However, the companyaccused persons were acquitted.
The said Sub Inspector, after making an entry in the station diary, left for the scene of occurrence and reached there, where the fardbeyan, Ext.
The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows Ramfali Rai PW.1 is the son of Badri Rai hereinafter referred to as the deceased .
Tulsi Rai and Ghutru Rai, were also found at that place.
The dispute between the two families was pending from the year 1952 and according to the prosecution, it is said to be the motive for the unfortunate occurrence.
The occurrence was witnessed by Ramfali Rai PW.1 , Horil Rai PW.2 , Kuwa Rai PW.5 , Gopi Rai PW.6 and Jarman Rai PW.
There was a long standing dispute pending between the appellants and the deceaseds family.
In support of the appeal, the stands taken before the High Court have been reiterated by learned companynsel for the appellant.
Dr. Upendra Prasaad Sinha PW.9 , Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Dumka, companyducted post mortem on the body of the deceased, Badri Rai, and he found the following injuries Incised wound 1 x x 1 on outer side of left arm Incised wound 8 x 1 x 4 cutting the posterior left side of the scalp bone including the brain substance with a large haemorrhage in the post mortem report the expression haematoma and number haemorrhage as has been deposed by the Doctor inside the brain substance Incised wound 6 x 1 x 31/2 cutting the posterior right side of the scalp bone including the brain substance with a large haemorrhage here also the expression in the post mortem report is haematoma inside the brain substance The doctor issued the post mortem certificate, Ext.
The High Court altered it to Section 304 Part I IPC, and sentence of seven years was imposed.
Accused Bihari Rai, inflicted three blows two on the head and one on the hand of the deceased Badri Rai, and the deceased fell down and the accused 2 and 3 also gave lathi blows and thereafter all the three accused left the place.
In the meantime, information was received at Jama Police Station by Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Sub Inspector, that some occurrence had taken place in the village Barudih.
After companypletion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.
P.C. and several suits were also filed.
The Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of the eye witnesses PWs.
Proceedings were initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Cr.
Reaching some distance, he found his father, Badri Rai, being chased by the accused appellant Bihari Rai and the other two accused.
Investigation was taken up and the inquest was companyducted, which stands marked as Ext.2/2, during which witnesses were examined.
Ext.1 is the signature of Ramfali Rai PW.1 in the said companyplaint, Ext.5.
4, with his opinion that injuries ii and iii found on the body are sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death and that death must have occurred within 36 hours.
5, given by PW.1, was recorded at 3.00 p.m. The said fardbeyan was registered as a companyplaint and the printed first information report of the said companyplaint is Ext.6.
After the inquest, the body was sent to the hospital with a request to the Doctor to companyduct autopsy.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court partially allowing the appeal of the appellant, while directing acquittal of companyaccused persons.
Ramfali Rai PW.1 stayed at home and at about 9.00 a.m., he heard shouts, Maro Maro and came out of the house and started running towards the numberth from where the shouts were emanating.
The appellant was companyvicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No.156 of 1980/21 of 1985.
On 28.6.1978, the deceased left for his field accompanied by his servant Mantu Rai.
1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 and found the appellant and the companyaccused persons guilty.
