The first injury was a healed scar mark below the right clavicle.
1 in the left limb.
The second injury was a surgically dressed wound on the left shoulder and underneath he found that blood vessels being legated and the right arm being cut away because of amputation.
He also stated in his deposition that the shock and haemorrhage was on account of the injuries found on the dead body.
Deceased and P.W. 8 were medically examined by the Doctor, P.W. I. He found on the injured deceased 5cm x 4cm lacerated wound on the lateral aspect of left upper arm.
P.W. 7 saved himself by taking shelter behind a small shed.
Thereupon the appellant fired a shot from the gun hitting on the left upper arm of the deceased.
Thereafter the accused made good their escape.
The later two shouted a lalkara.
It is companyrect that haemorrhage companyld be due to reasons other than injuries else.
To a specific question that the injuries found on the dead body were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature, he answered thus Super added secondary haemorrhage either secondary infection dislocation of the pallet from the injured vessel particularly on injuries on the left arm as found in the case were sufficient to cause death and so my reply is in the affirmative.
He opined that all the injuries were result of fire arm.
In the cross examination he further stated that he did number observe in the post mortem that the injuries found were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
The deceased companyplained to him that he and others were insulted at the hands of the police.
He further admitted thus As it is, I companyld number make up my mind in the absence of indoor record of the patient regarding the duration between injuries and death.
He also found multiple lacerated punctured wounds with inverted margins around this injury.
Just then the appellant came there.
The injured deceased was operated by P.W. 3 on 3.10.1979.
The injured was kept in observation.
On internal examination he did number find any injury on any other organs except a fracture on the left humorous and on dissection he removed three pallets.
It is alleged that he also fired at P.W. 8 who had just alighted from the bus.
The deceased staggered towards the village but fell down.
He also examined P.W. 8 and he found five simple injuries which companyld have caused by fire arm.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur companyvicted all of them.
In an appeal preferred by them the High Court however companyfirmed the companyvictions of the present appellant and acquitted the other two persons.
This led to exchange of abuses and therefore the appellant went to his nearby shop and returned with a gun.
He was again admitted to the Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur on 15.11.1979.
The other injuries were also surgically incised and stiched wounds.
Bodhraj, another accused came there armed with a revolver and Kundan Lal was armed with a kirpan.
The appellant did number relish this and retorted why Chamel Singh was to make a companyplaint.
The injuries were of varying duration in view of surgical intervention.
On 2.10.79 the day of occurrence the deceased accompanied P.W. 7 to the Village Bus stop to see him off at 5 P.M. They were waiting for the arrival of the bus in front of the shop of Kundan Lal, one of the companyaccused.
He opined that the death was due to haemorrhage and shock which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
On 19.10.1979 as well as again on 13.11.1979 the deceased was alive and was again referred to P.W. 3.
The said injury was indeed an old one but a secondary haemorrhage can take place at any moment after 7 to 14 days duration.
The deceased was taken to the Hospital by P.W. 7 alongwith P.W. 8 the injured.
The right arm of the deceased was amputated on 19.11.1979 and on the same day he died at about 1.55 p.m. P.W. 2 another Doctor companyducted the post mortem and he found five main injuries.
