Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 539 (MP)

Mangalya v. State of M. P.

2006-04-17

S.L.KOCHAR, S.R.WAGHMARE

body2006
JUDGMENT Kochar, J. -- 1. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 11.7.2003 rendered by Sessions Judge, West Nimar, Mandaleshwar in ST No. 101/03, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further 3 months' rigorous imprisonment, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Prosecution case, in nutshell, as unfolded before the trial Court is that on 11.1.2003 in the evening at about 5:00 p.m. complainant Ramlal (PW 1) reached the matrimonial house of his daughter Seema to take her. In the night at about 11:00 p.m. he (Ramlal) and father of the appellant were sleeping after taking night meals, at that juncture he overheard the cries of his daughter Seema coming from inside of her room. She was saying that she was being assaulted. Upon hearing the cries, Ramlal reached over there and the door was opened by the mother-in-law of Seema. At that time, appellant Mangalya was standing having blood-stained axe in his hand and Seema was having injuries on her neck. There was bleeding and Seema was dead. Appellant Mangalya ran away after opening back door of the house. Complaint Ramlal started weeping, thereafter neighbours named Bhagga, Hari and other persons assembled there. Ramlal proceeded to village Kawadi and informed the incident to his brother-in-law (Sadubhai). Ramlal went to police station along with his son Kishan, brother-in-law Rama and one Pyarelal and lodged report in the police outpost Khemkheda of Police Station Kasrawad vide EX.P-1. The report was reduced in writing by (PW 10) Sub-Inspector Rajaram Aavasia and Sub-Inspector reached on the spot, prepared inquest of the dead body vide Ex.P-5, spot map Ex.P-3 and also seized blood-stained and controlled earth through seizure memo Ex.P-12. Dead body of deceased Seema was sent for post-mortem examination and the same was done by (PW6) Dr. Suresh Chouhan of Primary Health Centre, Kasrawad. Post-mortem report is Ex.P-9. Sub-Inspector arrested the appellant and on the basis of memorandum statement Ex.P-7, seized the axe through seizure memo Ex.P-8. All seized articles containing blood-stained, were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. Forensic Science Laboratory report is Ex.P-17. After necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police against appellant for commission of offence under section 302, IPC. 3. Appellant denied charges, he pleaded innocence. All seized articles containing blood-stained, were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. Forensic Science Laboratory report is Ex.P-17. After necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police against appellant for commission of offence under section 302, IPC. 3. Appellant denied charges, he pleaded innocence. According to him, he was keeping his wife properly and with affection. He did not examine any witness in defence whereas the prosecution has examined in total 10 witnesses and got proved 17 documents. Learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, convicted the appellant as mentioned hereinabove. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire record of the case carefully. 5. The conviction of the appellant is based on the testimony of (PW 1) Ramlal, father of deceased Seema and father-in-law of the appellant, corroborated by his first information report Ex.P-l1, medical evidence, statement of (PW4) Mangilal and (PW8) Rama as well as presence of human blood on the axe (tangya). We have perused the statement of (PW 1) Ramlal, who has deposed that his daughter Seema was married before 67 months prior to the death. He brought his daughter back to his house from her matrimonial house and after performance of gauna ceremony, she lived in his house for 5-6 days. During this period, she disclosed about misbehaviour, beating her and also having doubt on her chastity by her husband. Appellant son-in-law of this witness came to his house for taking the deceased back. At that time, he had talk with the appellant about beating the deceased but the appellant denied the same. Seema was sent along with the appellant and thereafter, his witness Ramlal went to bring Seema back for Sankrat festival. On the date of the incident, in the night, he (Ramlal), father of the appellant and the son of this witness, were sleeping after night meals. They were sleeping outside the house and inside the house Kamlabai, mother-in-law of the deceased, appellant and deceased Seema were sleeping. In the night at about 11:00 p.m., he overheard cries of his daughter Seema who was saying that "mere ko mar dala". She was crying loudly. Door of the room of Seema was closed from inside. After hearing cries, he awakened his samdhi, father of the appellant; thereafter Kamlabai, mother of the appellant, opened the door. In the night at about 11:00 p.m., he overheard cries of his daughter Seema who was saying that "mere ko mar dala". She was crying loudly. Door of the room of Seema was closed from inside. After hearing cries, he awakened his samdhi, father of the appellant; thereafter Kamlabai, mother of the appellant, opened the door. This witness has further stated that he saw the appellant standing having blood-stained axe in his hand and Seema was lying on the cot sustaining injuries on her