1991 JLJ 549
P.C. Pathak and S.K. Chawla, JJ.
Budhwara Bai (Mst) v. State of M.P.
Cr.A. No. 652 of 1985; against the judgment passed by Shri V.K. Shrivastava, Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Session Trial No. 50 of 1984;
Decided on 1.4.1991.
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 24 -- extra judicial confession -- is a part of direct evidence. AIR 1962 SC 605 followed. [Para 16
(3) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 24 -- extra judicial confession -- it is a right of the accused to get confession excluded -- equally duty lies on Court to exclude the confession even suo motu if in case any vitiating circumstances appear. AIR 1951 Orissa 168 (FB) relied on. [Para 17
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 24 -- extra judicial confession -- recorded in accordance with law is relevant -- in case of any doubt or if challenged, duty lies upon the prosecution to show affirmatively that the confession was voluntary -- if slightest doubt remains the scale will turn in favour of accused. AIR 1954 SC 462 followed. [Para 17
(5) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 24 -- accused under an impression while making confession that he would gain some advantage or avoid any evil -- confession would be irrelevant -- reasonable belief of the accused is the main criterion. AIR 1971 SC 1087 and AIR 1963 SC 1094 followed. [Para 18
(6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 24 -- confession fetched by threat of police arrest and harassment of the whole village -- forced to speak the truth that by doing so the accused may escape the punishment -- confession inadmissible. AIR 1933 Sindh 409, AIR 1934 Lahore 417 and AIR 1941 Mad. 720 relied on. [Paras 19 & 20
(7) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 300 -- murder by poisoning -- ingredients to be proved are that deceased died of a particular poison, accused was in possession thereof and he had also an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased -- motive as a circumstance should be fully established in such cases. AIR 1960 SC 659 and AIR 1972 SC 656 followed. [Para 22
(8) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- murder by poisoning -- post mortem report not in accordance with the guidelines -- death also not established by poisoning -- extra judicial confession not reliable -- otherwise also the story of prosecution not natural -- accused cannot be punished. AIR 1972 SC 1797, AIR 1973 SC 944 and AIR 1959 SC 1 followed. [Paras 23 & 24
P.C. Pathak, J. -- 1. The appellant was convicted under section 302, IPC, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life for the murders by poisoning of Dayaram and Karmaha, father and son respectively on 29.11.1983, in village Bada Gantoli, P.S. Sarangarh, district Raigarh.
2. Deceased Dayaram was the father-in-law of the appellant while deceased Karmaha was the elder brother of the appellant's husband Mahabir. The appellant with her husband and deceased Karmaha lived in separate rooms though of one house. Dayaram lived for a fortnight with Karmaha and next fortnight with Mahabir. Karmaha was a widower and he used to make gestures insulting her modesty contemplating illicit sex with her. The prosecution alleges that the appellant bought poison from Sarangarh and administered it with vegetable bitter gourd (Monordica Chentia) served along with meals to both the deceased both started vomiting and eventually died in the house.
3. Dabal (PW-2) received a call from appellant's husband Mahabir. On visit, he noticed that Dayaram and Karmaha were vomiting. Karmaha died soon thereafter. He went to village Kotwar Resham (PW-1) and returned with him to the appellant's house. By then Dayaram too had died. Resham enquired from the appellant what had she done to both the deceased. The appellant disowned any hand in their death. Resham threatened her that a report will be lodged in the police station and station officer will interrogate her. Therefore, she should tell the truth. The appellant confessed that she administered poison in the cooked vegetable of bitter gourd. Upon a further enquiry she disclosed that she brought the poison from Sarangarh.
4. Resham (PW-1) lodged FIR (Ex.P.1). Circle Inspector S.J. Japhrin (PW-5) came to the village and held inquest on the body of Dayaram, vide Ex.P.2 and that of Karmaha, vide Ex.P. 3. He sent both the bodies for postmortem. He seized the vomits of Dayaram and the sample earth, vide Ex.P. 4. Similarly he seized the vomits of deceased Karmaha and sample earth, vide Ex.P. 5. He also seized the quilt from the cot on which Dayaram lay, and a piece of dhoti on which Dayaram had vomited, vide Ex.P. 6. Similarly, he seized a bush shirt and a lungi soiled with Karmaha's vomits, vide Ex.P. 7. He seized 3 utensils, vide Ex.P. 8. On interrogation the appellant gave a memorandum Ex.P. 9 and discovered a piece of cloth containing the poison from behind her house, vide Ex.P. 10. One piece of stones, used as grinder, was seized, vide Ex.P. 12.
5. Dr. R.P. Patel conducted postmortem of Dayaram, vide Ex.P. 14. In his opinion, the deceased died of coma and asphyxia because of suspected poison. He preserved viscera for chemical analysis. He could not opine whether the death was suicidal, homicidal or accidental. The viscera consisted of (1) Stomach contents; (2) pieces of small intestine; large intestine; liver; both the lungs; spleen; and kidneys. Ex.P. 15 is the postmortem of Karmaha. The cause of death in his case is also coma-asphyxia due to poisoning. In his case also, the doctor preserved the viscera for chemical examination, viz. stomach contents and pieces of small and large intestines, liver, the lungs, spleen and the kidneys. He also sealed their clothes and sent them in two packets which were seized by the police, vide Ex.P. 21.
6. On 26.12.1983, the Superintendent of Police, sent the articles for analysis to the Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner sent his report Ex.P. 23 stating that aconite alkaloied poison was detected in both. Therefore, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under section 302, IPC.
7. The appellant denied commission of any offence. She did not examine any witness in her defence. The learned trial Court by the judgment under challenge convicted and sentenced her as aforesaid.
8. She filed one appeal through jail under section 383, CrPC in the Court of Sessions Judge, Raigarh, who forwarded it to this Court along with the trial Court records through registered parcel
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.