On the internal examination he found the following injuries Left auxillary blood vessel badly lacerated and upper arm badly lacerated and fractured.
Prosecution has examined only one injured witness namely, Rajesh Singh while defence has examined Sampu Kumar Singh, DW2.
The injury sustained by the deceased Kanhaiya Pandey companyroborates ocular statements of these two witnesses.
It is urged by the learned companynsel for the appellant that on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, PW3 Surendra Pandey and PW4 Ram Ekbal Pandey companyld number be held to have been present at the place at the time of the occurrence.
On entering the field on exhortation of Somaru Pandey and Shradha Ram, Raghunath Pandey fired four shots by his rifle.
The evidence of these two eye witnesses is companysistent with the medical evidence and does number create doubt regarding the real manner in which the incident has taken place and the injuries caused by Raghunath Pandey to Kanhaiya Pandey by use of fire arm.
Parshuram Pandey and Bishram Pandey were carrying fire arms, whereas Somaru Pandey was carrying spear.
Immediately after having reached the field Raghunath Pandey fired four shots by his rifle, out of which two shots hit Kanhaiya Pandey and he fell down.
The other accused persons started indiscriminate firing with the result the villagers sustained injuries.
Thus the statement of this witness clearly shows that he has reached the place of incident after the incident was over.
The deposition of these witnesses read with the statement of PW5 Bharat Pandey and the incident recorded in the FIR leaves numbermanner of doubt that these witnesses were number the eye witnesses and have number seen the incident happening.
The appellant Somaru Pandey hurled spear towards Birender Pandey and Bharat Pandey which caused injuries to Bharat Pandey by the lathi protion of the spear.
The FIR records, that hearing the fire shots and numberse from the family members and companyvillagers, Surender Pandey and Ram Ekbal Pandey Pws 3 and 4 and many other came who had seen the occurrence and accused persons.
Both of them moved to see where these people were going.
Surendra Pandey and other alleged eye witnesses PW3 and Ram Ekbal Pandey PW4 reached the place of occurrence and saw the occurrence.
Statements of these two witnesses have been found trustworthy by two companyrts below as regards causing injuries by fire arms by Raghunath Pandey to Kanhaiya Pandey.
It has also companye in the prosecution evidence that after hot exchange of words Raghunath Pandey came back within few minutes from his residence armed with rifle and accompanied by other accused persons to the field.
PW 4 has deposed that on the date of incident he was at the door of his house and he saw the accused persons going towards the Dusadi Tola.
Kanhaiya Pandey received two gun shot injuries and fell down.
The witnesses have said that the accused persons entered the field and immediately thereafter Raghunath Pandey opened four shots at Kanhaiya Pandey, the deceased.
Raghunath Pandey was armed with rifle and other accused persons, Parshuram Pandey and Bishram Pandey were armed with gun and Somaru Pandey armed with spear.
The autopsy was companyducted by PW7 Dr. Parma Nand Rai and he found the following ante mortem injuries on his person Lacerated wound with rugged and blackish marks 31/2 x 21/2 on the left side of upper chest, auxillary side of the chest Lacerated wound with blackish margin 4 x 3 x muscle deep on the medial side of upper chest, auxillary side of the chest Lacerated wound 4 x 3 x bone deep and inverted margin on the upper left arm on the same level as injury number2 Lacerated wound with everted margin 5 x 31/2 x bone deep on lateral side of left arm.
Thus the father and the son have followed the accused persons at the same time and must have reached the place of incident after the incidence had occurred.
PW5 Bharat Pandey in his cross examination has admitted that after the accused fled away, his family members came.
The accused appellants made good their escape.
Kanhaiya Pandey was taken to Nana Nagar Hospital where he was declared dead.
Two shots hit Kanhaiya Ram deceased who fell down after receiving injuries.
His son Surendra Pandey PW3 was also sitting at the door.
As per the companynsel it was impossible for the accused Raghunath Pandey to put his buffalo in the field for grazing when Birender Pandey, Bharath Pandey and Kanhaiya Pandey were standing in the field.
