ORDER :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Appellant-Vijender has been convicted along with one co-accused named Om Prakash, for committing the murder of Anita. The deceased-Anita was the sister of the Appellant-Vijender. She had been married to Om Prakash. But at the time of her death, she was living with one Zahir Alam - PW-13. The issue as to whether the deceased-Anita was married to Zahir Alam, is not clear since the evidence in that regard is contradictory.

2. On 23.09.1997, according to the prosecution, co-accused Om Prakash along with the Appellant-Vijender, entered the house where the deceased was living with Zahir Alam. They caught Zahir Alam and questioned him in what capacity he was keeping Anita with him. Zahir Alam claimed that he had married her in Court with the consent of her mother viz. Ramwati, but he had no papers with him at that time. Apparently, Zahir Alam was attacked by the two accused Om Prakash and Vijender, but soon thereafter, they caught hold of Anita. According to the prosecution, Om Prakash the co-accused attacked her with a knife. The Appellant-Vijender is said to have attacked her with a Thapki which is a small piece of wooden plank which is commonly used for beating clothes while washing. Injured Anita was removed to the hospital where she was declared dead. The following injuries were noticed in the post-mortem as follows:

1. Lacerated wound on the left side top back of head of size 4.5 cms x .7 cms x .5 cms.

2. Lacerated wound on the right side of forehead of size 3 cms x 1 cms x 5 cm.

3. Lacerated wound on the left side of forehead 1 cm above the left eyebrow of size 3 cms x 1 cms x 5 cms.

4. Abrasion on the right side of face over the zygomatic process of size 1.7 cms x 1.2 cms.

15. Abrasion on the front of left knee of size 1.3 cms x 1 cm. According to the report of Dr. Alexander death in this case was caused due to shock and haemorrhage caused by multiple injuries mentioned above. According to him injury Nos. 6 and 10 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death individually as well as collectively. He has also opined that injury Nos. 5 to 14 were caused by sharp' edged weapon/object. Injury Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 were caused by single edged sharp weapon/object. Injury Nos. 1 to 4 and 15 are opined to have been caused by blunt force impact. He has also given his opinion that Injury Nos. 5 to 14 mentioned in the Report Exh. PW-12/A could have been caused by knife or the weapon/object similar to it. Whereas injury Nos. 1 to 4 and 15 mentioned in Exh. PW-12/A could have been caused by Thapki. Both these weapons had been shown to the doctor and he gave his opinion in this regard as Exh. PW-1/B and C. Even he has prepared the sketch of these weapons along with his opinion Exhs. PW-12/D and E.

3. Injury Nos. 5 to 14, were caused by a knife. The doctor opined that from amongst those injuries, injury Nos. 6 and 10 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death individually as well as collectively. As far as injuries by the thakpi are concerned, the Doctor gave tentative opinion that injury Nos. 1 to 4 and 15 "could have been caused by Thapki."

Motive:

4. We find that the prosecution has clearly established the motive for the assault and murder of the deceased Anita. Obviously, the co-accused Om Prakash, husband of the deceased Anita, who said to be drunken, was enraged at the fact that his wife was living with another man. There is also no doubt that the Appellant-Vijender must have felt ashamed at the situation in which his sister was living. It is, therefore, clear that both the accused went to the house of deceased to somehow correct the situation. There is no evidence that the Appellant-Vijender went there armed. Apparently, the co-accused Om Prakash was carrying a knife. It is not possible to know if the Vijender was aware that Om Prakash was carrying a knife.

Assault

4A. As noted above, the assault took place after the exchange of hot words among the two