Mangal Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 05.03.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No.258/2007. The appellant was prosecuted for

commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence

punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence for life imprisonment and fine amount of Rs. 1000/-.

Prosecution story in brief is that deceased was the wife of the appellant. She was living with the appellant in a house which was constructed in the

field. On 13.08.2007 at around 9 O'clock in the morning, the appellant told his son to go to his house. When his son went at the house, the door was

closed. He did not find his father and mother. He opened the door and entered the house. He noticed that his mother was lying on the earth. She was

covered by a blanket. When he went near his mother, he noticed that there were number of injuries on her body. Blood was oozing from her body. He

lodged report at the police station that the appellant had killed his mother and absconded from the spot. Villagers assembled at the place of incident

and they went to Police Station Amarkantak and lodged report, which is Ex.P2. The police registered the offence and after investigation filed the

charge-sheet. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. However, the trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence of

murder of his wife and awarded punishment as mentioned above in the judgment.

The trial Court relied on the circumstantial evidence that the appellant was present in the house at the time of incident. Deceased was his wife. A

danda (stick) was seized from the possession of the appellant. PW-8 Ramu and PW-3 Suman Bai deposed that the appellant came their house at

around 8 O'clock in the morning and he told them that condition of the deceased was not proper and directed them to visit the house. When they

visited the house, the mother was found dead. The trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of PW-3 and PW-8 and observed that although PW-1

turned hostile, however, he did not deny the fact that the FIR and merg were not lodged by him. Hence, there is enough evidence to hold the appellant

guilty for commission of offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Learned Amicus Curies for the appellant has submitted that PW-1 Chain Singh is the son of the appellant. He did not support the prosecution. The

evidence of PW-3 and PW-8 is not reliable. The circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for commission of offence of

murder of his wife beyond reasonable doubt.

On the contrary, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that the trial Court after appreciation of evidence of the

prosecution witnesses has rightly held the appellant guilty and awarded proper punishment.

PW-1 Chain Singh is the son of the appellant and the deceased. He deposed that appellant was working as labourer in the fields. Appellant was

living separately from me with the deceased. At around 7-8 O'clock in the morning, appellant came to me and told me to see the field. Thereafter, he

left the place. At around 9-10 O'clock, I went to the house of the appellant. I tried to find out that who was in the house. When I did not get any

answer, I entered the house and noticed that dead body of my mother was lying on the earth, which was covered by a blanket. I noticed injuries on

her body. Appellant (my father) was not there. Thereafter, I contacted some villagers and informed the police. PW-1 admitted his signature on merg

intimation Ex.P1. He also admitted his signature on FIR Ex.P2. He denied the fact that he had knowledge about the cause of death of his mother.

PW-2 Bhan Singh is another son of the deceased and the appellant. He deposed that appellant used to live in the house, which was constructed at the

field, alongwith the deceased.

PW-3 Suman Bai is the daughter of the deceased and the appellant. She deposed that at 8 O'clock, appellant came to my house and informed me

that my mother (deceased) was not well. He told me to go to the house and see the mother. My husband was also at the house. Thereafter, the

appellant left my house. After two hours, I went at the house of the appellant alongwith my husband. The door was closed. I entered the house and

noticed that my mother was lying on the earth. She was died. Her body was covered by a blanket. There were injuries on her body. I was weeping. I

returned back to my house. My brother informed the police. PW-8 Ramu is the husband of PW-3 (Suman Bai) and son in law of the appellant and the

deceased. He deposed the same facts as deposed by PW-3. He further deposed that police seized plain earth, red earth and parts of bangles from the

spot vide seizure memo Ex.P6 and I signed the same.

PW-4 Ramcharan is the witness of seizure memo Ex.P6. He admitted his signature on Ex.P6. PW-4 further admitted his signature on the

memorandum of the appellant Ex.P7. He further deposed that the appellant told the police about the lathi which was used for killing the deceased and

same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P8. He admitted his signature on Ex.P8. PW-5 Gambhir Singh is the witness of memorandum of the appellant

and seizure of danda (stick) Ex.P8. He admitted his signatures on the aforesaid documents. PW-11 Rambai and PW-12 Bhallu Singh verified the fact

that two months before the incident, the deceased had jumped into a well. She was taken out from the well by the villagers. PW-13 Shailendra Sharma

was Halqa Patwari. He prepared spot map Ex.P11 and signed the same.

PW-16 Dr. Surendra Singh performed postmortem of the deceased. He deposed that on 14.08.2007, I was posted as Medical Officer at P.H.C.

Amarkantak. He further deposed that I noticed following injuries on the person of the body of the deceased:

A. One lacerated wound 5x3x3 CM behind left ear.

B. One lacerated wound 3x2x2 CM on left side of the head. & C. One lacerated wound 2x2x1 CM on the wrist of right hand.

On internal examination, I noticed rupture and congestion of brain. The deceased was died due to the injury suffered by her on the head. Injuries were

caused by hard and blunt object, may be by danda (stick). The injuries were antemortem in nature.

