The admissibility of documents and witness testimonies is crucial in establishing a case beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2004, passed in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2000, State vs. Prem Singh and Another, by the court of Sessions Judge, Chamoli (for short “the case”). By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of the fine to undergo imprisonment for four months. It may be noted that by the impugned judgment and order, co-accused Jawa Devi has been acquitted of the charge under Section 304 IPC.

2. Facts as emerged from the evidence, briefly stated, are as follows:

On 10.04.1998, the deceased Ratan Singh boarded a bus and alighted at Silangi. It so happened that, as soon as, he alighted from the bus, the appellant along with his wife and daughter were approaching the road, while carrying grass from their fields. The deceased made obscene remarks on the wife of the appellant. They had a small altercation. The deceased, thereafter, hold the wife of the appellant by her hand. It is, at this stage, the appellant snatched the sickle from the hand of his wife and attacked the deceased on his neck. The deceased Ratan Singh fell down. Many villagers gathered at the scene of occurrence. PW-1 Ranjeet Singh, PW-2 Soban Singh and PW-3 Gaje Singh immediately took the deceased to the Hospital at Gairsain. PW-9 Dr. Satendra Kumar gave first aid to the deceased and forwarded him to the Surgeon. The deceased was again taken at the Community Health Center, Karnaprayag, where he was admitted at 11:00 P.M. Unfortunately, the deceased died at 2:00 in the midnight. PW-2 Soban Singh returned to the village and enquired about the incident from the villagers. Thereafter, he lodged a report of the incident at 10:00 A.M. in the morning at Police Check Post Meharchauri, which is 9 KM from the place of incident. It is this FIR, in which, Case Crime No. 14 of 1998 was registered and investigation was carried out.

3. The Investigating Officer (“IO”) on 11.04.1998, apprehended the appellant and at his instance, recovered the weapon of offence (a sickle) from the house of the appellant. On 25.04.1998, the clothes worn by the appellant, at the time of incident, were also recovered from the place near the house of the appellant. On 11.04.1998, inquest of the deceased was conducted. According to the witnesses, the deceased had injuries. Post mortem of the deceased was also conducted, on the same day, at 4:00 P.M. The injuries were noted. According to the Doctor conducting post mortem, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock, as a result of ante mortem injuries.

4. The IO prepared the site plan, forwarded the recovered articles for forensic examination. The Forensic Examination Report was received, confirming that the articles i.e. the sickle and clothes had human blood. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and his wife Smt. Jawa Devi.

5. On 25.10.2000, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, to which, he denied and claimed trial. Smt. Jawa Devi was also charged under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, to which, she denied and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined, in all eleven witnesses, namely, PW-1 Ranjeet Singh, PW-2 Soban Singh, PW-3 Gaje Singh, PW-4 Dr. N.K. Prasad, PW-5 Jodh Singh, PW-6 Trilok Singh, PW-7 Dinesh Purohit, PW-8 Sub Inspector, Rishi Pal Singh, PW-9 Dr. Satendra Kumar, PW-10 Dr. Sudhir Kumar and PW-11 Constable, Bache Singh.

7. Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”). According to him, the witnesses have falsely deposed. He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. After examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code, in his defence, the appellant examined DW-1 Laxmi @ Hema.

8. By the impugned judgment and order,