Mavji Ruda and Another vs Saurashtra State

In this case both the accused are convicted of the offence of murder u/s 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code. Accused 1 is sentenced to death, and accused 2 to transportation for life. The offence consists of murdering two persons Savji and Mansang on the right of 14th December 1948. The facts shortly (sic) these:

Accused 1 is the father of accused 2, by his first wife. He has also got one Mohan and other issues by his first wife. His second wife named Vali, was not on good terms with his step-sons, and she was, therefore, living separate, and was going for work in the wadi of one Ibrahim near Jamnagar. Accused 1 with his children by his first wife was living in his own wadi about 2 miles from the City of Jamnagar. On 13th December 1948, Vali had (sic) certain ornaments belonging to one Koli woman named Kastur, wife of the deceased Savji. This Kastur was also working in the wadi of Ibrahim. Her case was that the ornaments belonged to her and were stolen by Vali, while Vali''s case was that Kastur had agreed to sell them to her. It appears that Vali was of a bad character, and was not on good terms with her husband, accused 1. On the evening of 13th December 1948, while she was returning from the (sic) of Ibrahim with the ornaments of Kastur (sic) her person, accused 1 and 2 met her and took her to their wadi, and thereafter accused 1 re-(sic)ved her clothes and ornaments, and branded (sic) with a heated "Kosh" (crowbar) on her private parts. In this he was helped by accused 2. Thereafter she was kept in the hut of accused 1. Meanwhile, Kustur having come to know about the theft of her ornaments, informed her husband Savji, who started search for Vali, but as he could not find her in the City where she was living, he went and complained to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhikhubha, on the afternoon of 14th December. The Sub-Inspector took down the information in writing, and sent the deceased constable Mansang along with the deceased Savji to the wadi of the accused to bring Vali before him. Mansang had with him his service belt and the service over-coat. Both of them took a ''tonga'' of one Popat, and went outside the City to the field of accused 1. Mansang left this over-coat in the Tonga. They alighted on the road, and went to the wadi of accused 1, which was at some distance from there. There they enquired about Vali, but accused 1 informed them that she was not there. What happened thereafter is not quite clear, but according to the prosecution case, as Mansang sat down near the wall in the wadi to drink water, accused 1 gave a blow on his head with a shovel and fell him on the ground. Thereafter his sons, accused 2 and Mohan, who is absconding, also attacked Mansang with sticks. Savji tried to run away, but accused 2 is alleged to have chased him and brought him to the wadi, whereupon, accused 1 gave a blow to him on the head with a wooden hammer. He was also beaten by accused 2 and Mohan. Both of them were beaten so severely that they died almost immediately. Thereafter, according to the prosecution case, their heads were out off, and the dead bodies of the deceased were burnt on the same night in a manure pit near the huts. In the meanwhile, as Savji did not return to the house, Kastur became alarmed and sent Samat, the brother of Savji, to make enquiries. On the night of 15th, Samat was informed that Popat tongawala knew the whereabouts of these persons. It appears that on the afternoon of the 14th, after the two deceased persons had left the Tonga to go to wadi of accused 1, Popat waited till about 9-30 for their return, and as they did not do so, he went back to his place with the over coat of Mansang in his tonga. Popat gave the information of what had taken place, and as a result the Police went to the hut of accused 1 on the night of the 15th, and made enquiries from Vali whom they found lying in bed with burns on her body. They removed Vali to the hospital, and accused l was taken to the Police Station. On the next morning Mohan had run away from the house, but Pitamber, accused 2 was arrested.

The prosecution case is that on certain information given by accused 1, a bloodstained knife belonging to deceased Mansang, was recovered from the roof of accused 1''s hut. The ornaments of Kastur were recovered from a banyan tree in the wadi of accused 1. He is also alleged to have pointed out a manure pit, and some burnt up matter was recovered from it. A blood-stained string for tying ''payjama'' was also recovered from the upper layer of the pit, and the leaves and branches over hanging on a mango tree there were found to be blackened with fire. The accused were handed over to the Magisterial custody on the 17th. Thereafter on 22nd, on the information given by Mulji, the son of the accused by vali, who according to the prosecution was in the hut on the night of the offence, the service belt of Mansang was recovered from a well in the wadi. The knife and the string were sent to the Chemical Analyser, who certified that they were smeared with human blood. On these facts, the two accused were charged with the offence of murder. The accused denied the whole of the prosecution story, and did not offer any explanation about the articles found in their wadi.

The main direct evidence on behalf of the prosecution consisted of Vali and her son Mulji. Vali was lying in her bed all along on the night of 14th, and Mulji is alleged to have seen from the hut accused 1 and 2 inflicting injuries on the deceased, cutting the bodies into pieces and then burning them. The other evidence, which is circumstantial, consists of the police witnesses, the evidence of Popat the tongawala, and the other witnesses, to show that the two deceased persons were last seen entering into the wadi of accused 1 on the night of 14th, and that thereafter they were not seen at all, and that the knife as well as the service belt belonged to the deceased Mansang. On this evidence, the learned Judge has convicted both the accused of the offence of murder. He has held that Vali was branded with heated crow-bar by accused 1 and that she was lying ir his hut on the night of the offence. The learned Judge is of the opinion that the evidence of Vali and her son Mulji, who is about 10 years old, is considerably exaggerated, and he would not have relied on their evidence especially as Vali, was not on good terms with her husband, but as in his opinion that evidence is corroborated by the other circumstantial evidence, there was no doubt that both the accused had committed the offence of murdering the two deceased persons. He has therefore, convicted them both, and sentenced accused 1 to death, and 2 to transportation for life.

