Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 393 (ALL)

SITA v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-02-13

KRISHNA MURARI, RAVINDRA NATH KAKKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellants Sita and Raja Yadav against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Azamgarh on 30.8.1983 in S.T. No. 146 of 1983 convicting and sentencing accused Sita for life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and five years RI, under Section 307 IPC and appellant Raja Yadav for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and five years RI under Section 307/34 IPC. The appeal filed by Raja Yadav has been abated due to his death vide Court’s order dated 22.2.2017. 2. The prosecution story in nutshell is as follows: 3. Mohan son of Moti Yadav lodged written report (Exhibit Ka-1) dated 24.8.1982 on the basis of which chik FIR (Exhibit Ka-3) was written at Police Station Jeanpur, District Azamgarh stating therein that there was a chak out land of Ram Naresh Singh and others, which is in front of the house of the first informant and others. Chak out land was purchased by first informant, Basant (deceased), Jhuri, Om Prakash, Barkhu and Smt. Atwaria on 23.8.1982 through registered sale-deed. After registration of the sale-deed all the vendors came back to their houses in the evening. Basant (deceased) after taking his meal was having stroll at his door at about 9.00 p.m. Accused Sita and Raja Yadav armed with spears and Mithai was armed with Lathi, a lantern was alighted at the door of the deceased Basant. After reaching at the place where Basant was strolling, accused Raja Yadav exhorted to kill Basant, who had dared to forcibly join the execution of the sale-deed in respect of the land which was more beneficial to the accused. It is further alleged that accused Raja Yadav gave a spear blow to Basant. On alarm being raised by the first informant, witnesses reached the spot and at that point of time accused Sita gave a spear blow to the first informant which injured his right hand. Further allegation is that accused Mithai gave lathi blow to the Basant and the first informant. During the incident when villagers assembled on the spot, accused persons ran away giving threat of dire consequences. Basant immediately expired due to injuries inflicted on him. 4. Perusal of the chik FIR reveals that on the basis of the written report, his information was registered on 24.8.1982 at 1.00 a.m. (night). During the incident when villagers assembled on the spot, accused persons ran away giving threat of dire consequences. Basant immediately expired due to injuries inflicted on him. 4. Perusal of the chik FIR reveals that on the basis of the written report, his information was registered on 24.8.1982 at 1.00 a.m. (night). After registration of the case S.I. Yashpal Singh (P.W. 7) took the investigation of the case in his hand and reached the spot, he saw the dead body at the door of the Mohan. Inquest report of the dead body could not be prepared due to insufficiency of light. The inquest report was got prepared early in the next morning at 6.00 a.m. on the instruction of Investigating Officer through S.I. Triloknath Singh. The corpus of the deceased was duly sealed on the spot and relevant papers were prepared for conducting the post-mortem examination. Further the Angouchha from which the wound of the deceased had been tied up, was taken in possession by the Investigating Officer and its recovery memo Exhibit Ka-9 was prepared. The lantern which was said to be alighted at the time of the incident, its furd was prepared which is exhibit Ka-10 and after completing all the formalities and recording statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet Exhibit Ka - 13 available on record. Dr. K.S. Mishra who conducted the post-mortem examination of the corpus of the deceased Basant on 24.8.1982 at 3.50 p.m. He reported that deceased was about 40 years and the probable time of the death was 3 and 4 days old. Deceased was of a average built body, eyes were opened and mouth was closed, rigor mortis was well marked all over the body. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. 1. Punctured wound 2.1/2 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on the anterior fold of right axilla, 8 cm above and left to the right nipple, lacerated in nature and directed inwards. 2. Stabbed wound 3cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep on the right side lower part of the chest, 16 cm below right nipple. A loop of small intestine and omentum were coming out of the root. Direction from left to right and then downwards. 2. Stabbed wound 3cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep on the right side lower part of the chest, 16 cm below right nipple. A loop of small intestine and omentum were coming out of the root. Direction from left to right and then downwards. The doctor found pleura punctured at the right side right lung punctured through and through.Cavity was full of blood clots and peritoneum was punctured under injury No. 1. Stomach was punctured 1 cm x ½ cm Mesentry was also punctured. In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Exhibit Ka 12 is the post-mortem report on the record.” 5. As per prosecution version first informant Mohan is said to have sustained the injury at the hands of the accused. Dr. Suresh Singh, P.W. 4 had medically examined the injured Mohan at PHC Ajmatgarh on 24.8.1982 at 7.40 and found following two injuries on his person, which is mentioned in the injury report Exhibit Ka-2. As per the statement of the P.W. 4 who proved the injury report of Mohan Exhibit Ka-2 goes to show the following injuries. 1. incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x .4cm on right upper arm, 6cm above right elbow joint with lenier abrasion 3-5 cm. 2. Incised wound 1.5cm x .6cm x .3cm on right upper arm and an abrasion on right side of abdomen. He opined that all the injuries are simple in nature, injury No. 1 and 2 are caused by sharp edge weapon and it could have been caused at 9.00 p.m. on 23rd August, 1982. 6. Trial Court has charged accused Raja Yadav under Section 302 IPC (simplicitor) 307/34 and 323/34 IPC, accused Sita was charged under Section 302/34, 307 and 323/34, Accused Mithai was not found guilty and acquitted for the offence under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 323 IPC. 7. In support of the prosecution case P.W. 1 Kanta Yadav, P.W. 2, Lala and P.W. 3 injured victim Mohan were produced as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 4 Dr. Suresh Singh proved the injury report exhibit Ka-2 sustained by the injured Mohan at the time of occurrence and P.W. 8 Dr. K.S. Mishra who had conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 4 Dr. Suresh Singh proved the injury report exhibit Ka-2 sustained by the injured Mohan at the time of occurrence and P.W. 8 Dr. K.S. Mishra who had conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased. The testimony of P.W. 4 and P.W. 8 relates with the medical evidence of the case. 8. P.W. 5 Shyam Kunwar, scribe of the written report and P.W. 6 Lakshmi Narain Singh proved the registration of the case at the police station and the relevant documents connected therewith. P.W. 7 S.I. Yashpal Singh is Investigating Officer of the case. 9. After close of the prosecution evidence, the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons have been recorded by the trial Court, the accused persons had denied the charges levelled against them. Perusal of the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons show that houses of the informant, accused persons and the deceased are adjacent to each other. The chak out land of Ram Naresh Singh is also an admitted fact. The execution of the sale-deed on the date of the incident is also admitted by the accused persons but they claimed that accused persons and other persons got sale-deed executed from Ram Naresh Singh and others. The rest of the prosecution story are denied by the accused persons. In support of the defence verson no oral evidence was adduced by the defence. Heard Sri Nand Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants made the following submission: 1.Challenge to FIR - it is contended that allegation and lodging of an FIR is not substantiated by the eye-witnesses; 2.Challenge to motive; 3.Challenge to source of light - it is contended that there is inconsistency on the point of lantern as source of light and the place where it situate at the time of occurrence; 4.The medical evidence does not corroborate the eye version stated by the fact witnesses; 5.Inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was not prepared at the place of occurrence but deliberately and with ulterior motive prepared at police station; 6. Contradictions about the injuries on the corpus of the deceased between the statements of Investigating Officer viz-a-viz on the eye-witnesses. Contradictions about the injuries on the corpus of the deceased between the statements of Investigating Officer viz-a-viz on the eye-witnesses. 7.Blood was not recovered from the place of occurrence, therefore, challenge has been made on the point of shifting of place of occurrence; 8.Lastly, argued that accused were falsely implicated with the consultation of the complainant and Investigating Officer because of the illicit relation of the deceased with the daughter of the informant as suggested by the defence during the cross-examination of the informant-complainant. 10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. supported the impugned judgement and rebutted the above argument stating that there is a prompt FIR, accused are named in FIR, motive and immediate cause of the incident, manner, mode of the assault, date, time and place of occurrence have been established by tendering cogent and credible and acceptable legal evidence before the trial Court. The points which were raised during the appeal by the learned counsel for the appellants have already been raised before the trial Court, which have been legally dealt with. Neither there is illegality nor perversity in the impugned judgement of conviction and order of punishment. So, appeal lacks merit and to be dismissed. 11. With regard to the challenge to the FIR as contended by learned counsel for the appellants that FIR is highly doubtful as it is not the mental act of the informant because of the fact that during the examination P.W. 3 Mohan stated that after the death of the Basant he called Shyam Kunwar of his village and got written report Exhibit Ka-1 scribed from him. According to his statement Shyam Kunwar has taken down the dictation whatever the informant has stated to him and thereafter the report was read over to the witness who put his signature on it. