- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The appellant-Vijender has been convicted along with one co-accused named Om Prakash, for committing the murder of Anita. The deceased-Anita was the sister of the appellant-Vijender. She had been married to Om Prakash. But at the time of her death, she was living with one Zahir Alam - PW-13. The issue as to whether the deceased - Anita was married to Zahir Alam, is not clear since the evidence in that regard is contradictory.
(3.) On 23.09.1997, according to the prosecution, co-accused Om Prakash along with the appellant-Vijender, entered the house where the deceased was living with Zahir Alam. They caught Zahir Alam and questioned him in what capacity he was keeping Anita with him. Zahir Alam claimed that he had married her in Court with the consent of her mother viz. Ramwati, but he had no papers with him at that time. Apparently, Zahir Alam was attacked by the two accused Om Prakash and Vijender, but soon thereafter, they caught hold of Anita. According to the prosecution, Om Prakash the co-accused attacked her with a knife. The appellant-Vijender is said to have attacked her with a Thapki which is a small piece of wooden plank which is commonly used for beating clothes while washing. Injured Anita was removed to the hospital where she was declared dead. The following injuries were noticed in the post-mortem as follows: 1. Lacerated wound on the left side top back of head of siz 4.5 cms x .7cms x.5cms. 2. Lacerated wound on the right side of forehead of size 3 cms x 1cms x 5cm. 3. Lacerated wound on the left side of forehead 1 cm above the left eyebrow of size 3 cms x 1cms x 5cms. 4. Abrasion on the right side of face over the zygomatic process of size 1.7 cms x 1.2cms. 15. Abrasion on the front of left knee of size 1.3cms x 1cm. According to the report of Dr. Alexander death in this case was caused due to shock and haemorrage caused by multiple injuries mentioned above. According to him injury No. 6 and 10 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death individually as well as collectively. He has also opined that injury No.5 to 14 were caused by sharp edged weapon/object. Injury No. 5,6,7,9 and 10 were caused by single edged sharp weapon/object. Injury No. 1 to 4 and 15 are opined to have been caused by blunt force impact. He has also given his opinion that Injury No. 5 to 14 mentioned in the Report Exh.PW.12/A could have been caused by knife or the weapon/object similar to it. Whereas injury No. 1 to 4 and 15 mentioned in Exh.PW.12/A could have been caused by Thapki. Both these weapons had been shown to the doctor and he gave his opinion in this regard as Exh.PW.1/B and C. Even he has prepared the sketch of these weapons along with his opinion Exh. PW.12/D and E. ;