SANATAN BINDHANI Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by an accused who was convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal came in the first instance before my learned brothren Ray and Acharys, JJ. Acharys, J. was of the view that the charge has been fully established against the Appellant. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. Ray, J. took a contrary view and opined that the appeal should be allowed. It is in these circumstances that under Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appeal has been referred to me for disposal. The prosecution case in short is that very early on the morning on 22 -4 -1968, Manguli Dei the deceased had been to a Chua (a ditch dug out in the dried out bed of a tank for the purpose of collecting percolating water there from) at a little distance from her house to forth water for domestic purposes. Four or five days prior to the date of occurrence, the accused Sanatan had lost his daughter and he entertained a suspicion that it was due to the witchcraft practised on her by Manguli. He sent for Manguli but she did not turn up and this appears to have confirmed the suspicion of the accused that Manguli was responsible for the death of his daughter. On the date of occurrence when Manguli was near, the Chua washing her face, the Appellant came there from the nearby hillock and quashed Manguli as to why she did not come to his house when he sent for her. So saying; he assaulted Manguli with the stick M.O. If a branch of a Karma tree, 4 1/2 feet in length and 6 inches in girth which he had in his hand and thus being assaulted Manguli fell down dead at the spot. Sita p.w. 6 the younger sister of the deceased Manguli who was at that time coming towards the Chua seeing the occurrence raised an alarm on hearing which her mother p.w. 9 came to the spot and found Manguli lying there dead. Several other persons of the village also gathered at the spot and after seeing Manguli lying dead there and coming to know that it is the Appellant who had caused the death went to the latter 's house and questioned him about it. The Appellant confessed before them as having killed Manguli. P.w. 4 the father of the deceased then went to the Police Station at Bangriposi and lodged the F.I.R. Ext. 8 at about noon, which is 25 kilo meters off from the village where the occurrence took place. The Investigating Officer p.w. 11 reached the spot at 5 P.M. that day and took up investigation, and in due course, the Appellant was sent up for trial to answer a charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and denied all knowledge about the occurrence.

(2.) THE doctor p.w. 12 who held the postmortem examination over the dead body of Manguli found a lacerated injury on the occipital region with fracture of the occipital bone and another lacerated injury on the right side of the parietal bone and a bruise on the right temporal region. On dissection it was found that the occipital and parietal bones were fractured and blood clots were found in the right term portal region. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were ante -mortem in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is not disputed that the death of the deceased was homicidal.

(3.) SO far as the third item is concerned, it appears from the evidence that the lathi M.O. I. was not in the custody of the Appellant when it was seized by the police, but that it was in the custody of p.w. 1 who stated that he had seized it from the accused on the morning of the date of occurrence. In these circumstances, both my learned brothren took the view that the blood stains found on the lathi cannot be safely relied upon as an incriminating circumstances against the Appellant. I find myself in entire agreement with this view.