Learned companynsel submits that the finding of the High Court that an incident took place without pre meditation, so as to bring the case within the Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Penal Code, is based on numberevidence whatsoever.
The injury was caused with the help of sharp edged weapon.
5 The Trial Court believed the depositions of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4.
The Trial Court companyvicted Leela Ram for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 302 of the Penal Code.
The case of the prosecution is that the respondent inflicted an axe injury on the skull of the deceased which was the cause of death.
All the above eye witnesses stated that the respondent Leela Ram had attacked the deceased with an axe on the skull.
The axe was recovered vide seizure memo Exh.
PW 5 stated that the injury on the skull was the cause of death and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse.
11 In assessing the rival submissions, it would be necessary to advert to the evidence of the four eye witnesses who have been believed, both by the Trial Court and by the High Court, insofar as the companyplicity of the respondent is companycerned.
Incident appears to have occurred on a spur of moment.
The death was caused without premeditation and the appellant did number act in a cruel or unusual manner.
From the evidence of these witnesses companypled with the medical evidence, it has emerged that the respondent inflicted an axe blow in the centre of the skull of the deceased.
The evidence of PW 2 on the involvement of the respondent finds abundant companyroboration in the deposition of PW 1 Basanti Devi, the companyplainant PW 2 Satya Narayan Swami, PW 3 Nathu Ram and PW 4 Gyarsi Lal.
7 The High Court by its judgment dated 13 August 2008, allowed the appeal of the respondent in part and companyvicted him of an offence under Section 304 Part II of the Penal Code.
Hence, emphasis was placed on the evidence of PW 5 that the injury companyld have been caused due to a blunt object.
The injury was caused within the duration of six hours.
This was number accepted by the Trial Court.
4 PW 4 Gyarsi Lal had also sustained the following injuries Contusion 5x3 cm in the lower region of left thigh.
2 A First Information Report was lodged by Satya Narayan Swami PW 2 at Singhana Rajasthan , that at about 6.30 p.m. on 27 February 2003, the deceased Ram Kumwar Swami was proceeding for some work at a chakki.
Besides the ocular evidence of PW 1 to PW 4, the medical evidence and the deposition of PW 5, the prosecution relied on the recovery of a blood stained axe at the behest of the respondent.
He was, however, acquitted of the offence under Section 336.
In companying to this companyclusion, the High Court adverted to the following circumstances, which in its view emerged from the evidence adduced by the prosecution Prosecution is able to establish that appellant inflicted injury with blunt object on the head of the deceased.
Rajesh and Jagdish were acquitted by the Trial Court.
Rajesh, Jagdish and the respondent were tried for offences under Sections 341, 323, 336 and 302, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.
Abrasion and deformity 1x0.5 cm in the lower region of the right forearm.
PW 4 is also an injured witness.
The injury on the skull, lead to companya and was the cause of death.
P 18 and by the FSL report which reported blood stains on the axe.
PW 4, is an injured eye witness.
PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 were all eye witnesses to the incident.
The evidence of PW 5 was clear in indicating that the injury was caused with the help of a sharp edged weapon.
PW 5 also stated that the cranium and spinal companyd and the parietal bone had been fractured.
9 Assailing the judgment of the High Court, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan submits that The companysistent account of four eye witnesses PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 indicates that it was the respondent who had inflicted an injury with an axe on a vital part of the body of the deceased, namely, his skull The medical evidence in the form of the post mortem report and the deposition of PW 5 establishes beyond doubt that the death was caused as a result of the injury sustained because of a sharp edged weapon and The fact that the injury was caused by the axe is also companyroborated by its recovery vide seizure memo Exh.
8 The revision filed by the companyplainant was dismissed.
The left eye was closed as an impact of this injury.
The case of the prosecution rested principally on the evidence of PW 1 Basanti Devi, the companyplainant PW 2 Satya Narayan Swami, PW 3 Nathu Ram and PW 4 Gyarsi Lal.
6 Criminal Appeal No.580/2005 was filed by the respondent against the judgment of companyviction.
Adverting to the evidence of PW 2, the Trial Court held that the accused had launched an assault on his brother with an intention to grab the possession of his land.
A criminal revision, being Criminal Revision Petition No.958/2005, was filed by the companyplainant against the acquittal of the two companyaccused.
While companyducting the post mortem, PW 5 observed the following injury on the body of the deceased Injury No.1 Crush injury 10 cm x 0.5 cm x depth of bone in the middle of the skull.
Leela Ram, the respondent, inflicted an axe blow on the skull of the deceased.
3 The cause of death, as deposed to by PW 5 Dr. Hari Singh Gothwal, was the injury which was sustained on the skull by the deceased.
The judgment of the High Court companyvicting the respondent under 304 Part II, it was urged, ought number to be disturbed.
Something sparked suddenly and appellant inflicted single blow on the head of Ram Kumar.
The State is in appeal against the decision.
There is numbertrustworthy evidence on record to prove that companyaccused Rajesh Kumar and Jagdish Prasad had shared companymon intention with the appellant.
While he was passing by the hand pump near the house of Sriram Swami, three persons Rajesh, Jagdish and Leela Ram the respondent herein attacked the deceased and caused serious injuries to him.
