G. P. Mathur, J. - (1.) -Barsati alias Babu Ram has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur by the judgment and order dated 20.11.1980 in S.T. No. 336 of 1980.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief, is that the appellant Barsati alias Babu Ram is the real brother of the deceased Mst. Samana, daughter of Bharose Godia. She was married to Ram Kishore with whom she had two children. She deserted Ram Kishore about eight years back and started living with her brother-in-law (elder sister's husband) Chhiddu as his wife. Shortly before the occurrence, it was rumoured in the village that she had developed illicit relations with Brij Lal Godia. On this issue, a panchayat was convened at about 9 p.m. on 27.5.1980 in which Mool Chand, Gaya Din, Nawab Khan, etc. of the locality had participated. THE panchayat was being held on the chabutra in front of the house of Ramadhar. THEre is a gali at a distance of about 20 paces from there and towards the east of the gali, there is house of Bhikhu. Mst. Samana was sitting in the gali at that place and the accused Barsati alias Babu Ram was standing on the chabutra in front of the house of Behari Lal and was hearing the discussions being held in the panchayat. Immediately after the panchayat was over, he picked up a gandasa and gave 3-4 blows to Mst. Samana and thereafter ran away. He was given a chase but could not be (apprehended). Mst. Samana died on the spot. A written F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Behari Lal at 11 p.m. on 27.5.1980 at P.S. Sachendi, on the basis of which a case was registered under Section 304, I.P.C. The case was registered in presence of P.W 8 Mohd. Zahirul Hasan, S.O. of P.S. Sachendi. He immediately proceeded for the spot and held inquest on the body of the deceased. He prepared challan lash and other documents for the purpose of post-mortem examination of the body. The body was sealed and was sent for post-mortem examination. He also collected plain and blood stained earth from the spot and prepared a site plan. After recording statement of the witnesses, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 304, I.P.C. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur, framed charge under Section 302, I.P.C. against the appellant on 9.9.1980. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses including four eye-witnesses. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. the accused denied the case of prosecution and asserted that he had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. He examined two witnesses in his defence. The learned Sessions Judge believed the case of prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.
(3.) WE have heard Sri O. P. Singh for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and have examined the entire record. Before adverting to the ocular testimony, it will be useful to refer to the medical evidence on record. P.W. 6 Dr. N. Hasan, Medical Officer Incharge, U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur, conducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased at 5.30 p.m. on 28.5.1980 and found following ante-mortem injuries thereon. "(1) Incised wound 11 cm. 1.5 cm. bone cut on right parietal region ; 3.5 cm. above right ear. (2) Incised wound 15 cm. 2.5 cm. bone cut ; right above part of right ear cut and brain matter coming out from it. Right maxillary, right frontal and right parietal bones were cut. (3) Incised wound 5 cm. 1 cm. bone cut on right side vertex 4.5 cm. above injury No. 1. (4) Incised wound 6 cm. 1 cm. bone cut 4 cm. below to right ear lower end. (5) Punctured wound 3 cm. 2 cm. on the back of right axilla fold, muscle deep." The internal examination showed that the bones under injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 had been cut. The membranes of the brain had been cut and clotted blood was found therein. In the opinion of the doctor, death had occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. The witness has proved the post-mortem examination report prepared by him which is Ex. Ka-2 on the record. He further stated that the death could have taken place at 10 p.m. on 27.5.1980 and the deceased would have died immediately after receiving the injuries.;