Briefly stated, the allegation against the respondent was that on 5.7.
They had denied that any injury was caused to the respondent.
Aggrieved by his companyviction, the respondent filed an appeal before the High Court.
According to the prosecution this incident was witnessed by P.W. 1 Govind Singh, P.W. 2 Vimla, W. 3 Kastoori, P.W. 4 Bhan Kaur, P.W. 5 Teji, P.W. 8 Ramjilal and P.W. 9 Jeevan Singh.
The trial companyrt believed the prosecution evidence and companyvicted the respondent under Section 304 Part I. The trial companyrt, however, did number believe the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against the companyaccused Ghamandi and acquitted him.
But he was companytradicted by his police Statement wherein he had number stated anything regarding snatching of the gun.
The State had also filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 302 IPC.
this omission on such a vital point has to be regarded as a companytradiction and it creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness of his version.
There he had got himself examined by a Doctor at about 6.00 P.M. The Doctor numbericed five injuries on his person two of them were companytused lacerated wounds.
The respondent soon after the incident ad left the village and gone to Bharatpur.
The eye witnesses had stated that the two shots fired by the respondent had caused injuries to harveer.
The Doctor also opined that the injuries were 12 to 18 hours old.
The second reason given by the High Court for disbelieving the eye witnesses is that all failed to explain the injuries on the respondent.
The defence of the accused was that he was attacked and injured by Harveer and others, that he had numbergun with him and that whatever injuries were found on the persons of the other side were inflicted by his wife in order to save him.
But number a single injury on Harveer was found to have been caused by a gun shot.
One was on his head and the other was on his face.
79 at about 6 A.M. he had caused the death of Harveer, his nephew, by firing two shots at him and also by giving stick blows.
The High Court disbelieved the eye witnesses as it was their positive case that both the shots fired by the respondent had injured Harveer and because of those injuries he had fallen down.
After appreciating the evidence of the doctor who had first examined harveer, and also of the doctor who had performed the post mortem and the Radiologist, the High Court held that the injuries found on Harveer were number caused by a gun shot.
Nanavati, J. The State has filed these appeals as the respondent was number companyvicted by the High Court under Section 302 IPC and has been acquitted after setting aside his companyviction under Section 304 part I and Section 323 Ipc by the Sessions Court, Bharatpur.
