- (1.) The appellants question their conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code and the consequent sentences primarily on the ground that the conviction is based on their alleged extra-judicial confession and the testimony of the mother of the victim and another neighbour who has a litigation against the first appellant.
(2.) The complaint was lodged on January 28, 2002 by the daughter-in-law of the appellants. At the relevant time, the son of the appellants and the husband of the complainant was away on work in Surat. The husband used to work in Surat and come home only occasionally. The complainant alleged that in the afternoon of January 27, 2002 while the complainant was attending to her chores outside the room or the house, the parents-in-law of the complainant were inside the room or the house along with the five-year old son of the complainant and the seven and a half month-old daughter. The parents-in-law left the house to go to the market, whereupon the complainant entered the room or the house and found that the seven and a half month-old girl child was frothing in the mouth. The complainant claimed that she cried for help, whereupon some neighbours assembled and either a local doctor was summoned or the girl child was taken to such doctor who found the child to be dead. The complainant claimed that the parents-in-law of the complainant had administered poison to the child since the parents-in-law doubted the paternity of the child.
(3.) Several neighbours were called as witnesses, but a number of them turned hostile and appropriate questions may not have been put on behalf of the prosecution to a few others. The trial court recognised that it was the evidence of the mother of the victim and of one Bimal Khatua, who was called as PW-5, which had to be looked into and studied carefully.;