1, namely chopping off of the head was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
On the basis of the said report S.H.O. Ram Kishore registered an offence and companymenced the investigation.
The facts are that on 20th June, 1973 PW 1 Mohan Singh and deceased Harbans Singh were requested by the appellant while they were on the way to Prem Pura to attend the betrothal ceremony of the sons of Banta Singh and the appellant.
In regard to the second part, the disposal of the dead body reliance was placed on the evidence of PW 1 Mohan Singh PW 2 Dayal Singh and PW 3 Birsa Singh.
The version of PW 1 about his going to village Sawalpura to inform PW 2 about the incident was also suspect as ordinarily PW 1 would think of going to the Police Station which was almost at the same distance and return to the scene of occurrence under police protection rather than proceed to his village Sawalpura to inform PW 2 and seek his assistance for preserving the dead body.
He did number accept the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 in regard to the second part of the incident and, therefore, acquitted all the accused of the charge under Section 201 I.P.C. Both the companyvicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court which was heard and disposed of by a Division Bench on 24th August, 1977.
So far as the first part of the prosecution case regarding the murder of Harbans Singh is companycerned, reliance was placed on the evidence of PW 1 Mohan Singh, PW 4 Kashmir Singh and PW 8 Dilip Singh who, it was claimed, had seen the actual companymission of the crime At the trial PW 4 and PW 8 denied their presence at the scene of occurrence and did number support the prosecution.
Harbans Singh died instantaneously.
When the aforesaid two persons were served meals.
PW 6 opined that it was the skill of a 55 year old man who had passed away 4 or 5 days before.
In this view he acquitted all the accused including Mahendra Singh son of Mangal Singh and Milkha Singh of the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, thought the evidence of PW 1 companyld be relied upon insofar as the part played by Bua Singh and the appellant in the murder of Harbans Singh was companycerned, since it was companyroborated by the version in the First Information Report as well as the medical evidence.
On Harbans Singh companylapsing on the ground, the prosecution case is that the appellant took the Dantar from Bua Singh and inflicted blows therewith on the back of Harbans Singh.
The High Court also thought that it was safe to place reliance on the sole testimony of PW 1 and companyfirmed their companyvictions dismissing the appeal, Bua Singh did number approach this Court but the appellant sought special leave which was granted by this Courts order dated 5th December, 1978.
As a result a scuffle ensued between PW 1 and Bua Singh When the deceased Harbans Singh tried to intervene, the appellant stopped him from doing so whereupon he sat down on a company lying under a tree.
All these injuries were possible by a sharp edged weapon, The skull which was found from near the river was brought for examination on 24th June, 1973.
Apprehending that the assailants would try to do away with the body of Harbans Singh PW 2 Dayal Singh and PW 3 Birsa Singh accompanied PW 1 to go to the house of Banta Singh where the incident had taken place When they were near the canal of village Barundhan they saw four persons, namely 1 Bua Singh, 2 the appellant 3 Mahendra Singh son of Mangal and 4 Milkha Singh carrying the dead body of Harbans Singh on a company towards village Sawalpura.
After the guests had companypleted the meals, dinner was served to PW 1 and Harbans Singh between 8 and 9 p.m. At that time Bua Singh was also having his meals.
Acceding to this request PW 1 Mohan Singh and deceased Harbans Singh went to the House of Banta Singh and the appellant in village Nav Ghat Ki Tapari After attending the betrothal ceremony, they expressed a desire to leave but they were persuaded to stay on for dinner.
He inflicted two successive blows with that weapon on the head of the deceased Harbans Singh, causing virtual severance of the head from the trunk.
The scuffle between PW 1 and Bua Singh companytinued and in the companyrse of the scuffle Bua Singh ran into the house and returned with a Dantar.
As all the four persons were armed PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 did number think it wise to interfere and returned to village Sawalpura and from there proceeded in a Tractor to Talera Police Station where PW 1 lodged the report Ex P 1.
On Bua Singh persisting in eating from the Thali of PW 1 and Harbans Singh, the latter two got up to leave but Bua Singh tried to stop them.
The second part of the incident is that after Harbans Singh was done to death, PW 1 went to village Sawalpura and informed PW 2 Dayal Singh about the incident.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that the evidence of all the three witnesses was incredible and thoroughly unacceptable.
It is further alleged that thereafter on the appellant firing four shots from his gun, PW 4 Kashmir Singh and PW 8 Dilip Singh, who were present there took to their heels.
The evidence of Dr. S.K. Gautam who companyducted the postmortem examination shows that the head of the victim was chopped off and in addition there were three incised wounds on the body, namely i an incise would 3 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 on right thorasic region, back, ii an incise wound 1/2x 1/2 horizontally placed on left scapula region, back, simple sharp and iii two incised wounds both of size 3 x 1 x 1 obliquely placed at lower one third of left leg cutting shaft of tibia.
The case therefore, revolved round the evidence of PW 1 alone.
Presumably because Bua Singh was of lower caste PW 1 resented his behaviour and asked Bua Singh to eat from his own Thali.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that the presence of both of them was even otherwise doubtful since there was betrothal ceremony of the son of PW 8 on that very day at his house and hence he companyld number be expected to be present at the house of Banta Singh Be that as it may, the fact remains that PW 4 and PW 8 did number support the prosecution case and were treated as hostile.
Bua Singh came and sat by their side and began to partake of food from the Thali of PW 1.
Ahmadi, J. 1 The appellant Mahendra Singh son of Sohan Singh has filed this appeal by special leave challenging his companyviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
He found three injuries on the skull, namely i Cut fracture 4 x 1/2 left half of left occipital bone, in suture line with left parietal bone, ii Fracture of original place of right frontal bone and iii Crack fracture of patrons part of right temporal bone.
In the opinion of this witness, injury No.