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out certain contradictons during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer and P.W. 3 Mohan but prima facie we are not able to accept the above argument because it is established legal preposition that evidence is to be read as whole and not in the peace meal. Further to add that this witness has categorically stated that when Shyam Kunwar completed the dictation, he put his thumb impression on it and thereafter, the said report was brought before the police station in the night itself. Further to add that this witness has categorically stated that when Shyam Kunwar completed the dictation, he put his thumb impression on it and thereafter, the said report was brought before the police station in the night itself. It is important to mention that the scriber of the written report P.W. 5 Shyam Kunwar has been examined who stated that he scribed the written report in accordance with the instruction given by informant Mohan and further stated that after completing the report Exhibit Ka 1, he read it over to Mohan and thereafter Mohan put his thumb impression on it. P.W. 6 Laxmi Narain Singh, Constable Moharrior has also stated that after receiving the written report Exhibit Ka-1 at the police station at 1.00 a.m. in the night of 23/24.8.1982 he registered the chik FIR and its formal entry is made in the G.D. Under the above discussed fact situation, we do not find any reason to doubt about the lodging of the FIR and the testimony of aforesaid witnesses in this regard produced by the prosecution during the trial. 12. On the point of motive as contended by learned counsel for the appellants that motive of the crime has not been established, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. We have perused the evidence available on record. First of all, we would like to mention that in this case criminal prosecution is based on direct evidence i.e. the eye-witness account. So, as per established legal preposition in State of U.P. v. Krishna Master and others, (2010) 6 ACJ 232, wherein it has held that it is well-settled that the prosecution is not supposed to prove motive when prosecution relies on direct evidence, i.e., evidence of eye-witnesses. The cases which rest on eye version account, to prove motive is not absolute requirement of law but at the same time it is also trite that whenever prosecution pleads motive then burden to prove motive lies on the prosecution and further motive becomes a relevant factors for appraisement of evidence of fact witnesses. 13. The cases which rest on eye version account, to prove motive is not absolute requirement of law but at the same time it is also trite that whenever prosecution pleads motive then burden to prove motive lies on the prosecution and further motive becomes a relevant factors for appraisement of evidence of fact witnesses. 13. We are in a full agreement with the law point as submitted by learned counsel for the appellants as held in Alaqupandi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 Cr LJ 3363 (SC), wherein it has been held that “existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement but it is always relevant factor which will be taken into consideration by the Courts as it will render all assistance to the Court while analyzing the prosecution evidence and determining the guilt of the accused.” In the present case FIR itself states that on the day of incident i.e. on 23.8.1982 Basant (deceased), Jhoori (Father of the three accused), Om Prakash, Barkhu and Smt. Atwariya got a sale-deed executed from Ram Naresh Singh and others of chak out land situated in front of the house of the vendees. It is further alleged in the FIR that when in the evening at about 9.00 p.m. Basant after taking meal was having stroll at his door, all the accused persons, who are sons of the Jhuri came there and asked Basant how he dared to get a sale-deed executed of the chak out land which was more beneficial to them. This indicates that the sons of Jhuri wanted to take revenge for the act of the deceased Basant. The motive and immediate cause of the incident as alleged in the FIR is cogently established by the evidence of the fact witnesses. P.W. 1 Kanta Yadav has categorically stated that the chak out land of Ram Naresh and others earlier belonged to Basant and others, but under consolidation proceedings that land was given to Ram Naresh and others. He further stated that on this land the deceased Basant has planted Bamboos and on the day of the occurrence Basant and others got a registered sale-deed executed from Ram Naresh and others. He also stated that the occurrence took place on that very night of the day when sale-deed was executed. He further stated that on this land the deceased Basant has planted Bamboos and on the day of the occurrence Basant and others got a registered sale-deed executed from Ram Naresh and others. He also stated that the occurrence took place on that very night of the day when sale-deed was executed. Perusal of his cross-examination will reveal that he acted as Panch of the said transaction and at the time of the talk about the sale, Basant wanted to take entire land for himself and Jhoori wanted to take entire land for himself but under the advise of this witness, they agreed to purchase the land jointly and thereafter the sale-deed was executed. Undoubtedly, this fact is undisputed that the subject-matter of the sale-deed is situate in front of the house of the Basant. P.W. 2 Lala further supported the statement of the P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 Mohan also supported the allegation as contained in the FIR. Further, we would like to refer that if we microscopically analyze the evidence of the fact witnesses adduced in this case, we find that Jhoori (father of the three accused persons) wanted to get sale-deed executed in his name exclusively to which