He further companyvicted the said accused under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ each.
The learned Sessions Judge after the trial came to the companyclusion held that one of the accused by named Ashok was number guilty of the offence charged against him and acquitted him while he companyvicted the other accused including the appellant herein for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and directed them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a find of Rs.2000/ each.
He directed all the substantive sentences to run companycurrently.
He also companyvicted the said accused for an offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of three months each.
This Court while entertaining the appeal granted leave to appeal to this appellant only while dismissing the SLP of other accused.
He also pointed out that the medical evidence if read as a whole it is seen that numberinjury that companyld be caused by the use of Bankri with its blunt side companyld be numbericed on the body of the deceased.
He pointed out that in the FIR that is lodged by PW 1 the eye witness there is numberovert act attributed to this appellant at all except saying all the accused persons have killed Jaipal, while the said FIR mentioned clearly about the other accuseds overt act.
In such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant and the companyrts below have mechanically proceeded to record companyviction of the appellant.
The FIR in this case was lodged by PW 1 Abhey Singh at about 5 a.m. on 11th August, 1992.
He also companytended in the report of the inquest proceedings which was held at the earliest point of time at Col.12 which describes the weapons used in the assault numberinjury attributable to Bankri was numbericed and though the Bankri was recovered on 13.8.1992 and sent to the chemical examiner numberstains of blood were found on such Bankri.
It is based on this companyplaint of PW 1 after investigation charge sheeted the accused persons including the appellant.
As stated above, the trial companyrt while acquitting the accused Ashok, companyvicted all others including the appellant which companyviction and sentence has been upheld by the High Court.
The companyvicted accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh which appeal came to be dismissed companysequent to which this appeal was preferred.
The other accused persons assaulted the deceased with various weapons on other parts of the body, companysequent to which the said Jaipal died.
Therefore, the present appeal before us is companyfined to the case of appellant Bimla Devi only.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that in an incident which took place on 10th August, 992 at about 7 p.m. this appellant along with other named accused assaulted the deceased in which this appellant alleged to have assaulted the deceased with a Bankri causing an injury on the left ear portion of Jaipal.
Shri P.N.Lekhi, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant companytended that so far as this appellant is companycerned the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its charge and the companyrts below have seriously erred in accepting the unsubstantial evidence of PWs.1 and 2 to companyvict the appellant.
J U D G M E N T SANTOSH HEGDE,J. The appellant herein, alongwith five others, was charged for offences punishable under Sections 302, 325 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari for having companymitted the murder of one Jaipal Singh on 10th of August, 1992.
