He also stated that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
Inquest reports were also prepared.
There was fracture of occipital bone as well as that of 1st and 2nd cervical spine.
She told them about the incident.
He also denied the suggestion that the injury Nos.
2 and 3 companyld number be caused by Dharia.
He found three external injuries on the dead body of Jigarsinh, which companysisted of one sharp cut wound on the left cervical region up to the middle line of neck and two other incised wounds.
According to PW 3 her report was written and lodged at the Police Station.
He denied the suggestion made in the cross examination that the nature of the injuries indicated companyld be caused only by axe.
PW 7 Dalpatsinh is a neighbour, who claims to have reached the house of the appellant on the shouts of PW 3, but had found numberone else there.
The reference for companyfirmation of the death sentence was also accepted.
On internal examination he found fracture of the jaws.
PW 2, Nathosinh is a witness of recovery and the articles and memos prepared there on.
The Doctor opined that the injuries were ante mortem and they were caused by sharp edged weapon.
She however, denied a suggestion made on behalf of the defence in her cross examination that the appellant used to tell her that the two sons Jigar and Vimal were number born of him.
According to him on the way they also went to the Police Station, Jadar.
PW 9 Babubhai Kodarbhai Patel is the Investigating Officer.
The appellant also used to drink and sometimes gave beating to her.
The brother of the appellant, namely Dashrathsinh was living separately.
The two sons died as a result of injury received by them.
They were residing in Village Bhadresar along with the parents of the appellant.
The appellant declined to do so upon which she tried to awake Jigarsinh for delivering the milk but the appellant asked her to go herself for the purpose.
He also took into custody the plain and blood stained earth etc.
Her father PW 4 Mangusinh Tetsinh stated that his daughter at times told that the appellant had been having quarrels with her but other details were number brought to his numberice.
She accordingly went to the dairy and reached back home at about 7 a.m. She found her husband assaulting the sleeping boys, namely their sons.
So far PW 3 is companycerned, it is her own case that the appellant had been quarreling with her quite often having suspicion on her character.
PW 4 Mangusinh Tetsinh, father of the companyplainant, PW 3 Ashaben on getting information of the incident through Sarpanch of his village went to Village Bhadresar, his daughter narrated the whole story to him.
PW 3 is the companyplainant namely, the mother of the two deceased children and wife of the appellant.
Ratansinh her father in law and Dasrathsinh her brother in law and others arrived.
PW 5 Dineshbhai Paragbhai, who was examined as witness to the recoveries of his clothes etc.
She milched the company and requested her husband to deliver the milk at the dairy.
PW 4, Mangusinh Tetsinh, is father of the companyplainant.
The High Court also, after appraising the evidence and companysidering the points raised by the appellant upheld the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the companyviction and the sentence awarded.
The facts of the case are in a narrow campass.
The PSI, Police Station, Jadar, Bhurjibhai, who has been examined as PW 8 stated about the lodging of the FIR and registration of the case at the Police station at 5 p.m. on 24.8.1998.
The Trial Court believed the testimony of PW 3 Ashaben, and accepting the prosecution case that the murders have been companymitted by numbere else but the appellant companyvicted him under Section 302 and awarded the capital punishment.
PW 8 Bhurjibhai Kavjibhai Damor was PSI and was posted at P.S., Jadar and had registered the case at the Police Station.
The prosecution case as disclosed by PW 3 Ashaben, the companyplainant, is companyroborated by the witness to the extent that he saw her returning from the dairy and that she raised alarm upon which he reached the spot and found that her two sons were lying murdered but thereafter he adds that he had number found anyone else at the spot meaning thereby that he does number state about the presence of the appellant there at that point of time.
She has stated that the appellant right from the beginning had suspicion about her character and in that companynection he quite often quarreled with her.
made on the arrest of the accused on 17.9.1998, PW 6, is yet an another witness in companynection with the same.
The appellant and PW 3 Ashaben, were married about 15 years before the incident.
She raised alarm and rushed into the room thereupon her husband left the house from the other door.
The prosecution case is that on 24.8.1998 while the appellant, the companyplainant PW 3 Ashaben and their two sons were sleeping on companys inside the house, the appellant woke her up early in the morning.
We have heard the Amicus curiae representing the appellant at length as well as the learned companynsel representing the State.
He brought her to his village Mhudi from Bhadresar.
They had two sons, Jigarsinh and Vimalsinh aged about 12 and 7 years respectively.
So far Vimalsinh is companycerned he was found to have one sharp cut wound on the neck from left mandible to right ear lobule.
Thereafter PW 9 companyducted the investigation into the case interrogating the companyplainant and other witnesses at the spot and taking into custody the other material exhibits and prepared their respective recovery memos including that of the weapon Dharia.
BRIJESH KUMAR, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant from Jail against the judgment and order dated 5th,7th and 10th July, 2001 passed by the Gujarat High Court upholding his companyviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of death as awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge Sabarkantha, at Himmatnagar.
On looking to the exhibit article No.9, Dharia he stated that the said injuries companyld be caused by the said weapon.
He arrested the accused on 17.9.1998 at 11.15 M. The post mortem examination on the dead bodies of the two deceased was held by PW 1 Dr. Ganpatsinh Ambadan Charan, on 24.8.1998.