We have carefully gone through the whole of the evidence, and Mr. D.N. Vakil, who has appeared on behalf of the accused, has urged all the points which could be urged in favour of the accused, but we have no doubt on the evidence that the conviction of accused 1 is quite correct. It is quite true that apart from the evidence of Vali and her son Mulji, the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. We desire to give the benefit of doubt so far as the evidence of Vali and her son is concerned. Vali, who was laying in bed all along could not have seen what the two accused were doing outside the hut at night, and we would take the evidence of her son Mulji with great caution. He is a boy of only 10 years, but has deposed as if he had witnessed the whole incident from the beginning to the end. We are not concerned in this case with the act of accused 1 having branded his wife with hot iron although that is amply proved on the evidence. That circumstance shows that Vali must not be on good terms with her husband, and the alleged talk which she and her husband had in the night of 14th about the act of murder is hardly capable of belief, but at the same time, the circumstantial evidence is so strong that we have no doubt that accused 1 must have committed the offence of murdering these two persons. There is no reason to doubt the evidence of Popat, the tongawala, who has deposed that he brought those two persons near the wadi of the accused. He had been asked by the Fouzdar to accompany Savji to bring Vali to the Police Station. There is also no doubt that after these two persons went there, they have not been heard of at all. The knife which is proved by the evidence of witnesses, Samatji, Viraji and Ravubba as belonging to Mansang has been found in the roof of the hut in the wadi with human blood on it. The service-belt of Mansang with his number inscribed on it is also found from the well. As regards the pit, although the learned Judge is not quite accurate in paying that steam was coming out when the Police inspected it, there is no doubt on the evidence that in the pit, below the manure, there were traces of something which was burnt, and the leaves of the mango tree, which was over hanging there, were found to be blackened. Mr. Vakil has laid great stress on the fact that no bones have been found, and it is hardly believable that the two bodies would be so completely burnt that no bone would remain in the pit. It is true that the absence of the bones would be rare if a body is burnt, but the other circumstances in the case, clearly show, in our opinion, that the two bodies must have been burnt in the wadi of the accused. The charred remains in the pit have been found to be very recent, about 2 or 3 days old, and taken with the fact that the knife as well as the service-belt were recovered from the wadi, where they had been concealed, one in the roof and the other in the well, would go to corroborate the prosecution case that the two deceased persons have been killed in this wadi, and their traces have disappeared. The knife is not claimed by accused 1 as his own, and no explanation is given about the service belt being found in the well. The defence theory that the belt as well as the knife have been put there by the police in order to (sic) the evidence against the accused is absolutely unbelievable. The Police did not know till the morning of the 16th about this offence, and the knife is found immediately thereafter, although the belt is found on the 22nd on the information given by Mulji. The overcoat of Mansang was lying in the tonga of Popat. Taking all these events together, we have no doubt that the two deceased persons were done to death in the wadi of the accused on the night of the 11th, and there is nothing to show that there were any other persons in the wadi, who could have committed the offence. It is true that there is no evidence of any altercation or quarrel between the accused and the deceased just before the in juries were inflicted on the deceased. It may be that the accused thought that if Vali was taken to the Police Station by the two deceased persons, her injuries would be found out by the Police, and as a result he would be charged with the offence of inflicting grievous hurt on her, but whatever may be the motive, there is no doubt that accused 1 is responsible for causing the death of the two deceased persons. Nobody (sic) could have concealed the knife in the roof of the hut, or thrown the belt in the well, as no one besides accused 1 and his two sons were living in the hut. On this evidence, therefore, we have no doubt that accused 1, Mavji Ruda, is guilty and has been rightly convicted of the offence of murder.

As regards accused 2, Pitamber Mavji, the only direct evidence against him is that of Mavji who deposes to this accused having assisted his father, along with the absconding Mohan (sic) inflicting the injuries. As we have observed above, we have to take the evidence, of this young boy Mulji, wish great caution, and as the circumstantial evidence does not necessarily conceal accused 2 with the offence, we desire to give him the benefit of doubt, and hold that the offence of murder is not proved against him with a definite degree of certainty. We, therefore, allow his appeal, set aside his conviction, acquit him of the offence of murder, and direct that he be set at liberty forthwith.

AS regards the sentence on accused 1, Mavji Ruda, there is no doubt that it was a double murder, and whatever may be the motive, it has been done in a very cruel manner. There is, therefore, no case for showing any leniency on him. We accordingly confirm the sentence of death passed on him.

Before parting with this case, we desire to draw the attention of the Police authorities to one feature of the evidence in this case, about which we have frequently remarked in the past. The punchanamas, which have been made by the Sub-Inspector of Police in this case, show that a responsible official like him who is expected to know the law, has not given any attention to the proper way in which they should be drawn up. The panchnama should not contain any incriminating statement made by the accused in the presence of the Police, and yet the panchnamas in this case, especially the panchnama, Ex. 14 contains a number of such statements alleged to have been made by accused 1, while being drawn up in the presence of the Police. The learned Judge has no doubt held these portions as inadmissible, but if a person reads these panchnamas, he would be unconsciously influenced by the manner in which they have been drawn up, and in which the accused is stated to have admitted not only having concealed the articles, but also having inflicted the injuries on the deceased. This is not a solitary occasion on which we have come across such illegalities in the panchnamas and we would like to draw the attention of the Police authorities to instruct all the Police Officers, who are responsible for preparing Panchnamas, of the strict necessity of complying with the provisions of law. We are told by the learned Advocate General that this a long standing irregularity in Saurashtra and that is because the Sub-Inspectors of Police do not know the law. This, in our opinion, is quite inexcusable after the present judicial administration is formed in Saurashtra, and we do hope that such instances of grave illegalities in the preparation of panchnamas will not occur in future.