9, Dharia he stated that thesaid injuries companyld be caused by the said weapon.
Inquest reports were alsoprepared.
He denied the suggestion made in thecross examination that the nature of the injuries indicatedcould be caused only by axe.
Onthe other hand he has stated that he reached on the alarmraised by Ashaben whom he had seen returning from thedairy, numberone else was present at her house.
He found there externalinjuries on the dead body of Jigarsinh, which companysisted of onesharp cut wound on the left cervical region up to the middleline of neck and two other incised wounds.
The reference for companyfirmation of the deathsentence was also accepted.
There wasfracture of occipital bone as well as that of 1st and 2ndcervical spine.
Her father PW 4 Mangusinh Tetsinh stated that his daughter at times told thatthe appellant had been having quarrels with her but otherdetails were number brought to his numberice.
According toPW 3 her report was written and lodged at the Police Station.
She told them about the incident.
PW 8 Bhurjibhai Kavjibhai Damor was PSI and was posted at P.S.Jadar and had registered the case at the Police Station.
The Doctor opined that the injuries were antemortemand they were caused by sharp edged weapon.
On internalexamination he found fracture of the jaws.
They wereresiding in Village Bhadresar along with the parents of theappellant.
He also took into custody the plainand blood stained earth etc.
The Trial Court believed the testimony of PW 3 Ashaben, and accepting the prosecution case that the murdershave been companymitted by numbere else but the appellant companyvictedhim under Section 302 and awarded the capital punishment.
She however,denied a suggestion made on behalf of the defence in hercross examination that the appellant used to tell her that thetwo songs Jigar and Vimal were number born of him.
The appellant declined to do so upon whichshe tried to awake Jigarsinh for delivering the milk but theappellant asked her to go herself for the purpose.
Ratansih her father in law and Dasrathsinh her brother in law and other arrived.
He alsosated that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse ofnature to cause death.
So far PW 3 is companycerned, it is her own case that theappellant had been quarreling with her quite often havingsuspicion on her character.
The brother of the appellant, namely Dashrathsinh was living separately.
He also denied the suggestionthat the injury Nos.
2 and 3 companyld number be caused by Dharia.
According to him on theway they also went to the Police Station, Jadar.
The two sons dies as a result of injury received by them.
The appellant also used to drinkand sometimes gave beating to her.
PW 4,Mangusinh Tetsinh, is father of the companyplainant.
PW 4 Mangusinh Tetsinh, father of the companyplainant, PW 3 Ashaben on getting information of the incident throughSarpanch of his village went to Village Bhadresar, hisdaughter narrated the whole story to him.
She milched the company and requested her husband to deliver themilk at the dairy.
PW 5Dineshbhai Paragbhai, who was examined as witness to therecoveries of his clothes etc.
The PSI, Police Station, Jadar, Bhurjibhai, who has beenexamined as PW 8 stated about and lodging of the FIR andregistration of the case at the Police Station at 5 p.m. on24.8.1998.
PW 3 is the companyplainant namely,the mother of the two deceased children and wife of theappellant.
Sheaccordingly went to the dairy and reached back home at about7 a.m. She found her husband assaulting the sleeping boys,namely their sons.
She has stated that the appellant right from thebeginning had suspicion about her character and in thatconnection he quite often quarreled with her.
PW 9 Babubhai Kodarbhai Patel is the Investigating Officer.
She raised alarm and rushed into the roomthereupon her husband left the house from the other door.
Theappellant and PW 3 Ashaben, were married about 15 yearsbefore the incident.
The other prosecution witnessof fact regarding the alarm raised by Ashaben in the morningis PW 7 Dalpatsinh, but he has number stated about the presenceof the appellant at the spot at the time he reached there.
made on the arrest of theaccused on 17.9.1998, PW 6, is yet an another witness inconnection with the same, PW 7 Dalpatsinh is a neighbour,who claims to have reached the house of the appellant on theshouts of PW 3, but had found numberone else there.
The prosecution case is that on24.8.1998 while the appellant, the companyplainant PW 3 Ashaben and their two sons were sleeping on companys inside thehouse, the appellant woke her up early in the morning.
The High Court also, after appraising the evidence andconsidering the points raised by the appellant upheld thejudgment of the Trial Court as well as the companyviction and thesentence awarded.
The facts of the case are in a narrow campass.
PW 2, Nathosinh is a witness of recovery and the articles andmemos prepared there on.
Thereafter PW 9 companyducted the investigation intothe case interrogating the companyplainant and other witnesses atthe spot and taking into custody the other material exhibits and prepared their respective recovery memos including thatof the weapon Dharia.
He brought her tohis village Mhudi from Bhadresar.
They had two sons, Jigarsinh and Virnalsinh aged about 12 and 7 years respectively.
So far Vimalsinh is companycerned he was found to have one sharp cut wound onthe neck from left mandible to right car lobule.
We have heard the Amicus curiae representing theappellant at length as well as the learned companynsel representingthe State.
Brijesh Kumar, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant fromJail against the judgment and order dated 5th, 7th and 10th July,2001 passed by the Gujarat High Court upholding hisconviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of death asawarded by the Additional Sessions Judge Sabarkantha, atHimmatnagar.
Onlooking to the exhibit article No.
He arrested the accused on 17.9.1998 at 11.15A.M. The post mortem examination on the dead bodies ofthe two deceased was held by PW 1 Dr. Ganpatsinh Ambadan Charan, on 24.8.1998.
