Gulab and Chhatrapal had run towards the village.
Similarly, the High Court numbericed the prosecution version that Gulab and Chhatrapal have been assaulted by a number of persons.
They were supposed to have been assaulted by three of the respondents, who were armed with axes.
Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, 24.02.1981 The High Court, in appeal, vide its judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2004 set aside the order of companyviction recorded by the trial companyrt and acquitted all the respondents.
Her name did number figure in the FIR.
The injuries suffered by them were of blunt object.
We may number briefly numbere the background facts, necessary for the adjudication of the present matter.
No X Ray report or any other supplementary reports were placed on record.
On the prosecution side, apart from the two deceased, Punna, PW1 suffered only blunt object injuries.
She had improved her version which did number even tally with the version given by the injured, when they were examined.
Hence the present appeal is filed by the State before us.
The postmortem examination of deceased Gulab took place at 2.45 p.m. on 22nd August, 1977 and was companyducted by PW8, Dr. V.D. Mishra.
The doctor then stated that all three injuries were on his skull.
The fourth witness was Kunwar, PW4, he was declared hostile by the prosecution.
5 were armed with lathis.
1, 2 and 3 and seven other accused persons with axes and lathis.
The injuries were apparently simple.
PW5, Thakur Das alias Munna too turned hostile and did number support the prosecution case.
Chhatrapal and Gulab told him that they were number grazing in his field.
Due to rain and fear of the respondents, they did number go to the police station that day.
On seeing them, Chhatrapal and Gulab, due to the fear of the respondents, ran towards the village Abadi.
A perusal of his statement shows that numbere of the injuries were grievous in nature.
5 suffered one lacerated wound and a companytusion.
Respondent No.
Gulab and Chhatrapal were lying dead in a pool of blood in the field of Hirwa.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 20th August, 1977 at around 3.30 p.m., Gulab and his nephew Chhatrapal were grazing their cattle in Dhadhai Haar.
In both the injuries underlying bones were cut.
On an alarm raised by respondent No.
Preetam Singh, respondent No.
Respondent No.
The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to the above injuries.
The lacerated wound was skin deep at the level of the left temporo mandibular joint and companytusion with swelling on the dorsal surface of the first phalanx of left thumb.
PW1, Punna and PW2 Bahadur both were injured witnesses.
They were prevented from reaching their house by the respondents.
On reaching the spot of the incident, they were also assaulted.
Hari Singh, respondent No.
They were ploughing their fields in the near by ground.
The third injury was on buttock.
Other injuries were on the left ring finger at the level of second phalangial joint and on the left shoulder joint.
They were encircled in the field of Hirwa, which was in the Thakur Baba Har.
This alleged incident in Dhadhai Haar was sought to be proved by PW3, Kumari Pramod.
Injury No.
In his report, he stated that there were three incised wounds on the body of Chhatrapal, two of them being on head, one companyered right side face, lower part of the right ear and part of neck and the other on the left side of head 12 cm above the left ear.
3 had three companytusions, on the right shoulder joint, right side of mid neck and dorsal surface of the right palm.
On hearing the voice of Chhatrapal and Gulab, informant PW1 and his brother, Bahadur PW2 rushed to save them.
1 then abused and started beating them.
1 and 2.
2 had a companytusion vertically on the left side of the back and another companytusion horizontally at the level of the inferior angle of the left scapula, abrasion circular in the radius of .5 cm on the outer aspect of the left shoulder joint, companytusion at the outer aspect of the left shoulder joint and lateral wound, bone deep, on the right parietal protuberance.
The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence was 5 miles.
All the injured respondents were examined on the same night, i.e., 20th August, 1977 between 9.00 p.m. and 10.15 p.m. All these injuries were suffered from a blunt object.
4 had suffered only an abrasion on the first phalanx of the right thumb.
PW3, Kumari Pramod was daughter of PW2.
5 was on the vitalo part of his person.
3 were armed with axes and Katti alias Hari Singh hereinafter referred to as respondent No.
Karan Singh, respondent No.
In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries No.
He had stated that Gulab and Chhatrapal had engaged in a marpeet with Preetam in Dhadhai Haar.
The prosecution in support of its case examined five eye witnesses.
4 and Tutti alias Babu Lal hereinafter referred to as respondent No.
Some other witnesses also arrived at the spot of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by Punna, PW1 and Bahadur, PW2.
1 suffered two lacerated wounds, one on the left elbow joint and the other on the left side of the segital suture.
The FIR was lodged on 21st August, 1977 at 8.30 a.m. by Punna, PW1.
1, his family members, who were present in the vicinity doing work in their fields, namely Dilli, Tutti, Mukundi, Karan Singh, Balli, Katti, Hari Singh, Baura, Thakurdas and Siya Brahims came running to his rescue.
1, Karan Singh hereinafter referred to as respondent No.
They had suffered axe and lathi injuries.
Chhatrapal and Gulab retaliated and started beating Preetam.
2 and Mukundi hereinafter referred to as respondent No.
They were followed up to the field of Hirwa by the respondents and were assaulted.
Subsequently, the charge sheet was filed by the investigation officer, Bhagwan Singh, PW9 and respondents were put on trial.
The High Court disbelieved the prosecution story as projected through PW1, Punna.
Both sides had assaulted each other.
She had just supported her father and uncle entirely.
In the field, they were assaulted by respondent Nos.
They were armed with kulharis and lathis.
After the assault, the respondents ran away towards the village.
However, the High Court disbelieved her evidence on the ground that she was unlikely to be present at the scene of the incident.
They include his daughter Lachchi and Sunkiya, wife of his brother Bahadur.
These injuries were medically examined by PW6, Dr. R.S. Mishra on 21st August, 1977 between 10.30 and 11.30 a.m. He had proved the injury reports of Punna and Bahadur.
577 of 1981 whereby the High Court allowed the criminal appeal by setting aside the order of companyviction recorded by the trial companyrt against the respondents.
Preetam hereinafter referred to as respondent No.1 , who is a companylateral of the above two, came there and asked Chhatrapal and Gulab, as to why they were grazing their cattle in his field.
The third injury was 2 cm above injury No.
On the other hand, respondents also sustained minor injuries.
Three incised wounds were also found in the body of Gulab, one on the upper side of head 10 cm above from left ear, underlying bone was found cut and the second and third incised wounds were on the left side head.
In such circumstances, the appeal of the respondents was allowed and they were acquitted.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. The present appeal is directed by the State of U.P. against the final order and judgment dated 23rd March, 2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.
The other witnesses are PW7, Ram Swaroop, the scribe of the report, PW6, Dr. R.S. Mishra, who examined the injuries of the prosecution witnesses and PW8, Dr. V.D. Mishra who performed the autopsy of dead bodies.
Mukundi, respondent No.
The postmortem examination on the body of the two deceased, Gulab and Chhatrapal was companyducted by PW8, Dr. V.D. Mishra.
Babu Lal, respondent No.
Bahadur, PW2 had suffered an incised wound 2 cm x 5 cm muscle deep at the border of the right mandibular angle 4 cm, below right ear.
