Thus, the said statement of Madan Lal which is number companyroborated by any other evidence cannot be companysidered to be trust worthy beyond doubt and this probability cannot be denied that since the report of Dr. M.K. Pancholi PW 7 is mentioning death of Dhulji due to the head injury, therefore, Madan Lal PW 6 improving his statement according to the said medical report and is trying to give his statement according to the medical report.
In the occurrence, according to the prosecution, P.W.1 Rameshwar got injuries in his left arm and knee and Dhulji died on account of the injuries sustained by him.
The trial companyrt by its judgment and order dated 20th January, 1997 acquitted all the accused persons Aggrieved by their acquittal, the State preferred an appeal and the High Court by the impugned judgment maintained the acquittal of the three accused persons but companyvicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively.
It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that appellant No.2 Rameshwar stabbed Dhulji with knife which hit him in the chest and lathi injuries were inflicted on the head.
According to the prosecution, on 29th January, 1994, the informant Madanlal P.W.6 and his father Dhulji, the deceased, were sleeping in a room adjoining their field and his nephew P.W.1 Rameshwar was sleeping outside.
Madan Lal got knife injury on the head and lathi injuries on hands and legs.
On appreciation of evidence, the trial companyrt held that the deceased Dhulji died homicidal death.
After usual investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the appellants companymitted to the Court of Sessions to face trial.
Prosecution, in order to bring home the charge, had mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1 Rameshwar and P.W.6 Madan Lal who claimed to be the eye witness to the occurrence.
Appellant number2 also named Rameshwar was armed with knife, whereas other appellants were armed with lathis.
Whereas PW 6 Madan states that Ramesh, Badri and Shankar beat Dhulji with lathis.
Altogether seven persons were put on trial for offences under Sections 148, 323 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
In such situation, giving respect to the policy instances of Ran Chhod Singh Versus State of M.P. 1983 JLJ 186 and Ram Narayan and Jagar Singh Others versus State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 1727.
P.W.1 Rameshwar raised an alarm and on hearing the same, the informant P.W.6 Madan Lal and deceased Dhulji came out of the room and all the appellants started beating them.
According to the prosecution, at 1215 in the night the appellants herein came on a motor cycle and threatened Rameshwar who was sleeping outside.
2 and 3 by sharp cutting weapon.
Appellants denied to have companymitted any offence and claimed to be tried.
In this companynection the trial companyrt has observed as follows The version of P.W.1 Rameshwar is that accused Rameshwar stabbed knife in the chest and stomach and Ramesh, Badri and Shankar beat Dhulji with stick which was hit in the knees of both legs.
Appellants have preferred this appeal against the aforesaid judgment of companyviction and sentence.
Prosecution had also examined P.W.7 Dr. M.K. Pancholi, who had companyducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased.
He had found four injuries on the person of the deceased and in his opinion the injuries caused on the head and injury No.4 caused on right parietal region were by hard and blunt substance, whereas injury number.
