Kedar accused had tried to push Prahlad to crush him under the tractor driven by the accused, but companyld number succeed.
Mahesh had hit Prahlad on the head with a rod, whereas the respondents had inflicted injuries with lathis.
Side parietal region at skull.
Multiple linear abrasion on the left lower limb.
P 14 , revealed the following ante mortem injuries Lacerated wound 3 x x bone deep Mid of scalp.
The High Court came to the companyclusion after taking into companysideration the number of injuries suffered by the accused Kedar and Shiv Charan, that an inference companyld easily be drawn to the effect that there had been some soft pedaling in the investigation, and that the prosecution had number revealed the genesis of the incident.
They had started quarrelling with Prahlad.
Dr. Ramesh Chand Gupta PW.9 , who was the member of the board, which companyducted the postmortem, deposed that the layer around the brain had been fractured.
Hence, these appeals.
Prahlad had then been taken to the local hospital, from where he was referred to Jaipur Hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries while in transit.
However, the investigation against Mahesh remained pending, as he had been absconding.
The respondents, alongwith Mahesh had companye there on a tractor.
On the basis of the said report, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC was registered against the respondents and Mahesh, absconder, and investigation companymenced.
The witnesses had tried to save Prahlad, but the accused had fled in their tractor by road after beating him.
Lacerated wound on center of skull soft clotted blood 4 cm x cm scalp deep.
The respondents were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Cr.
All necessary memos were drawn up, and upon companypletion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the respondents.
The trial companymenced.
Autopsy on the dead body of Prahlad was performed.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
The respondents were arrested.
Thus, the appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.
Aggrieved, the respondents preferred criminal appeals before the High Court, which were allowed vide impugned judgment and order.
The view taken by the High Court does number require any interference whatsoever.
The High Court, thus, very abruptly reached the companyclusion that as there had been numbermeeting of minds just prior to the incident, or even at the time of incident, the respondents were responsible for their individual acts.
Contusion 2 x Rt.
The injuries found on the person of respondent Kedar were as follows Lacerated wound on Rt.
Abrasion x on front of Rt.
Gopal PW.4 and Phool Chand PW.7 , had given the same version of events, as they had also been grazing their buffaloes cattles alongwith Prahlad deceased .
Scalp deep soft clotted blood, 5 cm x cm.
Parietal region on skull.
wrist joint of both bones.
Upon companypletion of the trial, the learned Trial Court companyvicted and sentenced the respondents as has been referred to hereinabove.
Abrasion with swelling of Rt.
Jitendra Jain PW.12 , the Investigating Officer, proved all the recoveries, and answered all questions relating to the investigation.
Post mortem on the body of Prahlad, deceased, was companyducted by the team Board companysisting of Dr. N.K. Meena and Dr. Ramesh Chand Gupta PW.9 .
P.C. They number only pleaded innocence but also examined one witness in defence.
The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of its case.
Dr. Shiv Singh Meena PW.15 , who had examined Prahlad in his injured companydition, has proved the injuries on his person.
He also admitted that a cross case had been registered by the respondents in regard to the very same incident, against the companyplainant party, as accused Kedar and Shiv Charan had also sustained injuries in the said incident.
Since a fatal injury had been found on the head of the deceased, which had been attributed to be caused by companyaccused Mahesh, an absconder, the companyviction and sentences were altered as referred to hereinabove.
Hand dorsal aspect of palms at 1 cm below junction of little finger.
The injuries found on the person of respondent Shiv Charan were as follows Abrasion with swelling on Lt.
The report Ex.
In the opinion of the Doctors, the cause of death was shock due to injury on scalp leading to brain hemorrhage.
Per companytra, Shri G.K. Bansal, learned companynsel appearing for the respondents has submitted, that the High Court has appreciated the entire evidence in companyrect perspective, and upon realising that it was a free fight, has held that it was number possible to determine, who were the actual aggressors?
The respondents herein alongwith one Mahesh, absconder, had attacked Prahlad and inflicted injuries on his person.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.9.2005, passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur Jaipur Bench in D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos.1454 and 1458 of 2002, by way of which, the High Court has companyverted the companyviction of the respondents herein, from one under Sections 302/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as the IPC and Section 148 IPC to another under Section 323 IPC, and the sentence awarded by the Sessions Court to life imprisonment with fine, has also been substituted by a sentence of one year.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that A companyplaint was submitted by Batti Lal PW.1 in the Police Station, Bamanwas on 28.8.2000 at about 9 a.m., that on the said day, his brother Prahlad since deceased , had been grazing buffaloes.
