MANGILAL GUJAR vs STATE OF M.P.

This Appeal under section 374 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 8.4.2008 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Ujjain in

S.T.No.281/2007 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and fine of

Rs.500/- with default sentence of one month.

The prosecution story is that deceased Mankunwarbai was wife of the appellant. On 8.8.2007 i.e. on the date of date of incident, Mishrabai-

mother of the appellant had come to the complainant Kishanlal and had informed that appellant had closed the room from inside and was doing

something. On receiving this intimation, Kishanlal(PW-2) along with his father, Bherulal (PW-3) had reached to the house of the appellant followed

by the other villagers and on asking by Kishanlal and Bherulal, it was replied by Mankunwarbai from inside the house that the accused was beating

her. On this, door of the room was forcely opened and on reaching inside, Kishanlal and Bherulal had found that Mankunwarbai was bleeding and

lying on the cot unconscious. The accused-appellant had tried to attack them and Kishanlal had snatched the iron weight and stone from him.

Mankunwarbai was kept on a tractor and she had died on the way while taking her to the police station to lodge the report. FIR (Ex.P/3) was

lodged by Kishanlal(PW-2) in the police station Ingoriya on the same day within one hour and forty minutes of the incident at 10.40 a.m. narrating

the incident, on the basis of which offence was registered against the appellant and spot Panchnama was prepared and postmortem was done by

Dr.Bhaskar Wagde (PW-1) and postmortem report (Ex.P/2) was prepared. During the course of investigation, appellant was arrested and his

blood stained clothes and stone etc. were seized and sent for the FSL and the FSL report (Ex.P/17) was received. After investigation challan was

filed. Appellant had abjured the guilt, hence trial took place which resulted into the conviction and sentence of the appellant as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that there is no cogent material to connect the appellant with the alleged offence and that no traditional

weapon such as sword, axe etc. were used to cause the injury, therefore at the most it would be a case of committing offence under section 304

IPC.

As against this, learned counsel for respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that trial court on considering the statement of Dr.

Bhaskar Wagde(PW-1), the postmortem report and the statement of the eyewitnesses as also those, who had taken the deceased Mankunwarbai

in the tractor, has found that the death was homicidal in nature. This finding has not been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

The statement of Dr.Bhaskar Wagde (PW-1) as also the postmortem report (Ex.P/2) reveals that following injuries were found on the person of

deceased Mankunwarbai :-

(i) blood was oozing out from the mouth of Mankunwarbai and fresh blood was flowing from left ear.

(ii) the lobe of right ear was almost crushed.

(iii) a lacerated wound measuring 4x3 cm. on the left side of the head and a fracture below it and the wound was bleeding.

(iv) cut and crushed wound measuring 3x2 c.m. on the left side of the head on account of which the bone was destroyed and the wound was

bleeding.

(v) a cut wound below the right eye measuring 2x2 cm. and the eye was surrounded by black circles and hair were also blood stained.

On the internal examination, the Doctor had found a depressed fracture on the skull bone. In the opinion of Dr.Bhaskar Wagde(PW-1), the

death had taken place due to coma, extensive injury of brain including frontal region meninges with extradural and intradural Haematoma leading to

excessive bleeding as a result of Primary Hemorrhagic shock leading to death and Coma and the death was homicidal in nature.

To connect the appellant with the alleged offence, the prosecution has examined three eye witnesses namely Kishanlal(PW-2), Bherulal(PW-3)

and Nathibai (PW-4). Kishanlal(PW-2) had deposed that appellant was married to deceased Mankunwarbai and he used to ill-treat her. On the

date of incident, mother of the appellant-Mishrabai had informed him that Mangilal had closed the house from inside and was beating

Mankunwarbai and was also not giving the key to open the house. On coming to know about this, Kishanlal along with his father Bherulal (PW-3)

had reached the house of the appellant and had forcibly opened the door by breaking it and on reaching inside he had seen that the appellant with

one hand was strangulating Mankunwarbai by sitting on her chest with the other hand, he was hitting her on the head with a stone. Kishanlal (PW-

2) had then snatched the stone from him. As per his statement, Mankunwarbai was lying in a pool of blood on the bed and he had taken her in the

tractor, when she had died on the way. The statement of Kishanlal is duly supported by Bherulal (PW-3) who had reached the spot of incident

along with PW-2. Nathibai (PW- 4) who had also reached the spot along with PW-2 and PW-3, has corroborated their version. She had also

deposed that Mankunwarbai was having strained relationship with the appellant. Hence, the eyewitnesses of the incident i.e. Kishanlal(PW-2),

Bherulal(PW-3) and Nathibai (PW-4) have duly supported the prosecution version.

The presence of the eye witnesses on the spot and occurrence of the incident and subsequent events are also proved by the other witnesses.

Mangilal(PW-5), Chowkidar of the village had also reached the house of the appellant and seen the injuries on the forehead of the deceased. He

had accompanied PW-2 and PW-3 in the tractor after the incident when Mankunwarbai had died on the way. Similarly Sajansingh (PW-7) has

stated about the injuries and taking the deceased to the police station . Mishrabai (PW-10) who is mother of the appellant, though has turned

hostile but in the cross-examination she has admitted that she had gone to call Bherulal when the door was not opened and that Bherulal had come

and opened the door and that Mankunwarbai was taken in tractor by Kishanlal (PW-2).

In addition to this, stone and iron weight by which the injuries were caused to the deceased were recovered on the memorandum(Ex.P/8) of

the appellant. Virendrasingh (PW-6) and Girdhar Gopal Pandey (PW-11) have proved their signature on this. These witnesses have also proved

the seizure memo (Ex.P/9). Hence the recovery of the alleged stone and iron weight which were used for causing injury to the deceased at the

instance of the appellant has been proved.

The injuries found in the body of the deceased were on the vital and sensitive parts and these injuries were caused by the appellant by locking

the deceased inside the house without giving any opportunity to her to escape or save herself and coupled with this nature of extent of injury clearly

indicates that the intention of the appellant was to cause death of Mankunwarbai.

Though the appellant has taken the defence that the injuries had occurred when Kishanlal (PW-2) was forcibly taking his sister Mankunwarbai

in a tractor to give her in Natra and she had fallen from the tractor but he has failed to produce any cogent evidence in this regard. Such a

suggestion has also been denied by Kishanlal (PW-2).

Though counsel for the appellant has raised the argument that no traditional weapon such as sword or axe has been used but mere non-use of

traditional weapon will have no effect on the nature of the offence. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the manner and extent of

injuries and the vital and sensitive parts on which the injuries have been caused, we are of the opinion that the offence under section 302 IPC has

rightly been found proved by the trial court and no error has been committed by the trial court in awarding sentence of life imprisonment with fine

and default sentence. Hence, conviction of appellant under section 302 IPC and sentence awarded by the trial court is confirmed and Appeal is

dismissed.