The validity of the judgment of the High Court in respect of the remaining four appellants is the subject matter of this appeal.
The age of injuries in respect of all the three injured was found to be within six hours.
He also sustained injuries and claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence, as mentioned in the FIR itself.
The informant in order to save his life shouted on which his uncle Ramayan Yadav deceased , his father Dharichhan Yadav PW 1 and his brother Bir Bahadur Yadav PW 3 , came in order to save him.
One was a lacerated wound on the left side of head x x scalp deep upto bone, the second injury was also lacerated wound on left side near middle of head 1 x x 1/6.
The injuries were found to be simple.
Other persons from the village also came and thereafter the accused persons stopped assaulting and fled away.
The learned companynsel also companyld number point out as to how, in these circumstances, number examination of independent persons acted to the prejudice of the appellants.
He has fully supported the prosecution case.
However, in the cross examination or otherwise it has number even been brought out by the defence that there were other persons at the scene of occurrence who were independent persons.
On the shouts raised by the informant and his party, Dudhnath Yadav PW 2 and Jagdish Yadav came and saved them.
PW 3 was also assaulted by Ajodhaya Yadav with lathi and also by Bhim Yadav with bhala on head causing bleeding injury.
The third injury was a swelling 3 x 2 on left buttock.
The injury reports of the three injured were proved by PW 8 as Exhibits 2, 2/1 and 2/2 respectively.
PW 1 also fell down as he was assaulted with bhala by Kashinath Yadav and Kamta Yadav causing injuries on his abdomen, back of the body and hand.
Hiralal Yadav then caused a bhala injury on the chest and abdomen of the deceased who fell down and became unconscious.
from the Police Station in West direction.
It further shows that formally Section 302 was number added by the Investigating Officer PW 9 .
The judgments of the Courts below reflect that the prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined nine witnesses.
On PW 6, the informant, he found three injuries.
Another submission was that though the Investigating Officer PW 9 had admitted in his cross examination that information of the occurrence was first given by a Chowkidar, which was incorporated in his Station Diary Entry as well, FIR was number registered on the basis of said information and that Chowkidar was number even produced as a prosecution witness.
The stomach of the deceased companytained undigested food material and the bladder was empty.
vi companyld be caused by lathi also.
During inspection, he found the place of occurrence to be a field belongiong to the informant in which potato crop had already been planted.
The reason for the occurrence was said to be a dispute over the land and litigation in the past which had resulted in filing of a companyrt case also.
Sonia Devi PW 4 and Munesari Devi PW 5 are mother and wife respectively of the informant.
On PW 3, he found two injuries, one was incised wound over front portion of head 3 x skin deep and the other was penetrating wound on the right side of abdomen x x .
Some of the injuries on PW 1 and PW 3 were by sharp weapons like bhala, but in case of PW 6, the doctor opined that the injuries were by hard and blunt substance like lathi.
By way of companyrection in the FIR, this provision was added after obtaining permission for the same from the Court of the Magistrate on November 16, 1991 itself by informing that uncle of the informant, i.e. Ramayan Yadav, died on way to Bihia Hospital.
To trace out the prosecution case in brief, it may be mentioned that on November 16, 1991, at about 900 am, Ajodhaya Yadav, armed with a lathi, and other four appellants armed with bhala, were ploughing a field belonging to the informant while Kashinath Yadav exhorted others to kill the informant Ramji Yadav.
This argument appears to be an argument of desperation as the place of occurrence is shown to be at a distance of 300 sq.
He found all the injuries simple in nature but injury No.2 and 3 were penetrating wounds on chest, right side of back and lower part of right arm above elbow joint.
The injuries were simple.
After the trial, accused persons were found guilty by the trial companyrt for offence under Section 302 IPC and were awarded imprisonment for life.
First Information Report FIR was registered after recording fardbayan Exhibit 4 and this FIR was proved during trial as Exhibit 5.
He has further opined that the injuries companyld be caused by bhala.
He found six injuries on the person of PW 1.
PW 8 examined the injuries of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 6 on November 16, 1991 at Bihia Block Hospital between 1230 pm to 115 pm.
He found that potato crop marks of three rounds of ploughing were visible.
He has fully supported the prosecution case.
Like PW 1, he is also an injured eye witness to the incident.
The investigation was done by Surajdeo Ram PW 9 , Investigating Officer, as pointed out earlier.
PW 1, Dharichhan Yadav, is the father of the informant.
This FIR shows that the police station was situated very close to the place of occurrence, i.e. about 300 yards on the west.
PW 4 has claimed to have gone to the place of occurrence on hearing the shouts and also claimed to have seen the occurrence, whereas PW 5 stated that she was on the roof of her house and from there she saw the entire occurrence as the place of incident was close to her house.
However, injury No.
Hiralal Yadav caused a bleeding injury on the head of the informant with a bhala.
The Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence prepared Inquest Report Exhibit 3 sent the body for postmortem examination and obtained postmortem report recorded the statement of witnesses, including further statement of the informant and submitted charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 and other provisions of the IPC.
During the pendency of this appeal, one of the accused persons, namely Hiralal Yadav, expired and the appeal qua him stood abated.
K. SIKRI, J. Five appellants, who were tried for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and companyvicted by the trial companyrt, have approached this Court after their companyviction was upheld by the High Court as well vide impugned judgment dated September 28, 2007.