Therefore, as per the FIR these two witnesses have reached the spot after hearing the fire shots and the numberse from the family members.
Birender Pandey objected to it, whereupon Raghunath Pandey abused him which was resisted by Kanhaiya Pandey deceased .
Somaru Pandey had hurled spear at Bharat Pandey.
Kanhaiya Pandey objected to the said act of Raghunath Pandey.
The Injury No.1 and Injury No.
On companysideration of the evidence, the evidence of these two witnesses is reliable and companyvincing except to the extent that some embellishments were made in explaining the genesis of incident.
Thereafter, Dharmraj Pandey, Parshuram Pandey and Bishram Pandey, indiscriminately started firing their guns which caused injuries to Rajesh Singh PW1 and Somaru Pandey DW2 and other villagers.
Appellant Raghunath Pandey after getting his buffalo washed in the canal reached near Birender Pandeys field and drove the buffalo to graze the tori crop grown in the field.
PW 3 and 4 claim themselves to be the eye witnesses but in the FIR lodged by PW6 at the police station it is revealed that Surendra Pandey PW3 and Ram Ekbal Pandey PW4 have reached the place of occurrence after hearing the numberse.
Defence plea of accidental firing deserves rejection.
It is wound of exit.
PW3 has deposed that on 24.12.1989 at about 1.30 O clock at day time he was in verandah of his house and he saw accused persons armed with guns were going towards Dusadi Tola and he has followed them.
Thereafter the appellants Parshuram Pandey, Bishram Pandey along with other accused persons started indiscriminate firing by their guns which caused injuries to the villagers.
With Criminal Appeal No 1199/2004 Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
The incident has happened within a short span of time.
2238 of 2004 P. NAOLEKAR, J. Leave granted in S.L.P. Crl.
PW5 Bharat Pandey companyroborated the statement of PW6 Birender Pandey when he stated in the Court that he was present in the field along with Kanhaiya Pandey and Birender pandey when Raghunath Pandey came there and let loose his buffalo to graze the tori crop standing in the field of Birender pandey which was objected to by Birender Pandey and Raghunath Pandey abused him.
Both these appeals arise out of the same incident for which all accused persons have been companyvicted and sentenced.
From the post mortem report it is clear that the injuries found on the person of the deceased are lacerated wound of 31/2 X21/2 on the left side of the chest just above the level of nipple and lacerated wound of 4 x 3 x muscle deep on the medial side of upper chest and auxillary side of the chest apart from a wound of entry and exist on the upper left arm.
Thereafter, Parshuram Pandey and Bishram Pandey had started indiscriminate firing.
The trial companyrt and High Court while relying on the statement of PW3 Surendra Pandey, PW4 Ram Ekbal Pandey, PW5 Bharat Pandey, PW6 Birendra Pandey companyvicted the accused persons.
The other injured persons namely, Hriday Shankar Rai, Sampu Kumar Singh, Rajesh Singh, Mathura singh were examined by Dr. Shiva Nand Prasad PW8 on 24.12.1989 and he has opined that the injuries sustained by these persons were simple and were caused by suspected gun shot.
On this Raghunath Pandey went to his residence and returned with other accused persons, armed.
Thereafter, Raghunath Pandey went to his house and came back with fire arm with other accused armed with guns and Somaru Pandey, Shradha Ram armed with spear.
That on 24th December 1989 at about 1.30 P.M. at Village Burhaila, FIR was lodged by informant PW6, Birender Pandey informing that he along with Bharat Pandey PW5 and Kanhaiya Pandey deceased were standing in their field.
His brother PW3 Surendra Pandey and father PW4 Ram Ekbal Pandey reached the spot after the accused persons had already fled away.
The prosecution case in nut shell is as follows.
They reached the spot later on.
2 companyld number have been caused of the same shot and must have been by two gun shots.
No.2238 of 2004.
It is further deposed that appellant Somaru Pandey and Shradha Ram hurled spear and Bharat Ram was injured by the back portion of the spear.
The accused appellants were tried for the offence along with two other accused persons namely, Dharm Raj Pandey and Shradha Ram.
