Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as a matter of fact son of appellant Lal Singh is mentally ill and he started quarreling with the deceased and at that time the appellant tried to intervene but his mentally ill son Lal Singh agitated and assaulted the deceased on her head with the sharp edged weapon. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the so called eye witness of the prosecution has alleged that co-accused Lal Singh and petitioner-Mangu Singh assaulted the deceased and it is also alleged that co-accused Lal Singh was armed with a sharp edged weapon whereas petitioner-Mangu Singh was armed with Lathi, however, from the postmortem report as well as the statements of doctor PW-10 Dr. Abid Husain, it is clear that there are four injuries on the body of the deceased and out of those injuries three injuries are from sharp edged weapon and one is abression. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case though he tried to save the life of deceased. It is also submitted that the statements of as many as 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined, however, the mental condition of son of petitioner viz. Lal Singhj, who is also lodged with the petitioner in jail, is deteriorated and he was sent to the hospital and still he is there and for this reason trial is held up.
