Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 68 (RAJ)

Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan

2004-01-16

O.P.BISHNOI, RAJESH BALIA

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused Mangilal against the judgment dated 28.4.2000 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I P.C. He has been awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for three months on account of non-payment of fine 2. The facts of the case are few and can be stated briefly. The accused-appellant Mangilal was married to PW5 Smt. Lachhi and the deceased Poona Ram was married to PW4 Smt. Sharda. Smt. Sharda and Smt Lachhi are sisters. According to the prosecution story, the appellant was maltreating his wife Smt. Lachhi, on account of which Lachhi was living at her parental house in Village Paiasiya Khurd. On 26.3.1999 the deceased had gone to her in-laws house and the accused Mangilai also went there sometime later in the evening. According to the prosecution story, the accused was reprimanded by the deceased for the misbehaviour of the accused with his wife Smt. Lachhi and thereafter during night both slept in the house of the father-in-law (PW6 Toya Ram) after taking dinner. Next morning at about 6-7 a.m. the said Toya Ram and his Nopa Ram were washing their faces in the morning when they saw the accused inflicting 15 injures on the face and head of Poona Ram. both Nopa Ram and Toya Ram ran after the accused to apprehend him but he was able to make his escape good alongwith the weapon of offence. The FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged by Nopa Ram to the police at the place of occurrence at 10.00 a.m. and a case under Section 302 of the I.P.C. was registered and ultimately, the accused was 20 chal fined in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore from where the case was committed to the said trial court. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Fourteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution and none was examined in defence. Arguments were heard by 25 the learned trial court and the judgment was delivered on 28.4.2000. Feeling aggrieved this appeal has been filed by the accused. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Fourteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution and none was examined in defence. Arguments were heard by 25 the learned trial court and the judgment was delivered on 28.4.2000. Feeling aggrieved this appeal has been filed by the accused. 3. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned public prosecutor for the State and have gone through the record of the trial Court. 4. PW/1 Nopa Ram, PW/4 Smt. Sharda, PW/5 Smt. Lachhi and PW/6 30 Toya Ram are the eye-witnesses of the incident and all the four have deposed that the accused used to maltreat her wife (PW/5 Smt. Lachhi) and on account of that she was living at her father's house at the relevant time and the accused had come to take her to his house. The witnesses have deposed that they all including the deceased complained to the accused about his behaviour with Smt. Lachhi and the accused felt unhappy over that. They have further stated that after the dinner everybody went to sleep and in the morning, sometime between 6-7 a.m. the incident took place and they saw the accused inflicting injuries to the deceased. 5. PW3 Mana Ram has stated that his house is in the neighbour-hood 40 and ifter hearing hue and cry, he reached to the house of Nopa Ram and saw he accused running out through the passage with a blood stained 'Kulhadi' in hand and thereafter, he found Poona Ram in an injured condition and was informed by Nopa Ram that Poona Ram died on account of injuries inflict xi by the accused. The witness has stated that Toya Ram, Smt. Lachhi, 45 Smt Sharda, Kamla and her mother-in-law were present on the spot. The witness has further stated that after arrest of the accused, 'Kulhadi' was recorded at the instance of the accused from his house. Similarly, PW7 Kana Ram has stated that after hearing the noise when he reached the house of Toya Ram, he found the dead-body of Poona Ram in the 'chowk' and Nopa Ram told him that the accused had inflicted the injuries to the deceased. 6. Regarding the cause of death. PW8 Dr. Similarly, PW7 Kana Ram has stated that after hearing the noise when he reached the house of Toya Ram, he found the dead-body of Poona Ram in the 'chowk' and Nopa Ram told him that the accused had inflicted the injuries to the deceased. 