SANU KISAN AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS have been convicted under Section 302/34 , Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence has been passed. Accused Sanu and Sukru Kisan (p.w.3) are brothers. Deceased Bakuli was their father's sister's son. They were co -villagers. The deceased left the village and went out in search of labour. He had entrusted a piece of his land to Sanu for cultivation on bhag. The deceased got information from p.w.3 that Sanu got the land, kept in his charge, measured by an Amin with the object of getting it recorded in his name during the settlement operations. On getting this information, Bakuli came to the village. He did not put -up with Sanu but stayed in the house of p.w.3. He told Sanu not to cultivate the land far that year. Sanu had a talk with Bideshi (the other -accused) as to how the deceased wanted him not to cultivate his land. Prosecution case is that Bideshi suggested to Sanu that if he would give him half the share in the land, he would see that Bakuli was killed. In pursuance of the conspiracy, in the night of 7 -5 -1964 both the accused went out with the deceased who never returned back. Next day the dead body of the deceased was recovered from inside an accumulated water a little away from a liquor shop.

(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge held that death was homicidal. The doctor (p.w.11), who held the postmortem examination, was of opinion that death was due to suffocation as a result of compression of the cheat. He positively ruled out death being caused by drowning though the dead body was found inside the water. The solitary external injury on the body was a lacerated wound of 31/2" x 11/2" x 1" over the right side of the upper chest one inch away from the right auxillary fold directing downwards and forwards. On examination of the doctor's evidence we are satisfied that death was homicidal and due to compression of the chest and not as a result of drowning. Nothing substantial was placed before us in criticism of the doctor's opinion.

(3.) BEFORE doing so it is necessary to separately state the exact nature of confessions of Bideshi and Sanu. Bideshi's confession is as follows: