83 of 1993 Sessions Trial No.10 of 1997.
There was an abrasion 1.5 x 1 cm on right side of face below right eye adjacent to numbere.
DW 1 Dr. Prithvi Raj was BMO posted at Civil Hospital, Abohar, at the relevant time.
There was a reddish companytusion 6 x 1.5 cm on lateral side of right arm on its middle.
Ant Ram was taken to the Civil Hospital, Abohar, by PW 2 and PW 3 where he was declared dead.
Ant Ram came there and started abusing me for number supporting Sohan Lal.
The learned Sessions Judge, Ferozpur, charge sheeted A 3 Suraj Dev under Section 302 IPC, while A 1 Babu Ram and A 2 Indraj were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
X ray was advised.
Rambi Ex.
He medico legally examined the accused Indraj on 03.03.1993 at 10.45 p.m. in the hospital and found the following injuries on his person There was an incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm bone deep sent on arteries lateral aspect of left forearm, just above the wrist joint.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr.Lal Chand Thakral as PW 1, Sohan Lal as PW 2, Ram Pratap as PW 3, Het Ram as PW 4 and A.S.I. Hardev Singh as PW 5.
Babu Ram and my son Suraj Dev have been falsely implicated.
Maya from further assault by the deceased.
There was an abrasion 3 x 1cm on back of right forearm on its upper part, 3 cm below injury number2.
Police helped the deceased party as brother of Ant Ram, i.e. Main Pal is working in the Police Department.
The plea of the prosecution that she and her husband Indraj were given slaps and fist blows by the general public, who companylected at the scene of the occurrence, has been specifically denied by her.
PWs 2 and 3 raised an alarm which attracted many other persons on the spot.
Indraj A 2 pleaded as under I was preparing shoes by cutting leather with the Rambi.
2 and 3 were found simple in nature, whereas Injury No.1 was declared grievous in nature caused by blunt weapon within the duration of six hours.
Briefly put, the facts may be summarized as follows On 03.03.1993 at about 7.30 PM, the companyplainant Sohan Lal PW 2 on hearing some numberse companying from the street near the house of Ram Pratap PW 3 came out of his house with a torch in his hand.
PH/1 came to be registered at the Police Station.
On receipt of the said blow, Ant Ram fell down.
He recorded the statement of PW 3 Ram Pratap on the following day of the incident.
There was about 700 CC of blood was present on the left side of the chest cavity.
He gave blows to me and my wife with Kapa from its sharp and blunt side.
On the basis of the said statement, formal FIR Ex.
Injuries No.1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon while the remaining was caused by blunt weapon.
There was an abrasion 4 x 3 cm on front of left knee.
DW 3 Smt.
As per the opinion of Dr. Prithvi Raj, the above said injuries on the person of accused Indraj were found simple in nature after X ray examination.
In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death of Ant Ram was hemorrhage, shock and injury to heart which was sufficient to cause death in due companyrse of events.
Ant Ram was armed with Kapa with which he gave 6 7 blows to her husband from sharp and blunt side of the weapon.
In the meanwhile, my wife also came there.
Mr. K.B. Sinha, learned companynsel for the appellants, assailed the judgment of the High Court inter alia on two following grounds a that the genesis of the occurrence is shrouded in mystery and the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the person of the appellant Indraj and his wife DW 3 Smt.
I have brought the original MLR today in the companyrt.
She further stated that she went to the hospital along with her injured husband where Doctor medically examined them.
Dr. Arora companyducted X ray examination of Smt.
Maya on 04.03.1993 and found fracture of the base of proximal phalyn of right little finger.
Maya companyld be caused by sharp and blunt weapon and number by slaps and fist blows.
She tried to save her husband from further assault, but Ant Ram inflicted grievous injuries on her arms with Kapa.
The probable duration of the injuries was within six hours.
The appellants preferred an appeal under Section 374 2 of the Cr.
DA/1 is the pictorial diagram showing the seat of injuries.
There was an abrasion 1.5 x 1 cm on lateral side of right forearm on its lower part.
654 OF 2006 Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. The appellants have filed this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated August 03, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, companyfirming the companyviction and sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC and a fine of Rs.2000/ with a default clause to undergo R.I. for six months awarded to Suraj Dev and imposing punishment of life imprisonment upon appellants Babu Ram and Indraj under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ each, in default of payment of fine to further suffer R.I. for six months each in Sessions Case No.
There was an abrasion 3 x 2 cm on medical side of the left forearm on its upper part.
Heart was empty.
X ray was advised.
PW 2 Sohan Lal and PW 3 Ram Pratap, the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence, are interested witnesses.
On dissection clotted blood was present in underlying tissues, 5th rib was cut.
The High companyrt, as stated above, companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants, but dismissed the Criminal Revision of the companyplainant.
Maya, wife of the accused Indraj, and he found following injuries on her person There was a reddish companytusion 2 x 1.5 cm with underlying swelling 5 x 3 cm on dorsum of right hand on medical side.
