Shakunti Devi vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
2024 Latest Caselaw 5529 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shakunti Devi vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 10 June, 2024

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan

                               Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 294 of 1998(P)

                         Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
                  25.09.1998 passed by Shri Kamla Prasad, learned Additional Sessions
                  Judge, Kodarma in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 1996.

                  Shakunti Devi, W/o Satyadeo Thakur, R/o Vill-Mathadih, P.S.
                  Koderma, Dist-Koderma                          ...   Appellant
                                                 Versus
                  The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)            ...     Respondent
                                                 ----

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Appellant : Mr. Sahil, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Special P.P.

Dated 10th June, 2024

----

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Sahil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Special P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.09.1998 passed by Shri Kamla Prasad, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kodarma in S.T. No. 264 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302/328 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 328 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Sudhir Sharma on 05.02.1996, wherein it has been stated that for a few days dispute was going on with his cousin sister-in-law Shakunti Devi (appellant) regarding distribution of paddy and theft of paddy and there was exchange of hot words between them. He has alleged that Shakunti Devi had given a threat that he will not be able to see the face of his son. On 04.02.2006, his four year old son, namely, Sanoj Kumar, while playing had meandered to the courtyard of Shakunti Devi, who administered poison laced food on the child. When his son came back home, he disclosed that his aunt had given him food and after taking it he is not feeling well. The son of the informant started vomiting and he was taken to the doctor for treatment. The child became limp and at 12:00AM, he died.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Koderma P.S. Case No. 47/96 was instituted against Shakunti Devi for the offences punishable under Section 328/307 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against Shakunti Devi and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 264 of 1996. Charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 328/302 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as twelve (12) witnesses in support of its case.

P.W.1 Jainuddin Khan has identified the signature of the Officer-in- Charge Koderma P.S., namely, Jagdish Paswan on the formal FIR which has been marked as Ext.-1.

In cross-examination he has deposed that the formal FIR was not scribed in his presence.

P.W.2 Kusum Devi did not support the case of the prosecution and was accordingly declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.3 Jagdish Ram was also declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.4 Sudhir Sharma is the informant and the father of the deceased who has stated that on 04.02.1996 at about 04:30PM, his son Sanoj, along with other children, were playing in the courtyard of Shakunti Devi. Shakunti Devi had fed the child Sattu laced with poison. His son Sanoj came running and disclosed that his aunt has administered some medicine to him. When asked about which aunt, Sanoj by pulling the saree of the accused had taken her name. Several persons were thereafter called and Sanoj was compelled to vomit by his younger sister. He had thereafter taken his son to Dr. Ashok where also the child vomited and defecated and the doctor had advised them to take the child home. When the condition of Sanoj deteriorated, he was once

2|Page again taken to the doctor but he breathed his last in the clinic itself. He has stated that about 10-15 days back, he had a quarrel with the husband of Shakunti Devi with respect to partition when he was issued a threat that he would become heirless. He has proved his fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.-2. The Police had seized the vomit of the child and sachet of poison from the house of the accused. He has identified the signature of Lakhan Yadav and Jagdish Ram upon the seizure list which have been marked as Ext- 2/1 and Ext.-2/2. The sachet of poison was given to Shakunti Devi by her husband.

In cross-examination he has deposed that he had not witnessed the administration of poison upon his son by the accused Shakunti Devi.

P.W.5 Natho Thakur is the grand father of the deceased who has stated that at 05:00PM, he returned from his duty when he found his grand son restless and he came to know that he has been administered poison by Shakunti Devi. There was a dispute with the accused with respect to distribution of paddy and the accused had threatened that within ten days, the informant will become issueless. The child was administered poison by mixing it with Sattu.

In cross-examination he has deposed that he had not witnessed the accused administering poison on his grandson. There was no previous dispute with the accused save and except the episode which occurred 10-15 days back.

P.W.6 Ashok Kumar Mishra was posted as a Judicial Magistrate and on 14.02.1996 on the orders of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, he had recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of Sudhir Sharma, Kusum Devi and Kishun Mahto. He has proved the 164 Cr.P.C. statements which have been marked as Ext.-3, Ext.-3/A and Ext.-3/B. P.W.7 Kishun Mahto and P.W.8 Baldeo Sah did not support the case of the prosecution and hence were declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.9 Dr. Jaibrat Rai was posted as a Medical Officer in Sub-Divisional Hospital, Koderma and on 06.02.1996, he had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Sanoj Kumar and had found the following:

3|Page

(i) No injury or mark of violence was found on the body.

(ii) Dried up secretion mixed with blood present on both nostrils.

(iii) Lungs were congested.

(iv) Heart- Both Chambers contained blood.

(v) Liver was congested. Other vital organs were congested.

(vi) Stomach- Mucosa rode here and there and contained some fluid. Bladder was empty.

The cause of death was kept reserved awaiting the report of the chemical analysis. The post mortem report has been proved by him which has been marked as Ext.-4.

P.W.10 Gaunva Devi is the grand mother of the deceased, who has stated that there was a land dispute with Shakunti Devi. About 8 days prior to the incident, the accused had threatened to do away with the life of his grandson. After eight days, she had poisoned her grandson by administering upon him poison laced Sattu. When his grandson had vomited, he was taken to Dr. P.N. Mishra, who had advised to start a drip. The doctor could not treat her grandson because he died prior to the treatment. When the Police had come, the poison was recovered from the house of the accused. The villagers had assaulted Shakunti Devi and on being asked, she had disclosed that the poison was given to her by her husband. She has stated that the Police had recorded her statement.

