( 1. ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5-3-1992passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No. 104 of 1991.

( 2. ) IN brief the case of prosecution is that on 17-11-1987, the parents of Kallu (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) went to their work place and in the house the deceased who was aged eight years and his sister Nan Bai aged 10 years were present. At 8 a. m. the accused/appellant gave a dish of rice and fish to eat to the deceased and one Manoj, thereafter Nan Bai and the deceased went to graze she-goats in the jungle. In the jungle one Gopal was also grazing the catties. As the deceased was complaining of fever, he was brought back to his house, thereafter he started vomitting and suffered from an attack of diarrhea. The parents of the deceased also returned home and found their son (the deceased) in serious condition. According to the prosecution, Nan Bai told her parents that the accused had given fish and rice to eat to the deceased which he had eaten. The inhabitants of the village Brijnandan (P. W. 11) and Mohd. Hanif (P. W. 5) also arrived at the house of the deceased. Ramchandra Baiga and Devlal Goud put the deceased to exorcism. But, at 7 in the evening the deceased passed away. On the next day, i. e. , 18-11-1987 Jagdish lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P-1) and in this manner the criminal law set in motion. The police arrived at the spot and prepared the panchnama of the dead-body and sent the same for the post- mortem. In the post-mortem the cause of death could not be ascertained by the doctor and, therefore, the viscera of the internal organs were seized and they were sent for chemical examination. The chemical examiner while examining the pieces of heart, lungs, stomach, intestine, liver, spleen and kidney found the presence of aluminium phosphite (sulphas pesticide ). The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of the investigation filed the charge-sheet before the Competent Court which committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was sent to the Trial Court for the trial.

( 3. ) A charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused/appellant which she abjured. Her defence is of maladroit implication. In order to prove the charge the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and placed Exs. P-l to P-12 the documents on record. The learned Trial Judge after scanning the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant did commit the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and eventually convicted her of the said offence and directed her to suffer rigorous imprisonment of life. Hence, this appeal.

( 4. ) WE have heard Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellant and Smt. Chanchal Sharma, learned Counsel for the State and perused the record.

( 5. ) THE star witness of the prosecution is Nan Bai (P. W. 2), she is child witness aged about 10-11 years. According to her evidence on the date of the incident when her parents went to the place of their work, the appellant carried the deceased to her house and gave the rice and fish to him. She also served rice and curry of vegetables to Manoj. At that time she was present at her house. According to her the deceased brought the said dish of rice and fish to his house and ate it, and thereafter she along with the deceased went to graze the she-goats in the jungle where the deceased started vomitting, as a result of which she brought her brother back to the house, and in the evening he passed away.

( 6. ) THE other star witness is Manoj (P. W. 4 ). According to the prosecution, the appellant gave the dish of rice and fish to the deceased and gave vegetable curry and rice to this witness. This witness is also a child witness and when he was examined his age was six years. However, the learned Trial Judge after putting certain questio