Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mangu Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 September, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:41514-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application
No. 1034/2024
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.188/2024
Mangu Singh S/o Shri Jhumar Singh, Aged About 46 Years,
Resident Of Nagdi At Present Baswani Police Station Sadar
District Nagaur.
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Ajmer)
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amardeep Lamba
For Respondent(s) : Mr. CS Ojha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
17/09/2025
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No.
1034/2024:-
1. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant does not want to
press the present application for suspension of sentence and has
prayed to hear the appeal itself on merit at this stage.
2. Hence, the application for suspension of sentence is
dismissed as not pressed and the appeal itself is being heard on
its merit, as prayed by learned counsel for the parties.
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.188/2024:-
1. The instant appeal under Section 415 (2) B.N.S.S. has been
preferred by the appellant- Mangu singh S/o Shri Jhumar Singh,
against the judgment dated 08.06.2023 passed by the learned
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 02:55:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41514-DB] (2 of 6) [SOSA-1034/2024]
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaur in Sessions Case
No.52/2020, arising out of FIR No.101/2020, whereby the
accused-appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section
302 of IPC.
2. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court has sentenced
the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life till the remainder of
his natural life along with a fine of Rs.20,000/-, and in default of
payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years.
3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the instant appeal are that
the complainant, Mahendra Singh, submitted a written complaint
(Ex.P-7) alleging that his father, Mangu Singh, was residing at his
maternal grandmother's house as Ghar Jamai. About 4-5 days
prior to the incident, a quarrel took place between Mangu Singh
and his wife, Smt. Sita. After the said altercation, Mangu Singh
left for his native village, Nagadi. On the night of the incident,
Smt. Sita was sleeping with his brother, Vikram, on the platform
(choki) outside the house, while the complainant (Mahendra
Singh), had gone to his agricultural field. Upon being informed by
his brother Vikram, the complainant rushed home at about 3:00-
4:00 a.m., he found that his mother is lying in a pool of blood,
having sustained grievous injuries on her head, which proved
fatal. He came to know that his father, Mangu Singh, had
assaulted his mother on the head and thereafter fled from the
place of occurrence.
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 02:55:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41514-DB] (3 of 6) [SOSA-1034/2024]
4. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, a formal FIR
No.101/2020 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Nagaur,
against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
5. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet
against the accused-appellant for the offences under section 302
of IPC.
6. Learned trial Court framed, read over and explained the
charges under Sections 302 of IPC to the accused-appellant, who
denied the charges and sought trial.
7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16
witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced
documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-42.
8. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating circumstances put
to him, stating that the prosecution witnesses had deposed falsely,
that the evidence was fabricated, and that he was innocent. The
accused-appellant did not lead any defence evidence, and the
defence evidence was accordingly closed.
9. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced
on behalf of both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and
sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid vide judgment dated
08.06.2023. Hence the present appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted
that close relatives of the deceased, namely PW-4, PW-5, and PW-
6, have not supported the prosecution case and were therefore
declared hostile. Learned counsel further submits that, as per the
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 02:55:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41514-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-1034/2024]
FSL report, the iron rod recovered in the present case did not
reveal the blood group of the deceased. He further submits that
PW-14, the person from whom the iron rod was allegedly
purchased, has also not supported the prosecution case and has
been declared hostile. Learned counsel further submits that
PW-11, Dr. Shivlal, in his statement, has deposed that the injuries
sustained by the deceased could have been caused by a fall from
a height of 4 to 5 feet, and such a possibility cannot be ruled out.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that
the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
11. On the strength of this argument, learned counsel submits
that the learned trial Court has committed an error while
convicting the appellant in the present case.
12. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions
made by the counsel for the appellant and has supported the
prosecution case set out before the trial Court and he submits that
there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court
convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC vide judgment
dated 08.06.2023.
13. We have scanned the entire material placed before us
including the judgment dated 08.06.2023, whereby the present
appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC.
14. The complainant, Mahendra Singh, who is the son of the
appellant, appeared in the witness box as PW-2. In his statement,
he stated that he, along with his mother, father, and brother-
Vikram Singh, had stayed at his maternal grandmother's house in
village Baswani. He further stated that, on account of an
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 02:55:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41514-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-1034/2024]
altercation between his mother and father, the matter was
amicably resolved with the intervention of relatives, and
thereafter, his father left for his hometown Nagadi. However, on
the same night, i.e., on 18.07.2020, his father returned and
inflicted a blow on his mother's head with an iron rod, as a result
of which she died on the spot. PW-2 stated that he was in his
agricultural field at the time, and upon receiving information from
his brother, he reached the place of incident and subsequently
reported the matter to the police. Nothing contrary to his
statement in examination-in-chief has been elicited during his
cross-examination.
15. PW-13, Vikram Singh, in his statement has stated that he
was staying with his mother and father at his maternal
grandmother's house in Baswani. He is an eye-witness to the
incident in which his father, Mangu Singh, inflicted a blow on his
mother's head with an iron rod, causing her to become
unconscious. He further stated that his father assaulted his
mother on account of a heated altercation between them. He has
consistently maintained the same version of events even during
cross-examination.
16. PW-11, Dr. Shivlal, who conducted the autopsy of the
deceased Sita, explained the injuries sustained on her head and
opined that the cause of death was head injury.
17. As per the Postmortem Report (Ex.30), the deceased had
sustained multiple injuries on the head, and the cause of death
was Injury No.1, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. As per the FSL Report (Ex.40), the blood-
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 02:55:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41514-DB] (6 of 6) [SOSA-1034/2024]
stained shirt of the appellant was found to contain blood of the
same group as that of the deceased. The Postmortem Report and
the FSL Report corroborate the testimonies of PW-2 Mahendra
Singh, PW-13 Vikram Singh, and PW-11 Dr. Shivlal.
18. A close reading of the testimonies of Vikram Singh and
Mahendra Singh makes it clear that the appellant inflicted an
injury on the vital part of Smt. Sita, causing grievous injury which
resulted in her death. There is no reason to disbelieve the
testimony of PW-13, Vikram Singh (son of appellant and deceased
Sita), who was sleeping beside the deceased Sita when the
incident occurred. Being the son of the appellant, there can be no
doubt that he was unable to recognize the appellant even at late
night when the incident took place.
19. Apart from this, the Postmortem Report and the FSL Report
corroborate the recoveries effected in the present case and fortify
the statements of PW-2, PW-13, and PW-11.
20. The material available on record clearly demonstrates that
the prosecution has proved the allegations beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is
no merit in the present appeal, and the same is hereby dismissed.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
16-Kartik Dave/nitin/Shahenshah-
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 02:55:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
