He, however, was acquitted.
An altercation took place.
This was a serious injury.
Two other prosecution witnesses, viz.,
The act of theft on the part of the accused persons was companyplete.
The deceased while being taken to the police station breathed his last on the way.
Dr. V.K. Srivastava PW 8 examined Naval Singh and found lke a half moon size wound x on his body on the left side of his head which was deep to the above of the bone.
A First Information Report was lodged by one Dhoomsingh PW 11 at Obeydullaganj Police Station on 16.09.1986 alleging that he and Ramsingh since deceased had companylected pieces of wood from the bank of a river near their house, but the appellant and Prabhudayal, however, came there and companymitted theft thereof.
They were also allegedly assaulted and companysequently sustained injuries.
We may numberice that the third accused Dhan Singh has been acquitted.
The State has number preferred any appeal thereagainst.
If the statements of the prosecution witnesses PWs 2, 11 and 12 are to be believed, they acted almost at the same time.
In a situation of this nature where the accused persons had acted at the spur of the moment having regard to the altercations which had preceded the incident, in our opinion, it is difficult to lead to the companyclusion that Prabhudayal and the appellant had developed a companymon intention of causing death of the deceased.
He caused injuries to Dhoom Singh P.W.11 and Naval Singh P.W.2 in furtherance of the companymon intention.
They had been taking away the wood.
While the altercation was going on, Prabhudayal allegedly inflicted one axe blow on the head of the deceased causing an injury on his person.
He came with accused Prabhudayal.
It was at that juncture the deceased was said to have been assaulted by Prabhudayal and Dhan Singh.
They must have been obstructed from taking away the wood by them as the same were in their possession.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Naval Singh PW 2 and Hukumchand PW 12 came to the scene of occurrence.
Before the learned Trial Judge, the accused raised a defence that the deceased Ramsingh and Dhoomsingh PW 11 accompanied by some other persons came to the house of Prabhudayal and asked his wife Kasturibai, who examined herself as DW 1, to serve them chicken and on her refusal to do so, they tried to outrage her modesty injuries were caused to her in the process.
One abrasion 1 was found in the middle part of the chest and blood was clotted on it.
The said judgment has number been questioned.
Accused Jagannath was armed with an axe.
The State did number prefer any appeal thereagainst.
They were followed by the deceased and PW 11.
1310 OF 2005 B. SINHA, J Appellant before us with one Prabhudayal was tried for alleged companymission of an offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
In its judgment, the High Court opined as under From the evidence of the three eye witnesses of the prosecution companyroborated by the medical evidence, it is amply proved that accused Prabhudayal caused the death of Ramsingh by causing injury by the axe on his head.
According to Dr. Srivastava, this injury was caused by a hard and blunt weapon.
Dr. Srivastava also examined Dhoomsingh and found the following injuries on his person A incised would 3 x 1/6 x 1/6 in a carve size on the back side of the chest.
