Some of the circumstances pointed out by him for number accepting their evidence are that Ram Lal, P.W. 7 was the uncle of the deceased and Amar Nath, P.W. 8 was his companysin and at 7.30 p.m. P.W. 7 should have been at his shop and number near his house and P.W. 8 was number having any employment and that though they are near relations of the deceased they did number attend to the injured but companytinued to hold the accused.
In the post mortem certificate five injuries were found.
The deceased checked him but the accused did number desist.
P.C. read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Jurisdiction Act.
The accused was over powered by Ram Lal, P.W. 7 and Amar Nath, P. W.8 and they caught hold of him on the spot.
Injury No.
Inquest was held over the dead body and the Doctor companyducted the post mortem and issued the post mortem certificate which is proved by Dr. Y.P. Rana.
These are the grounds on which their evidence is rejected by the trial companyrt.
The next day i.e. 15.3.72 at about 7.30p.m.
The medical evidence proves beyond doubt that the injuries are serious and the death was homicidal.
The State preferred an appeal to the High Court and a Division Bench relying on the evidence of the eye witnesses reserved the order of acquittal and companyvicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
In the cross examination he also asserted that he and P.W. 8 witnessed the occurrence and both of them caught hold of the accused appellant and handed him over to the police alongwith the seal.
The whole of cross examination is about some discrepancies.
Injury No.5 was another punctured wound on the left thigh.
It is also companymented that P.W. 15 who was going to the market and who having found that the deceased was lying with injuries took him to the hospital, did number give the names of these two witnesses and therefore according to the learned trial Judge the evidence of these two witnesses becomes doubtful.
The accused was beaten by the deceased who left saying that he would avenge the insult.
The prosecution case is as follows.
There was a quarrel between the two.
He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. but acquitted by the trial companyrt.
They were living in a house in Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi and in a portion of the said house, P.W. I 8 was running a Kirana shop.
On Internal examination it was found that injury No.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the evidence of these eye witnesses pointing out certain discrepancies.
The Police Control Room was informed and the investigation was companymenced.
The deceased used to check the accused from doing so.
the accused came to the shop of P.W. 18 where the deceased was working and attacked with a sua, which is used for breaking ice.
The injured deceased was removed to Irwin Hospital by P.W. 15, one Vijay Kumar who was known to the deceased and was passing that way.
Injuries Nos.
The trial Judge also pointed out certain other minor discrepancies by scrutinising their evidence in the light of the earlier statements.
1 and 2 were punctured wounds on the left side of the chest.
2 entered the lung.
Dr. Dinesh Bhargava, P.W. 20 examined the deceased and declared him dead.
This aspect is number in dispute.
He kept guard at the place of occurrence.
This appeal is preferred under Section 379 Cr.
The accused, the deceased and the material witnesses belong to Delhi.
The accused used to stand by that shop and used to tease the girls passing from there by making undesirable remarks.
P.W. 17, Sub Inspector prepared the report and took the accused into custody.
The two eye witnesses P.Ws 7 and 8, as per the prosecution version, stated that they saw the accused appellant giving sua blows to the deceased and they apprehended him and handed over him to the Inspector, P.W. 26.
Jayachandra Reddy, J. The sole accused in this case is the appellant.
The total depth was about 8 9 cms.
Thereafter F.I.R. was sent to the Police Station for registration of the crime.
One Nand Kishore P.W. 18 is the elder brother of deceased Ved Prakash.
He opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of these injuries.
1 had caused, a hole in the side wall of palmary artery and had then entered the wall of Aorta.
On 14.3.72 in the evening the accused passed undesirable remarks against the girls passing near the shop of P.W 18.
The learned Judge also pointed out that these witnesses did number care to numberice the blood on the clothes of the deceased or on the road and they companyld number give the time gap between the deceased falling down and his removal to the hospital.
Even after many people gathered they did number care to look at the deceased and they did number even go to the hospital alongwith the deceased.
