STATE OF M.P.versusMUNNIBAI & ANR.

                        [2008) 13 S.C.R. 6


A                        STATE OF M.P.
                                v
                        MUNN IBAI & ANR.
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1298 of 2002)

                       AUGUST 28, 2008
B
      [DR. ARJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB
                        ALAM, JJ]

         Penal Code, 1860:
C      ss. 302134 and 328134 - Murder by poisoning -
  Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - HELD:
  High Court was right in holding that there was no evidence to
  show that any of the accused persons administered poison -
  The witness who, along with the deceased, shared the food
D item stated to have contained poison did not know from where
  it came - There was no forensic examination of food item
  shared by witness and the deceased - Besides, motive for
  crime seemed to be improbable - Judgment of acquittal
  passed by High Court upheld.
E        CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1298 of 2002
       From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.1.2001 of
  the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Cr!. Appeal
F No 361 of 1989
         Vishwajit Singh, Siddharth Sengar, Sunny Choudhary.
    Vairagya Vardhan, Aditya Singh and C.D. Singh for the
    Appellant.
        B.K. Satija for the Respondents.
G
        The Order of the Court was delivered by
           Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard learned counsel for the    .
    pa -:,es.

H                               6
              STATE OF M.P v. MUNNIBAI & ANR.                      7
                   [DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

      Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a D:vision        .,
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing acquittal ot
the respondents Munni Bai and Gendalal. The accused persons
faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under
Section 302 and Section 328 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The accused persons were            0,
found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for lite
and five years by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Gadarwara.

      The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as
follows:-                                                              t,

       Munni Bai (PW.3) is a professional dancer and prior to
the date of incident, she used to reside with the Tirath Sin~Jh
(hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') as his keep. Accused
Gendalal and accused Mulayam Singh (since absconding)                  "
wanted that Munni Bai should live with them as keep, but she           ·-
was not willing. While Munni Bai was staying with deceas-::d
Tirath Singh accused Gendalal and accused Mulayam Sii1gh
came to the village and invited them for dance function 1n the
village. On their invitation, the deceased and Munni Bai came
                                                                       r·
to village Sirsiri, where they were kept at the residence of one·
Shankar Barua. There they ate Roti and Dal; brought by Cr~1dal1!
and accused Mulayam Singh spent the night in the h0\1u: c'
Shankar Barua. In the morning, (Munni Bai) PW3. 1~,'.C,'.·J"-'c
going to village Oriya but was stopped by accused Mu: . ' ;d· .•
Singh and he stated that dance and song programme "O; ·u" tJ,
held. Around noon time accused Mulayam Singh took h21 ,_.·.·,
deceased Tirath Singh for taking food at the resiae,1 ..:" o·
Gendalal. Munni Bai and deceased Tirath took food ·it th.
residence of Gendalal and slept there. When they WOK•" u;J •,
the evening, deceased and accused persons smokeei '\..,cui.•
and took 'Thandai'. Thereafter, accused Mulayarn Si: 1~;. , ..
Gendalal Singh brought two plates containing food 3, i'C•,,; ·
including 'Halua'. While P.W.3 Munni Bai ate Halua, stk u"r: ..
the taste to be pungent and thereafter she did not further t<Jt the;
Halua. After taking the food, deceased Tirath Singh and ;,,,1unn:
                                                               .   •        It
                                                                       ..........
              8         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008) 13 S.C.R.


         A Bai became unconscious and thereafter they were taken by
           Gendalal and accused Mulayam Singh to the residence of
           Shankar Barua and thereafter to the house of (Bhagwat Singh)
           P.W.13 From there, the deceased was taken to village Oriya
           Ghat in a bullock cart . While he was being taken to Udaipur
         B hospital by his brother (Khet Singh) PW.12 . he died and the
           dead body was taken to the Udaipur Police Station. Information
           was recorded at the village and the same was forwarded to
           Saikheda Police Station on the basis of which offence under
           Sections 328 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.
         C       During the course of investigation, dead body of Tirath
           Singh was sent for post-mortem examination which was
           conducted by Dr. Narendra Kumar Palod (PW.19). According
           to the post mortem report, death of Tirath Singh had occurred
           because of respiratory and circulatory failure and may be
         D because of poison. The viscera of deceased was sent to the
           State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for chemical
           examination. The same was found to contain zink phosphide.
           Police .after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the
           appellants and Mulayam Singh (since absconding) for offence
         E under Sections 328 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
           Appellants denied to have committed any offence and their
           plea is that they have been falsely implicated in the case.
                 As the appellant denied to have committed any offence
           and took the plea of falsa implication, trial was held. In order to
         F further its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses.
           Munnibai (PW3) was stated to be the star witness. Her witness
           was to the effect that the food was served to the deceased and
           to her by the accused persons and one Mulayam Singh who
           had absconded. The Trial court found the evidence of PW3 to
         G be reliable and directed conviction and imposed sentences as
           afore-noted. The accused persons preferred appeal before the
           High Court. The primary reason for the High Court directing
           acquittal was that it was inconceivable that accused Munni bai
           would be a party to a plan that her husband would keep Munni
.,.      H Bai (PW3) as his keep. It was also found rather improbable that
      ...&. ·--..   r   J!!   '   ••.
                  STATE OF M.P. v. MUNN IBAI & ANR.                 9
)                      [DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]

    absconding accused Mulayam Singh and Gendalal would have             A
    a common motive to keep Munni Bai (PW3) with them when
    one of them was married to accused Munnibai. So far as the
    question of administering poison is concerned, the High Court
    found that there was no evidence to show that any of the accused
    persons administered poison. The evidence of Munni Bai (PW3)         B
    was to the effect that the poison was mixed with the Halua and
    she found the taste to be pungent and did not have the whole
    of halua served to her; but the deceased took the whole quantity
    which was offered to him. The High Court noted that she did not
    know from where the Halua came. Interestingly, there was no          c
    forensic examination of the halua which is supposed to have
    contained the poison by PW3 and shared by the deceased. In
    that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the
    judgment of the acquittal impugned in this appeal which is
    accordingly dismissed.
                                                                         D
    R.P.                                         Appeal dismissed.