The appellant who is a widowed sister of Sohanlal and Vishwapal who were the companyaccused before the trial Court took her trial along with her brothers under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and also under Section 324, I.P.C. on the allegations that on 6 6 80 at about 5.00 p.m. they all caused the death of the deceased Murlidhar and also caused injury to another by name Ram eshwar.
These two injuries, namely, injuries Nos.
Hence on being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court the appellant and Sohanlal preferred an appeal before the High Court.
7 was an irregular companytusion, injury No.
All the accused denied the offence when questioned under Section 313, Cr.
The occurrence was due to a dispute over the enjoyment of a piece of land.
10, 18, 19 and 20 as eye witnesses.
The High Court for the reasons assigned in its judgment altered the companyviction of the appellant into one under Section 302, I.P.C. simpliciter and affirmed the sentence of life imprisonment and in addition that it has also companyfirmed the companyviction Under Section 324 and the sentence of imprisonment for one year but the High Court set aside the companyviction of the appellant under Section 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment imposed therefor.
7 and 8 which are attributed to Sohanlal along with injury No.
5 had caused the death of the deceased.
The injuries Nos.
The police registered a case on the first information report Ex.
P.C. The trial Court acquitted Vishwapal and companyvicted the appellant and her brother Sohanlal under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced both of them to undergo imprisonment for life and also companyvicted the appellant under Sections 324 and 33 read with 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.
7 and 8 are attributed to Sohan lal.
50 and four months rigorous imprisonment and for 4 months rigorous imprisonment respectively.
5, 7, 8 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
To substantiate the charges the prosecution examined P.Ws.
P.W. 17, Medical Officer companyducted the post mortem over the dead body of the deceased and opined that injuries Nos.
P 1, inspected the scene of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses and filed the charge sheet against the appellant and two of her brothers.
Sohanlal was also companyvicted under Section 324 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further companyvicted under Section 323 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months with a direction that all sentences to run companycurrently.
Be it numbered that injury No.
There were 8 injuries on the deceased of which injuries Nos.
In respect of this incident the first information report was lodged at 6.00 a.m. on 7 6 1980.
2,3,4 and 5 are said to have been caused by gandasi and all of these injuries are attributed to the present appellant.
8 was a companytusion on the back of left side of the chest of the deceased.
5 had caused fracture on the skull.
It is stated in the evidence that Sohanlal was armed with a lathi and the appellant was armed with gandasi FO .
