Chattisgarh High Court
Imlabai Taram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 January, 2023
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Page 1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on 09.01.2023
Judgment delivered on 13.01.2023
Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 2013
Imlabai Taram, Wd/o Samrath Taram, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Village Dhekuna, Police Station Kanker, Civil and
Revenue District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station Kanker,
District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Arun Kochar, Advocate
For Respondent/State: Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Deputy Government
Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
C.A.V. Judgment
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.
1) This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge by which the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ₹ 1,000/-, in default, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for three months.
2) As per the prosecution story, one Komal Dev, ward boy of Government Hospital Kanker lodged morgue report vide Ex.P/ 16 on 25.02.2012 at about 12.30 Hrs. to the effect that Page 2 deceased Sahil aged about 1.5 months died on account of administration of poison. On the basis of morgue, the dead body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Lokesh Dev (PW/8) and postmortem report is Ex.P/11, where he has opined the cause of death on account of poison. Viscera were preserved and same was sent for FSL. FSL report is Ex.P/24 and according to which presence of Organophosphorus pesticides and methyl parathion pesticide have been found in Articles A-1, A-3, A-4 and A- 5 whereas in Article A-2 paracetamol syrup has been found. During the investigation, Police seized a plastic container with label organic liquid and one bottle of paracetamol suspension on instance of the appellant vide Ex.P/1, on the basis of memorandum vide Ex.P/2. The statement of the witnesses was recorded and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker and same was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Court for deciding the case on merits.
3) Learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC on 03.05.2012. The appellant abjured the charge and entered into defence. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents whereas the defence examined DW/1 Jageshwari and exhibited one document i.e. Ex.D/1 Crime details form. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded.
4) The learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence convicted the appellant as mentioned Page 3 above in opening para.
5) The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the learned trial court has convicted the present appellant discussing the circumstantial evidence mentioned in paragraph - 17 of the judgment but the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any of the circumstances mentioned therein. He would submit that the defence witness - Jageshwari has clearly stated in her evidence that the deceased was seen on the lap of her mother just before death and thereafter froth was seen coming out from mouth of the deceased with smell of pesticide. The appellant was busy in daily pursuit and she was not present near the deceased. He would further submit that there is no motive for the appellant to commit murder of her grandson. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1. He would pray for acquittal of the present appellant.
6) On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) and she would support the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
7) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
8) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), which was a case of cyanide poisoning, for which the husband of the deceased was tried for murder, their Lordships of the Supreme Court stressed that the Court must carefully scan the evidence
1. (1984) 4 SCC 116 Page 4 and determine the four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction. The following was thus held :-
"165. So far as this matter is concerned, in such cases the court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction:
(1) there is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased, (2) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered, (3) that the accused had the poison in his possession, (4) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased."
9) Now, we will discuss the evidence of the present case with regard to circumstance No.1 given in the case of Sharad Birdichand Sarda (supra) i.e. there must be clear motive. Pawanwati (PW/2), mother of the deceased has stated that there was love affair between her and Ishwar Lal and later on she conceived. Thereafter, meeting was called by the gram panchayat and society where both have admitted about their love affair, at that time, she was carrying pregnancy of six months and later on, she gave birth to a male child and he was named Sahil. She has further stated that on the date of incident at about 6 am her mother-in-law administered poison to her son Sahil and thereafter, froth started coming out from his mouth and he died. In cross-examination she stated that at the time of incident she was brushing her teeth. She has further stated though she has not seen her mother-in-law administering poison to her child but at that time her child was on lap of her mother-in-law.
10) Pritam Uikey (PW/4), who is treasurer of Dhekuna Godwana Page 5 Samaj, has stated that due to their indulgence, marriage was performed between Pawanvati and Ishwar Lal. Narottam Sinha (PW/5) stated that on account of indulgence of the society, marriage was solemnized between Ishwar Lal and Pawanvati and at that time Pawanwati was carrying pregnancy. Dr. Lokesh Dev (PW/8) has stated that froth was coming out from mouth and nose of the child/deceased while he examined the deceased. He opined that cause of death was due to poisoning and he preserved viscera for chemical examination. In cross- examination, he has stated that death of the child/deceased appeared to be homicidal in nature.
11) Rajesh John (PW/10), Investigating Officer, has stated that spot map was prepared by him vide Ex.P/8. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P/2 and on the basis of such statement, white plastic container of organophosphorus methyl pesticide and one small bottle of paracetamol syrup were seized from the appellant vide Ex.P/1. Viscera etc. were seized vide Ex.P/7 and were sent for FSL. FSL report is Ex.P/24. With regard to motive, the witnesses as well as the appellant have stated that there was love affair between Pawanwati and Ishwar Lal and at that time Pawanwati was carrying pregnancy and after indulgence of the society marriage was performed. Smt. Pawanwati (PW/2) has stated that on the date of incident, her mother-in-law i.e. the appellant herein had taken the deceased on her lap for the first time. Mohanram Sahu (PW/1) in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P/4, has stated that the appellant never used to take the child with her and for the very Page 6 first time child was taken by her and just thereafter froth started coming out from mouth and nose of the child/deceased.
12) From the above piece of the evidence, it appears that there was some ill-will in the heart of the appellant for Smt.Pawanwati (PW/2) for performing marriage with her son, and also for carrying pregnancy of six months by her at the time of marriage. Further, at the time of incident, the child was in company of the appellant alone, thus, the prosecution has proved motive for committing murder of the deceased.
13) With regard to next circumstance, it is apparent from the evidence of Dr. Lokesh Dev (PW/8) and FSL report Ex.P/24 that child/deceased died on account of poisoning and same was administered as neither it is the case nor it has been established that the child consumed poison accidentally. Further, age of the child/deceased was 1.5 months; therefore, it is not possible for the child of such age to consume any substance without help of any person.
14) Pertaining to the third circumstance, it is established from the memorandum statement (Ex.P/2) and seizure (Ex.P/1) that the poison was seized from the possession of the deceased and same was recovered on instance of the appellant herself. Further, the prosecution has also proved that it was organophosphorus methyl parathion pesticide. Therefore, the third circumstance given in case of Sharad Birdichand Sarda (supra) has also been proved.
15) The last circumstance i.e. whether the appellant had opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased? In this regard, Pawanwati (PW/2) mother of the deceased has categorically Page 7 stated in her examination-in-chief that after birth of her child, he was taken by the appellant on the date of incident for the very first time and soon thereafter froth started oozing from mouth of the child. Mohanram Sahu (PW/1) in his statement, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P/4 has stated that the child was taken by the appellant on the date of incident for the first time and after some time froth started coming out from the mouth of the child and it was smelling like pesticide. Morally also it is not possible for the mother to administer poison to kill her own child and prior to death of the child, he was on the lap of the appellant, therefore, the appellant had sufficient opportunity to administer poison to the deceased.
16) Thus, the prosecution has established clear motive of the appellant for committing murder of the deceased, death of the deceased by administration of poison, appellant having poison in her possession and also having sufficient opportunity to administer poison to the deceased. Thus, all the ingredients of committing murder of deceased by the appellant by administering poison stands established. Considering the above evidence and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), the instant appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
17) Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are forfeited and we direct him to surrender forthwith to serve out his remaining sentence failing which he will be apprehended in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge Judge
Nadim