Dr. B.K. Srivastava PW1 companyducted the autopsy and as per postmortem report prepared by him found following injuries on the deceased Lacerated wound 6 cms x 1 cm x 1/2 cm on the left side of the head, 9 cms above the left eye.
PW3 and his wife were assaulted because PW3 was cited as a prosecution witness against the respondents and their father in the case of murder of one Rajinder son of Prem Sahai where they were accused.
When Budh Wati Ved Wati, wife of PW3, came to save him, she was also assaulted with butt of the pistol.
The prosecution case in brief is that respondents 1 and 2, their father and another person entered the house of Raghubir PW3 at about midnight of 15th 16th January, 1977 while he was sleeping with his wife and children.
The Sessions Court, on appreciation of the evidence of PW3, PW4, Police officials and the medical evidence, companyvicted the three accused.
PW7, S.I. S.P. Singh, inspected the place of occurrence on 16th January and prepared a site plan which mentions one electric bulb in the Kothri of Raghubir, one in his companyrtyard and another in the Kothri of PW4.
The mention of the electric bulbs at various places, as earlier numbericed, was also made in the site plan prepared by the Police.
After removing the quilt, the respondents held fast PW3 and he was hit on the head with the butt of the companyntry made pistol.
On medical examination of Budh Wati at about 10.25 a.m. on the same date PW8 found the following injuries Incised wound over left occipital region of scalp, 8 cm above and behind left ear, size 5 cms x 1 cm x bone deep, edges were clean cut, wounds were gaping, suspected fracture of underlying bone, x ray was advised, injury was kept under observation, the injury appeared to have been inflicted with a sharp edged weapon, direction was forward backward.
The FIR was recorded on the statement of PW3 at 8.30 a.m. Budh Wati succumbed to her injuries at about 9.00 p.m. on 16th January.
Their companyviction and companysequently the sentence that had been imposed on them by the Sessions Court was set aside in appeal by the High Court in terms of the impugned judgment.
The incident took place around midnight.
In reversing the judgment of the Sessions Court, the factors that have been taken into companysideration and weighed with the High Court are Absence of proof of light Improvements and companytradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and Difference between the ocular and medical evidence regarding injuries.
On hearing their cries, Mathuri PW4 and Balwant, living in the same companypound, came whereupon the accused ran away.
Pulse rate was 72 per minute, respiration 24 per minute, eye lids were numbermal, and were reacting against light, all the injuries were inflicted within 24 hours.
During the pendency of the appeal, respondent number3, Devi Das died.
The State is in appeal to this Court on grant of leave.
Later she died at 9 p.m. on the same date.
The existence of the electric bulbs was also number seriously challenged in the cross examination of other witnesses.
The place of occurrence is at a distance of about 9 kilometer from the Police Station.
PW3 and his wife were sent to the District Hospital, Budaun.
The fourth person was number identified and, thus, companyld number be apprehended.
The omission to mention about light in the FIR or in the statement of PW3 recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.
P.C. was wholly inconsequential.