PW-15 Lal Dev Singh is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that I was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Amarkantak. On 13.08.2007

Chain Singh informed the police about death of his mother that his father had killed his mother. Merg Ex.P1 was registered and I signed the same.

Thereafter, FIR was registered vide Ex.P2 and I signed the same. I visited the spot and inspected the dead body. He further deposed that I prepared

the spot map which is Ex.P5 and seized plain earth, red earth and some parts of the bangle vide seizure memo Ex.P6. Appellant was arrested and on

his memorandum Ex.P7, a danda (stick) was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P8. He admitted his signature on Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. I

recorded statements of the witnesses Chain Singh, Santari Bai, Mannu @ Man Singh, Manti Bai, Santoshi Bai, Bhan Singh, Ramu Baiga, Suman Bai,

Babulal, Rai Singh, Rameshwar Singh, Rambai and Bhallu Singh.

PW-1 Chain Singh denied the fact that the appellant hadkilled the deceased. He admitted his signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Ex.P1 is the merg

and Ex.P2 is the FIR. It is mentioned in both the documents that the appellant told PW-1 to go to the house and see his mother. PW-3 Suman Bai is

daughter of the appellant and the deceased and PW-8 Ramu is husband of PW-3 and son-in-law of the appellant and the deceased. They specifically

deposed that appellant went to their house at around 8 O'clock. He told them to go to the house and see the mother because mother was not well.

When they went at the house of the appellant, mother was lying dead.

From the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-8, this fact has been established that the appellant was present in the house soon before the incident.

He asked PW-1, PW-3 and PW-8 to go to the house and see the mother. Thereafter, the appellant was missing from the place.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rambraksh alias Jalim vs State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251 has held as under in regard to last

seen theory:

“12. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the

deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into play

where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so

small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen

together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.

….. 22. This Court in Bodhraj v. State of J&K (2002) 8 SCC 45) held that:

“31. The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive

and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes

impossible.†It will be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in cases where there is no other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and

the deceased were last seen together.â€​

The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Dilip Mallick vs State of West Bengal, (2017) 12 SCC 727 has held as under about last seen:

“7. After hearing the counsel for both the parties, we have examined the oral and documentary evidence on record and we are of the opinion that

the judgment of the High Court does not warrant any interference. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The approach to be adopted in

appreciation of evidence in cases of circumstantial evidence is by now well settled. The facts in cases of circumstantial evidence should be consistent

only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency. It has been held by this Court that

the chain of evidence should be complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and

must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (See (1984) 4 SCC 116). On the basis of the above well-settled

principles, we proceed to examine whether the accused can be held to be guilty.

PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 who are the family members of the deceased were consistent in their testimonies that the deceased and accused were last

seen together at around 02:00 pm on 02.02.2004. There is a burden on the accused to give an explanation about what happened after they left the

house of the deceased. No explanation was given about the events of 02.02.2004 after they left from the house of the deceased. In the examination

under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the accused denied any knowledge of the crime and alleged false implication. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872 imposes an obligation on the accused to explain as to what happened after they were last seen together. PW-3 gave evidence to the effect that

the accused was not found in his house in the evening on 02.02.2004 when she went to enquire about her missing husband. She also stated that when

she met the accused on the next day morning, the accused misled her by saying that she should go to Matigara Police Station in search of her

husband. It is clear that the accused who was with the deceased on the earlier day did not give a proper answer to PW-3 and asked her to go to the

Matigara Police Station which indicates that he was suggesting to PW-3 to complain to the police. These are strong circumstances against the

accused.

There is one circumstance pertaining to recovery which could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court held that

recovery of the weapon and the severed cut head of the deceased was not corroborated by PW-7 and PW-14 who were seizure list witnesses. The

High Court also held that the recorded version of the statement made by the Appellant which led to recovery was not produced by the prosecution.

The High Court found that there was no evidence to show as to which particular article was recovered at whose instance pursuant to the joint

statement made by the accused. The High Court proceeded to hold that the circumstances relating to recovery was not proved by the prosecution.

The High Court concluded that the Appellant was guilty on the basis of other circumstantial evidence. We are in agreement with the conclusion of the

High Court that though the recovery was not proved, the other circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.â€​

In the present case, the appellant is the husband of the deceased. He was living with the deceased in the house constructed at the field. He

himself told his son, daughter and husband of his daughter in the morning that the deceased was not well. It means, the appellant was present in the

house in the night. PW-1 Chain Singh went to the house and noticed that the deceased was lying dead and the appellant was missing. The conduct of

the appellant is suspicious. He was present at the place of incident soon before the incident. From his possession a stick (danda) was seized. Seizure

has been proved. The appellant did not offer any explanation. The doctor who performed postmortem has verified the fact that the lacerated wounds

he noticed on the body of the deceased could be caused by danda (stick) seized from the appellant.

In view of the aforesaid evidence, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for commission of murder of his wife because the

appellant inflicted repeated blows on vital parts of the body of the deceased and the trial Court has awarded proper sentence. We do not find any

merit in his appeal. It is hereby dismissed.