- (1.) S. C. Jain, J. The appellants, Sohanpal, Dharampal, Jaggi and Birba were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved, they have challenged the said judgment and order dated 23-5-1980 by filing this appeal. Smt. Premwati was the step mother of Dharampal, appellant, and Shishpal was his step brother and Shishpal waf married to Arwati, deceased. Smt. Premwati was murdered and Shyam Lal and Smt. Arwati were tried for the murder of Smt. Premwati. Shyam Lal was found guilty and Smt. Arwati was acquitted. Shyam Lal was released on bail and after that it is alleged that he developed illicit relations with Smt. Arwati to the disliking of Dharampal, appellant. As per the prosecution version Dharampal was having motive to kill Shyam Lal and Smt. Arwati on that account. On 5-11-1979 at about 5. 30 p. m. Shyam Lal and Smt. Arwati, deceased, were coming on a cycle and when they reached in the grove of Thakur Udaiveer Singh they were waylaid by all the four appellants who was armed with knife and lathis. They inflicted knife injuries and lathi injuries to Shyam Lal and Smt. Arwati. Smt. Arwati died as a result of those injuries on the bead whereas Shyam Lal, who became unconscious, was taken to hospital in injured condition where he also succumbed to his injuries on that very day. On information one Anokhey lodged the FIR. According to him PW 5 Udaiveer Singh scribed the FIR on the dictation given by Anokhey, on the basis of which a case was registered under Sections 302/307, IPC against all the four appellants at 6'05 p. m. on 5-11-1979 at police station Naroura. During investigation Shyam Lal was not medically examined first at 7. 15 p. m. on that very day and the Doctor opined two injuries on his body, i. e. lacerated wound 7 cm X g cm X scalp on left side head in vertical direction 12 cm. above the left ear and lacerated wound 3 1/2 cm x i cm X scalp media side of head in vertical direction 4 cm medial to injury No. 1. According to the doctor the injuries were caused by blunt object. After his death post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Dr. O. P. Khatri, PW 12 and as per post-mortem report four anti-mortem injuries were found on his body, which are as under : (1) Incised wound 2 1/2" X |' X bone deep on the left side of head 4" from the left ear and 3" from the left eye brow, vertically placed. Clean cut edge no tailing present. (2) Contusion 1/2" X i" on the left side of forehead eye brow. (3) Abrasion 1 1/2" X 1/2" on the top of left shoulder. (4) Traumatic 3" x 3" on the left temporal region. The cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of anti-mortem injuries.
(3.) ON the post-mortem examination of the deadbody of Smt. Arwati nine anti-mortem injuries were found, which are as under : (1) Incised wound 1. 5" X 1. 2" X bone deep on the left eye brow just adjacent to it. Vertically placed spindle shaped clean cut edge. No tailing. (2) Contusion (three on the right side of fore-head in an area of 4 1/2" X 2" largest being 1 1/2" X 1" while smallest being 1/2" X 1/2" (3) Incised wound 1. 5" X 1/2" X 1/2" on the (sic) space. Left thumb index finger. (4) Incised wound j" X k" bone deep on the base of left index finger (metacarpal root ). (5) Incised wound 1 1/2 x 1/2''x skin deep on the inner side of left hand 1 1/2. " from the ulna styled process. (7) Punctured wound 3" x 1 1/2" X cavity deep on the left side of upper part abdomen 1 1/2" above umbilicus at 1. 0 o'clock position vertically placed. Spindle shaped, clean cut edge large bowel and small bowel is coming out of the wound. No tailing present. (7) Punctured wound 4" x 2' X cavity deep on the middle of abdomen 1/2" below injury No. 6 vertically placed. Clean cut edge spindle shaped, small bowel is protruding out from the wound. No tailing present, going to liver. (8) Abrasion in an area V x 2" on the right thigh upper part largest being 1 1/2" X 1/2" while smallest being 1" x 1/2". 9. Abrasion 3" X 1 1/2" on the upper part of left thigh. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witness including throe eye witnesses PW 1, Umashankar, PW 3 Mahavir Singh and PW 4 Anokhcy, the informant. Anokhey, informant, did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile. Even in cross-examination he did not support the prosecution case. The entire case is based upon the testimony of the remain ing two eye-witnessees, namely, Umashanker Sharma and Mahavir Singh, PWs 1 and 3 respectively.;