When he reached his house, he saw the appellants Moti and Chittar inflicting injuries to Lal Chand while the remaining accused namely, Chhagan, Jaggu, Ramsi, Ratan and Lala were surrounding him.
In the companyrse of investigation blood stained clothes and the weapons of offence are said to have been recovered at the instance of accused persons.
Bhura was the father of Ram Narain and the father in law of Lal Chand, PW.1.
Accepting the testimony of the witnesses the trial companyrt found all the accused guilty of the offence under sections 148 IPC.
The accused also caused injuries to his father Bhura and brother Ram Narain.
Bhura and Ram Narain succumbed to their injuries but Lal Chand, PW.1, who suffered as many as 24 injuries survived the assault.
Lal Chand in his statement before the police had number stated that the remaining accused, apart from the appellants, had companye armed with the appellants and had assaulted him.
Moreover the testimony of Lal Chand was companyroborated by the medical evidence on record.
The case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening 27th 28th April, 1989 deceased Bhura and Ram Narain and Lal Chand, PW.1 were sleeping in their house in village Joshian Ki Dhani when the appellants herein alongwith five other persons entered the house at about 10 or 11 p.m. and brutally assaulted Bhura and Ram Narain as also Lal Chand, PW.1.
He cried for help which attracted Ramjeewan, Hanuman, Kesra and Chittar to the place of occurrence, but by that time the accused had fled.
Jail Appeal No.
P.1 was lodged by Bhenru, PW.5 another son of Bhura deceased alleging that on the night of occurrence Moti appellant alongwith Ramsi, Ratan, Lala, Chhagan, Jaggu and 2 3 others armed with axes, farsies and swords entered the house of Bhura and mounted a murderous assault as a result of which Bhura and Ram Narain lost their lives while Lal Chand, PW.1 was severely injured.
The High Court while declining the death reference allowed the appeals in part in as much as the accused, other than the appellants herein, were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them while the appellants herein were found guilty of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 IPC.
According to Lal Chand, PW.1 on the night of occurrence he was sleeping in the house of his father in law Bhura.
The prosecution also examined Bhanwar Lal, PW.2, Chittar, PW.3, Ramjiwan, PW.4, Kesra, PW.6 and Hanuman, PW.7 to support the version given by the informant.
The appellants as well as the other accused preferred appeals before the High Court which were heard alongwith the death reference.
9 and 17 were of grievous nature, which were described as follows in the report Traumatic amputation in an area of 12 cm x 4 cm x cut bones metacarpols rounded clear cut chopping from 2cm above wrist joint, little and ring finger missing out of the left hand with incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on postero medial part of middle finger.
The trial companyrt sentenced the appellants herein to death for the offence under section 302 IPC and made a reference to the High Court for companyfirmation of the death sentence.
Lal Chand, PW.1 was examined by Dr. B.C. Temani, PW.15, who prepared the injury report Ext.
He was subjected to merciless assault and had suffered as many as 24 injuries.
The other two accused were number even named by him.
The trial companyrt had also sentenced the appellants to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC, in default of payment of fine, six months simple imprisonment, which was upheld by the High Court.
At the trial the informant Bhenru, PW.5 claiming to be an eye witness stated that at about 10 or 11 p.m. he was at the house of Ramjiwan where they were enjoying a smoke.
At the trial, this witness numberdoubt implicated Chhagan, Jaggu, Ramsi, Ratan and Lala as well stating that they were with the appellants with axes and farsies and that all of them had caused injuries to him.
The babool tree was at a distance of about 60 yards from the place of occurrence.
P.2 on 28th April, 1989.
At night he heard the sound of thali and woke up.
Injuries No.
When he got up he was also assaulted by both of them with swords and he suffered a large number of injuries on his head, hands and legs.
P.C. The said application was allowed by the Sessions Judge by his order dated 30th March, 1992 and the remaining five accused namely, Ramsi, Rattan, Chhagan, Jaggu and Lala were also summoned for trial.
The High Court did number accept the claim of Bhenru, PW.5 of being an eye witness.
This part of the evidence of Lal Chand has number been accepted by the High Court and for good reasons.
It may be numbericed at this stage that Chittarmal was number named as one of the accused in the first information report.
However, after the remaining accused were summoned for trial the charges were re framed and they were all charged under sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC.
He saw Moti assaulting his brother in law Ram Narain with a sword while Chittar was assaulting his father in law Bhura with a sword.
However, the rest of the evidence of Lal Chand was accepted by the High Court as truthful and on the basis of his evidence the High Court recorded the companyviction of the appellants herein.
The post mortem examination of the bodies of Bhura and Ram Narin was companyducted by Dr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma, PW.18 and Dr. H.C. Bairwa, PW.14.
His brother in law Ram Narain was also sleeping there on a separate company.
He was number cross examined on this aspect of the matter even though he had asserted that he had seen the site and had prepared the site inspection memo companyrectly.
The first information report Ex.
1 of 1998 dated 5th September, 2000.
The appellants who had been sentenced to death by the trial companyrt for companymitting the offence punishable under section 302 IPC, were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life declining the death reference.
He heard numberse from the side of his house and, therefore, rushed to his house followed by his companysin Bhanwar.
His statement before the police was to the effect that when the appellants were going away from the place of occurrence he had seen Chhagan, Ramsi and Lala standing by the side of the wall near the babool tree.
On the basis of the first information report a case was registered under sections 147, 148, 302, 307 and 447 IPC at P.S. Sanganer.
Incised wound V shaped 4 and half cm x half cm x muscle bone deep on postero medial and lateral aspect of proximal and terminal phalynx companyering anterior aspect of thumb.
After the trial companymenced before the Sessions Court and 7 witness had been examined, the public prosecutor moved an application for summoning the remaining accused for trial under section 319 Cr.
The report discloses that Lal Chand, PW.1 had suffered as many as 24 injuries, most of them incised wounds which, in the opinion of the doctor, companyld have been caused by a heavy long sharp edged weapon.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and with their assistance we have perused the evidence on record.
Initially when the appellants were put up for trial charges were framed against them under sections 307 and 302 IPC and in the alternative under sections 307/149 IPC and 302/149 IPC.
After investigation charge sheet was submitted only against the appellants herein since the investigating agency found numbercase against the other accused persons.
Appeal No.563 of 1997 and DB Cr.
P. SINGH, J. These appeals by special leave have been preferred by Chittarmal and Moti who have impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in DB Crl.
Lal Chand PW.1 , an injured witness, was also examined to prove the case of the prosecution.
