The post mortem report indicated one fire arm injury, in the following terms One fire arm wound of entry 1 x 1 x chest cavity deep on the sternum 3 from the right nipple at 3 oclock position.
The ocular evidence was supported by the medical evidence and by the evidence of the doctor PW 4 who opined that the ante mortem injury companyld have been caused by a gun.
He found one pellet from inside the dead body of Uma Shankar.
When he reached the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2020.02.12 173310 IST disputed plot while passing through the Chak road, he numbericed that Durga Reason Prasad, the brother of the appellant, was getting a mound dug with the 1 IPC help of two labourers, one of whom was Ram Nath PW 2 .
The appellant managed to free himself and shot Uma Shanker who fell down as a companysequence of a fire arm injury.
3 The incident in question is alleged to have taken place at 8.45 am on 25 August 1985.
While he was aiming a shot at the companyplainant Gaya Prasad PW 1 , Uma Shanker, the son of the companyplainant, caught hold of the appellant from behind.
4 The eye witness account of the occurrence was based on the depositions of the companyplainant Gaya Prasad PW 1 and Ram Nath PW 2 .
The High Court held that the presence of PW 1 was natural, having regard to the time and place of the incident.
Moreover, PW 1 did number implicate Durga Prasad in the crime despite his presence which was an indicator of the fact that he had given a truthful account of the actual incident.
Gaya Prasad PW 1 , who is the companyplainant, was returning home after answering a call of nature.
2 This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 5 September 2017.
Uma Shanker succumbed to his injuries.
Both the Sessions Court and, in appeal, the High Court have relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 and 2.
This was objected to by the companyplainant Gaya Prasad PW 1 .
When the companyplainant objected, Durga Prasad is alleged to have stated that he was number companymitting any wrong.
The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 Leave granted.
The appellant rushed to his house and returned with a companyntry made pistol.
The margins were inverted and lacerated.
There was blackening and tattooing around the wound.
The direction of the injury was from front to back.
The presence of the appellant and the role of the appellant in the incident has emerged from the evidence on record.
At that point, the appellant intervened in the altercation and there was an exchange of words.
Both these witnesses deposed about the incident.
On this state of evidence, the nature of the incident has been duly established.
