Jharkhand High Court
Panwati Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 September, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 274 of 2017
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2017 and order of
sentence dated 19.01.2017 passed by the learned District and Addl.
Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka in Sessions Trial Case No. 26 of 2014].
Panwati Devi, daughter of Ganesh Raut, resident of village- Kharna,
P.O Dhoni, P.S. Saraiyahat, District- Dumka, Jharkhand.
............APPELLANT
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ............RESPONDENT
......
For the Appellant : Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
......
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
JUDGMENT
By Court:
(Dated: 24.09.2024)
This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of
conviction dated 17.01.2017 and order of sentence dated 19.01.2017
passed by the learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka in
Sessions Trial Case No. 26 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the
appellant having been found guilty of charge under Sections 302 and
328 of Indian Penal Code and has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence
under Section 302 IPC and other sentence for the other offence.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was
no animosity between the parties, thus there was no reason to
administer the poison to the minor son of the informant. He further
submits that the Investigating Officer did not conduct the investigation
properly and has falsely implicated this appellant in this case for
committing the murder of the deceased by administering poison. He
also submits that without any motive, the conviction of the appellant
for committing the murder of the deceased is bad.
Page/1
3. Counsel for the State submits that the Forensic Science
Laboratory had examined the viscera and found Organo Phosphorus
pesticide, which is highly poisonous to human being. The said report
was marked as Ext.2. He further submits that P.W.1 is the eye witness
and the sister of the deceased, who stated that in her presence, the
poison in the form of 'prasad' was given to the deceased. This P.W. 1
further stated that she also demanded the said 'prasad' but this
appellant did not give the same to her, which clearly suggests that
there was intention of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased
by administering the poison. Learned A.P.P submits that in the
evidence, it has come that earlier an altercation took place between
the parties when the family of the accused had threatened the
informant that her son will be done away.
4. The prosecution case, as per the FIR, is at the instance of
P.W.2, who stated that her husband was working outside. She was in
the field when her daughter Lalita Kumari came and informed that this
appellant has administered poison in the name of 'prasad' to his
younger brother, aged about three years and he was vomiting.
Hearing this, she rushed to the house and found her son dead.
On the basis of this statement, FIR being Saraiyahat P.S.
Case No. 58 of 2013 was registered under Sections 328/302/34 of
the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police submitted
chargesheet under Sections Sections 328/302/34 of the Indian Penal
Code against this appellant only. Accordingly, cognizance of the
offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions for trial. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charge was
framed against her for the aforesaid section.
5. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the
prosecution had examined altogether seven witnesses, who are as
follows:-
P.W.1- Kusum Kumari
P.W.2- Arti Devi, the informant.
P.W.3- Dr. Dilip Kumar Keshari
P.W.4- Lalita Kumari
P.W.5- Sanjay Yadav
P.W.6- Shinomani Yadav, and
Page/2
P.W.7- Ram Naresh Ram.
6. Several documents were also exhibited, which are as
follows:-
Ext.-1: Postmortem report of Mukesh Kumar. .
Ext.-2: Viscera Report.
Ext.-3: Endorsement on FIR.
Ext.-4: Formal FIR.
Ext.-5: Inquest report.
Ext.-6: Map in para No. 17, page No. 11 of case diary.
7. The Trial Court thereafter considering the evidences had
convicted the appellant for committing the offence under Sections 302
and 328 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. We have gone through the oral evidence as well as exhibits.
P.W.1 (Kusum Kumari) is the sister of the deceased and daughter of
the informant. She stated that at the time of occurrence, she was in
the house and was preparing the food, when this appellant and others
came. Panwati Devi i.e. this appellant had given 'prasad' to the
deceased, who consumed it, thereafter he started vomiting. She
stated that her mother was in the field with the cattle. She sent Lalita
to inform her mother about the occurrence. In paragraph- 6 of her
deposition, she further stated that Champa and Rohit also demanded
'prasad' but 'prasad' was not given to them by the appellant.
P.W. 2 (Arti Devi) i.e. the informant, supported the version of P.W.1
and stated that she was informed about the occurrence by P.W.4 that
her son consumed 'prasad' given by this appellant, thereafter he
started vomiting. She reached there and found her child dead. She
also stated that her daughter also demanded 'prasad' but she was not
given the 'prasad' and it was stated by this appellant that the 'prasad'
was only for the baby i.e. the deceased. She thereafter went to the
house of this appellant where the appellant and others were missing.
P.W. 3 (Dr. Dilip Kumar Keshari) is the doctor, who conducted the
postmortem of the deceased. He stated that the deceased was aged
about three years. He proved the postmortem report, which has been
marked as Ext.-1. He stated that in the viscera of the deceased,
Organo Phosphorus pesticide was found. The viscera report has been
Page/3
marked as Ext.2. The postmortem report was also exhibited.
P.W. 4 (Lalita Kumari) i.e. another sister of the deceased also stated
in the same line in which the other witnesses have stated about
administering the poison to the deceased by this appellant. On
demand, she was also not given the said 'prasad'. The 'prasad'
containing poison was only given to the boy.
9. From the aforesaid evidence, it is established by the
prosecution that it is this appellant who had given 'prasad' to the
deceased i.e. the three year old minor son of the informant. After
consuming the same, he started vomiting and died. In the viscera,
Organo Phosphorus was found, which is very harmful pesticide for the
human being also. All the eye witnesses stated that it is this appellant
who had given 'prasad' to the deceased and thereafter he immediately
started vomiting and died.
10. Thus, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove
the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. We find no
merit in this appeal. The appellant has rightly been convicted and
sentenced by passing the Judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2017
and order of sentence dated 19.01.2017 by the learned District and
Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka in Sessions Trial Case No. 26 of
2014. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
11. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.
12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated: the 24th September, 2024.
NAFR/Anu-Cp.-3.
Page/4