deceased Basant did not agree. So, in such compelling circumstances Jhoori appears to have no other option, but to join with the name of Basant and others in the sale-deed. Thus, it is quite natural that the accused who are sons of Jhoori, could not reconcile the sale-deed and this fact is further substantiated from the evidence that at the time of the occurrence before the assault on deceased Basant accused Raja exhorted and threatened the deceased that how he dared to get the sale-deed executed in respect of the chak out land which was more beneficial to the accused. On the point of motive, it is relevant to mention that motive (intention) always remainsin the mind of accused person, so no direct evidence could be led to prove the motive of the incident. It is only the fact and circumstance which are required to prove the motive in criminal trial as we have already stated that this is an admitted fact that there is chak out land, which was allotted to Ram Naresh Singh and others, accused persons wanted to get this land and deceased Basant also wanted this land for which Panchayat was organized. The deceased Basant and the father of the three accused in Panchayat agreed to purchase it jointly. But still there was annoyance in the mind of the accused persons which furiated after the execution of the registered sale-deed and on the day of execution of registered sale-deed. The incident of assault took place at 9.00 p.m. when the deceased Basant after taking meal was strolling in front of his house. Admittedly, the houses of the accused and the deceased are adjacent to each other. The houses of the witnesses are within the vicinity of the place of occurrence. Neither there is inconsistency nor discrepancy in the statements of the fact witnesses with regard to motive as we have discussed above. So, we find no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that motive has not been proved in this case. 14. The next contention as raised by learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to the source of light. From the perusal of the evidence available on record, we find that since the occurrence is alleged to be of night, so, the question of light becomes important. In FIR there is a mention of lantern at the door of the deceased, at the time of the incident, it is supported by evidence of P.W.1 Kanta. He specifically stated that the lantern was burning and was kept at the door of the deceased and in that light he saw the accused committing the crime. Further, he has corroborated in his cross-examination that lantern was hanging by a Bamboo existing in the Madhi adjacent the house of the deceased and an iron rode had been fixed in that Bamboo on which lantern was kept. This fact has been supported by P.W. 2 Lala, who stated that at the time of occurrence lantern was alighted in Osaraa of the deceased. This witness has fully supported the testimony of P.W. 1 Kanta on this point and in the like way P.W. 3 Mohan who is said to be alleged injured victim, also stated that a burning lantern was kept in the said Osaraa of the deceased at the time of incident. In spite of the lengthy cross-examination on this point, we find that all the fact witnesses are intact and consistent on the point of source of light i.e. lantern as mentioned in the FIR. In spite of the lengthy cross-examination on this point, we find that all the fact witnesses are intact and consistent on the point of source of light i.e. lantern as mentioned in the FIR. Although the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out certain minor discrepancy in the statement of the Investigating Officer Yashpal Singh P.W. 7 who has stated that lantern was hanging by the side of the window. But we are of the view that on the basis of minor discrepancy in the statement of the Investigating Officer, the consistent and acceptable evidence tendered by the eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved. Further, it is an admitted fact that the site plan was prepared on the next day of the incident. So, we find no substance in the argument on this point as raised by learned counsel for the appellants. 15. Next contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that medical evidence case does not corroborate the eye version account. On perusal of the record, we find that Dr. K.S. Mishra P.W. 8 has been examined, who had conducted the post-mortem of the corpus of the deceased Basant and the post-mortem examination report Exhibited Ka-12 mentioning punctured and stabbed wound as ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased at the time of incident has been proved by the witness who opined that death of the deceased has been caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries and the injuries in the ordinary course were sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. Further, the prosecution has alleged that P.W. 3 injured victim Mohan who is informant of this case had also received injury at the hands of the accused persons, his medical examination was conducted by Dr. Suresh Singh P.W. 4 who has been examined in this case. He stated that on 24.8.1982 at the time of medical examination of the injured-victim he found three injuries on his person, which is Exhibit Ka-2 which goes to show that the injured Mohan received three injuries in which two were incised wounds on the right upper arm with a linear abrasion above the right elbow joint and the right side of the abdomen. So, prima facie medical evidence adduced in this case supports the eye version account. So, prima facie medical evidence