MANGAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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/-.

(2.) 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.P 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.

(3.) 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.