Judgment

JUDGMENT :- These two appeals are filed by the State against acquittal. There are two respondents. Rameshwar (A-1) and Inderaj (A-2). They were tried for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. by the trial Court The trial Court convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal the High Court acquitted them. Hence the present appeals.

2. The two accused, deceased (Sukmander Singh) and the principal witnesses PWs 3 and 4 belong to village Lakhuwana within the limits of Dabwali Police Station. There was an enmity between the accused and his associates on one hand and the deceased and his relations on the other. It may not be necessary for the purpose of this case to give the details of the earlier incidents. Suffice it to say that there was a bitter enmity. On 26-1-1982 at about 12noon the deceased was going to the house of Pandit Gurbachan, another resident of the village, for taking the jack for his tractor When the deceased was passing through the Gali in front of the house of one Lal Chand Mistri both the accused came from the opposite direction. Rameshwar was armed with a kulhari and Inderaj was not armed. They stopped the deceased saying that they would teach him a lesson and his party faction. Saying so, Inderja caught hold of the deceased and Rameshwar inflicted two blows on the back side of the neck which started bleeding. Naib Singh. PW 3 who was following the deceased raised a hue and cry. Just then Gurmail Singh, PW 4 also reached the place. When the deceased fell down Rameshwar inflicted some more injuries and thereafter left the scene of occurrence. The deceased was found dead PW 3 kept somebody to keep watch on the dead body and went to the police station and is alleged to have given the FIR at 1.45 p.m. which was recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector Man Chand,. PW 8. He registered the crime and reached the scene of occurrence, held the inquest and also examined PWs 3 and 4 and other witnesses The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The doctor, PW I who conducted the post-mortem, found three incised wounds on the back and on the left pinna. He also found lacerated wound on the left occipital region On internal examination he found spinal cord was cut and he opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of these injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused were arrested and it is alleged that at the instance of Rameshwar, A-I Kulhari was recovered. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid.

3. The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that they were falsely implicated because of the faction. They examined the local Sarpanch. DW 1 (Ram Rikh). He deposed that on 26-1-82 at about 10.30 am. he came to the place of the occurrence since his house was very close and found the dead body lying at a distance of 57 paces from his house. Then he identified and sent a word through the Chowkidar to Naib Singh. PW 3 who is the uncle of the deceased. The trial Court accepted the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, the two eye-witnesses, holding that they were the natural witnesses. Their presence cannot be doubted and their evidence is corroborated by the medical as well as circumstantial evidence. The trial Court rejected the evidence of DW 1.

4. In the appeal the High Court held that the version given by the two witnesses namely that when Inderaj A-2 caught hold of the deceased and Rameshwar A-1 dealt blows with kulhari appears to be highly doubtful because the distance between the necks of the deceased and Inderaj would be so short that in such a situation it would have been impossible for Rameshwar to inflict blows in that manner and there was every danger of Inderaj also receiving the fatal injury in the process. The other reason given by the High Court is that the evidence of DW 1 shows that the occurrence took place at 1030 a.m. and the two witnesses were not present at t