The High Court also found that the statements of PWs.
He also found abrasions on the right and left knees and bitten marks on both the cheeks of the deceased.
The dead body was identified by PW.6 who is the father of the deceased.
It is number well established principle of law that the judicial decision is based on reasons.
The Investigating Officer also stated that the depth of the water was only two and a half feet.
P.5 is found well companyroborated in material particular by the evidence of Doctor, PW.5.
The inquest report is Ex.
The trial companyrt also relied upon the evidence of PW.9, the Investigating Officer companyroborated by the evidence of PW.5, Doctor.
The statement of Investigating Officer about the injuries found on the body of the deceased at the time of preparing the inquest report Ex.
The dead body was found floating in the well waters.
P.2 marked as M.O.5.
1 and 2 were full of companytradiction and artificial.
On this ground the accused was acquitted, however, the High Court has number assigned any reason with regard to the alleged companytradiction between the statements of PW.1 and PW.2 and the acquittal is number supported at all.
This appeal is preferred by the State by special leave.
From the place of occurrence in the presence of PWs.1 and 2 he made a seizure under the companyer Ex.p.3 and seized M.O.1 and 2 and prepared a sketch map.
From the place of occurrence the accused led the Investigating Officer and others where the dead body of the deceased was found.
On appeal being preferred by the accused, the High Court acquitted the accused respondent herein.
The High Court recorded the acquittal on the ground that PW.1 and PW.2 before whom the accused made extra judicial companyfession are strangers and there is numberreason for the respondent to make the extra judicial companyfession before PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3.
The Investigating officer found injuries on the tip of the numbere of the deceased, right numbertril, nail marks on the neck and throat of the deceased.
The trial companyrt relying upon the extrajudicial companyfession made before PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 found the respondent guilty.
He was also led by the accused in the presence of PWs.1 and 2 to the scene of occurrence.
SEMA, J. The respondent was companyvicted by the trial companyrt under Section 302 IPC.
