Pune vs The State Of Maharashtra Ig
2012 Latest Caselaw 440 Bom

                                           judgment in appeal 765-05.doc

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                APPELLATE SIDE




                                                                                
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765 of 2005.




                                                        
    Rekha Rajendra Magar
    presently lodged at Yervada
    Central Prison, Ladies Ward




                                                       
    Pune                                          .. Appellant.
                                                  (Original Accused).

          Versus




                                           
    The State of Maharashtra ig                   ..Respondent.


    Mr Shailesh Chavan, Advocate, appointed for the Appellant.
                           
    Mr S.A.Shaikh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.


                   CORAM :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI AND
       

                            A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

DATED :- 5th December, 2012.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J)

1. The appellant-original accused herein is a lady. She has

directed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2003 passed

by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 143 of

2002. By the said judgment and order, learned Additional Sessions Judge

convicted the appellant under Section 302, 307 and 309 of Indian Penal

Code. For offence under section 302 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to

imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default RI for one

1 /12

judgment in appeal 765-05.doc

year. For the offence under section 307 of IPC he was sentenced to RI for

seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default RI for one year. For the

offence under Section 309 of IPC the appellant was sentenced to RI for one

year and to pay fine of Rs.300 in default to suffer RI for three months.

Learned Sessions Judge directed the substantive sentences of imprisonment

to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under :-

The appellant was married to PW-3 Rajendra on 7.12.1996. They had

two children i.e. one daughter Komal, aged 3 years and one son Ranjit, who

was aged 10 months at the time of incident. The appellant was residing

along with her husband PW-3 Rajendra, her mother-in-law PW-4 Kamal

Magar and her children at Phaltan. PW-5 Anuradha was residing in the

house adjoining the house of the appellant. On the day of the incident, PW-

3 Rajendra left his house to go for work at about 10-30 am. His mother PW-

4 Kamal left the house at about 11-00 am to go to the field for grazing

sheep. Thereafter only the appellant and her two children were alone in the

house. At about 2:30 pm, PW-5 Anuradha, neighbour of the appellant heard

shouts of the children of the appellant, hence she went running to the house

of the appellant. She called the appellant and asked her to open the door as

the door was latched from inside. The appellant did not open the door. The

appellant did not say anything from inside the house. PW-5 Anuradha gave

call to Komal and asked her to open the door. On that Komal opened the

2 /12

judgment in appeal 765-05.doc

door. When PW-5 Anuradha entered the house, she saw that appellant

Rekha and Ranjit were lying in the house, yellowish foam was coming out

of their mouth. There was a strong smell of some poisonous medicine.

Anuradha lifted the small boy Ranjit and brought him outside the house.

Anuradha took out his clothes and washed his body, because it was smelling

of said poisonous medicine and was covered with vomit. She then took

Ranjit to hospital. While she was giving wash to Ranjit, somebody had

taken the appellant Rekha and Komal to the Government Hospital. When

Anuradha reached the Government Hospital, Phaltan she saw the appellant

Rekha and Komal were already inside the hospital. PW-6 PSI Govind

Omase lodged FIR. Thereafter, investigation commenced. The appellant

was in unconscious condition. Komal was also admitted in the hospital.

However, condition of Ranjit was serious, hence it was advised that he be

taken to a bigger hospital in Pune. Accordingly, PW-3 Rajendra left with

Ranjit to go to Pune but Ranjit died on the way. The dead body of Ranjit

was sent for postmortem. Postmortem notes shows that the cause of death

was due to asphyxia due to organo phosphrous poisoning. No injury was

seen on the dead body of Ranjit. Komal came to be discharged from the

hospital after 17 days. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came

to be filed.

3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant-original accused

under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for causing the murder of her son

3 /12

judgment in appeal 765-05.doc

Ranjit, under Section 307 of IPC for attempting to commit murder of

daughter Komal, charge was also framed under section 309 of IPC against

the appellant for attempting to commit suicide. The appellant pleaded not

guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. Further defence of the

appellant is that of total denial and false implication. Defence of the

appellant is that her husband used to beat her and harass her. On the day of

the incident her mother-in-law and her husband told her to go bank to

withdraw the amount. She said to her mother-in-law that after preparing the

food, she will go to the bank to withdraw the amount. Then the mother-in-

law told the appellant that she will prepare food and sent the appellant to

the bank to withdraw the amount. The appellant returned from the bank.

She breast fed Ranjit. Thereafter, she and Komal consumed the food

prepared by her mother-in-law. She fell unconscious. She does not know

what happened thereafter. After going through the evidence adduced by the

prosecution as well as the defence raised by the appellant - original

accused, learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as

stated in paragraph no.1 above, hence this appeal.