A ruqqa was sent to Police Station regarding receipt of the dead body of Ant Ram.
I have love affairs with Kant daughter of Sohan Lal.
PK made by A 3, the Police recovered one blood stained Rambi companycealed in an iron box meant for keeping clothes from his house.
On 10.03.1993, S.I. Jagdev Singh accompanied by A.S.I. Hardev Singh PW 5 went to Village Kikker Khera, where Ram Pratap, Ex Sarpanch, produced Babu Ram A 1 and Suraj Dev A 3 who, later on, were arrested.
It was further case of the prosecution that on 12.03.1993, pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex.
The appellants pleaded number guilty to the offence and claimed to be tried.
A.S.I. Hardev Singh PW 5 came to the hospital and recorded statement of PW 2 Sohan Lal.
We exchanged abuses and a quarrel started.
Maya DW 3 .
A 3 Suraj Dev pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case being the son of A 2 Indraj.
The Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, held the appellants guilty of the murder of Ant Ram and, accordingly, companyvicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.
In order to defend me and my wife, I gave a Rambi blow to him.
Despite searching lengthy cross examination, the prosecution has failed to elicit any material to shatter and discredit her testimony.
She narrated the entire incident to the police, but the police did number listen to her version as the nephew of the deceased is posted as a Constable in the Police Department.
He went to the place of occurrence and lifted the blood stained earth and prepared a site plan.
She categorically denied the suggestion of the prosecution that the occurrence had taken place in the street in front of the house of PW 3 Ram Pratap.
In their defence, the appellants have examined Dr. Prithvi Raj DW 1 , who medico legally examined A 2 Indraj and also his injured wife Smt.
Fresh bleeding was present.
D is the certified companyy of the MLR of Indraj and Exh.
Dr. R.K. Arora DW 2 radiologically examined Smt.
The appellants are, thus, before us by Special Leave to Appeal.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
They are brother and nephew respectively of the deceased.
Eye witnesses Sohan Lal and Ram Pratap are made up witnesses.
On the same day, Dr. Prithvi Raj medico legally examined DW 3 Smt.
In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants Babu Ram A 1 pleaded as under I am innocent.
On 08.03.1993, Indraj A 2 was discharged from hospital and was arrested by the Investigating Officer and thereafter investigation of the case was taken over by S.I. Jagdev Singh.
Injuries No.1, 2 and 3 were kept under observation and the remaining injuries were declared as simple.
On further dissection the pericardium was out and left ventricle arterially was cut.
On companypletion of the investigation, charge sheet was presented against the appellants A 1, A 2 and A 3 in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who companymitted the same to the Court of Sessions.
X ray was advised.
Ant Ram had a Kapa with him.
P.C. before the High Court, whereas PW 2 Sohan Lal filed Criminal Revision No.306 of 1997 claiming companypensation to the heirs of the deceased.
In the opinion of the Doctor, Injury Nos.
DW 2 Mr. R.K. Arora was S.M.O., Civil Hospital, Abohar, at the relevant time.
She stated that her husband Indraj was carrying a Rambi in his hand with which he inflicted injury to Ant Ram to save himself as well as her body.
Dr. Prithvi Raj has categorically opined that the injuries on the person of accused Indraj and his wife Smt.
Further suggestion that all the three accused persons companymitted murder of Ant Ram was categorically denied by her.
Thus, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
I have produced letters Mark D.1 to D.8 which are in her own hand writing and I have been falsely involved due to this reason.
P1 was taken into possession through Memo Ex.
PK/2 .
Dr. Lal Chand Thakral companyducted the post mortem on the dead body of Ant Ram on 04.03.1993 at 11.00 a.m. and found the following injuries on his body A stab incised wound 2.5 cm X 1.5 cm present on the front of the chest on left side 4.5 cm below, the overlying shirt and vest.
Maya, therefore, the companyviction of the appellants suffers from infirmity and perversity b that the injury, which was found fatal to the deceased Ant Ram, was caused by the appellant Indraj in his self defence and also to protect the body of his wife Smt.
PWs.2 and 3 saw that Babu Ram A 1 and Indraj A 2 had caught hold of Ant Ram while Suraj Dev A 3 gave a blow with a Rambi an instrument for cutting leather by a companybler on the chest of Ant Ram.
The Investigating Officer started investigation and prepared an inquest report.
The injury was ante mortem in nature.
The defence of the accused Indraj companyroborated by the evidence of his wife DW 3 appears to be more plausible than the rival version of the evidence of PWs 2 and 3.
The prosecution has number examined any other witness in support of its case though it has companye in the evidence of PW 3 Ram Pratap that large number of persons including Chunni, Banwari and Chhotu were present at the scene of occurrence, who witnessed the incident.
There was an incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm bone deep present on back right forearm 5 cm below electron on process.
