. SAU PANCHASHLLA DADA MESSHRAM versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 994 · Decided: 17-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 994 
A 
. SAU PANCHASHlLA DADA MESSHRAM 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2003) 
NOVEMBER 17, 2009 
B 
. (8. SUDERS HAN REDDY AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
Penal ·code, 1860: 
s.304 Part llrlw s.34 - Parents of,two year girl child 
confined her in bathroom for 14 days without food and water-
c Child died due to starvation - Conviction of child's parents by 
trial court uls.302rlws.34-Altered by High Court to one uls:304 
Part II rlw s. 34 - Both parents sentenced to 6 years R. I. - On 
appeal by mother, held: The child's.mother (appellant) and 
father had definite knowledge that their act of confining the child 
D in bathroom would result in her starvation which was likely to 
cause her death - Hence, conviction of appellant-mother ul 
s.304, Part JI just and well-founded- However, in peculiar facts 
and circumstances of the case, sentence imposed on 
appellant reduced to period already undergone by her. 
E 
According to prosecution, at the instigation of a 
practitioner of black magic/sorcery, appellant alongwith 
her husband wrongfully confined their two year old girl 
child in a bathroom for 14 days without food and water, 
as a result of which she died of starvation. The trial Court 
convicted appellant and her husband u/s.302 r/w s.34 IPC 
F and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the 
High Court altered tl)e conviction of appellant and her 
husband to one uls.304 Part II r/w s.34 IPC on the ground 
that there was no deliberate intention on part of appellant 
and her husband to kill the child, though they had 
G knowledge that their action would result in injury which 
was likely to cause death of the child and sentenced them 
to RI for 6 years. Appellant challenged his conviction in the 
present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, Jhe Court 
H 
994 
' ,_ 
l 
\ 
i..' 
+ 
y 
/. 
\ 
~ 
;,. . 
I 
;~ 
' 
'r-=
... ; 
~· 
' i 
...... 
' 
.) 
,_
' 
SAU PANCHASHILA DADA MESSHRAM v. STATE 995 
OF MAHARASHTRA 
HELD:1.1. The finding that the child died a homicidal 
A 
~ ,, 
death is not challenged. The finding recorded by the High 
Court that the appellant and her husband had confined 
their child in the bathroom of their rented premises for a 
period of 14 days is based on analysis and appreciation 
of evidence tendered by prosecution witnesses, more 
B 
particularly evidence of the landlord, examined as PW-5 
and that of his son (PW-7). The fact that the child died due 
to starvation is amply proved by the testimony of Medical 
I 
• 
Officer who performed autopsy and contents of the post 
mortem notes. The fact that child was found dead in the 
bathroom is also established by the reliable and c 
trustworthy testimony of PW-6. The appellant 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 0 
the appellant. After fully discussing evidence, the High 
! 
-4 
Court came to the conclusion that the appellant and her 
husband committed offence punishable under Section 
304, Part II, IPC. There are no reasonable grounds for 
believing that the appellant had not committed the offence 
in question. [Para 7] [1000-A-E] 
E 
1.2. The High Court, in effect confirmed the finding 
recorded by the trial court that the appellant and her 
husband had confined their child in a bathroom and 
'> 
caused her death by not providing food and water. The 
finding recorded by the High Court that the appellant and 
F 
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, the appellant committed offence punishable 
under Section 304, Part II IPC is eminently just and well-
G 
founded. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant 
recorded under Section 304, Part II read with Section 34 
<\ 
IPC is not liable to be interfered with. [Para 7] (100-E-G] 
' 
1.3. However, as far as the que~tion of sentence is 
H 
~ 
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A concerned, at the time of incident, the appellant was in 
" '(. 
advanced stage of her pregnancy and had given birth to 
a girl child who had expired soon after the birth. The 
evidence adduced by the prosecution indicates that the 
husband of the appellant was coming near the bathroom 
with a cane so as to prevent the deceased from com

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.