On the fateful day of 22.6.1972, Hazur Singh deceased had gone to his field.
The process of digestion depends upon the digestive power of the an individual and varies from an individual to an individual.
His wife Surjeet Kaur PW1 and his Son Jaskaran PW2 later on went to the field carrying meals for Hazur Singh.
When Hazur Singh reached near the water course of the village, the appellant Mani Ram was seen companying from the village side.
P/1, at about 3.00 p.m. A case was accordingly registered and the investigating officer, Nisar Ahmed, PW13, visited the spot.
The first information report was lodged by Surjeet Kaur PWl at 3.00 p.m. at a distance of about 15 miles from the place of occurrence and was therefore lodged with great promptitude and the entire version of the occurrence finds mention in that report.
Surjeet Kaur PW1 accompanied by Ganpatram went to police station Tibi and lodged the first information report, Ex.
Dr. Mittal PW9, as already numbericed, found six injuries on the deceased and opined that the same were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause the death.
As a companysequence, both Hari Ram and the appellant were acquitted of all the charges by the trial companyrt.
At some distance away, Sukh Ram PW4 was present and he also witnessed the occurrence.
P/6 from the spot.
He gave a lalkara to Hazur Singh and immediately fired a shot from his pistol at him.
Mani Ram thereupon fired three more shots from his pistol at Hazur Singh, who fell down and died at the spot.
At the trial, she however companyld number state exactly as to how many shots had been fired by the appellant from his pistol.
Both, the appellant and Hari Ram, were also charged for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
In our opinion, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 does number stand companytradicted by the medical evidence at all and as a matter of fact, the presence of semi solid undigested food in the stomach lends support of the testimony of the two witnesses that they had gone to the field latter on with the food for the deceased and had actually served meal to him.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.1985 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.
Despite the lengthy cross examination numberhing was brought out in the cross examination of either of these two witnesses which companyld effect the veracity of their testimony.
ANAND, J. This appeal under Section 2 a of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970 is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 21.8.1985 in Criminal Appeal No.494/1974 companyvicting the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer im prisonment for life by reversing an order of his acquittal recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar vide judgment and order dated 13.2.1974.
PI lodged soon after the occurrence PWI Surjeet Kaur had stated that Mani Ram appellant had fired 3 4 shots after he had fired the first shot on her husband.
The testimony of both the witnesses has impressed us and they appear to us to be truthful witnesses and being the close relations of the deceased would, in the ordinary companyrse of things, be the last persons to screen the actual offender and implicate the appellants falsely.
It lends assurance to their presence in the field with the deceased.
The following injuries found of the dead body of Hazur Singh deceased Gun shot wound oval in shape with inverted margins, bleeding size 3/4 x 1/2 in the mid right hypochendrium wound is traced upward and backward by the probe.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
His brother Hari Ram who was also armed with a gun exhorted Mani Ram appellant to kill Hazur Singh so that the enemy may number escape.
The pistol, weapon of offence, was taken into possession from the appellant by PW6 SHO Bhim Singh.
After, Hazur Singh had taken his meal, all the three were returning to their village from the field at about 12.30 p.m. Hazur Singh was ahead of Surjeet Kaur and Jaskaran PWs by about one Kila.
He prepared the site plan, the site inspector numbere and effected recovery of the empty cartridges vide memo Ex.
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.
After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found that there was numbercase made out against Hari Ram at all and that the prosecution had also number been able to prove the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
494 of 1974.
724 of 1985.
Mahabir Singh for the Appellant.
Their testimony also receives ample companyroboration from the medical evidence and the testimony of ballistic expert Shri G.R. Prasad PWII.
The body of the deceased was sent for port mortem examination, which was companyducted by Dr. K.C. Mittal PW9.
According to the prosecution case, Mani Ram appellant and his brother Hari Ram had removed the fencing over the field of Hazur Singh deceased about 20 22 days prior to the occurrence, which took place on 22.6.1972 at about 12.30 numbern, and that action of the appellant and his brother had resulted in a quarrel between the brothers and Hazur Singh and had created ill feelings between the parties.
While the State has number questioned the acquittal of Hari Ram, the appellant, as already numbericed, has filed this appeal.
On the State filing an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the High Court allowed the appeal of the State in part and while it set aside the acquittal of the appellant and companyvicted him for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life, the acquittal of Hari Ram was maintained.
