2009 Supreme(SC) 1745

2009(7) Supreme 412
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. Sudershan Reddy and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
Sau Panchashila Dada Messhram — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2003
Decided on : 17-11-2009

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 304, Part II read with Section 34 – Prosecution of appellant along with her husband for confining their minor girl child aged two years in a bathroom for 14 days and neither giving food or water to child at all, as a result of which child died of starvation – Prosecution case that appellant and her husband were ardent followers of A3 who commanded them to do so - Conviction of appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 as well as under Section 342 read with Section 34 –Appeal-Conviction altered appellant convicted under section 304, Part II read with Section 34 – Appeal – Finding that deceased, who was a child of tender age, died a homicidal death was not challenged before Court -The finding recorded by High Court that appellant and her husband had confined their child,in the bathroom of rented premises for a period of 14 days was based on the analysis and appreciation of evidence tendered by prosecution witnesses and more particularly evidence of landlord, examined as prosecution witness. 5 and that of his son whose evidence was recorded as PW-7- The fact that deceased died due to starvation was amply proved by testimony of Medical Officer who performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and contents of the post mortem notes-The fact that child, was found dead in the bathroom was also established by reliable and trustworthy testimony of PW-6- The appellant had failed to show error in the reasonings or the conclusions of the High court-No perversity, miscarriage of justice, shocking misreading of evidence or gross misapplication of the provisions of Indian Penal Code could be pointed out by counsel for the appellant – No reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant had not committed the offence in question – The finding recorded by the High Court that the appellant and her husband had definite knowledge that their act of confining deceased, in a bathroom would result into her starvation which was likely to cause her death and, therefore, appellant had committed offence punishable under Section 304, Part II was eminently just and well – founded – Hence held that conviction of appellant recorded under Section 304,Part II read with Section 34 was not liable to be interfered with in instant appeal – However sentence reduced to period already undergone (Paras 7 to 10)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present appeal has been filed by appellant against her conviction for confining her minor girl child aged two years in a bathroom for 14 days and neither giving food or water to child at all, as a result of which child died of starvation. Prosecution case that appellant and her husband were ardent followers of A3 who commanded them to do so.

       Findings of the Court :

        Finding that deceased, who was a child of tender age, died a homicidal death was not challenged before Court .The finding recorded by High Court that appellant and her husband had confined their child,in the bathroom of rented premises for a period of 14 days was based on the analysis and appreciation of evidence tendered by prosecution witnesses and more particularly evidence of landlord, examined as prosecution witness. 5 and that of his son whose evidence was recorded as PW-7. The fact that deceased died due to starvation was amply proved by testimony of Medical Officer who performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and contents of the post mortem notes. The fact that child, was found dead in the bathroom was also established by reliable and trustworthy testimony of PW-6. The appellant had failed to show error in the reasonings or the conclusions of the High court. No perversity, miscarriage of justice, shocking misreading of evidence or gross misapplication of the provisions of Indian Penal Code could be pointed out by counsel for the appellant. No reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant had not committed the offence in question. The finding recorded by the High Court that the appellant and her husband had definite knowledge that their act of confining deceased, in a bathroom would result into her starvation which was likely to cause her death and, therefore, appellant had committed offence punishable under Section 304, Part II was eminently just and well-founded.Hence held that conviction of appellant recorded under Section 304,Part II read with Section 34 was not liable to be interfered with in instant appeal-However sentence reduced to period already undergone.