Prajjwal Gupta

Negating the finding of the High Court as to the place of occurrance. Learned counsel submitted that the High Court did
not consider the case in its proper perspective a perusal of entire evidence on record would clearly establish the place of occurrance
and that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence on record clearly revels that
the investigating officer had recovered the blood stain roll by the clay and the plain clay from the place of incident which was sent
for examination wherein on analysis human blood was found on the same. Even the evidence of eye witnesses PW-1 Bhola Singh
and PW-2 Baijnath Singh is very much consistent on the said aspect and therefore, the High Court was wrong to raise a dispute on
the place of occurrance. Contending further on the doubt raised by the High Court on the timing of the incident. Learned counsels
submitted that the High Court has laid a lot of emphasis on the presence of semi-digested food in the Medical Report and has
holding that it totally contradicts the case of prosecution with regard to the time of occurrance of the offence. Whereas, the doctors
in their examination-in-chief have clearly stated that the incident might have taken place at 8.00 a.m . Thus the High Court erred in
recording a finding contrary to the evidence particularly for the reason that in villages generally people wake up early in the morning
and start work after having breakfast and therefore, presence of half-digested food cannot be a probable ground to arive at a
conclusion that the deceased must have died at night. Learned cousel finally submitted that for all the aforesaid reasons the High
Court ought not have interfered with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court in support of his submissions. Learned counsel
place reliance on various authorties of this Court. Learned cousel for the State supported the contentions of the appellant and
consider that the High Court erred in collecting the respondent's case relevant circumstances and material evidence had clearly
established the guilt of the learned counsel. According to him, High Court has utterly failed to consider the genuine facts that the FIR
was lodged by 9.15 a.m. Immediatly after the incident they enter in reasoned delay evidence of both the eye witnesses i.e. PW-1 and
PW-2 were leliable that there statements were completely corroborated by the medical evidence. The injured Ganga Singh though
could not be examined by the porsecution to had been medically examined by PW-6 on the same day corroborating the
prosecution's story and the motive of the accused to committe the crime was established as they were haivng animity with the
victim party in respect of a land dispute. The learned counsel, therefore, to show that considering the abundant cogent evidence
available on record this court should execise its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. And set aside the impugned
judgment and order by convicting the accused.