In cross-examination she has deposed that her house and the house of the accused is within the same campus divided by a wall. The dispute was with respect to partition of the land. She has stated that the children used to go to the house of the accused even after the dispute had cropped up.

P.W.11 Kamla Devi has stated that she had gone to the house of Sudhir Sharma on 05.02.1996 where a crowd had gathered and the mother of Sudhir Sharma disclosed that her grandson Sanoj has been poisoned by Shakunti Devi. Shakunti Devi was called and when she arrived, she was assaulted by the women folk at which she disclosed that the poison was given to her by her husband.

4|Page In cross-examination she has deposed that she is the Block President of Mahila Samaj. She has further deposed that the accused had accepted her guilt.

P.W.12 Narayan Thakur has stated that about 2 years 4 months back, Shakunti Devi had administered poison on his nephew Sanoj. Sanoj had disclosed to his grand mother that the accused has given him poison. He had vomited and was taken to the doctor, but before his treatment could be started, he expired. When in the morning the accused was assaulted by the people who had gathered, she had confessed that her husband had given her the poison which was administered by her upon Sanoj.

In cross-examination he has deposed that Sudhir Sharma is his own brother and both stay in the same house along with their families. It was Sanoj who had disclosed that poison was administered to him by the accused.

5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which she had denied her complicity in poisoning the son of the informant.

6. It has been submitted by Mr. Sahil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that only on the basis of suspicion, the appellant has been convicted. The confession of the appellant that it was she who had administered poison on the son of the informant cannot be given any importance as the same was obtained by coercion by way of committing assault upon her by the villagers. The purported seizure of a sachet of poison cannot have any bearing in the case as it has not been ascertained as to whether the same was seized from the house of the appellant. Mr. Sahil has submitted that no one had seen the appellant giving poison to the child and only on account of a previous enmity, the appellant has been implicated. He has further submitted that the Investigating Officer had not been examined by the prosecution which has caused prejudice to the defence.

7. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl. P.P. has relied upon the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.10 and P.W.12 while submitting that such evidence finds corroborated from the FSL report where poison was detected. He has

5|Page submitted that there are strong circumstances clearly indicating the active role played by the appellant in poisoning the child of the informant which led to his death and such circumstance having been properly appreciated by the learned trial court, the same does not necessitate any interference by this Court.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the lower court records.

9. The appellant has been alleged to have poisoned the son of the informant by giving him Sattu laced with poison and this resulted in his death. The dispute with respect to partition triggered a reaction from the appellant to the effect that the informant will become issueless. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory marked as Ext.-5 reveal that there were two packets which were examined: one containing some poisonous substance and the other vomit which were marked as "A" and "B" and the finding reveals that "Aluminum Phosphide" was detected in both the packets and "Aluminum Phosphide" is a chemical known as "Celphos" which is a gastro intestinal irritant and is poisonous. The post mortem report has given a finding that opinion has been kept reserved awaiting report of chemical analysis. Admittedly, the viscera of the deceased was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and therefore, it cannot be concluded with certainty that the cause of death was on account of poisoning. This pertinent issue was raised by the defence before the learned trial court but the same was discarded. If the viscera was sent for chemical examination and if the report matched with the finding of the FSL regarding the sachet and the vomit, the chain in such circumstances perhaps would have been complete.

10. It is the case of the prosecution that the sachet of poison was seized from the house of the appellant and a seizure list was prepared. As per P.W.4 (informant), the seizure was signed by Jagdish Ram and Lakhan Yadav. Lakhan Yadav has not been examined by the prosecution and so far as Jagdish Ram is concerned, he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Although, P.W.4 has stated about the sachet of poison having been recovered

6|Page from the house of the appellant but this version of P.W.4 seems to have been developed as in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement he has mentioned about the sachet of poison being seized by him which was subsequently deposited in the Police Station. This issue could have been resolved if the Investigating Officer was examined but his non-examination has prejudiced the case of the defence. Therefore, the recovery of the sachet of poison from the house of the appellant is fettered with doubt and cannot be relied upon to measure the complicity of the appellant.

11. The disclosure of the child that the appellant has administered poison upon him appears also to be beyond reasonable comprehension considering the age of the child which was four years. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that sachet laced with poison was administered to the child. If assuming that the same was done, it must have been concealed inside the Sattu in a surreptitious manner and a four-year-old child would not be able to comprehend that poison was administered to him to make such a disclosure. Moreover, there is not a single eye witness who has stated about witnessing the administration of poison laced Sattu by the appellant. So far as the confession of the appellant before the villagers is concerned, the same admittedly, was on account of the assault committed upon her and such confession cannot be used by the prosecution as an effective tool to secure conviction.

12. Viewed in the background of the aforesaid findings, the implication of the appellant can be construed to be on account of the previous dispute with respect to the division of paddy. It also appears that the threat issued by the appellant 10-15 days back was heard by the family members only and the evidence adduced by the prosecution who have supported the case are the family members and there are no independent witnesses of substance whose version could be relied upon.

13. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.09.1998 passed by Shri Kamla Prasad, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kodarma in S.T. No. 264 of 1996.

7|Page

14. This appeal is allowed.

15. Since the appellant is on bail, she is discharged from the liability of her bail bonds.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 10th June, 2024 Preet/N.A.F.R.

8|Page