SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS is an unfortunate case where two persons were beheaded for a trifle cause. Appellant Pawan was the accused who faced trial for eliminating his neighbours Suresh and Bhana Ram by axing their necks, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 193/2001 (137/2001 ). He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced under section 302 IPC to sentence of death and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. The appellant was further directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the wife of the deceased Suresh and Rs. 25,000/- to the legal representative of deceased Bhanaram.
(2.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jhunjhunu made a reference under Section 366 Cr. P. C. for confirmation of death sentence whereas the appellant has assailed the findings of the learned Sessions Judge by preferring two appeals under Section 374 (2) Cr. P. C. bearing criminal appeal Nos. 1665/2002 and 1622/2002. It is well settled that on a reference for confirmation of the sentence of death, the High Court is under an obligation to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 366 and 368 Cr. P. C. The High Court must not only to see that the order passed by the Sessions Court is correct but also to examine the entire evidence itself independently of the Sessions Court's appraisal and assessment of that evidence. Bearing in mind the above principle we may straightaway proceed to state, with gravity, the case of the prosecution presented for our scrutiny. Written report (Ex. P. 6) was instituted by Harinarain on April 29. 2001 with the Police Station Surajgarh that two persons Suresh Kumar and Bhanaram were killed by Pawan son of Jagmal, Darshan wife of Pawan, Sajjan son of Jagmal and Kallawati son of Sajjan. It was further alleged that Suresh Kumar and Bhanaram were beheaded around 9. 30 a. m. with axes. This incident had been witnessed by Har Narain, Atam, and Somvir. Police Station Surajgarh on receiving the said report, registered a case under section 302/34 IPC and investigation commenced. Site was inspected. Inquest reports had been drawn, dead bodies were subjected to autopsy. The appellant was arrested and at his instance axe was recovered. Statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr. P. C. were recorded. Other necessary seizure memos were drawn. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed only against appellant Pawan as the Investigating Officer was of the opinion that other three persons named in the FIR were not involved in the offence. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jhunjhunu. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 19 witnesses and got exhibited 54 documents. The appellant claimed innocence in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. No witness in defence was however examined. On hearing final submissions the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove. Before dealing with submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant we would like to indicate the nature of the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case. To begin with there is a central evidence consisting of five eye witnesses Hari Narayan (PW. 3), Somveer (PW. 5), Vijay Pal (PW. 6), Atma Ram (PW. 13) and Smt. Saroj (PW. 15), who were allegedly present near the place of occurrence. This evidence is sought to be corroborated by Kan Singh (PW. 16) who investigated the case and recovered weapon of offence at the instance of appellant. Man Singh (PW. 4) and Suresh (PW. 7) are motbirs of recovery of weapon. Dr. Daya Ram (PW. 17) conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies and found the injuries antemortem in nature. Let us now scan the credibility of the prosecution witnesses through whom the prosecution has to establish the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Coming to the testimony of Harinarain (PW. 3) it is to be noticed that he is the son of deceased Bhana Ram and real brother of deceased Suresh Kumar. In his deposition Hari Narain stated that around 9. 30 a. m. Pawan caught hold of Suresh near transformer and pushed him down. On hearing hue and cry of children, Bhana Ram rushed to the spot. Har Narayan, his brother, Saroj and Vijay Pal also followed him. Pawan Killed Suresh with axe and beheaded him. When Bhana Ram made attempt to intervene, Pawan inflicted axe blow on his person as a result of which Bhana Ram fell down, then Pawan gave axe blow on the neck of Bhana Ram and beheaded him also. Pawan gave threatening to the persons gathered there by aiming blood stained axe towards them and after some time left the village with his wife Darshan and son and went towards Loharu. In cross examination when Hari Narayan was confronted with the FIR Ex. P. 6 about implication of Sajjan, Darshan and Kalawati, he explained that as he was stunned, he had also added their names.
(3.) SOMVEER (PW. 5) deposed that he was coming back from his field in a camel cart. As soon as he reached near the transformer of village Ladunda around 9- 10 a. m. he saw Pawan running with axe in his hand. Seeing Suresh there, Pawan gave axe blow on the person of Suresh who fell down. Another axe blow was inflicted by Pawan over his neck and beheaded him. When SOMVEER shouted, Pawan threatened him to kill and asked him to run away. Hearing his voice when Bhana Ram reached there, Pawan gave axe blow on his person. Finding Bhana Ram falling down, Pawan inflicted another axe blow on his neck. Pawan then challenged the persons gathered there by showing axe and proceeded towards Loharu. Vijay Pal (PW. 6) Atma Ram (PW. 13) and Smt. Saroj (PW. 14) almost repeated the version given by Hari Narain (PW. 3) and Somveer (PW. 5 ). Dr. Daya Ram (PW. 17) who conducted post mortem on the deadbody of Suresh and Bhana Ram, stated that as per post mortem report Ex. P. 47 Suresh sustained following anti mortem injuries and the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries - 1. Incised wound 10x2x5 cm. 3 cm. below the lower lip cm. outer to angle of mouth (Canine tooth to 2nd premolar teeth bone area is also cut to 1cm. below the Rt. angle of mouth. 2. Incised wound 3 x 0. 5 cm. on above and outer aspect of Rt. forehead. 3. Incised wound 3. 5 x 1. 5 cm. x 1. 5 cm. on Lt. upper most part of chest near middle of body. 4. Cut wound 6 x 6 x 3 cm. on top of Lt. shoulder joint. 5. Neck totally avulsed from base skull to base of neck except small area 2 x 1 cm. of skin is present of Lt. side all vertebrae between base of skull to base of skull is not present 6 times attack of sharp weapon used to found from base of skull to base of neck. As per autopsy report Ex. P. 48 Bhana Ram received following antemortem injuries and cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple incised injuries - 1. Incised wound 17. 5 x 5x5 cm. from Lt. liner end of eye brow to posterior end of Parietal bond with fracture of bones. 2. Incised wound 10x 2. 5 cm. upto posterior end of body of vertebrae on back of neck Rt. 10 Lt. mostly on Lt. side of body. 3. Incised wound 10x7. 5 x 8 cm. Lt. of mid line of body to upper end of Lt. lower Jaw with fracture of Jaw bone, Ist cervical vertebra, 2, 3 vertebrae (cervical) cut in two pieces horizontally 4 times attack found at this site. ;