Vishnu Sahai, J. - (1.) THROUGH this appeal, appellant Heera Lal challenges the judgment and order dated 21.4.1990, passed by the Special/ Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad, in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 1988, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.
(2.) SHORTLY stated, the prosecution story runs as under : "The informant, Raj Mani (P.W. 2) is son of the deceased Sahdev and nephew of Laxmi Prasad (P.W. 3). At the time of the incident, the informant, Sahdev, Laxmi Prasad, Mahawal and the appellant were living in village Fattepur, hamlet of Ajmeri Badshahpur, within the limits of police station Tanda, district Faizabad." 2.1. There was enmity between appellant Heera Lal and deceased Sahdev. About 2-2-1/2 months before the incident, Gunjan, daughter of Sahdev's sister had plucked mangoes from the grove of the appellant. On that, the appellant beat her and brought her to Sahdev. He started abusing Sahdev. Sahdev asked him not to abuse him but he paid no heed. Thereupon, Sahdev gave two or three slaps to the appellant. This irked the appellant, who threatening Sahdev went away. Thereupon, the appellant lodged an F.I.R. against Sahdev, whereupon a case was registered against him, in which he was on bail at the time of the incident. 2.2. On 18.8.1988, at about 3.00 p.m., Sahdev had gone to untie his bullocks to the south of his house. The informant, Raj Mani was following him as he had to collect cow dung. When Sahdev had reached some distance, he saw the appellant coming out from his house with a knife in his hand and assaulting him with the same. Sahdev raised cries, hearing which Mahawal (P.W. 1), Laxmi Prasad (P.W. 2), Sita Ram and the informant, with a bamboo rushed to his rescue. Thereupon the appellant took out something like a bomb from inside his lungi. Seeing it, the informant and others did not dare to rescue Sahdev. Thereafter, Sahdev ran towards the village. The appellant chased him and near Satai's house, he again inflicted knife blows on his person. When the informant and others challenged the appellant, he ran away. As a consequence of the assault, Sahdev was precariously injured and blood had fallen down at a number of places. Thereafter, the informant and others arranged for a cot and after putting Sahdev on the same, proceeded for Primary Health Centre, Tanda. When they reached Salimpur, they saw a jeep, which they stopped. On the said jeep, they proceeded along with Sahdev towards the police station but on the way, near thirwa drain, Sahdev died. 2.3. Thereafter, the informant Raj Mani got his F.I.R. scribed by one Asha Ram ; who after scribing it, read it over to him. He, then affixed his signatures on the said F.I.R. and then along with the F.I.R. and the corpse of his father proceeded to police station Tanda, where he lodged the F.I.R. The evidence of Constable Hari Krishna Tripathi (P.W. 6), shows that on 18.8.1988, at 5.00 p.m. Raj Mani lodged the F.I.R. at police station, Tanda, on the basis of which he registered a case in the general diary vide Ext. Ka-4. His evidence shows that the same day at 6.10 p.m. he sent the special report. The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by S.I., Yogendra Nath Srivastava, (P.W. 7). His evidence shows : The F.I.R. was lodged in his presence. He, thereafter, interrogated the informant Raj Mani and Laxmi Prasad at police station, Tanda, itself and also performed there the inquest on the corpse of the deceased and, thereafter, sent it for autopsy. On 19.8.1988, he seized blood stained and plain earth in separate containers under recovery memos from three different places, namely, (i) where the deceased Sahdev had gone to untie his bullocks ; (ii) from the side of the house of Tidhi Kumhar ; and (iii) from near a neem tree (it is pertinent to mention that Sahdev was assaulted at all the three places). It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid blood, which was seized from three places, was sent to the Serologist, who found that it was blood. He did some other investigation also, but since, in our view, a reference to it is not necessary, for the decision of this appeal, we are not adverting to it. On completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.
(3.) THE autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Sahdev was conducted on 19.8.1988 at 11.00 p.m. by Dr. V. P. Singh (P.W. 4), who found on it the following ante-mortem injuries : (i) Incised wound 9 cm. x 2.5 cm. x muscle deep with clean margin with both corner sharp cut chest upper part, going backwards and outwards above right nipple at 2 O'clock position. (ii) Penetrating wound 9 cm. x 2.2 cm. x abdominal cavity deep with clean margins both corner sharp at 11 cm. behind left nipple omentum coming out. Descending colon and left kidney cut. (iii) Incised wound 17 cm. x 1.5 cm. x bone deep on back lower inner part mid line, transverly up to the land of left iliac. Direction towards left and outer side (maximum depth in mid line to bone deep). (iv) Incised wound 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. x skin deep left thigh under apart 27 cm. above left knee. Both corners sharp. THE cause of death spelt out in the post-mortem report was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. It is pertinent to mention that in his statement in Court, Dr. V. P. Singh reiterated the same cause of death and also stated therein that the ante-mortem injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and they could have been caused on 18.8.1988 at about 4.00 p.m. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual course, where the appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C., to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, in all, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. Three of them, namely, Mahawal, Raj Mani and Laxmi Prasad, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 respectively were examined as eye-witnesses. The learned trial Judge believed their evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated in paragraph 1. Hence, this appeal.;