PRITHVILAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State, as well as, learned counsel for the complainant. The relevant papers perused.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for that as per the site-plan, the incident has taken place in the field of the accused-petitioner, where the blood and broken bangles were found. It is further contended that the accused - Prithvi Lal and his son - Indra Raj have also sustained injuries in the same incident and some of the injuries were on the parietal region. It is also contended that the co-accused-Indra Raj had sustained an incised would on the right parietal occipital region. On x-ray examination, one of the injuries sustained by the petitioner - Prithvilal was found to be grievous.

(3.) It is also contended that as per the prosecution case, the deceased had two incised wounds on his head and the petitioner was attributed the injury sustained by him on the left front parietal area, while injury No. 4, which appears to be the fatal injury, was attributed to the co-accused - Indra Raj who has been released on bail.