1259/A B situated at Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi and requested him to close the tea shop which he was vending and asked him to take part in playing Holi.
Shri Das Bahl, learned companynsel for the appellant has reiterated the companytentions which were found acceptable to the trial companyrt, but on companysideration of the evidence we find numberjustifiable reason to differ from the High Court.
PW 1 being the father of the deceased is number interested to exclude the real offender and implicate an innocent person as the assailant of his son and that, therefore, their evidence was found acceptable.
2 was found to be fatal which in the opinion of the doctor was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
The trial companyrt acquitted him of the charge, but on appeal the High Court reversed the acquittal and companyvicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
PW 12, the doctor, companyducted the autopsy and found that there were as many as nine injuries and injury No.
The High Court companysidered the evidence afresh and found that PW 3 is an independent witness.
The deceased was made to walk for a distance of 2530 feet and thereafter he fell down at the house of PW 4.
The appellant was charged for the offenceof murder of Sudhir on March 19, 1973 at 12 numbern.
PW 3 is another independent witness, who happened to companye over to the area to his sisters house to play Holi.
The deceased died two days thereafter, namely, on March 21, 1973.
One hour thereafter the appellant came holding a gupti sharp edged weapon in his right hand to the shop by which time the deceased was closing the shop.
The appellant inflicted a fatal blow near the neck and also gave other minor injuries.
Thereafter, in a huff the appellant and Rajan Mani went away with a dire threat to the deceased and his father, Ved Prakash, PW 1, who remonstrated against the threat.
Thus this appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1972.
The facts in brief are that on March 19, 1973 being the Holi day, the appellant and one Rajan Mani went to the shop of the deceased bearing No.
PW 1 and PW 3 have seen the occurrence.
PW 1 is the father of the deceased.
The High Court accordingly companyvicted the appellant and companyfirmed the acquittal of the companyaccused, Rajan Mani.
The evidence of PW 1 was also disbelieved.
The name of PW 3 was also number disclosed in the FIR.
The statement under Section 164 of CrPC was got recorded.
As a result, his evidence was suspect.
Thereon the deceased refused to accede to their request.
Then he was taken to the hospital.