6. Regarding the cause of death. PW8 Dr. M.R. Parmar has been examined, who has stated that the autopsy on the dead-body of Poona Ram was performed by him and the following five anti-mortem injuries by sharp edged weapon were found on the person of Poona Ram. "(1) incised wound Longitudinally Cms. 10 x2 X Deep to mouth, over (L) side of face, (start from upper eye lid), adjecent to nose, underlying bones of face, cut (fracturred). Blood stained froths from wound present. (2) Incised wound Oblique and Curve Cms. 15x 2 X Deep to the surface of Duramatter over left temprofronto parietal region of the scalp underlying bones (Temporal and parietal) cut (Fracturred). Bleeding present. (3) Incised wound near circular Cms. 12x2X Deep to the surface of Duramatter over right tempro parietal region of the scalp. Underlying bones (Temporal and parietal) cut (Fracturred). Bleeding present. (4) Incised wound 1 x 1/4 X 1/4 cm., vertical over left side of fore-head. (5) Incised wound 1x1/4 X 1/4 cm. vertical over right side of fore-head." 7. According to Dr. Parmar, the cause of death were the head injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the post-mortem report Ex.P/10 was prepared by him. PW/14 Labhu Ram SHO, Police Station Aahor has deposed that on 27.3.1999, a telephonic message was received to the police station to the effect that a murder has taken place in village Palasiya Khurd and he rushed to the village where the written FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged by Napa Ram, on the basis of which the case was registered at the police station and after due investigation a challan was filed against the accused. The witness has deposed, in detail, about the investigation and the various recoveries in the case. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the evidence which has 30 come in the case is far from satisfactory and the same cannot become the basis of conviction of the appellant. The witness has deposed, in detail, about the investigation and the various recoveries in the case. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the evidence which has 30 come in the case is far from satisfactory and the same cannot become the basis of conviction of the appellant. It is submitted that the presence of Smt. Sharda, Smt. Lachhi, Mana Ram and Kana Ram is not disclosed in the FIR and that goes to show that they are created witnesses and were not present at the time of the alleged occurrence. We find no substance in the said submission. It may be noted that the incident occurred at the house of PW/6 Toya Ram and Smt. Sharda as well as Smt. Lachhi are both daughters of Toya Ram and hence, it cannot be said that in the early morning, they were not present in the house. According to the prosecution story, the deceased as well as the accused had gone to the house of their in-laws' to take their respective wives, Smt. Sharda and Smt. Lachhi with them. It is thus not acceptable that the said two women were not acceptable that the said two women were not present at the place of occurrence. Similarly, we find the presence of PW/3 Mana Ram and PW/7 Kana Ram Natural. They have not claimed that they were the eye-witness of the occurrence. Both have stated that their houses are in the neighbour-hood and after hearing hue and cry, they proceeded to find out as to what was the matter. From the site inspection note Ex.3 it is very clear that the house of Kana adjoins the house of Toya Ram on the northern side and similarly, the house of Mana Ram adjoins the house of Toya Ram on the southern side. There is no good so ground on the basis of which it can be inferred that these witnesses were interested in implicating the accused for extraneous reasons. It will not be out of place of mention here that the eye-witnesses are close relations of the accused and it does not stand to reason that they would save the real culprit and implicate the accused falsely in the case. 9. Nothing has come in the cross-examination of the said witnesses on the basis of which the truthfulness of the prosecution story can be doubted. 9. Nothing has come in the cross-examination of the said witnesses on the basis of which the truthfulness of the prosecution story can be doubted. From the prosecution evidence, it is fully established that the accused was reprimanded by the deceased on the evening of 26.3.1999 in respect of the alleged misbehaviour of the accused towards Smt. Lachhi. Evidently according to the accused the deceased had no locus standi to reprimand nim in the matter and the resultant resentment was the motive for the incident which took place next morning. After considering the whole evidence we are more than convinced that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt. From the nature of the injuries which were inflicted, it is clear that the accused was motivated to murder the deceased and the witnesses have stated that the deceased died on the spot In and there without any lapse of time.In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby DismissedAppeal Dismissed. *******