Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
1. Incise wound – 5×1 cm x bone deep on centre of parietal scalp oblique. Red color.
2. Abrasion – 8×4 cm. on Lt half of forehead.
3. Abrassion – (4in No.) 1×1 cm each on front of forehad.
4. Abrassion – 2x ½ cm. on nose Rt. Side.
5. Abrassion – 3×2 cm. on Lt. check maxillaryarea.
6. Incise wound:- 8x ½ cm. Skindeep on Rt. Arm upper 1/3 Lateral side obliquely placed.
7. Incise wound 5x ½ cm. x Skindeep Transverse on Rt. Arma middle 1/3 anteriooby.
8. Scratch – 4.cm long on Rt. Arm Lat side obliquely.
9. Incise wound – 2x ½ cm x Skindeep Rt. Aram Lover 1/3 Posteriorly transvorese.
10. Incise wound – 9×2 cm x bone deep on back of Rt.elbow vertical. There is fracture of Rt. Radius & ulna upper 1/3.
11. Scratch – 6 cm oblique on lat side of Rt. Elbow
12. Incise wound – 6×1 cm x skin deep on lat side of Rt. elbow Transverse.
13. Scratch – 5 cm. Transverse on back of Rt. fore arm lower 1/3
14. Incise wound – 1 ½ x ¼ cm. x skindeep on Rt. little finger at Distal Interphalyrgeal 1t Post.
15. Incise wound – 2x ¼ cm x muscle deep on Rt. pales vertical.
16. Incise wound – 1 x ¼ cm x skindeep on Rt. Land at web space of thumb & Index finger.
17. Scratch – ½ cm long on back of Rt. index finger.
18. Scratch – ½ cm long on back of Rt. middle finger.
19. Scracth – 10 cm Transverse on Rt. side of chest.
20. Scratch – 6 cm. long vertical on Rt. left side of chest.
21. Abrasion : 5×1 cm on Rt. Lat side of Abdomen.
22. Abrassion 6×1 cm on Lt. shoulder.
23. Scratch – 13 cm. oblique on Lt. Scrapular region
24. Scratch – 5 cm on front of Lt. Shoulder upper 1/3 Lately.
25. Scratch – 8cm. on Lt. shoulder upper 1/3 lately.
26. Scratch – 5cm on Lt. arm upper 1/3 Laterally Transverse.
27. Scratch – 3cm. Transverse on Lt arm middle 1/3 lately
28. Scratch m- 7 cm on Lt. arm lower 1/3 Laterally.
29. Incise wound – 2 ½ x ½ cm. x skindeep on Lt. forearm upper 1/3 Posteriorly oblique.
30. Incise wound – 10×7 cm x bone deep on Lt. forearm upper ½ posteriorly with fracture of upper 1/3 Radius & ulna seen.
31. Incise wound – 2x ¼ cm. skindeep on Lt. forearm lover 1/3 oblique.
32. Incise wound – 7x 5 cm x bone deep on Lt. wrist Postero medical aspect Transverse with fracture of Lower 1/3 of Radius ulna seen.