adduced in this case supports the eye version account. On the basis of the statement made by the Doctor who conducted the medical examination of the deceased, learned counsel for the appellants argued that possibility of the injury sustained being of the early morning of 23.8.1982, but this argument is not acceptable, as we are of the view that the statement of the Doctor is mere opinion and have to be read with the direct evidence of eye version account available on the record and if it is found in consonance with the direct evidence then the mere possibility stated by the Doctor who had conducted the medical examination cannot make direct evidence unreliable or unacceptable. On this point, if the medical evidence is tested and read with the direct evidence, we find that all the three fact witnesses have consistently given statement to the effect that occurrence took place at about 9.00 p.m. and within half an hour of the occurrence, Basant died on the spot. In this way, we find that both the Doctors P.W. 4 and P.W. 8 have stated the possibility of the injuries of the Mohan (injured-victim) and death of Basant at the time as stated by the three eye-witnesses, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that occurrence took place on 23.8.1982 at 9.00 p.m. and the deceased died within half an hour due to injuries inflicted by the accused persons. Further, since medical evidence tendered by the prosecution of the injured victim Mohan and post-mortem examination report of deceased Basant corroborate the direct evidence i.e. eye version account stated by the fact witnesses, as such the argument challenging the medical evidence has no legs to stand. 16. With regard to the place of occurrence, we find that there is consistency in the statements of the three eye-witnesses that occurrence took place at the house of deceased Basant. In the site plan, place of occurrence has been shown by the I.O. by letter A. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that no blood was found on the spot, so the place of occurrence becomes doubtful as alleged by the prosecution. We have carefully considered this argument but we find that P.W. 1 Kanta Yadav stated that Basant was assaulted in front of his door. We have carefully considered this argument but we find that P.W. 1 Kanta Yadav stated that Basant was assaulted in front of his door. He further stated that wound of the Basant was tightly tied up by an Angauchha by witness Mohan. This fact has been further supported by the evidence of P.W. 2 Lala. The injured victim P.W. 3 Mohan was examined and he stated that occurrence took place when Basant after taking meal was having stroll in front of his door and he tied up the wound of the deceased with ‘Angauchha’ (Short towel). This fact has stands corroborated by the statement of P.W. 7 Investigating Officer Yashpal Singh, who has admitted that with the help of ‘Angauchha’ (Short towel) wound of the deceased was tied up and he prepared its furd, which is Exhibit Ka-9. So, we find that the absence of blood as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, to doubt the place of occurrence, has no merit. There is consistency in the evidence of the fact witnesses and explanation given by the prosecution through their evidence. This fact is further substantiated by the medical evidence as P.W. 8 Dr. K.S. Mishra who conducted the post-mortem examination of the corpus of the deceased has stated that both the injuries were found to be cavity deep and there was much possibility of the blood having gone in the cavity in side the body itself. The post-mortem report of internal examination of the deceased shows that the blood was found in the cavity of the deceased. So, we are of the opinion that the absence of blood on spot ‘A’ of the site plan could be for two reasons; one, the blood in state of oozing out was deposited in the cavity and; second, because the wound had been tied up by an ‘Angauchha’, this could be a reason that no blood had fallen down from the body of victim (deceased). Thus, the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants to this effect, in our view, could not be of no help. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that there is a discrepancy on the point of place of occurrence. Thus, the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants to this effect, in our view, could not be of no help. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that there is a discrepancy on the point of place of occurrence. As per site plan occurrence is said to have been taken place at point ‘A’, which is in front of the house of the deceased Basant, but the Investigating Officer found the dead body of the deceased in front of the house of Mohan. If this argument is viewed with the eye version account stated by the three eye-witnesses, we find that this discrepancy is of a trivial nature, not so serious to dis-believe the prosecution story, especially when from the evidence it is established that the house of the deceased and the house of the Mohan are adjacent to each other and they are situate within a short distance. Thus, this could not be a ground to dis-believe or discard the prosecution story, therefore, we find no substance in this argument. 