L.S. Mehta, J.
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.
(1) Lacerated wound 2' 1/2' bone deep on the left parietal region near mid-line;
(2) Lacerated wound 1' /' 1/4' muscle deep, lying 1 1/2' below injury No. 1;
(3) Lacerated wound 3/4' 1/4' skin deep near injury No. 2;
(4) Lacerated wound 3/4' 1/4' skin deep on the central part of frontal region;
(5) Lacerated wound 1 1/2 ' 1/4' muscle deep on right franto-parietal region;
(6) Lacerated wound 1 1/2' 1/4' muscle deep, 1' to the right of injury No. 5;
(7) Lacerated wound 3/4' 1/4' skin deep lying 1 1/2' below injury No. 6;
(8) Lacerated wound 1 1/2' 1 1/4' muscle deep near the right parietal eminence;
(9) Abrasion 1/2' 1' near the outer angle of right eye;
(10) Lacerated wound 1 1/2' ' muscle deep on chin mandible fractured;
(11) Ligature (mark) by moonj a small piece knot on the right side, bigger piece slidding knot on left side with duplicated material four terms,
One continuous ligature mark 1/2' wide over upper margin of thyroid region, three ligature marks off-shotting on the left side of thyroid region, extending backwards three marks continuous on the back of neck, margins show abrasions subcutaneous tissue haemorrhage, thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone fractured.
On internal examination, the membrances and the brain were found congested. The pleurae were haemorrhaged. All he chambers of heart were full of blood. The lady was average built and the (sic) was protruding out.
According to the Doctor death of Mst. Bhuri occurred due to strangulation. The injuries, which were found on the person of Mst. Bhuri, the doctor opined could have been caused by blunt object like a 'paga' of a cot. The injuries were, simple, excepting injury No. 10. The post-mortem examination report, submitted by the Doctor, is marked Ex. P. 11. After the investigation was concluded the, accused was challaned by the Police in the court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate. No. 2, Jodhpur City. The said Magistrate conducted committal proceedings and sent the accused to the court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, to face trial under Section 302, I.P.C. The case was transferred by Sessions Court, Jodhpur, to that of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Jodhpur, for trial. The trial court charged the accused under Section 202, I.P.C., on January 17, 1966, to which he pleaded not guilty. In support of its case the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. In his statement, recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., the accused Mangia denied to have committed the offence. In his defence he examined one witness Naraindas. Eventually, the trial court, by its judgment, dated August 29, 1966, found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.
3. Aggrieved against the above Judgment, the accused has taken this appeal, the accused was unrepresented, Shri Hiralal was appointed as amicus curiae on. As the accused. Learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that no case under Section 302, I. P. C, has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. His further contention is that the recovery of the dead body by the accused does nor link him with the crime. He has also contended that the evidence pertaining to the foot-prints near the trench is not immune from infirmity. His another grievance is that conviction could not be based on the extrajudicial confession made by the accused before Lichhman and Madanlal. Learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the trial court.
4. 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.
5. The prosecution has produced 2 witnesses, P.W. 2 Lichman and P.W. 7 Madanlal, before whom the accused made extra-judicial confession soon-after the occurrence. Lichhman Balai P.W. 2 states that at about day break the accused approached him and told him that he had killed his mother and asked him to suggest some way to be saved. On interrogation the accused told the witness that he had given 8 to 10 'Paga' blows on her head. He further fold the witness that when her mother began to cry, he throttled her. Thereafter both the witness and Madanlal P.W. 7 took the accused to the Police Station, Udai Mandir. There the witness made the first information report Ex. P. 1A. Madanlal, P.W. 7, states that during the night of the occurrence, Lichhman was sleeping at his house. The accused Mangia came to him and informed him that he had killed his mother and that he some how or other be saved. The witness then took the accused to the Police Station, Udaimandir. Lichhman also accompanied them. At the above Police Station the accused was arrested under memo Ex. P. 2. The statement of Lichhman, P.W. 2, is further corroborated by the first information report Ex. P. 1 A, lodged soon after the crime. There is nothing on the record to suggest that Lichhman and Madanlal bore any ill-will or grudge against the accused. Their evidence appears to be independent and convincing. The trial court, which recorded their statements, relied on what they have said and there is no reason why a contrary view should be taken in the matter. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary, can be depended upon by the court along with other evidence in convicting the accused. It is true that the value of the evidence as to the confession just like any other evidence rests on the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. It is also true that the court requires the witness to give the actual words used by the accused as nearly as possible, but it is not an invariable rule that the court should not accept the evidence, if not the actual words but the substance were given. In this case the witnesses have used the actual words used by the accused. The trial court, which recorded the statements of the two witnesses, believed in the credibility of their testimony and their capacity to understand the language in which the accused made the confession. The evidence given by the two witnesses, therefore, has rightly been relied on by the trial court and the conviction of the accused could be based upon the confession when that confession is corroborated by other circumstantial evidence.
6. The dead body of Mst. Bhuri was burried in a trench. The accused gave information to the Police after his arrest that he had placed the dead body in a trench and had covered it with sand and stones. That information was reduced into writing by Police Sub-Inspector P.W. 13 Rahmat Ali, and is marked Ex. P. 24. After that information the accused led the police to the trench where recovery of the dead body was made at his instance; vide memo Ex. P. 4, dated 11-9-1965. This memo stands proved by the evidence of Rahmat Ali P.W. 13, and Naraindas, P.W. 3. This recovery also furnishes an important corroborative link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
7. Laxmi Narain, P.W. 9, M.O.B. Police Service, Jodhpur, received a telephonic message from the Police Station, Udaimandir, that he should proceed to the spot to take moulds of the foot-prints. Thereupon he reached the spot in the Nehru colony. He saw on both the sides of the trench ten or fifteen footprints of some person. Out of these, two moulds of foot-prints were taken by the plaster of paris and these were made over by him to the Station House Officer. The witness has categorically pointed out that when he reached the spot, the accused was standing at a distance of about seven or eight steps away from the trench in which the dead body laid buried. The foot-prints, the moulds of which were taken were just close to the trench. These moulds were sent to the Director, Fingerprints, Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Shri Ajit Krishna, P.W. 11, along with the specimen foot-print-moulds Exs. S. 1. and S. 2. The disputed foot-print moulds D. 1 and D. 2 were examined and compared with the specimen moulds Exs. S. 1 and S. 2. D. 1 tallied with S. 1 and S.D 2 tallied with S. 2 S. 1 and S. 2 were the left and the right foot-moulds of Mangilal respectively. From this evidence it is plain that it was the accused, whose foot-prints were available near about the trench. As has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pritam singh and Anr. v. The State of Punjab : 1956CriLJ805 , track evidence can be relied upon as a circumstance, which, along with other circumstances, would point to the identity of the culprit, though by itself it would not be enough to carry conviction in the mind of the court. The evidence in regard to foot-prints was believed by the trial court as corroborative circumstance to establish the identity of the accused as a culprit and we are not prepared to dissent from the appreciation of the evidence made by the trial Judge.
8. In that light of the above discussion and the overwhelming circumstantial evidence, offence under Section 302. I.P.C. is fully established against the accused. The accused has been given lesser of the two penalties given in Section 302, I.P.C. This appeal, therefore, hardly warrants any interference and is dismissed.