IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The prosecution is not bound to explain injuries found on the accused in all cases.
2. Evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are relatives of the deceased. Normally close relations of the deceased are not likely to falsely implicate a person in the incident leading to the death of the relation unless there are very strong and cogent reasons to accept such criticism.

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-This appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.147/85 acquitting the respondent-Hanuman of the charge under Section 302 IPC on setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, in Sessions Case No. 49/1983.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case may be stated thus :

On 9.10.1982 at about 6.00 p.m. when Panchu the deceased tried to draw water from the common well to irrigate his lands and change the course of the water towards his fields the respondent-Hanuman and co-accused Ganesh and Ram Kumar forbade him from doing so. Ganesh caught hold of Panchu and Hamuman gave three blows on his head with an axe held by him. When Smt. Badam, wife of Panchu and his sister Chhoti intervened to save him from the assault of Hanuman, Ram Kumar assaulted them with a Kassi. On hearing the cry of Chhoti, Arjun came to the spot from the field nearby and on seeing him the accused persons fled away. Chhoti immediately rushed home and reported the incident to her brother Balu who on reaching the spot found Panchu lying on the ground with serious head injury. He took Panchu home in a cart and from there he was taken to the government hospital at Kishangarh where the doctors declared him dead. Smt. Badam and Chhoti who had also sustained injuries, accompanied Panchu to the hospital. They were examined by Dr. C.L. Sharma (PW 5) who also conducted the autopsy on Panchu, Balu lodged the FIR in Kishangarh Police Station at about 10.00 p.m. on 9.10.82. The Police sprung into action, conducted investigation and on completion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted under Section 302, read with Section 34, and Sections 323 and 324 against Hanuman, Ganesh and Ram Kumar.

The accused persons having denied the charges faced trial.

3. The prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses including Chhoti PW-1 and Smt. Badam PW-2, who are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, Balu PW-3 and Arjun PW-6 who are post occurrence witnesses, Dr. C.L. Sharma, PW-5, who conducted the post-mortem examination and Dayal Singh PW-10, and the Investigating Officer. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence accepted the ocular (evidence?) of PWs 1 & 2 which was corroborated by the medical evidence and convicted Hamuman, the respondent herein, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- acquitted accused Ram Kumar of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC but held him guilty under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and gave him benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act subject to the condition that he produces one surety of Rs. 1000/- and one more surety with the condition that he will maintain good conduct for a period of one year and will not disturb the peace and will present himself for suffering the punishment whenever required. Accused Ganesh was acquitted of all the charges framed against him.

4. Against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge accused Hanuman filed the appeal in High Court which was disposed of by the impugned judgment in the manner noted earlier.

5. The High Court set aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge on two grounds - that both the eye-witnesses PWs 1 and 2 are highly interested persons and since their evidence is in direct conflict with the medical evidence the same cannot be relied upon, and that the prosecution has not explained the in juries found on the accused persons.

6. We have carefully perused the judgments passed by the learned Sessions Judge and by the High Court. We are of the view that both the reasons stated by the High Court in the impugned judgment are unsustainable. The position is well settled that evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are relatives of the deceased. Normally close relations of the deceased are not likely to falsely implica