I. P. Singh, J. - (1.) KEWALA Shanker, convict-appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Sri M. M. H. Siddiqui, Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi, dated 4-11-1977 passed in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1977 convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life.
(2.) ADITYA Nath, complainant PW 1, Kewala Shanker, appellant, late Mata Sewak and Phool Chand are real brothers, being sons of Ram Chandra. Smt.Suraj Kali, PW 3, is the mother of the said four brothers. Smt.Malti Devi, deceased, was the wife of ADITYA Nath, PW 1. Smt.Sonpati, PW 4, is the widow of Mata Sewak. All these persons live in one house in village Kedarpur, P. S. Gopi Ganj, Varanasi. ADITYA Nath, complainant PW 1, used to live in Calcutta. His wife, the deceased, used to live in the village. She used to look after the Cultivation of her husband. Ram Karan was her harwaha (labourer servant). The prosecution case is that on 10-7-1976 at about 6.30 a.m. Smt.Malti Devi, deceased, had gone to her Gorwar (where the cattle were tied in the field) to give fodder to her bullocks. The appellant told her that Ram Karan, harwaha, would plough his field that day. Smt.Malti Devi objected to it and did not agree to send her barwaha, Ram Karan, to plough the field of the appellant. Ram Karan would not go to the field of the appellant presumably without the permission of Smt.Malti Devi. The appellant started abusing Ram Karan. Smt.Malti Devi, deceased, protested against the said abuses to Ram Karan. Still the appellant insisted that Ram Karan would go to plough his field. The appellant uprooted the peg (Khoonta) from there and gave blows to Smt.Malti Devi. She fell down unconscious. Lateron she was removed to hospital Jangiganj from where she was directed to be taken to the hospital at Varanasi. She was medically examined on 11-7-1976 at 11.30 a.m. Dr. R. M. Srivastava, Medical Officer, S.S.P.G. Hospital Varanasi. She was found to have on her person one stitched wound 2 cm long (3 stitches) on left side head 6 cm above left eye-brow. She was also found to have another stitched wound 3 cm (2 stitches) on left side head 10 cm above the left ear. In the opinion of the doctor, these injuries were about one day old and were caused by some blunt object. She was in a semi-conscious state. Lateron she expired in the said hospital on 23-7-1976 at 7.45 p.m. Her post-mortem examination was conducted on 24-7-76 at 3.35 p.m. by Doctor I. D. Misra, PW 6 Superintendent, S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi. The following ante-mortem injures were found on her person : 1. Freshly healed stitches scar 2 cms long and 6 cms above the left eye brow on left side of forehead. 2. Infested, lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 1/2 cms x bone deep over left parietal 10 cm above the left ear. Internal examination revealed contusion 5 cms x 3 cms under the external injury No. 2. There was a fracture of left temporal bone extending upto tempory- parietal seeture. Brain was pressed on left side (parietal region) clue to haemotoma. There was also fracture of middle cranial fossa extending from left parietal to the sphenoid bone. Clotted blood was present in the middle cranial fossa. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to the fracture of skull with subdural haematoma pressing over the brain. In his opinion the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
(3.) ADITYA Nath, PW 1, was informed at Calcutta about the serious condition of his wife Smt.Malti Devi. So he came home and lodged FIR dated 17-7-1976 at P. S. Gopiganj, Gyanpur, Varanasi, to the effect that on 11-7-1976, Kewala Shankar, appellant, beat Smt.Malti Devi and turned her out of the house. She was beaten to such an extent that she was lying unconscious ever since in hospital at Varanasi. The appellant's defence is that there happened to be a dispute between him and his brother, Phool Chand. Both started wielding lathis agairst each other. Smt.Malti Devi tried to intervene and in that course she received hurts of the lathis blows of Phool Chand. However, no evidence was led in defence.;