Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23) Dr. Raut (PW 11) has deposed that after dissection of scalp, they noticed extra cranial haematoma at the site of entry wound and there was laceration of brain and there was popping out Cri. Appeal No. 140/17 & Ors.

of brain through injury No. 1. He has deposed that even after opening of the skull, the bullet was not found in the skull. He has deposed that there was extra cranial and sub dural haematoma at the side of injury Nos. 1 and 2. He has given evidence that instructions were given for taking one more X-ray, but in second X- ray no bullet was noticed in the head. There is no need to discuss more evidence on this aspect as accused Nos. 3 and 4, the two doctors and accused No. 13 Sweeper, who were found involved in making the evidence of bullet disappear are acquitted by the Trial Court and that part of the decision is not challenged by the State.

ft for taking test. Even in absence of that evidence, there is aforesaid evidence which is sufcient to prove that the death took place due to one bullet injury. Thus, the prosecution has proved that Prakash died due to bullet injury and one bullet was fred at his head from right side.

Evidence on conspiracy and to prove the authors of bullet injury :-

25) To prove that accused Nos. 5 and 6 were responsible for the aforesaid bullet injury, the prosecution has examined three eye witnesses like Kisan (PW 14), who is also informant of the matter, Sudam (PW 15) and Rajesh (PW 17). All the three eye witnesses are resident of village Narayangavhan, the place of deceased. As per the case of prosecution, Kisan was in the company of deceased right from the morning of 13.11.2010 and they together had gone to Shirur and they together were returning to Narayangavhan. Evidence is given that after about 4 p.m., they started from Shirur to Narayangavhan on the scooter and deceased was riding the scooter.

they were in touch with accused Nos. 5 and 6, who murdered Prakash.

77) There is circumstantial evidence in the form of recovery of weapon used for murder from one of the two accused who were hired for fnishing Prakash and also the evidence of recovery of empty cartridges from accused No. 1 and accused No. 5 showing that these cartridges were of the bullets which were fred from the weapon recovered from accused No. 5. There is also the evidence on the recovery of bullet which was fred at the deceased and which is recovered from the premises of accused No. 1, though it is recovered at the instance of other accused Atish who is acquitted.

105) Accused No. 11 is also convicted in the present matter though under Arms Act. He hails from Utter Pradesh and there is allegation against him that he had sold the fre arm to accused No. 8. The evidence on the record shows that accused No. 8 made Cri. Appeal No. 140/17 & Ors.

disclosure to police that he had purchased the fre arm, from accused No. 11 and then he took the police to residential place of this accused. It can be said that this is the circumstance on the basis of which prosecution can only prove that accused No. 11 was known to accused No. 8. On the contrary, there is evidence that the two bullets were manufactured in Khadki factory from Pune. It can be said that past history of object (weapon) was given by accused No. 8. The weapon and bullets were already recovered and they were recovered from other accused. In view of wording of section 27 of the Evidence Act, this Court holds that the so called statement given by the accused No. 8 is not related to the discovery of fre arm or the two bullets and so, it is not admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Thus, there is virtually no evidence against accused No. 11 for conviction given under the Arms Act and he needs to be acquitted and to that extent interference is required in the decision of the Trial Court.