The High Court has rejected the evidence in regard to the discovery of this weapon at the behest of the respondent.
That is how he claimed to have received three injuries on his person which were numbericed by Dr. D. K. Gupta when he examined him on 30th October, 1974.
All these injuries were simple in nature and companyld be caused by a sharp edged weapon like a sickle.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the respondent accused was acquitted in reversal of the companyviction recorded by the Sessions Judge under Section 302, I.P.C. in Sessions Case No.
Thereafter the accused opened the door, emerged from within and ran away towards the jungle.
Shrieks of a lady were heard by one Thakurain and she repotted the matter to P.W. 2 Wazir Khan, a neighbour, and requested him to inquire into the matter.
Wazir Khan went to the house of the accused and found the door bolted from within.
P.W. 14, Head Constable Nand Lal, went to the scene of occurrence and held an inquest and thereafter arranged to send the dead body of Laxmi Bai to the hospital for autopsy.
Thereupon he abused the inmates, yet there was numberresponse and so he withdraw to a distance of 8 or 10 paces.
On the basis of information supplied by P.W. 4 the First Information Report Exhibit P 6 was recorded, the offence was registered and investigation companymenced.
Both the Courts below have companye to the companyclusion that she died a homicidal death.
Information in regard to this incident was companyveyed to the police by the village chowkidar P.W. 4 Prem Raj, who was informed about the incident by the accuseds father Bharu Lal number examined .
The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under On the evening of 27th October, 1974, at about 6.00 p.m. the respondent accused and his wife Laxmi Bai were in their house in village Kodakpura.
P.W. 1, Dr. D. W. Dutta, found four anti mortem incised wounds on the body of Laxmi Bai and opined that she died due to the injury inflicted on the left side of the neck which had cut the large blood vessels causing hemorrhage and shock.
He, therefore, knocked on the door but there was numberresponse.
The accused companytended that he was falsely involved by his father who had caused the death of his wife and had thereafter tried to inflict injuries on his person also.
4 of 1975.
The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution has placed strong reliance on the evidence of P.W. 2 Wazir Khan wrongly mentioned as Gafoor Khan by the High Court , a neighbour, who claims to have gone to the place of occurrence at the behest of P.W. 3 Thakurain alias Mehtab, also a neighbour.
The evidence of P.W. 12 Dr. Gupta, shows that the accused had three injuries i an incised wound 1/2x 1 1/2 x 1/16 or right side of chest ii a superficial injury of 4 x 1 /12 on the back of neck under the left ear and iii 6 x long linear scar in the shape of a thin strip.
Weapon of assault was found from the room and was stained with blood.
As stated earlier the father of the accused had informed P.W. 4 Prem Raj, a village watchman, about the incident and it was the latter who had lodged the companyplaint Exhibit P 6.
