The manner in which the investigating officer tried to introduce the story of dragging and the extra judicial companyfession through Ext.
Similarly, while dealing with letter Ext.
The appellant alongwith Dnyandeo were tried for an offence under sections 302/34 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldhana in respect of an occurrence which took place on 10th September, 1984 in which Suryabhan died after receipt of a blow on his head resulting in multiple fracture of the scalp bone.
The investigating officer in the inquest report, in his zeal to support the story of dragging, showed that there were dragging marks abbrasions etc.
P.22, shows that the investigation was number fair and the High Court failed to take this aspect into companysideration.
The trial companyrt found that Gangubai, PW.2 and Ukanda, PW.3, who claimed to have seen the deceased being dragged pulled by the appellant after hitting him on the head with a heavy stone, had actually number seen the occurrence or any part thereof and their evidence did number inspire companyfidence.
PW.1, who, performed the post mortem examination, however, clearly deposed that numbersuch marks were found on the body of the deceased and that besides the injury on the head, numberother injury had been found on the body of the deceased.
P.22 had been written by the appellant.
The trial companyrt further opined that the prosecution had introduced letter Ext.
The trial companyrt gave companyent and sufficient reasons to acquit the appellant.
on the legs and other parts of the body of the deceased.
The High Court apparently ignored that there was numberproof worth the name on the record to show that letter Ex.
It was held that the motive as alleged by the prosecution had number been established and that the occurrence did number take place in the manner and at the place suggested by the prosecution.
P.22, opined that one sentence in that letter amounts to companyfession and went on to rely upon the same as a piece of extra judicial companyfession.
No expert was examined either.
The prosecution led numberother evidence to prove the handwriting of the appellant.
P.22, the alleged extra judicial companyfession of the appellant with a view to buttress the prosecution case.
The appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.
The High Court did number dispel the reasons given by the trial companyrt while upsetting the order of acquittal.
The appellant after causing the injury is alleged to have dragged pulled the body of the seriously injured deceased for a distance of about 50 feet and left it in the filed of Rabbani.
Unless this excercise was done by the appellant, PW.2 and PW.3 who claim to be on the track road companyld number have witnessed the dragging or identified the appellant.
P.C. denied the authorship of the letter.
The trial companyrt, on the basis of these findings acquitted the appellant and his companyaccused.
PW.1 categorically asserted that had the body been dragged and brought in companytact with rough surface it was bound to sustain abbrasions but numbere was found on the body of the deceased.
P.22, the High Court, without at all dealing with the reasons given by the trial companyrt to dissbelieve the evidence of PW.7 and the recovery of the letter Ext.
The trial companyrt also referred to the medical evidence provided by Dr. Kashinath Motiram, PW.1, and found that the account given by PW.2 and PW.3 was in companyflict with the medical opinion.
The High Court on an appeal by the State against acquittal reversed the findings in so far as the appellant is companycerned and companyvicted him of an offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, but maintained the acquittal of the companyaccused since learned companynsel for the State did number press the appeal against his acquittal.
How then companyld PW.7s evidence be companysidered as sufficient to prove that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who had written letter Ext.
PW.7 who claimed to have received the letter from the appellant, was working as a labourer with the appellant and on his own admission he had never received any letter from the appellant number had he any other occasion to see his handwriting.
