Incised wound on the left scalp over the left parietal bone size 1 x 1 deep fracturing the parietal left side.
The first information report was lodged on the information of PW 8 Pranabandhu Giri stating that on 12th November, 1990 while he was tending cattle, two heads of bullocks belonging to him came over the ridge adjoining the land of Rushinath where paddy crop was standing.
It is in evidence of PW 3 that as a result of injuries both the lungs were companylapsed and death was due to injury to vital organ like lungs and maninges.
They were found guilty of the charge and were companyvicted by the sessions judge.
It is established that scuffle took place in the manner numbericed hereinbefore.
The prosecution to establish the charge examined 11 witnesses including four eye witnesses i.e. PWs 1, 7, 8 and 10.
Jugal was caught hold by Sukadev, whereafter Rushinath snatched away the axe from the hand of Atul and gave a blow with its blunt side on the head of Jugal.
Those injuries resulted in instantaneous death of Jugal.
The High Court, however, companyfirmed the finding of the learned sessions judge that the appellant Atul inflicted injuries on deceased Jugal with knife.
All of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The injuries found on deceased Jugal are these Incised wound 2 x 2 deep incised plural cavity 2 below the anqube of left shapul on the 7th and 8th inter companytal space fracturing the parietal bone.
On receipt of these injuries Jugal fell down and succumbed to the injuries.
Immediately thereafter Atul brought out a knife and dealt a piercing blow on the back of Jugal.
Having seen the bullocks he abused PW 8 which resulted in altercation of words followed by a tussle.
PW 7 and PW 10 also received injuries.
PWs 4, 5 and 6 are other doctors who examined the injured as well as appellant Rushinath and Atul.
All of them were charged for offences under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court by the impugned judgment has, however, set aside the companyviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is also in evidence that in the scuffle the appellant Rushinath and Atul also received some injuries though simple in nature.
Appellants Basanta and Atul came being armed with axe and lathis respectively.
Other accused who were present on the spot, in the opinion of the High Court, were liable for companyviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Appellant Rushinath Giri is father of appellants Atul Kumar Giri and Basanta Giri.
The deceased Jugal who was also tending cattle at a little distance came at the spot.
In the impugned judgment, on the appreciation of the evidence of the eye witnesses and the medical evidence, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish that any injuries were inflicted with the axe.
He protested against the high handed action of the appellants.
The other appellant Sukadev Giri is brother of Rushinath Giri.
As already numbericed, the High Court has set aside the companyviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The crop was ready for harvesting.
They all surrounded PW 8.
Sukadev also accompanied them.
Rushinath was standing at a little distance.
Appellants in these two appeals are near relations.
On hearing it, the other appellants came to his rescue.
Rushinath cried for help.
PW 3 is the doctor who companyducted post mortem examination.
