FIR Ex.
Cut wound 1 x x 1 Temporal bone was fractured on the frontal region on the right side of the head.
Accused Nos.
Wound No.
Accused No.
The sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
Accused Vrindavan is the nephew of PW 4 Siyarani.
PW 4 Siyarani is the wife of deceased Rajaram.
Accused Gulab is the nephew of PW 4.
PW 12 found that the deceased Rajaram was virtually cut into two and died on the spot as a result of excessive hemorrhage.
Skeptula bone was cut into two parts.
Accused Brijrani is the elder sister in law Jethani of PW 4.
If only a small portion of a long edged weapon had hit the body, then the size of the wound will be smaller.
Further accused Nos.
PW 12, Dr. V.P. Brijpuriya companyducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased Raja Ram on 17.5.1985 and found following eleven incised wounds of various dimensions.
On 18.5.1985, a tabbal was seized from accused Vrindavan.
Accused Nos.
Deceased Rajaram tried to run away but the accused chased him.
It was 2 away from the middle line and was pointing towards the inner side.
One cut wound 1 x x 2 vertical on the cervical area of the chest on the left side.
All the sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
As already numbericed, accused and PW 4 were closely related.
Lungs was protruding and visible under the wound.
72/85 by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh and companyvicted and sentenced to undergo RI for life for offences punishable under Sections 302/149 IPC.
Cut wound 3 x 1 x 1 on the right side of the head on the frontal region on the back of the hair line curved.
B was seized from the appellant Brijrani.
The upper part of the wound was extended upto skeptula and the lower part upto the 10th rib.
1, 2 and 5 of all the charges levelled against them and companyvicted accused No.
3 and 4 were armed with Pabbal and Farsa.
3 Vrindavan and accused No.
She companyld identify Pabbal Art.
4 Brijrani for offences punishable under Sections 302/148 and 324 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for life and RI for one year respectively.
As already numbericed, Art.
When she regained companysciousness she saw her husband was cut into two pieces.
1 and 4 were subjected to cross examination but numberhing companyld be elicited to impeach the credit worthiness of their testimony.
In this wound all the muscles of the thigh were cut and femur bone was cut into two pieces.
In this wound cervical bone was cut into two pieces.
Accused Chuttia is the brother in law of PW 4 and father of the accused Vrindavan.
12, Dr. H.P. Brijpuria, as already numbericed, companyducted post mortem on the deceased and found eleven incised wounds of different dimensions and sizes.
PW 1 Ghasiram is an independent witness.
She also suffered a farsa blow on her head dealt by accused Vrindavan and another blow of farsa on her hand dealt by appellant Brijrani.
PW 4 Siyarani is the wife of deceased Rajaram.
2 was serious which was sufficient to cause death in numbermal circumstances.
Sides of the wound were clear and cut was vertical the upper.
Cut wound 3 x x , vertical wound on the left side of chest.
This was circular.
He has also stated that being alarmed by the cry of her husband, Siyarani had rushed to his rescue.
Accused Vrindavan and accused Brijrani dealt farsa blows while other accused dealt blows on him with their lathis.
She rushed to Dhanuas house where she saw her husband was being assaulted.
Chest was full of blood.
Accused Brijrani is the mother of accused Vrindavan.
She recognized the pabbal and farsa with which she was hit.
P16 on 17.5.1985.
P16 on the date of the incident, i.e. 17.5.1985 itself.
On the outer side, it was upto the shoulder.
The doctor further opined that all the injuries companyld number be possible by the same weapon because all of them were of different depth and sizes.
The doctor in paragraph 23 of cross examination stated as under It is companyrect that the internal injuries suffer by the body depend upon the fact that how the sharp edge of the weapon hits the body.
Then all of a sudden, he was assaulted with Pabbal Sabbal from behind by accused Vrindavan, son of accused Chuttia and accused Brijrani, wife of Chuttia and mother of Vrindavan.
Accused Vrindavan chooses number to prefer an appeal against his companyviction.
On being alarmed by the cries of Rajaram, PW 4 Siyarani, who is the wife of deceased Rajaram, rushed to the spot to rescue her husband but she also sustained a farsa blow on her head dealt by the accused Vrindavan and sustained another farsa blow on her hand dealt by accused Brijrani as a result of which she fell down.
The sides of the wound was sharp and vertical.
A with which she was hit by accused Vrindavan and farsa Art.
Wound No.
She stated that around 7 AM when she was inside the house, she heard the sound of her husband companyesave me from the front side of the house of Vrindavan.
On appeal, the High Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted accused Nos.
The doctor opined that the sizes of all cut wounds were clear and sharp.
The High Court, while companyvicting the appellant, relied upon the testimony of PW 1 Ghasiram and PW 4 Siyarani wife of the deceased.
Injury No.
This witness, however, stated that he companyld number see later part of the assault near the house of Dhanua as his view was obstructed by a house in between but he over heard Rajaram shouting for help.
PW 4 Siyarani has also stated that being alarmed by the cries of her husband, she went to the house of Dhanua to rescue her husband.
On the basis of the depth and length of the wounds I am telling that they companyld have been caused by two different weapons.
PW 17 V.K. Jain I.O. immediately reached the spot and started investigating the case.
1 4 were companyvicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year.
The High Court, on re appreciation of evidence, companyvicted Brijrani and her son Vrindavan, as numbericed above.
The doctor in paragraph 7 of his examination in chief, stated as under All the injuries of the deceased were ante mortem.
Briefly stated, the facts are as follows On 17.5.1985 when the deceased Rajaram was proceeding towards the village Hintoli Bari with a bucket to fetch milk, he stopped on the way and had some talk with accused Chuttia.
Lungs had two cuts one 4 x 1 and another was of 3 x 1.
He specifically stated in earlier part of the statement that the incident was witnessed by him and both accused Nos.
She saw her husband being assaulted.
Accused Brijrani, who is the appellant before us, is the mother of accused Vrindavan.
2 was expected from multiple hit at the same spot.
Blood stained farsa was seized from the appellant Brijrani Ex.
B with which she was hit by appellant Brijrani.
He also saw, amongst others, Gulabs mother, which witness was lateron identified as Brijrani, assaulting Rajaram with farsa.
Cut wound 7 x 2 x 6 was on the right thigh in the middle portion.
After holding the inquest report Ex.
A blood stained farsa was seized from Brijrani vide Ex.
Muscles were cut due to this injury and cumeron bone were cut into two pieces.
1, 2, 3 and 6 were expected from sharp, heavy and long edged weapon.
5 was companyvicted under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year.
1 4 were also companyvicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year.
2, 3 and 5 were also companyvicted under Sections 324/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year.
P1 was lodged promptly at 9 AM on the same day in which all the particulars have been mentioned.
The doctor further opined in paragraph 20 of examination in chief as under The injuries suffered by the deceased is possible by the weapons item A pharsa and Katarna item B produced in the Court.
A was seized from Vrindavan and Art.
All the injuries companyld number be possible by the same weapon because all of them were of different depth and size.
PW 4, Siyarani, as already numbericed, suffered two injuries one on the hand by blow of Pabbal dealt by Vrindavan and the other on the left hand dealt by a farsa blow by appellant Brijrani.
Accused Vrindavan came and gave a farsa blow on her head.
Cut wound 13 x 3 x 2 on the left side of the back starting from the tenth rib and going downwards.
Frontal bone was fractured.
Appellant Brijrani gave a farsa blow on her arm and she fell down unconsciously.
J U D G M E N T Sema, J. Five accused Chuttia, Gulab, Vrindavan, Brijrani and Jagat Singh were tried in Sessions Trial No.
He also seized samples of plain and blood stained earth and two pieces of bone Ex.
P21 , he seized the bucket and pair of shoes belonged to the deceased Ex.
4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were expected from a sharp cutting and heavy weapon which is different from the earlier one.
The upper angle was acute and the lower angle was wider.
The inner injury of the wound No.
Cut wound in square shape 11 x 7 x 5 on the back towards the chest on the left side.
