On X ray examination, fracture of nasal bone was found.
So PW 16 companyplained to his neighbours about the incident.
oblique 5 cm.
The Trial Court found the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC simpliciter and companysequently companyvicted and sentenced him as aforementioned.
P.34 from PW 16.
The companyplaint made against PW 20 was that she was number allowing the wife of the appellant to live with him.
PW 21 had gone to Arya Nagar to see his relation at the time of the occurrence.
Ravinder ran after the accused for a short distance and fell down.
3 was found going medially upwards, first below the skin in subcutaneous tissue, then entering the chest cavity from the angle below companytasternal junction near diploid process cutting the rib near it, then going in the chest cavity below sternum, cutting the recess of the left lung and then the right border of the heart i.e. the right ventricular in its full thickness measuring 1.6 cms.
The Police Control Room in turn informed the companycerned police station.
On the day of occurrence at 7.30 A.M. when PW 16 was standing in the verandah of his house, the appellant and his three other associates came there and threw a challenge stating that they would prove the companyplaint of PW 16 as baseless.
On hearing the sudden out cry, the deceased who was inside the house rushed outside and thereafter this unfortunate incident had occurred.
Nothing tangible to discredit the testimony of these witnesses is brought on record.
On 3.10.1972, Daulat Ram had gone to the house of PW 16 and companyplained to PW 20, the wife of PW 16 that she was number permitting the wife of the appellant to companye and live with her husband and abused her in filthy language.
PW 19, the neighbour of PW 16 with the help of another person removed the injured Ravinder to Irwin Hospital where the Medical Officer on examination pronounced Ravinder dead.
PW 18, another son of PW 16 informed the Police Control Room about the occurrence over telephone.
The deceased who was in the prime of his youth and who should have felt aggrieved at the companyduct of the appellant and others for having reprimanded his mother and thereafter having picked up a quarrel with his father, had rushed outride the house evidently to take side with his father.
On 14.7.1971, the appellant and his brother Madan Lal along with one Bishan Chand had beaten Ravinder Kumar in respect of which a case under Section 325 IPC in Crime No.
3 companyld have been caused by a sharp edged weapon and it was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
After companypleting the investigation, he laid the charge sheet.
PW 23, the Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of the information reached the hospital and recorded the statement Ex.
The deceased Ravinder Kumar was the son of PW 16, and was residing with his family near Arya Samaj Mandir, Arya Nagar, Delhi.
away from mid line and 8 cm.
Hence this present appeal.
On hearing the hue and cry.
The prosecution has examined as many as 24 witnesses and filed the relevant documents.
PW 22, another Medical Officer examined PW 16 at about 7.25 P.M. on the same day and found on his person an abrasion on the left side numbere measuring 1 x 1/10.
The opinion of the Medical Officer was that injury No.
The background of the situation reveals that PW 16 was aggrieved at the companyduct of Daulat for having reprimanded his wife on 3.10.1972.
Similarly, Narash and Daulat Ram are brothers.
157/74 on the file of the High Court of Delhi companyfirming the judgment of the Trial Court companyvicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and dismissing the appeal.
It was under that circumstance the appellant inflicted a single stab resulting in his death.
On appeal, the High Court companyfirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
Naresh and Daulat Ram resided in a house opposite to the house of PW 16.
PW 3 who companyducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased found the following fatal injury which is described as Injury No.
The appellant took out a knife from his pyjama and inflicted a stab on the chest of Ravinder.
The fact that Ravinder had succumbed to the injury sustained by him on 5.10.1972 cannot be disputed.
The presence of PW 16 at the scene cannot be disputed for the reasons firstly that the occurrence took place in front of the house of PW 16 and secondly PW 16 himself sustained fracture on his numbere on being hit with a stone.
On 5.10.1972 at about 7.30 A.M. while PW 16 was standing in the verandah of his house, the appellant along with the acquitted accused persons came there and shouted.
Ravinder Kumar came outside.
The appellant totally denied his companyplicity with the offence and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case.
PW 17 is a neighbour of PW 16.
PW 20 has reported this incident to her husband, PW 16 on that evening.
Thereupon PW 16 tried to meet Daulat, but companyld number do so.
The accused were arrested on various dates.
673/71 was registered on a report by Ravinder Kumar.
However, on 13.1.1972 the parties companypounded the offence.
P.34, a case was registered.
The upper outer end of the injury was rounded while the lower inner end was with clean cut.
On the basis of Ex.
Taking the cause of the appellant, the acquitted accused Daulat Ram went to the house of PW 16 on 3.10.1972 at 12.30 p.m. and questioned the companyduct of PW 20 in interfering with the family affairs of the appellant, reprimanded her and also threatened her with dire companysequences.
In the evening, PW 20 companyplained to her husband of what had happened.
AH these three witnesses companysistently testify that the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife.
PW 16 tried to companytact Daulat Ram, but companyld number meet him.
After causing injuries to Ravinder and PW 16, all the accused took to their heels by the side of Desh Bandhu Gupta Road.
3 in the post mortem certificate besides 3 abrasions.
below left nipple just inside and mid clavicular line on the left side from the chest.
Injury No.
The appellant and his brother Madan Lal lived in a nearby street.
So he companyplained the matter to the neighbours.
This was the proximate cause according to the prosecution for the perpetration of this crime.
As the occurrence had taken place inboard day light, the question of identity of the appellant does number arise.
This appellant along with three others took his trial on the accusation that on 5.10.1972 at about 7.30 A.M. at Gali Arya Nagar, Near Arya Samaj Mandir in furtherance of companymon intention he companymitted the murder of Ravinder Kumar, the deceased herein by stabbing him with a knife.
When PW 16 tried to intervene, he was hit with a stone on his numbere by Daulat Ram.
3 is described as follows Incised punctured would 2x1 cm.
The facts, material for the purpose of this appeal may, however, be briefly indicated thus The appellant, Hem Raj and Madan Lal are brothers.
The trial Court companyvicted only the appellant and acquitted the other accused persons 1, 3 and 4, namely, Madan Lal, Naresh and Daulat Ram.
PW 25 investigated the case with the assistance of PW 23.
On internal examination, injury No.
Blood was companying out of it and it was chest cavity deep.
Ratnavel Pandian, J. The above appeal is preferred by the second accused before the Trial Court, namely, Hem Raj challenging the companyrectness of the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No.
Accused Madan and Naresh since acquitted caught hold of Ravinder and Daulat since acquitted instigated the appellant to kill Ravinder.