18. With regard to the challenge to inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the appellants contended that it was prepared at the police station and not on the spot. Neither name of the accused nor crime number was mentioned in the inquest report, it goes to show that the inquest report was prepared at the police station, which makes the whole prosecution story doubtful. With regard to FIR being anti timed and the inquest report without mentioning the crime number, we would like to refer the law on this point as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Brahm Swaroop and another v. State of U.P., 2011(2) SCC (Criminal) 923, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that at the omission and discrepancy in inquest is not fatal to the prosecution and the whole purpose of preparing the inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is to investigate into and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death describing such wound as found on the body of the deceased and stating as in what manner or by what weapon or instrument, such wound appear to have been inflicted. Omission in inquest report are not sufficient to put the prosecution out of Court. Inquest report cannot be treated as substantive evidence but may be used for contradicting witnesses of the inquest. Omission in inquest report are not sufficient to put the prosecution out of Court. Inquest report cannot be treated as substantive evidence but may be used for contradicting witnesses of the inquest. It has been further held that if the author of the report had not been diligent, it did not mean that reliable and clinching evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses should be discarded by the Court. If the evidence available on record shows that FIR of the incident was lodged promptly and name of the accused has been mentioned in FIR and if FIR contains all essential features of the prosecution case including names of eye-witnesses, time and place of incident, names of victim, motive, name of accused persons, weapon in their hands and manner of assault. All these things lend assurance not only to the presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of incident, but also participation of all accused in crime. Any defect in preparation of the inquest report by Investigating Officer cannot lead to an inference that FIR was not registered at alleged time. 19. In view of the above said legal preposition, we find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, so far as it relates to challenge to inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Further we would like to observe that all the witnesses who have been produced during the trial as an eye-witnesses are of the close vicinity to the place of occurrence, their houses are situated near the place of occurrence. One of the witness Mohan who is informant of the case is an injured witness. So all the fact witnesses are natural witnesses. The presence of the witnesses especially that of injured witness could not be denied. Further as we have already observed that all the fact witnesses are consistent in their testimony with regard to the manner, mode of assault, motive of the immediate cause of the incident. Ocular testimony is fully corroborated by the medical evidence adduced. Presence, involvement and complicity in commission of the crime by the appellants-accused are cogently and credibly established. On the other hand the defence version has stated that accused has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and the FIR is a result of concoction and deliberation with the police. Presence, involvement and complicity in commission of the crime by the appellants-accused are cogently and credibly established. On the other hand the defence version has stated that accused has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and the FIR is a result of concoction and deliberation with the police. The defence version as stated above has not been proved by tendering any cogent and reliable evidence. Under these facts and circumstances, we find that the impugned judgement of the conviction and recording of order of sentence for the offence under 302/34 IPC is sustainable in the eye of law. 20. So far as the conviction of the accused appellants under Sections 307 is concerned, we find that the injuries inflicted on the body of the witness Mohan, who is informant-complainant of the case deserved to be modified under Section 324 IPC because of the fact that it is established that the injuries sustained by the injured Mohan was caused with sharp edged weapon, and was on right arm, which is not vital part of the body and the doctor has opined it to be simple in nature. Further, intention to kill injured victim Mohan by the accused is not proved by the prosecution. Under these facts and situation, the conviction and order of sentence recorded under Section 307 IPC is modified to Section 324 IPC. 21. On the basis of the above discussions, the conviction order of sentence under Section 302 IPC is confirmed and the conviction order of sentence under Section 307 are modified to Section 324 IPC. 22. As we have noted that the appeal filed by Raja Yadav has been abated, so the conviction as recorded by learned Trial Judge with regard to Sita, his sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34 is hereby affirmed and conviction of the accused appellants Sita under Section 307 IPC for five years R.I. is modified to three years imprisonment under Section 324 IPC and the appeal is hereby dismissed. 23. The accused is on bail, he shall be taken into custody, his bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. 24. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate for compliance and for issuing NBW against the accused appellants for taking him into custody to serve the sentence as awarded in this judgment.