neck. There was bleeding and Seema was not able to speak. The mother of the appellant opened back door of the house/room and helped the appellant to run away. This witness was very nervous at that time, he also shouted and started weeping. His son also awakened after hearing cries and was standing. The appellant Kamlabai and father had run away from the house. At their house, villagers assembled. The further say of this witness is that somehow or the other he saved his life and reached at the house of his brother-in-law (PW8) situated in village Kawadi. Village Kawadi is 3 kms. away from the village of the appellant. He disclosed about the incident to his brother-in-law and thereafter, they went to police outpost and lodged report in the same night vide Ex.P-1. The spot map Ex.P-3 was prepared at his instance by the police. In cross-examination para 5, this witness has admitted that in the first information report Ex.P-1, he did not mention about coming of the appellant at his house for taking his daughter as well as fact of suspicion in the mind of the appellant regarding character of his daughter and that on this count the appellant was beating her. He was confronted with Ex.P-1 first information report, about the fact that the appellant was helped to run away by his mother but he deposed that he mentioned this fact but not able to give reasons as to why the same was not written by the police. The fact of running away of father and mother of the appellant from the house was also mentioned in the report, but whether the police has written the same or not, he is not able to explain the same. 6. The fact of running away of father and mother of the appellant from the house was also mentioned in the report, but whether the police has written the same or not, he is not able to explain the same. 6. We have perused carefully the cross-examination of this witness and we do not find any substantial material which goes to the root of the case and fragile case. The deceased died inside her matrimonial house where the appellant was seen having blood-stained axe in his hand and his wife was lying on the cot having serious injury on her neck. After the incident, this witness immediately reached the house of his brother-in-law (PW8) and disclosed the incident PW8 Rama has supported the version of this witness on this count. The statement of this witness (PW 1) is also duly corroborated on material particulars by his report Ex.P-1 recorded by PW 10 Rajaram Aavasia and on the basis of this report Ex.P-10, crime was registered through Ex.P-16 first information report, by Town Inspector K.L. Sisodia. This report is proved by PW 10 Rajaram Aavasia, Investigating Officer. The statement of Ramlal has also been corroborated by DW 4 Mangilal, an independent witness, neighbour of the appellant, who reached on the spot after hearing the cries. According to this witness, along with him several persons of the village assembled at the house of the appellant. They saw the deceased having cut injury on the neck with bleeding lying on the cot. Father of the deceased and father of the appellant were inside the house and on inquiry, they disclosed that the appellant assaulted the deceased. This witness has also stated that the appellant was not in the house and had run away. This witness in paragraph 4 has admitted the presence of PW 1 inside the house and also had a talk with him. 7. Witnesses of memorandum statement have not supported the prosecution case. They were declared hostile. They have accepted their signatures on the memorandum statement Ex.P-7, seizure memo of axe (tangya) Ex.P-8. Investigating Officer (PW 10) has proved memorandum statement Ex.P-7. This witness has stated specifically that the appellant disclosed about the axe and also signed on "D" to "D" portion on Ex.P-7. Thereafter he got recovered an axe and also signed seizure memo Ex.P-8 at portion "D" to "D". Investigating Officer (PW 10) has proved memorandum statement Ex.P-7. This witness has stated specifically that the appellant disclosed about the axe and also signed on "D" to "D" portion on Ex.P-7. Thereafter he got recovered an axe and also signed seizure memo Ex.P-8 at portion "D" to "D". The statement of PW 1 Ramlal is also duly corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Chouhan who, on post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, found one incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm in depth, there was cut injury and clavicle bone was also cut, swelling and bleeding from the large blood vessels. In the opinion of the doctor, deceased died because of excessive bleeding due to cut of large blood vessel. The mode of death was syncope: The injury could be caused by hard and sharp object. Appellant has not explained all these circumstances. In accused's statement, in reply to several questions he has answered only "maloom nahi". The appellant has not explained his presence inside the room where the deceased was lying dead having injury on her neck and also his presence with blood-stained axe. The homicidal death of the deceased has not been challenged by the appellant before this Court. 8. In the result, in view of the aforesaid discussions we do not find any substance in this appeal. Therefore, the same is dismissed. 9. Office is directed to send copy of this judgment, along with the record, immediately to the trial Court.