MANGI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused appellants Mangilal and Bhanwarlal have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the decision of the learned additional Sessions Judge,nathdwara,in sessions case No. 21/2001 dated 31. 10. 2001 whereby the accused appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and have been sentenced to life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. Accused Mangilal was charged under Section 201 IPC also. THEy have also been convicted under Sections 380 IPC and have been sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine or Rs. 200/- each.

(2.) THE prosecution was initiated on the basis of a first information report lodged by accused Mangilal on 30. 5. 2000 at Police Station Nathdwara on an oral report. THE formal FIR, Ex. P/46 was recorded by police on the basis of the report given by the accused. According to this report, accused Mangilal stated that he was at his place and in the morning while he was at the temple where he used to take care of the daily routine of the temple when he got up early morning he started to arrange things and while he was engaged in those tasks he saw that his `kaki' was lying blood smeared in her court yard. He went there and saw that she had died then he made hue and cry and Ramesh Mali and Jasoda etc. came. He then lodged the First Information Report. On this report, the police started investigating the case and during the investigation Police came to the conclusion that the report lodged by accused Mangilal was not a correct report. In fact it was he, along with his brother Bhanwarlal, who were responsible for causing the death of the deceased and they were impleaded as accused. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was made over to the Trial Court where the accused appellants were charged under Sections 302/34 and 380 IPC or in the alternative under Section 380/34 IPC. Accused Mangilal, in addition, to the above charge, was charged under Section 201 IPC also. Both the accused persons denied their charges and claimed trial.

(3.) SIMILARLY, the factum of recovery by the accused Bhanwarlal has been assailed by the learned counsel, stating interalia that his first information being an information Ex. P/49 was recorded by the police on 2. 6. 00 at 11. 00 AM and attempt was made for recovery on 3. 6. 00 at about 9. 15 AM which resulted into no recovery.