Emperor Vs. Jamna - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 304a - administering poison believing it to be a charm--rash and negligent act--liability. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - she said that badri prashad told her that if she gave lal singh this stuff the would become wealthy and lal singh would become poor, and that badri prashad also added that if any harm did result, she ought not to mention it to any one. 425 in which the facts were that the accused administered arsenic to the deceased, her lover, in sweetmeat balls given to him to eat in the belief that it was a charm which would revive love for her, but she did not know that the substance was a deadly poison. judgment 60 in which the facts were that 'the accused having an intrigue with a paramour, received poison from her paramour to administer to her husband as a charm, and administered it with the result that death ensued';that the death of the husband was caused by the substance administered to him, the substance being arsenic; it was further held in that case that' where the accused knew that the substance came from her paramour and was to operate on her husband as a charm it became her duty to ascertain that it was innocuous before she administered it to her husband and culpability was imputable for the absence of that caution and circumspection which ought to have been exercised in ordinary prudence under the circumstances stated.griffin, j.1. musammat jamna has been convicted of an offence under section 304a of the indian penal code and has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. she appeals against her conviction. the learned vakil, who appears for her, has taken me through all the material evidence in the ease. his contention is that the evidence on which the conviction mainly rests and the confession of the accused are not sufficient to warrant the conviction. the case has been tried by the learned sessions judge of aligarh with extreme thoroughness and care. his judgment contains an accurate summary of all the evidence in the case, and in it every aspect of the case has been fully considered. on the 25th of march last some food was prepared at the house of one lal singh brahman of village mahugua. a number of people of lal singh's household partook of the food on that and the following day with the result that four persons died and several others became seriously ill. the report of the chemical examiner, show that arsenic was detected in the viscera sent for examination and also in a portion of the food. it is clear then that poison was administered in the food prepared in lal singh's house on the 25th march last. it is clear that the poison must have been introduced into the food by some one who had access to the place where the food was prepared. the learned sessions judge has shown, in my opinion, correctly that no one in the immediate household of lal singir can be suspected of any concern in this poisoning. the accused's own conduct in the course of the investigation directed suspicion towards her. on the 4th april she made a confession before the magistrate in which she admitted that one badri prashad, who, to her knowledge, was an enemy of lal singh, had given her some white powder telling her to mix it in lal singh's food. she said that badri prashad told her that if she gave lal singh this stuff the would become wealthy and lal singh would become poor, and that badri prashad also added that if any harm did result, she ought not to mention it to any one. she took the white powder and taking advantage of the temporary absence of musammat kundania, who was cooking the food, she mixed the powder with the flour. this confession she afterwards retracted but it was corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of the accused's two daughter, both young girls, whose evidence has impressed the learned sessions judge very favourably. i agree with the court below that it is proved that musammat jamna did mix the powder with the flour. it is, however, not proved that she knew that the powder was arsenio or any other deleterous substance. the court below has found her guilty of an offence under section 304a of the indian penal cede. it is contended on behalf of the appellant that even on the facts found musammat jamna has committed no offence punishable by law. i am referred to a decision--emperor v. nagawa (1902) i.l.r. 4 bom. 425 in which the facts were that the accused administered arsenic to the deceased, her lover, in sweetmeat balls given to him to eat in the belief that it was a charm which would revive love for her, but she did not know that the substance was a deadly poison. in this case it was held that as the evidence did not establish the necessary guilty mind, the accused must be acquitted. the question whether the act of the accused in that case did not come under section 304a was not considered. there is a case much more in point, q.e. v. musammat bhakhan (1887) p.r. cr. judgment 60 in which the facts were that 'the accused having an intrigue with a paramour, received poison from her paramour to administer to her husband as a charm, and administered it with the result that death ensued'; that the death of the husband was caused by the substance administered to him, the substance being arsenic; but that the accused did not know the substance given to her to be noxious till she had seen its effect.' it was held in that case that the offence committed by the accused was that punishable under section 304a of the penal code, her act not' 'amounting to culpable homicide but being a rash act and having caused the death of her husband. it was further held in that case that' where the accused knew that the substance came from her paramour and was to operate on her husband as a charm it became her duty to ascertain that it was innocuous before she administered it to her husband and culpability was imputable for the absence of that caution and circumspection which ought to have been exercised in ordinary prudence under the circumstances stated.' in my opinion the law has been, correctly stated in the decision above quoted. applying the law to the facts of the present case, the accused has in my opinion been properly convicted of an offence under section 304a of the indian penal code. she took the powder on her own admission from an acknowledged enemy of lal singh. she took no precaution whatever to ascertain whether it was noxious or not. her conduct was wanting in that prudence or circumspection which every human being is supposed to exercise. by her rash and thoughtless act she has made herself responsible for the death of four persons. i dismiss her appeal.