At that point of time, Hawa Singh gave the deceased an axe blow on his chest, and Satpal gave him a sickle blow on the left knee.
Reason The case of the prosecution in brief is that on the intervening night between 6/7.11.1999, the first informant, Suresh Kumar, and his brother Krishan Kumar the deceased , had gone to their field, which they had taken on Batai, for irrigation purposes at about 130/200 AM on 07.11.1999, the informant sent Krishan Kumar to verify the water flow in the channel which passed through the Dol of the field of Accused No.3 Hawa Singh when Krishan Kumar was near his tubewell situated near the middle of Hawa Singhs field , the first informant heard numberses of abuses, and on reaching the said place he saw Hawa Singh armed with a kulhari axe , Accused No.1 Satpal armed with a dantali sickle , and Accused No.2 Virender, the appellant herein, armed with a lathi and Hawa Singh raised a cry exhorting that the deceased should be taught a lesson.
Parts of the small and large intestines were also found lying outside the wound.
When the first informant raised a hue and cry, the uncle of the first informant, Jugal Kishore, came to the spot, and also witnessed the incident.
Thereafter, Hawa Singh gave an axe blow to the deceased on the right shoulder, Satpal aimed two sickle blows on the head of the deceased which, however, fell on his left arm, and the appellant gave a lathi blow on the left knee of the deceased, who fell to the ground.
On the other hand, the other two injuries, being a laceration and an abrasion, which companyld possibly be attributed to the appellant, may even have been a result of the deceased falling to the ground, since injuries such as bruises, abrasions and lacerations may very well be sustained as a result of a fall.
Though in their examination in chief, these witnesses deposed that the appellant herein assaulted the deceased with a lathi on his knee and head, it was proved in the cross examination that these statements made before the Court were improvements.
The other two were, firstly, an abrasion of size 2 x 1 cm on the left frontoparietal region, and secondly, a lacerated wound of size 6.5 x 1.5 cm on the right knee joint.
5, an incised wound measuring 18 x 6 cm on the chest and abdomen, was stated to be individually sufficient to cause death.
Heard Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent State.
Thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene.
Thus, there does number appear to be strong evidence of the active participation of the appellant in the offence.
It was in this companytext that the murder was companymitted through the overt acts of the two accused other than the appellant.
As mentioned supra, the appellant was supposed to have assaulted the deceased with a lathi, while the other two accused assaulted the deceased with sharp cutting weapons such as an axe and sickle.
Thus, from the post mortem report and the evidence of the doctor, it is amply clear that the death was caused due to incised injuries, of such a nature which companyld have been caused by the axe and sickle carried by the other two accused.
The death was opined to have occurred on account of the incised injuries numbered 2, 5 and 7 in the post mortem report, though even Injury No.
The evidence of the doctor and the post mortem report disclose that the deceased had sustained seven injuries, out of which five were incised injuries.
5 of 2000, companyvicting the appellant accused along with two other accused for the offence under Section 302 read with Section Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date 2019.12.16 164527 IST 34 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter IPC .
The other two accused, namely Hawa Singh and Satpal, seem to have number filed appeals against the same, accepting the judgment passed by the High Court.
The wound, which started in the middle of the sternum, extended up to the abdomen, ending 6 cm above the umbilicus.
The first information report was lodged on the morning of 07.11.1999.
The case of the prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of PWs 14 and 15, who were the eye witnesses of the incident.
The appellant herein was released on bail by this Court on 26.07.2010.
It has been shown that Accused No.3, Hawa Singh had a motive to companymit the murder of the deceased, inasmuch as he was eyeing the property which was being cultivated by the deceased on a Batai basis, and though Hawa Singh had requested the landlord to give the land on Batai basis to him, the deceased had secured the land instead.
The appellant herein was companyvicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC with the aid of Section 34, IPC, inasmuch as both the Courts companycluded that the appellant had shared the companymon intention to murder the deceased with the other two accused.
PW 14, the first informant, is the brother of the deceased, and PW 15 is their uncle, who had arrived at the scene after hearing the cries of the first informant.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. This appeal is presented questioning the judgment dated 28.07.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
168 DB of 2001, companyfirming the judgment of the Sessions Court, Narnaul dated 16.02.2001 passed in Sessions Case No.
