MANGIA ALIAS MANGILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is jail appeal submitted by the accused Mangia against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, dated August 29, 1966, convicting appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE facts of this case, as alleged by the prosecution, are short and simple. The accused Mangia resided at Nehru Colony, Jodhpur, in a Jhumpi along with his mother Mst. Bhuri and his step sister Mst. Patasi, P.W. 12, Lichman, P.W. 2, and Madanlal, P.W. 7, also lived in the same colony, near the Jhumpi of the accused. The hut of Madanlal was situate at a distance of about 100 yards from the appellant. Due to bombardment by Pakistan in the month of September, 1965, Lichhman and Madanlal had sent away their family members outside Jodhpur City. In the night of September 10, 1965, Lichhman slept at the house of Madan lal. On September 11, 1965, at about 5.30 a.m., the accused Mangia went to Lichhman and told him that he had killed his mother and that, he should be saved. The accused also told thim the he had administered 8 to 10 blows on the person of his mother Mst. Bhuri with a 'Page' (leg) of a cot and that when she started crying, he strangulated her with a rope and finished her. The same story was repeated by tee accused to Madanlal. Thereafter, Lichhman and Madanlal took the accused to the Police Station, Lldaimandir. The accused Mangia and Madanlal remained standing outside the Police Station; whereas Lichhman entered the Police Station building, and lodged first information report (Ex. P. 1A ) at about 8 a.m. On receipt, of the report, the Police arrested Mangia under Memo Ex. P. 2. According to Madanlal the accused wanted to send her sister, Mst. Patasi, to her husband Nathuram, but his mother, Mst. Bhuri, opposed it on the ground that her daughter was too young. It is for this reason that the crime was committed. The police after registering the case under Section 302, I.P.C., started investigation. In the course of investigation the accused gave information to the police that he had concealed the dead body of his mother in a trench. That information was reduced to writing by Rahmat. Ali, P.W. 13, and is marked Ex. P. 24. Thereafter the accused led the particular trench in which the dead body of his mother had been buried and the corpse was recovered at his instance, under memo Ex. P. 4, dated September II, 1965, in the presence of Narain Dass, P.W. 3. The dead body was taken into police custody through seizure memo Ex. P. 4. A string was found tied around the neck of the dead body. The police prepared an inquest report, Ex. P. 6. There were also foot -prints around the trench, wherefrom the dead body of Mst. Bhuri was recovered, M.O.B. Incharge, Laxmi Narain, obtained moulds of two foot -prints, which were found near the trench under memo Ex. P. 7. The moulds of the foot -prints were sent to the Director, Finger Prints Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Ajit Krishna, P.W. 11. He examined the disputed foot -prints with the specimen foot -mould. The result of his examination is contained in Ex. P. 19. Site of the occurrence was also inspected and the site plan is marked Ex. P. 3. A blood stained 'Paga' of a cot, one Dhoti, one Kurti, one Tava, and one Gudri were lying on the spot and they were seized by the Police. The post -mortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Har Govind, P.W, 6. Following injuries were on the person of Mst. Bhuri.

(3.) IN this case the prosecution, with a view to prove the motive of the crime, has examined 5 witnesse, viz., Pratapsingh. P.W. 1, Bhairulal, P.W. 5, Madanlal, P.W. 7. Jaedish, P.W. 8. and Mst. Patasi, P.W. 12. The prosecution has also produced documentary evidence Ex. P. 1, dated 5 -9 -1965. Pratapsingh, P.W. 1, states that the mother of Mangia lived with the accused. Mangia and his mother used to quarrel about Mst. Patasi, sister of the accused. Once Mangia accused had taken away his sister from the village without the knowledge of his mother. The; mother brought her back. Thereafter Mst. Bhuri told the accused to write a document, as the had no faith in him. On this Mangia wrote a bond in the house of Jpgdish in Nehru colrny. This document is marked Ex. P. 1, dated September 5, 1965. Bhairulal, P.W. 5, has deposed that Nalhu was married to Mst. Patasi, aged about 8 or 9 years. The deceased Bhuri told the witness that Mangia accused had told her to send Patasi to Nathu, otherwise he would kill her. Bhuri used to say that Patasi was still a child and that when she grew up, she would be sent to him. As the accused exercised threat upon Mst. Bhuri, she came to his house and lived there, en September 8, 1965. In the morning of 9th September, 1965, she went back to her Jhumpi for preparing meals. On the 9th she came back to his house at about 11 O'clock, in the morning. She lived at his house in the night of the 9th. She again went to her Jhumpdi for cooking meals on September 10, 1965. and returned in the day time. In the evening she again left the place for her Jhumpi, saying that she was to cook meals and that she would stay there during the night. Madanlal, P.W. 7, has testified that Bhuri and Mangia used to quarrel amongst themselves. Accused wanted to send Patasi to her husband Nathulal but Bhuri did not like to do so. It is for this reason that both the sons and the mother used to quarrel. On September 5, 1965, the accused came to the witness in Nehru colony, Jodhpur, where from he took his mother with him. Bhuri told the witness that the accused wanted to take her to his village but before she would go there her a son should write a deed to the effect that he would not mat -treat her. There upon the witness wrote a bond Ex. P. 1, dated September 5, 1965. at the instance of Mangia. In that document Mangia undertook that he would not misbehave with his mother. The sister of the accused, Patasi, P.W. 12, has also pointed out in her statement that the accused Mangia used to beat his mother. From the above evidence, both oral and documentary, it is manifest that the accused had a clear motive to kill his mother. In criminal cases, it is true that the evidence of motive is not very material, when direct and credible evidence is available. Motive, however, assumes importance, where the case rests on circumstantial evidence. In this case existence of credible evidence in regard to motive is significant.