his family and had given the paratha to the child who consumed the paratha and showed symptoms of poisoning, and thereafter was taken for treatment to the local hospital, where the situation improved and he was brought back home, and then all of a sudden, the child's situation worsened, upon which he was taken back to the hospital, and within half an hour thereafter, he died.
11. The postmortem report signifies that the child had died of asphyxia because of prominent marks of cyanosis and bluishness in the body. The postmortem doctor also suspected poisoning as the cause of the death and has sent the viscera to the FSL for detecting any poison. The FSL report has also been seen by this Court, which clearly reflects that the viscera of the deceased showed contents of zinc phosphide which is an insecticide.
12. There is no parallel hypothesis which has been set up by the appellant as a defense to her case. Her presence at the scene of occurrence on the date of the crime is not doubted on account of the consistent statement of PW-1 and PW-2 who have withstood cross examination without any material embellishments in their testimony. Besides PW-1 and PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 have also testified and proved the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence on the date of the incident.
13. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 21-04-2025 11:14:33 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15885 5 CRA-3241-2014 prosecution has been able to prove this case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
DPS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 21-04-2025
11:14:33