4. We have heard learned Advocate for the appellant as well as learned

A.P.P. for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and

circumstances of this case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates

for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and

the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that learned Sessions Judge

4 /12

judgment in appeal 765-05.doc

has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.

5. The prosecution is mainly relying on the evidence of PW-5

Anuradha, PW-3 Rajendra and PW-4 Komal. PW-5 Anuradha was the

neighbour of the appellant. PW-3 is the husband of the appellant and father

of deceased Ranjit and injured Komal and PW-4 is the mother-in-law of the

appellant and grand-mother of Komal and Ranjit. PW-5 Anuradha has

stated that she heard shouts. She heard shouts of the children of the

appellant, hence she went running to the house of the appellant. She called

the appellant and asked her to open the door as the door was latched from

inside. The appellant did not open the door. The appellant did not say

anything from inside the house. PW-5 Anuradha gave call to Komal and

asked her to open the door. On that Komal opened the door. When PW-5

Anuradha entered the house, she saw that the appellant Rekha and Ranjit

were lying in the house, yellowish foam was coming out of their mouth.

There was a strong smell of some poisonous medicine. Anuradha lifted the

small boy Ranjit and brought him outside the house. She took out his

clothes and washed his body, because it was smelling of said poisonous

medicine and it was covered with vomit. She then took Ranjit to the

hospital. While she was giving wash to Ranjit, somebody had taken the

appellant Rekha and Komal to the Government Hospital. When Anuradha

reached the Government Hospital, Phaltan she saw the appellant Rekha and

Komal were already inside the hospital. Thus, the evidence of this witness

5 /12

judgment in appeal 765-05.doc

shows that the door of the house was locked from inside and at the relevant

time only the appellant, her daughter Komal and Ranjit, who died later were

in the house. There was no other person in the house.

6. PW-5 Anuradha has been cross-examined at length by the defence

counsel but nothing has come in the cross-examination except her version

that earlier to the incident she did not hear the sound or cry of children of

Rekha from her house at any time. Mr Chavan, learned advocate for the

appellant submitted that if this witness did not hear any sound of cry of the

appellant's children earlier it meant that on the day of the incident she could

not have heard cry of children of the appellant. He submitted that in such

case her version that at the time of the incident she heard cry of the children

from the house of the appellant cannot be believed. As far as this aspect is

concerned on other occasion Anuradha may not have heard the children

crying in normal circumstances but in the present case as the children had

been administered poison they would be in a severe agony,hence, their cries

are bound to be louder and at a higher pitch than usual, therefore, they were

capable of being heard. It is pertinent to note that the appellant Rekha did

not raise any cries. This shows she did not want to seek help and she wanted

herself and her children to die. Thus, we find no merit in this contention.

Moreover, it is to be noted that this witness is not related to the appellant.

Nothing has been brought on record that she had any enmity with the

appellant or any grudge against the appellant. On going through the entire

6 /12

judgment in appeal 765-05.doc

deposition of this witness we find that her testimony inspires confidence,

therefore, we can safely rely on her testimony.

7. Thus, the evidence of PW-5 Anuradha clearly shows that at the

relevant time the appellant Rekha along with her two children i.e. Komal

and Ranjit were the only persons inside the house. The house was locked

from inside and when the door was opened by Komal, at that time only the

appellant Komal and Ranjit were found in the house. It is also to be noted

that in statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.c. Rekha has admitted that her

husband and mother-in-law had left the house and she was alone in the

house with her children, Ranjit and Komal.

8. The evidence of PW-3 Rajendra, husband of the appellant and father

of Komal and Ranjit shows that he left the house at 10-30 a.m. to go to

work. The evidence of PW-4 Komal shows that she left the house at 11-00

a.m. in order to graze sheep in the field. The evidence on record also shows

that there was smell in the house like insecticide which is used to sprinkle

on crops. Poison was found in the viscera of deceased Ranjit and on the

clothes of Komal as well as the appellant.

9. The appellant tried to raise the defence that her mother-in-law had

prepared food that day and she and Komal consumed the food. Thereafter,

she became unconscious. However, in the statement under Section 313 the

appellant has stated that she was breast feeding her ten months old child

7 /12

judgment in appeal 765-05.doc

Ranjit. This means that Ranjit had not consumed food allegedly prepared

by mother-in-law of the appellant. It is pertinent to note that poison was

also found in the body of Ranjit which was meant for spraying crops. This

clearly shows that Ranjit was also administered poison. In the house there

were only three persons. All of them were found to have consumed poison.

