Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 142 (RAJ)

Mangi v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-16

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, SABINA

body2020
JUDGMENT : NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant Smt. Mangi W/o Shri Hal Singh through jail against the judgment & order dated 28.4.1988 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Beawar in Sessions Case No. 37/1987 whereby appellant Smt. Mangi had been convicted and sentenced for offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of her husband and sentenced her to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment thereof, to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the appeal are that a written report had been submitted by Sarpanch, Shri Kesar Singh to the effect that Smt. Mangi had murdered her husband Hal Singh with a sword on 2.8.1987 at about 5.00 PM, and he was lying dead in a pool of blood in his house. His wife had run away, who was being searched here and there by the Sarpanch and his men. The alleged sword was lying near the dead body. The Sarpanch had sent the report through Ambu Singh. On this information, police registered a criminal case for offence u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 2.8.1987. Investigating Officer inspected the site, prepared inquest report of the dead body, got post-mortem report, took blood stained sword and blood smeared soil and garments of the deceased in possession. Accused appellant Smt. Mangi was arrested by the police. Police seized her blood stained Dupatta. All the articles recovered by the police were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After investigation, police submitted challan against Smt. Mangi for the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC. 3. Accused Smt. Mangi was charged for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses during trial. Statement of the appellant was recorded u/s. 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the appellant stated that evidence adduced by the prosecution was false and she had been falsely implicated. Her husband's body was lying on the floor and blood was oozing. She had fallen on his body. So, her Dupatta was smeared with blood. 4. After hearing the arguments of the rival parties, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Beawar convicted and sentenced her vide impugned judgment & order dated 28.4.1988 as stated hereinabove. 5. Her husband's body was lying on the floor and blood was oozing. She had fallen on his body. So, her Dupatta was smeared with blood. 4. After hearing the arguments of the rival parties, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Beawar convicted and sentenced her vide impugned judgment & order dated 28.4.1988 as stated hereinabove. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court had erred in convicting the appellant. It is submitted that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and prosecution has utterly failed to prove the incriminating circumstances and in any case has failed to establish the chain of incriminating circumstances which leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the present case, no one had seen the deceased and appellant together. He submitted that the learned trial court had wrongly convicted the appellant on the ground of last seen evidence and extra judicial confession made by the appellant to Sagani (PW-5). Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, FIR (Ex. P-2) was lodged by Sarpanch, Kesar Singh and he had not seen any incident. Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that Bhanwari (PW-3) and Sagani (PW-5) had seen the deceased and appellant together before murder. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned trial court wrongly believed the statement of Sagani (PW-5) and wrongly relied on extra judicial confession made by the appellant before Sagani (PW-5). 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that blood smeared Dupatta and other clothes of the appellant matched together. According to the FSL report, both of them had same blood group of "B". According to him the appellant in her statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that after seeing the dead body of her husband, she fell on him. So, her Dupatta got stained with the blood of her husband. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that Investigating Officer had not collected the finger prints from the blood stained sword. So, it cannot be presumed that the appellant had used the said sword for the murder of her husband. So, her Dupatta got stained with the blood of her husband. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that Investigating Officer had not collected the finger prints from the blood stained sword. So, it cannot be presumed that the appellant had used the said sword for the murder of her husband. Therefore, the appeal be allowed and the conviction and sentence be quashed and set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the alleged offence. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the prosecution case and submitted that the accused appellant had been rightly punished for the alleged offence. He submitted that the learned trial court had not committed any mistake in punishing the accused appellant. 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through impugned judgment & order and the whole material available on record. 12. In the present case, there is no direct evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant. The prosecution story rests on circumstantial evidence and it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to stand its own legs. It cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the evidence. In the present case the learned trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that the appellant was last seen with the deceased. The appellant in her statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that she had not run away from the place of occurrence. She had fallen on the deceased's body. So, she got blood stains on her Dupatta. The learned trial court had not believed the statement of appellant's father in-law in which clearly he stated that the deceased and the appellant had no enmity against each other. Deceased's father deposed that the appellant had not murdered his son. The investigating Officer had not taken finger prints from the sword recovered from the place of incident to establish that it had been used by the appellant. The learned trial Court had failed to appreciate the prosecution case in its right perspective. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned trial court had erred in ordering conviction of the appellant. It is a settled preposition of law that prosecution is required to prove its case against an accused by leading cogent and convicting evidence beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. An accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned trial court had erred in ordering conviction of the appellant. It is a settled preposition of law that prosecution is required to prove its case against an accused by leading cogent and convicting evidence beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. An accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Whenever, a doubt occurs in the prosecution story, benefit of the same has to be extended to the accused. In the present case, appellant is liable to be acquitted by extending her benefit of doubt. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment & order dated 28.4.1988 are quashed and set aside. The conviction and sentence for the offence u/s. 302 IPC passed by the learned trial court against the appellant are set aside and she is acquitted of the offence. The accused appellant is on bail as his sentence had been suspended vide order dated 6.12.2017. She need not surrender. Her bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 15. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused appellant Smt. Mangi W/o Shri Hal Singh is directed to forthwith furnish a person bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.