Manisha Pramol Biradi vs the State of Maharashtra

¶1

ia 1856-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1856 OF 2024 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.528 OF 2024

¶5

Manisha Pramol Biradi ) Age 41 years, ) R/at Uttareshwar Pakhadi, Diveagar, ) Tal. Shriwardhan, District : Raigad ) At present r/at :- Nagpur Central Prison, ) Nagpur. ) … Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ) Through Dighi Sagri Police Station, ) Vide Crime No.15/2015. ) … Respondent

¶6

¶7

Mr. Chetan Alai, Appointed Advocate for the Applicant.

¶8

Ms. Supriya Kak, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 4^th FEBRUARY 2026

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1. This is an Application for bail, pending the Applicant’s Criminal Appeal

¶13

No.528 of 2024. The Applicant was the sole accused in the Sessions Case No.3 of 2016, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon-Raigad. The learned Sessions Judge vide Judgment and Order dated 20^th May 2022, convicted the Applicant and sentenced her as follows :-

¶14

1/6

¶15

RaJesh Chittewan, PS

¶16

ia 1856-2024.doc

¶17

(i) She was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “ IPC ”) and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to pay fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for the period of four months.

¶18

(ii) She was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to pay fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for the period of 2 months.

¶19

(iii) She was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year.

¶20

(iv) All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶21

(v) She was granted set off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short “ CrPC” ).

¶22

1. This is an unfortunate case, wherein it is alleged that the Applicant had given poison to her small son, daughter and had consumed poison herself. The son died because of the poison. The daughter and Applicant herself could be saved. She faced the trial. She was convicted and sentenced as mentioned aforesaid.

¶23

2/6

¶24

RaJesh Chittewan, PS

¶25

ia 1856-2024.doc

¶26

Heard learned Counsel Mr. Chetan Alai, for the Applicant and learned A.P.P. Ms. Supriya Kak, for the Respondent-State.

¶27

In support of its case, the Prosecution had examined six witnesses, including the medical officer, the police officers and panchas.

¶28

The Prosecution’s case is that the Applicant was fed up, because of the constant harassment caused by her husband, who was addicted to liquor. He was not contributing any money towards household expenses. Out of frustration, on 20^th July, 2015, in the afternoon, the Applicant took her son and daughter to a shop selling Lassi. She mixed a poisonous substance called Phorate in the Lassi and made them drink it. She herself drank it. After sometime, all of them suffered from stomach pain and vomiting. They were taken to the Sub-District Hospital, Shriwardhan, but the son did not survive. The Applicant and her daughter survived. The son was eight years old and the daughter was one and half years old. The Police Officers recorded the Applicant’s statements.

¶29

Police Naik-Krushna Jagde lodged the F.I.R. based on the statements

¶30

3/6

¶31

RaJesh Chittewan, PS

¶32

ia 1856-2024.doc

¶33

given by the Applicant. The investigation was carried out and the Applicant was arrested.

¶34

According to the Prosecution’s case, the poison organophosphorus insecticide PHORATE (THIMET) was recovered from the house of the Applicant. Based on this evidence, the Applicant was convicted.

¶35

The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that there is no admissible piece of evidence against the Applicant. The case is extremely doubtful. The stomach wash of three of them did not show the presence of lassi. There is no evidence to show that how the Applicant had procured the insecticide. He further submitted that, from the record, the Applicant was on bail during the trial and there is no allegation that she had misused the same.

¶36

Learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State, on the other hand, submitted that the Applicant has not explained how three of them suffered from poisoning. It was only the Applicant, who could have explained, as to what food they had consumed. In addition, said poisonous substance Phorate was found from the house of the Applicant.

¶37

4/6

¶38

RaJesh Chittewan, PS

¶39

ia 1856-2024.doc

¶40

The cause of death for the Applicant’s son was due to organo phosphorus poison and respiratory arrest

¶41

As far as the statement given by the Applicant is concerned, it was recorded by the Police Constable, P.W. 1-Jagde. Since, the Applicant had survived, the statement is not a dying declaration and is not admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. It is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and it is not admissible. The evidence of lassi seller P.W.3- Mancharam Borana shows that on 20^th July 2015, one lady with a small boy and a girl, had come to his shop and had purchased three-half lassi from him. He had not seen that she had mixed anything in lassi and had made her children drink it. The glasses in which the lassi was served are also not seized. There is no evidence to show from where the Applicant had purchased or procured Phorate powder, if at all.

¶42

Thus, there are too many loose ends in the Prosecution’s case. The Applicant is a lady, who was on bail during the trial. There are no allegations that she had misused that liberty. Therefore, we are inclined to grant bail to the Applicant, pending the final hearing of the Appeal. Hence, we pass the following Order :-

¶43

5/6

¶44

RaJesh Chittewan, PS

¶45

: O R D E R :

¶46

i) During the pendency and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2024, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on her executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or two sureties in the like

¶47

amount.

¶48

ii) The Application is disposed of.

¶49

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)

¶50

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶51

6/6

¶52

RaJesh Chittewan, PS