While impugning the judgment under appeal and praying for an order of acquittal, the learned companynsel appearing for the appellant has primarily and with some emphasis companytended that PW2 and PW3, the so called eye witnesses, are number genuine and are related to PW1.
When they tried to intervene, they were threatened.
The statement of PW4 has to be read companylectively along with the statement of PW1, PW2 and PW3.
They faced trial before the Court of Sessions Judge and were companyvicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 2nd July, 1990.
With the motive of grabbing the entire land, PW1 has falsely implicated both the accused.
PW2, Asharam and PW3, Kewalram along with other people were returning back to their homes at midnight.
After the death of his mother, PW4, Guddu, minor son of the deceased had gone to his uncles house to inform him about his mothers death and thereafter, his uncle lodged the report to the police.
He was also staying separate, though near the house of Taradevi.
Dr. U.K. Chopra of Doon Hospital on 3rd July, 1987 prepared the Post Mortem Report, Ext.
One Smt.
The Daranti and blood stained pyjama which were recovered, were number sent for FSL examination and numberserological report was obtained.
Gajoo, the accused appellant, is the brother in law of deceased Taradevi i.e. her husbands younger brother.
In support of his companytention, the learned companynsel for the appellant had laid a lot of emphasis on the statement of PW4.
Their presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful.
Then he sent the body for post mortem examination to Dehradun.
According to him, PW4 had number companypletely stated the case of the prosecution, and therefore, the accused was entitled to acquittal.
When they reached near the house of Taradevi, in the light of torches that they were carrying, they saw that Gajoo and Rampal were throttling her in the Aangan companyrtyard of her house and Gajoo was holding Daranti, Ext.
On being challenged, both these witnesses were threatened by Gajoo stating that they should go away from there.
It is stated that Gajoo and Rampal both did number want to give any land to Taradevi.
PW5, Gudru has proved recovery of Ext.
Ka 11 was prepared.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial companyrt, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 7th April, 2008.
Ka 1 at Police Station, Sahaspur at about 10.30 in the morning.
These two witnesses are stated to have neither raised any alarm number disclosed the incident to anyone.
His statement was recorded on 22nd January, 1990 i.e. more than two and a half years after the date of occurrence.
PW1 had lodged the written report vide Ext.
Investigation Officer, PW6, in the witness box narrated the entire case of the prosecution and the investigation companyducted by him.
On the basis of Ext.
The elder son Rampal was married and had been living separately with his family though in the same village.
Ka 12 was prepared.
2 with which he was hitting the deceased and accused Rampal had held her down, in the Aangan companyrtyard of her house.
The trial companyrt awarded life imprisonment to the accused Gajoo, as the accused Rampal had died during the pendency of the appeal.
Ka 1, the FIR, a Check Report, Ext.
After performing autopsy on the body of the deceased, vide Ext.
He stated that he had number given the names of the murderers to his uncle.
The High Court companyfirmed both the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence passed by the trial companyrt, giving rise to the present appeal.
PW2 and PW3 were carrying their torches and in the light of the torches they saw that accused Gajoo was armed with a Daranti, Ext.
On the night of 1st July, 1987, a Satyanarayan Katha had been organised by Chetu Ram at his house in the village Kotda Kalyanpur.
2 which was used in the crime and recovery memo, Ext.
Blood stained soil, Ext 3 and plain soil samples, Ext 4 were companylected from the spot, and a site plan, Ext.
He partly supported the case of prosecution as he affirmed that there was a dispute with regard to the land between his mother and uncle Gajoo, but stated that he did number know as to who had killed his mother.
Sub Inspector Brahma Singh, PW6 started investigation in the matter.
Dr. Chopra in his report Ext.
Both lungs were found companygested.
The Investigating Officer filed the report before the Court in terms of Section 172 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, charging the accused appellant Gajoo and Rampal, both under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short IPC .
The dispute was related to the agricultural land.
The next morning, information of the incident was given by PW4 to his maternal uncle Bhadu Ram, who was examined as PW1.
On their way back both PW2 and PW3 heard moaning sounds when they reached near the house of Taradevi.
He reached the place of incident and did Panchayatnama of the companypse of Taradevi.
Taradevi, the deceased was married to one Gajaram.
Ka 6, he numbericed that there were wounds on the companypse and prepared a Report Ext.
A number of residents of the village had gone to attend the Katha.
As already numbericed, according to them, when they were on their way back from the house of Chetu Ram after taking part in Satyanarain Katha, they heard the cries of deceased, Taradevi.
From this marriage, she had two children namely Rampal and Guddu PW4 .
Ka 16, was prepared.
He stated that he too had gone to attend the Katha at the house of Chetu Ram and in the morning, when he returned, he saw his mother dead.
After the unfortunate death of her husband Gajaram, she used to live with her younger son Guddu.
Upon receiving information, the matter was reported by PW1 to the police in the morning of 2nd July, 1987.
PW4 was a minor, when he saw his mother dead in the year 1987.
In the cross examination, PW4 has made certain statements which numberdoubt, do number support the case of the prosecution.
PW2 and PW3 who were examined as eye witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution.
Swatanter Kumar, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dated 7th April, 2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.
Ka 10 also recorded the following findings On internal examination, under injury No.
The larynx and trachea were found companygested.
After the demise of her husband, there were some disputes regarding the division of property between the deceased, on the one hand, and her elder son, Rampal and brother in law, Gajoo on the other.
