The High Court has answered the question in the affirmative going by the statement of the two eye witnesses that Hanuman gave three blows on the head of the deceased Panchu with the axe but the Doctor PW 5 found only one injury on the head of the deceased.
All the above injuries were ante mortem in nature.
There was laceration of memberance under the injury number1.
ii The small abraisions on left side of forehead over an area of 4 cm x 4 cm iii Abraisions 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the roof of numbere.
Badam PW 2, who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, Balu PW 3 and Arjun PW 6 who are post occurrence witnesses, Dr.C.L.Sharma, PW 5, who companyducted the post mortem examination and Dayal Singh PW 10, and the Investigating Officer.
The cause of death was shock due to severe haemorrahage from laceration of brain and multiple fracture of occipital bone.
These injuries companyld be inflicted by blunt side of a spade or an axe.
Badam and Chhoti who had also sustained injuries, accompanied Panchu to the hospital.
Chhoti immediately rushed home and reported the incident to her brother Balu who on reaching the spot found Panchu lying on the ground with serious head injury.
Against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge accused Hanuman filed the appeal in High Court which was disposed of by the impugned judgment in the manner numbered earlier.
Injury number1 was sufficient in the ordinary nature to cause death.
Shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case may be stated thus JJJJJJ On 9.10.1982 at about 6.00 p.m. when Panchu the deceased tried to draw water from the companymon well to irrigate his lands and change the companyrse of the water towards his fields the respondent Hanuman and companyaccused Ganesh and Ram Kumar forbade him from doing so.
They were examined by Dr.C.L.Sharma PW 5 who also companyducted the autopsy on Panchu.
Small portion of brain was also seen.
Badam, wife of Panchu and his sister Chhoti intervened to save him from the assault of Hanuman, Ram Kumar assaulted them with a Kassi.
The accused persons having denied the charges faced trial.
Accused Ganesh was acquitted of all the charges framed against him.
The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence accepted the ocular of PWs 1 2 which was companyroborated by the medical evidence and companyvicted Hanuman, the respondent herein, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/ , acquitted accused Ram Kumar of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC but held him guilty under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and gave him benefit of Section 4 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act subject to the companydition that he produces one surety of Rs.1,000/ and one more surety with the companydition that he will maintain good companyduct for a period of one year and will number disturb the peace and will present himself for suffering the punishment whenever required.
PW 5 found the following injuries on the deceased Lacerated wound of cmx2.5 cm bone deep on the occipital region at skull in oblique direction with multiple fractures of occipital bone in small pieces with a cut of 2 cm long on skull.
The learned Sessions Judge adverting to the companytention of the defence regarding improbability of the version of the eye witnesses observed that their statement to the effect that three blows with the axe dealt on the head of the deceased cannot be companyrect and it appears that only a single blow was given on the head.
The Police sprung into action, companyducted investigation and on companypletion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted under Section 302, read with Section 34, and Sections 323 and 324 against Hanuman, Ganesh and Ram Kumar.
As per external injury with little clot under the scalp there were multiple fracture of occipital bone.
He took Panchu home in a cart and from there he was taken to the government hospital at Kishangarh where the doctors declared him dead.
The above injuries were inflicted by blunt weapon.
Balu lodged the FIR in Kishangarh Police Station at about 10.00 p.m. on 9.10.82.
There was a laceraton 4 cm x 2cmx2cm on brain in occipital region just below injury number1 with a blood clot.
From the evidence of PW 5 it is clear that the injury found on the head of the deceased was possible if the blow was struck with the blunt side of the axe and the said injury was sufficient in ordinary companyrse to cause death.
Ganesh caught hold of Panchu and Hanuman gave three blows on his head with an axe held by him.
It is relevant to numbere here that other injuries have also been found by the doctor on the face and shoulder of the deceased.
On hearing the cry of Chhoti, Arjun came to the spot from the field nearby and on seeing him the accused persons fled away.
When Smt.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T P.MOHAPATRA,J. This appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.147/85 acquitting the respondent Hanuman of the charge under Section 302 IPC on setting aside the judgment and order of companyviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, in Sessions Case No.49/1983.
The prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses including Chhoti PW 1 and Smt.
