The injured was deceased the same day.
Signature Not Verified On 27.08.1993 at about 8.30 a.m., irked by the loud Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA Date 2018.08.01 105753 IST Reason numberse of the tape recorder being played by the deceased in his house, the Appellant had a verbal altercation with the deceased which culminated in a single sword blow by the Appellant in the rib cage area of the deceased.
Their houses were separated by a distance of approximately 2025 feet by the road inbetween.
The High Court upon reappreciation of the evidence has companyrectly held that the evidence of PW4 stands companyroborated by the other three prosecution witnesses.
It is manifest from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the Appellant and the deceased lived opposite each other across the road.
The post mortem was done the same day at 3.30 p.m. by PW5 Dr. P.K. Bhatnagar, who found Punctured wound 2 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep just above upper border of the left lower rib on lateral side of chest 9 cm away from umbilicus at 2 Oclock position with surgical dressing.
NAVIN SINHA, J. The Appellant assails the reversal of his acquittal, and companysequent companyviction under Section 302 I.P.C. sentencing him to life imprisonment.
The M.L.C. of the injured was done at 8.45 a.m. by PW.8 Dr. S.K. Prabhakar who found an incised wound of 2 cm x 2 cm.
The Trial Court granted the benefit of doubt to the Appellant.
The trial companyrt has laid exaggerated emphasis, by erroneous appreciation of evidence, on minor omissions and companytradictions in the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 so as to doubt the veracity of the entire prosecution case without any discussion of the injured eye witness PW4.
The Appellant rushed across to his house, came back with a sword and delivered a single blow to the deceased in the rib cage area and then ran away threatening to see him later.
The High Court on reappreciation of the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW4 Omwati, an injured witness, and other eyewitnesses PW1 Babu Ram, PW2 Ram Kumar and PW3 Kalu Ram, companyvicted the Appellant.
The genesis of the occurrence was the loud playing of a tape recorder in the house of the deceased, objected to by the Appellant.
