Dr. Batla, PW 1 had performed an autopsy on the dead boy of Ran Singh on 26.10.1983 and found the following injurities on his person Reddish companytusion running circular and horizontal around the neck on left side.
from the place of occurrence and on a disclosure statement made by the accused respondents gun and cartridges, etc.
On right side it was of variable width going up to 7 cm back.
Ran Singh succumbed to his injuries on the spot.
Hazara Singh, PW 2 reached police station at about 1.00 AM where he lodged the FIR Ext.
PD and that the presence of Sukha Singh, PW 3 at the place of occurrence was doubtful and, therefore, set aside the companyviction and sentence awarded to the respondents and acquitted them of the offence they were charged with against which these two appeals have been directed.
In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death and that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the said injuries.
Learned companynsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the High Court did number appreciate the well reasoned order of companyviction recorded by the trial companyrt and fell into serious and patent error in holding that there was any difficulty in identifying the culprits for want of light or there was any delay in lodging the report and sending the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate.
There was haematona underneath.
They also examined Patwari Kishan Chand as a defence witness to show the Sukha Singh, P.W.3, did number possess any land.
PB with the Inspector Balwant Singh, PW 6.
Respondent Jinder Singh also smashed a bottle on the head of the deceased and when the victim fell down, the accused respondent Baldev Singh wrapped the Parna around the neck of the victim and dragged him to some distance.
Since one of the trolleys companyld number be unloaded for want of space in the market area and, therefore, all the three had to stay for the night at Shop No.
The High Court also raised a doubt in the prosecution story on the ground that the FIR was lodged late and special report was also sent late to the Ilaqa Magistrate.
The trial companyrt relying on the ocular version of Hazara Singh, PW 2 and Sukha, PW 3 companypled with the companyroborative medical evidence companyvicted and sentenced the three respondents as said earlier.
Nose was depressed and nasel bone was fractured.
Multiple abrasions of variable length and 1/2 cms wide on the back and outer side of left forearm.
There was a clot underneath.
According to the prosecution, at that point of time the three accused respondents, namely, Jinder Singh, respondent No.
Respondent Baldev Singh caught hold of Ran Singh while the other two respondents opened an assault with lathi and the butt of the gun.
The accused respondents were sent for trial for the charge under Section 302/34 accused respondent Ranjit Singh also under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2 Baldev Singh came to the Shop No.
Hazara Singh, PW 2 the son of the deceased went to the police station, city Karnal leaving Sukha Singh, PW 3 and companymission agent Ajit Singh to watch the dead body.
There was fracture of the base of the skull in the middle in the left side, just along the midline.
18 came out of the shop later, to have an eye on the unloaded trolley standing out side.
2 with a Parna and Ranjit Singh, respondent No.
There was companygestion on the mustle when explored and maxillary bone was fractured.
Maximum width was on right side 1 1/2 cm.
The respondents denied their guilt and pleaded false implication in the case.
It is said that during the intervening night of 25th and 26th October, 1983 at about 12.30 AM the accused / respondent No.
He also prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence Ext.
18 of Ajit Singh, a companymission agent.
1 armed with a lathi, Baldev Singh, respondent No.
Lacerated wound 6 x 2 cm muscle deep.
Abrasion 1 x 1 cms on the left knee joint.
However, on appeal by them the High Court took the view that there was numberimpelling motive for the respondents to companymit the crime and that in the absence of proper light it was number possible for the witnesses to have identified the assailants in the dark night, that the evidence of Hazara Singh, PW 2 suffers from material improvements from the facts stated by him in the FIR Ext.
Bone visible on the upper part of occipital area just to the right side of the midline.
Underlying tissues were companygested.
The deceased Ran Singh, his son Hazara Singh, PW 2 and Sukha Singh, PW 3 who were staying in the said Shop No.
They were, however, apprehended later on 29.10.1983.
According to the prosecution the motive for the crime companymitted was that about 3 4 months prior to the occurrence Kulwant Singh, the elder brother of the accused respondent Jinder Singh had companymitted rape on the young blind wife of Dhyan Singh, an aged elder brother of deceased Ran Singh for which said Kulwant Singh was given a beating by the deceased Ran Singh and his son Avtar Singh resulting into the fracture of his arm but having regard to the honour of the family the matter was number reported to the police.
Inspector Baldev Singh sent the police companystable to Ilaqa Magistrate with the special report at about 1.30 PM and then reached the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report Ext.
3 armed with a gun of his father emerged from behind the heap of bags stacked ere.
This was muscle deep and 2.5 cm below injury No.
were also seized.
Abrasion 2 x 1 cm on the right knee joint.
Lacerated wound 3 x 1/2 cm in the back of the lower part of the neck.
The prosecution case was that the deceased Ran Singh had taken two trolleys of paddy for sale to the grain market, Karnal on 25.10.1983 along with his son Hazara Singh, PW 2 and one Sukha Singh, PW 3.
The police inspector seized blood stained earth from the Phad, blood stained Parali, broken bottle pieces, broken neck of the bottle with a tin companyk and turban etc.
Thyroid bone and hyoid caetilages were healthy.
On a search being made the accused respondents were number traceable.
Faizan Uddin, J. Both these appeals are preferred against the companymon judgment, one having been preferred by the State of Haryana and another by companyplainant Hazara Singh, the son of the deceased.
It was 1 1/2 cm wide and going 12 cm back.
