BHOORSINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected matters arising out of the judgment dated 19th May, 1975 by the Sessions Judge Bikaner, who has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under: - Convicted and Sentenced to 1. Bhoor Singh: - (i) U/s 302 IPC for the murder of Panneysinsh Life imprisonment (ii) U/s 302/34 IPC for the murder of Bhanwersingh Life imprisonment (iii) U/s 323/34 IPC for simple hurt to causing Pepsingh One year's R. I. and fine of Rs. 50/- in default 2 months' further R. I. 2. Narqyan Singh: - (i) U/s 302 IPC for the murder of Panneysingh Life imprisonment (ii) U/s 302/34 IPC for the murder of Bhanwersingh Life imprisonment (iii) U/s 323/34 IPC for causing simple hurt to Pepsingh One year's R. I. and fine of Rs. 50/- in default 2 months' further R. I. 3.Pratap Singh: - (i) U/s 302 IPC for the murder of Bhanwersingh Life imprisonment (ii) U/s 302/34 IPC for the murder of Panneysingh Life imprisonment (iii) U/s 323 IPC for causing simple hurt to Pepsingh One year's R. I. and fine of Rs. 50/- in default 2 months' further R. I. 4. Raghunath Singh: - (i) U/s 302 IPC for the murder of Bhanwersingh Life imprisonment (ii) U/s 302/34 IPC for the murder of Panneysingh Life imprisonment (iii) U/s 324 IPC for causing injury to Pepsingh One year's R. I. and fine of Rs. 50/- in default 2 months' further R. I.

(2.) APPEAL No. 589 of 1971 is a joint appeal by ail the four accused-appellants. Revision No. 618 of 1971 is by the State for enhancement of sentences awarded to the accused. We shall dispose of them together by this judgment.

(3.) NOW, as regards Bhanwersingh, the witness states that Raghunathsingh struck Bhanwersingh on his mouth by the sharp side of the axe. However, it appears from the statement of Dr. Kishanlal and the post-mortem examination report of Bhanwersingh prepared by Dr. Kishanlal that there was no injury caused by a sharp weapon on the deed body of Bhanwersingh. Dr. Kishanlal found the following injuries on the body of Bhanwersingh - 1. Horizontal lacerated wounds 2"x1/2" on the inner aspect of upper lip including gums above the upper incisor teeth. Upper teeth became slightly loose 2. There were incomplete tearing of the base of gum and gums of right lower incisor and canina which became incompletely dislocated. There is longitudinal fracture of mandible. 3. There was abrasion 1/2"x. 2" longitudinally placed on the dorsum of left hand 4. Small rounded abrasion was present on the dorsum of middle finger of right hand. All the wounds and abrasions were anti-mortem in nature. BRUISES : 1. There were two bruises each was 3"x1/2" present on the lateral aspect of chest and front of chest which were oblique and parallel to each another. Which showed bluish red discolouration. 2. There is oblique and longitudinal bruises present on the left side of back which shows acchymodia and hasmotama. 3. There were two abrasions on the dorsum of left hand and thumb which were 1/4"x 2" with bluish red discolouration and horizontal. 4 There is contusion on the lateral side of cheek 1/2" below the left eye. 1"x1/2" shows bluish red discolouration 5. There was longitudinal bruise on the chin 1"x1/2". All the bruises and abrasions were antemor-tem in nature. In cross examination Dr. Kishanlal has stated that injuries No. 1 and 2 of Bhanwer Singh may have been caused by one stroke from the blunt side of an axe or by a lathi or they may be caused by two strokes of blunt weapon. Thus PW/4 Pepsingh is not corroborated by medical evidence in respect of the blow with an axe attributed by him to Raghunathsingh. But for this discrepancy, the effect of which we shall consider a little later while dealing with the case against Raghunathsingh, we do not find any other infirmity in his statement on the basis of which the witness may be discredited or may be considered as unreliable. Learned counsel has urged that that part of the story narrated by this witness hat on receiving 'kassi' blows Panneysingh sometimes stood up and then fell down as un natural. However, we are unable to accede to this submission. All that the witness has stated is that Panneysingh on occasions fell down to the ground and then stood up. There is nothing in the statement of the doctor to show that this was not possible. May be that, the victim could rise from the ground before the more serious injuries were inflicted on him. In our opinion, nothing turns upon this contention.