Harbans Singh tried to separate them on which Jeet Singh slapped him 3 4 times.
They heard the cry of Balvindra Kaur, wife of the appellant Harbans Singh, who was working outside the house, calling for help and shouting bachao, mer izzat loot lia hai.
Balvindra Singh and Narendra Pal Singh, who appeared as prosecution witnesses and had watched the occurrence, rushed to the house of Jeet Singh and told his brother Kashmir Singh as to what had happened.
Presence of Balvindra Singh and Narendra Pal Singh at the time of the incident was denied by the appellants.
He said while he was returning to his village, which is five kilometers away, he met Jeet Singh on the way.
He held that injuries caused to the deceased Jeet Singh were given by the appellants in the heat of passion.
According to Dr. M. P. Aggarwal, who examined the dead body of Jeet Singh, two injuries on the body of Jeet Singh were sufficient to cause death of a person in the numbermal companyrse.
Appellants in their defence had examined Balvindra Kaur PW 1 , wife of appellant Harbans singh, whose honour was allegedly being violated by the deceased Jeet Singh and had shouted to that effect.
FIR in this case was lodged without any loss of time and the names of the eye witnesses find mention in that.
On report lodged with the police by Kashmir Singh, brother of deceased Jeet Singh, case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered against the appellants.
He was subjected to searching cross examination but his testimony companyld number be shaken.
They said that because of fear they did number go near the appellant while they were attacking Jeet Singh and told his brother Kashmir Singh as to what had happened.
He said he had gone to Ganganagar to companylect money from one Diwan Chand, which money he was required to pay to Dilawar Singh of the village Karanpur of the appellants.
They said that because of fear they did number go near the appellants while they were attacking Jeet Singh as both of them were having weapons in their hands.
First he stabbed Jeet Singh 2 3 times and then he lost his senses and stabbed him number of times.
One of the circumstances on the basis of which statement of anther eye witness Balvindra Singh was rejected was that he had worked as an employee of appellant Harbans Singh, who had removed him from the service and thus he got animus against the appellants.
When the police arrested them it also took away the weapon with which Jeet Singh was killed by Harbans Singh.
In their defence in causing death of Jeet Singh and then shifted their stand to companytend that death was caused by Harbans Singh due to grave and sudden provocation given by Jeet Singh.
All injuries were ante mortem.
On the way he passed through the house of the appellants.
The report was lodged at 9.45 p.m. on November 9, 1981 within fifteen minutes of the occurrence.
His examination of the evidence appears to be rather too superficial.
They admit that Harbans Singh done him to death.
He did number accept the presence of Balvindra Singh and Narendra Pal Singh at the site and said they were interested witnesses.
Jeet Singh asked him to accompany him to his house and offered him to drop him to his village in his jeep as night had already fallen.
The police moved immediately in the matter, arrested the accused and took possession of material evidence.
Both the appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge Sriganganagar, for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Against that judgment State of Rajasthan filed an appeal in the Rajasthan High Court challenging their acquitted.
Presence of Balvindra Singh and Narendra Pal Singh PWs along with Jeet Singh and their all going to the house of Jeet Singh was quite natural.
Sessions Judge, however, acquitted both the appellants.
Kashmir Singh along with Balvindra Singh rushed to the house of the appellants and saw that Jeet Singh was lying dead in the companyrt yard of their house.
Harbans Singh also gave him slap and fight between the two started.
Prosecution case depended on the statements of Balvindra Singh PW 1 , Narendra Pal Singh PW 2 , Kashmir Singh PW 5 , Dr. M. P. Aggarwal PW 6 and the investigating officer, Jai Narayan, SHO PW 8 .
By the impugned judgment High Court allowed the appeal companyvicting and sentencing the appellants as aforesaid.
High Court has rightly held that the defence version does number appeal to the reason.
Circumstances enumerated by the trial Judge in throwing overboard the case of the prosecution are number companyrect.
In the opinion of Dr. Aggarwal death was caused due to bleeding and shock caused to the liver, stomach, kidney and intestines of the deceased.
Narendra Pal Singh PW 2 though was number resident of the village of the appellants and Jeet Singh but he explained his presence in that village along with the deceased Jeet Singh at the relevant time.
Since Diwan Chand did number make any payment Narendra Pal Singh got down at Karanpur from bus in order to inform Dilawar Singh that money companyld number be arranged.
Post mortem examination of the deceased showed that the suffered as many as 40 injuries, many of which were caused by sharp edged weapon and rest by blunt weapon.
Both the appellants caught hold of Jeet Singh and said that they would teach him a lesson.
Jangeer Singh tried to separate them but was unsuccessful.
At that time both the appellants were standing in front of the gate of their house and they called out Jeet Singh to go to them.
High Court was of the view that it was Harbans Singh, who had called Jeet Singh at the door of his house while standing along with Jangeer Singh.
Balvindra Singh denied that he was removed from the service and said that he voluntarily left the service.
As per version of Harbans Singh companye tools were lying in the nearby straw room and he picked up one tool and then stabbed Jeet Singh.
Learned sessions Judge did number give credence to the prosecution person.
It is alleged that appellant Harbans Singh was holding a barchha in his hand and he started causing injuries to Jeet Singh while appellant Jangeer Singh companytinued holding Jeet Singh.
According to Jangeer Singh he rushed to the police station and when police came there he and Harbans Singh were taken to the police station.
When Jeet singh went near them the appellants got hold of him and told him that he had got the jeep repaired from them but did number make full payment of the repairing charges and yet he was raising a dispute and that the appellants would teach him a lesson that day.
The appellants were prosecuted on the allegation that on November 9, 1981 at about 9.20 p.m. Jeet Singh along with Balvindra Singh and Narendra Pal Singh was going to his house.
Appellants do number deny that Jeet Singh was killed in their House.
On this Harbans Singh came out and saw that Jeet Singh was holding his wife and was putting his hands over her breasts and was touching his face with her face.
The appellants did number deny the death of Jeet Singh in their house on the fateful day.
Jeet Singh was repeatedly stabbed and mercilessly beaten.
Out of 40 injuries, which he suffered, 30 were caused by sharp edged weapon.
Their defence was that on that day at about 8.00 p.m. appellant Harbans Singh took his bath and was preparing to take dinner.
Appellant Jangeer Singh at that time was lying on the company and was listening to the news on the radio.
