Gujarat High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of Father For Poisoning Minor Children; Orders Criminal Action Against Wife For False Testimony

The Gujarat High Court has upheld the life sentence of a man convicted of murdering his two minor children by administering poison in tea, biscuits, and water.

The division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vimal K. Vyas observed that the appellant had committed a heinous offence without any motive, reason, or instigation.

The bench noted, "Thus, on the overall appreciation of the evidence, we are of the firm opinion that the appellant has committed a heinous offence of murdering his minor children without any motive, reason or any type of instigation. The children have suffered immense agony on their final journey of life, which has been cut short by the accused. The appellant is not worthy of any leniency; hence we find that the trial court has precisely convicted the accused for heinous offence of double murder of his children."

The court affirmed the trial court's decision under clause thirdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines murder, thereby attracting the punishment prescribed under Section 302 of the IPC.

Furthermore, the High Court directed the Additional Sessions Judge to initiate criminal proceedings against the convict's wife for intentionally providing contradictory and false statements under oath.

The court remarked, "We have seriously noted the atrocious conduct of the complainant- PW-1, Daxaben Parmar, the mother of minors. She has taken total volte face while giving the evidence before the trial court and has resiled from her initial statement. She has admitted that she has compromised with her husband. Being a mother of two she appears to be ignorant of spirit of creation.”

“In view of the above, we direct learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Modasa to initiate criminal proceedings against the PW1, Daxaben Jagatsinh Parmar under the appropriate provisions for intentionally giving contradictory and false statements on oath before the Court. In our opinion, the trial court should have resorted to the provisions of section 344 or 340 of Cr.PC for committing perjury,” the Court added.

The case originated from an incident that took place on April 6, 2015, when the accused poisoned his children in the evening, after which his wife filed the complaint, and the trial court convicted him based on the testimony of 21 witnesses and documentary evidence. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report confirmed that both minors had died due to poison, which had spread to various parts of their bodies.

Taking note of the FSL report, the court observed that both minors had died due to poison, which had spread to various parts of their bodies.

The court stated, "The medical evidence indubitably reveals that both the children have died due to poison, which was administered to them. It is also revealed that the accused was present at the parental home of the complainant and stayed at night. Though the complainant has turned hostile, the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 become very relevant and the same require acceptance under the provision of Section 6 of the Evidence Act, 1872 by invoking the principle of Res Gestae."

The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgement in Balu Sudam Khalde vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 AIR SC 1736, which held that for a statement to be part of the same transaction, it must be simultaneous with the incident or substantially contemporaneous, made either during or immediately before or after its occurrence. In this case, both witnesses had immediately rushed to the crime scene.

The court highlighted that PW-8 specifically stated that when he asked the complainant about the children's deaths, she narrated that they had died due to poison administered by the accused in tea and biscuits given to the children, and, therefore, the testimonies of these witnesses cannot be ignored and are crucial in establishing the accused's involvement in the crime.

Regarding the conduct of the accused, the court noted that under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused is relevant if it influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The court stated, "Unquestionably, the evidence establishes the presence of the accused at the home of the first informant. He was present, when his minor children started vomiting however, he fled away from the scene of offence leaving his children in abysmal illness. He did not make any attempt to see that his minor children are immediately attended medical help. Thus, his conduct of fleeing away after leaving his children in such a dire condition is a relevant fact, which goes against him."

Addressing the contradictory statement of the accused's wife, the court asserted, "We are also conscious of the fact that the merely a witness has made a contradictory statement is not by itself sufficient to justify prosecution under Sections 193 of the Penal Code, but it must be shown that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have intentionally given a false statements or fabricated false statements.

"In the case on hand, we are, prima facie, convinced that the witnesses deliberately resiled from their previous statements only with a view to save the accused husband and gave false evidence. Hence, in the interest of justice, appropriate proceedings are required to be initiated against her," the Court concluded while dismissing the appeal

Case Title: Jagatsinh Punjesinh Parmar Vs State Of Gujarat

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 73

Click Here To Download Judgement