Ranjit was just ten months old. In such case, he could not have consumed

poison himself nor could Komal, who was a girl of three years administer

poison to Ranjit. In such case only person in the house capable of

administering poison to both the children was the appellant. This leads to

the inescapable conclusion that the appellant administered poison to Ranjit

and Komal and to herself. Defence of the appellant cannot be believed

because Ranjit was also found to have been consumed poison. Though

according to the appellant he had not consumed food prepared by her

mother-in-law. The case of the appellant is that her mother-in-law prepared

food which she and Komal consumed. Thereafter, she became unconscious

yet Ranjit was also found to have been poisoned.

10. The evidence on record clearly shows that the appellant only and her

two minor children were in the house at the time of the incident.

However, none of the defences which have been put forth by the appellant

for the death of her son Ranjit are found credible. Section 106 of the

Evidence Act provides that when any fact is within the special knowledge

of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon the person. The

8 /12

judgment in appeal 765-05.doc

appellant was very much present in the house along with minor children. In

such case, she must offer an explanation as to how Ranjit died. She must

furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and

satisfactory. If she does so, she must be held to have discharged her burden.

If she fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within her special

knowledge, she fails to discharge the burden cast upon her by Section 106

of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if an

accused fails to offer any reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden

placed on him/her that itself provides an additional link in the chain of

circumstances proved against him/her. Section 106 does not shift the

burden of proving in a criminal trial which is always upon the prosecution.

It lays down the rule that when the appellant does not throw any light upon

the facts which are established within his/her knowledge and which could

not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his/her innocence, the

court can consider such failure to adduce any explanation as an additional

link which completes the link. In the present case, the appellant has tried to

raise the defence that on the day of the incident she had consumed the food

which her mother-in-law had prepared. We have already discussed above

that the defence of the appellant is not found to be credible. We find

absolutely no merit in the defence taken by the appellant. Thus, it is seen in

the present case that the appellant has not furnished any plausible

explanation for the death of her son Ranjit. This, in our view, completes the

9 /12

judgment in appeal 765-05.doc

link which completes the link of circumstantial evidence against the

appellant.

11. Thereafter, the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the

case would not fall under Section 302 because the appellant did not have

the intention of causing death of her child. As far as this aspect is

concerned, it is noticed that Ranjit was just ten months old at the time of the

incident. He was made to consume a large amount of poison. This clearly

shows that intention of the appellant was to cause death of Ranjit. After

being admitted in hospital for about 17 days and after receiving treatment in

hospital fortunately Komal survived. Looking to this fact we are of the

opinion that case under Section 307 is also made out, hence the conviction

and sentence of the appellant under section 302 and 307 of IPC has to be

maintained.

12. This leaves us with the conviction of the appellant under section 309

IPC. As far as section 309 is concerned, it is to be noted that the Supreme

Court in the decision in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India and

Anr reported in (1994) 3 SCC 394 laid down that Section 309 of IPC

violates Art.21 of the Constitution of India and so it is void. It is pertinent to

note that however, the decision in the case of P. Rathinam (supra) was

over ruled by the Supreme Court by the decision in the case of Gian Kaur v.

State of Punjab (19960 2 SCC 648. In the decision in the case of Gian Kaur

10 /12

judgment in appeal 765-05.doc

(supra) the Supreme Court held that Section 309 of IPC i.e. to attempt to

commit suicide is constitutionally valid. In a recent decision of the Supreme

Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

(2010) 1 SCC 750, the Supreme Court upheld conviction of the accused

under Section 309 of IPC. However, as far as the sentence imposed upon

the appellant under section 309 of IPC is concerned, we would like to refer

to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aruna Ramachandra

Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 524. In the said decision, it is

observed as under :-

103. "We are of the opinion that although Section

309 of the Penal Code ( attempt to commit suicide) has been held to be constitutionally valid in Gian Kaur case, the time has come when it should be deleted by Parliament as it has become anachronistic. A person

attempts suicide in depression, and hence he needs help, rather than punishment. We, therefore, recommend to

Parliament to consider the feasibility of deleting Section 309 from the Penal Code".

13. In view of these observations, we up hold the conviction of

the appellant under Section 309 of IPC, however, we are inclined to reduce

the sentence of imprisonment. In view of the above, the following order is

passed.

ORDER.

(1) The conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 302 and 307 of IPC is maintained. The conviction of

11 /12

judgment in appeal 765-05.doc

the appellant under Section 309 of IPC is also maintained. However, the sentence is reduced from RI for one year to SI

for one week and fine of Rs.50/- in default SI for one week.

(2) Appeal partly allowed in above terms.

(3) Writ of order be expedited.

(4) Office to communicate this order to the appellant who is in jail.

                                                
               (A.R. JOSHI, J)
                                  ig       (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J)
    Ladda-PA
                                
       
    






                                                                                 12 /12