33. Incise wound – 6×1 cm x skin deep on Lt. Wrist parallel to Inj No. (32).
34. Incise wound – 3 x 1 cm x muscle deep on Lt. forearm middle 1/3 anteriorly.
35. Incise wound – 3 x ¼ cm x skindeep on back of Lt. hand Transverse.
36. Incise wound – 2x ½ cm x muscle deep en Lt. index finger.
37. Incise wound – 1 x ¼ cm. skindeep on Lt middle finger.
38. Incise wound – 3 x ¼ cm. x skindeep on Lt. Plam.
39. Incise wound – 8 x 3 cm x muscledeep, vertical on Lt. Palm. PAPPI @
40. Incise wound – 3 x ¼ cm. x skindeep Lt. Palm.
41. Incise wound 6x2cm x muscle deep on Lt. lip lateral side oblique.
42. Incise wound – 4 x 1 cm. x skindeep on Lt. thigh middle 1/3 laterally. Transverse.
43. Incise wound – 1x ¼ cm. x skin deep on Lt. High middle 1/3 laterally.
44. Incise wound – 5 x 1 cm x skin deep Lt. thigh laterally.
45. Scratch – 5 cm Transverse just above Lt. knee antly.
46. Incise wound – 1 x ¼ cm x skin deep on lateral side of Lt. knee.
47. Incise wound – 2 x ½ cm. x skin deep on Lt. Knee cap oblique.
48. Scratch – 4cm. on Lt. Knee cap Lower part.
49. Scratch – 3cm. on Lt. Leg Upper 1/3 laterally.
50. Scratch – 4 cm. Transverse on Lt. leg upper 1/3 anterly.
51. Scratch – 5 cm Lt. leg Middle 1/3 laterally.
52. Incise wound – 5 x 1 cm x Skin deep Lt. leg middle 1/3 anterly oblique.
53. Abrassion 3 x 1 cm. Lt. leg middle 1/3 anteriorly.
54. Incise wound 3 x ½ cm. x Skin deep on Lt. leg lower 1/3 laterally. Transverse.
55. Incise wound – 8 x 2 cm x bone deep on medial side of Lt. ankle.
56. Incise wound – 8 x 4 cm x muscle deep on back of Lt. Knee.
57. Scratch 15 cm on back of chest upper part.
58. Incise wound (4 in No.) – 2 x ½ cm x muscle deep on back of Lt. Lip.
59. Incise wound – 2 x ½ cm x muscle deep on back of Rt. Lip.
60. Scratch – 8 cm Transverse on lat side of Rt. High middle 1/3.
61. Abrassion 6×3 cm Rt. Leg upper 1/3 laterally.
62. Incise wound – 2 x ½ cm. x muscle deep on Rt. Leg. Middle 1/3 antly.
63. Incise wound:- 4 x 1 cm x skin deep on Rt. knee cap.
64. Incise wound:- 3 x 1 cm x bone deep on Rt. leg middle 1/3 interiorly.
65. Incise wound:- 5 x 3 cm. x bone deep on Rt. Leg. Lower 1/3 interiorly with fracture of Rt. tibia & fibula Lower 1/3.
66. Incise wound:- 3 x 1 cm x skin deep on medial side of Rt. ankle Transverse.
67. Abrasion : – 1 x ½ cm. medial side of Rt. greattse. All the above mentioned injuries are ante martem in nature. Duration:- fresh before death. Weapon:-Sharp for injury also (1), (6) – (20), (23) –(52), (54) – (60), (62) – (66) Blunt – (2) – (5), (21), (22), (53), (61), (67).” 9. Reverting to the ocular evidence of Yunus (PW-6) and Rashid (PW-9), both of them have stated that when Guddu was coming back on foot from Meenawala Baba’s Dargah after performing Jiyarat, Pappi (Accused No.1), Idrish (Accused No.2), Laxman (Accused No.5), Hemu (Accused No.6), Gyani (Accused No.4), Sabir (Accused No.3) and Shamsu (Accused No.7) came running from the front side and immediately after arriving there, accused Pappi @ Mehboob (appellant) gave the first sword blow on the head of Guddu. This version has remained unshaken. Yunus (PW-6) himself was injured in the same incident having been attacked by Idrish with a sword which hit his finger on the left hand.
Besides the evidence of Yunus (PW-6) and Rashid (PW-9), other circumstances such as recovery of sword at the instance of the appellant has also been proved – as found by the Trial Court and which finding has not been disturbed by the High Court. To put it differently, there is direct evidence to establish the role of the appellant in the commission of offence. He took the lead in assaulting Guddu by giving the first sword blow. 10. The argument of the appellant that there is no clear evidence to show as to which injury was caused by the blow given by the appellant, PAPPI @ in our view, is devoid of merit. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing that deceased Guddu suffered as many as 67 injuries, most of which were incised wounds caused by sharp weapon like sword. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to multiple injuries and shock as a result of multiple fractures described in the post-mortem report.
The assault continued for quite some time till Guddu was completely immobilized and stopped responding. The participation of the appellant in giving first blow and continuing with the assault has been spoken by the injured eye-witness Yunus (PW-6) and other eye-witness Rashid (PW-9). That evidence coupled with the circumstances as noted by the Trial Court, therefore, would be sufficient to sustain the finding of guilt against the appellant Pappi (Accused No.1). 11. The appellant placed reliance on the dictum in the case of Durga Burman Roy Vs. State of Sikkim,1 in which, however, the accused was acquitted as the prosecution had failed to point out any substantive evidence against him and because the co-accused against whom there was evidence of strangulation was already acquitted. Even the decision in the case of Sadananda Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal,2 wherein the Court acquitted the appellant as the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt about the involvement of the appellant therein in the commission of the crime and that the co-accused were already acquitted having disbelieved the entire case of the prosecution on the basis of the same evidence.
To avoid prolixity, we do not wish to refer to other decisions relied upon by the counsel for the appellant which are on the facts of that case. 12. In the present case, however, we find that there is direct evidence to substantiate the involvement of the appellant (Accused No.1) in the commission of the crime, given by the injured eye-witness (PW6) besides the independent witness (PW9) and other circumstances, pointing towards the guilt of the appellant who gave the first blow and continued to give further blows, as a result of which deceased Guddu suffered multiple injuries and succumbed to those injuries. 13. Suffice it to observe that the acquittal of the co-accused by giving benefit of doubt, by itself can be no ground to discard the otherwise reliable evidence which has remained unshaken, pointing towards the complicity of the appellant in the commission of crime. In that view of 1 (2014) 13 SCC 35 2 (2013) 15 SCC 293 the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment affirming the finding of guilt against the appellant alone, amongst the five accused tried together, while convicting the appellant simpliciter under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, this appeal must fail and the same is dismissed. Bail bond stands cancelled. 14. While parting, we place on record our appreciation for the able assistance given by the counsel appearing on both sides. Divya Pandey Appeal dismissed. PAPPI @