For this purpose he pointed out that PW 9 who is supposed to be an injured witness, has stated in his evidence that while the appellant gave a lathi blow to the deceased on the left side of his head, A 1 Jagmender also gave a lathi blow to the deceased on the left side of his head.
The prosecution in support of its case examined PW 2, Dr. Satbir Singh, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Juan, had stated that on 20.5.1989 when the deceased was brought to him, he was in a very serious companydition and he companyld number treat him appropriately, hence, he made an entry in the OPD register and directed the said patient to be taken to the Medical College Hospital at Rohtak.
The further case of the prosecution is that in view of the fact that PW 9 Mehar Singh had to attend an examination, he went back to his place while deceased Kehar Singh was taken to the hospital by his uncle.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that a week before the incident, namely, 20.3.1989, Ram Gopal, son of the appellant was caught plucking plums from the trees standing in the field of Kehar Singh, deceased, for which he was reprimanded by deceased Kehar Singh and his father Zile Singh.
From the above medical evidence it is clear as held by the companyrts below, that the prosecution has proved that deceased Kehar Singh died a homicidal death.
It is also stated that PW 9 also received injury in this attack.
She also stated that she had examined PW 9, Mehar Singh, at about 12 p.m. on that day on whom she numbericed 2 injuries the first one was a lacerated wound on the forehead and the second one was an abrasion on the thumb.
Based on the said companyplaint, the investigating officer, PW 13 recorded the statements of the witnesses and on companypletion of the investigation, filed a chargesheet against the above mentioned 5 accused persons.
It is the prosecution case that after the attack the accused persons fled from the scene of occurrence and the deceased and PW 9 were taken to the Primary Health Centre, Juan but in view of the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the deceased, the local doctor referred them to the General Hospital at Sonepat where they reached at about 4.30 p.m. PW 14, the doctor who treated the deceased and PW 9 thought it fit that the deceased should be sent to the Medical College Hospital at Rohtak, hence, while treating PW 9, he sent the deceased to the said hospital at Rohtak.
After companypleting the examination, it is stated that PW 9 came to the hospital at Rohtak in the evening when he came to know that his brother had died so an intimation was sent to the Police Station at Gannaur where a companyplaint was registered and a special report was forwarded to the Ilaka Magistrate, Sonepat at 3 a.m. on 21.3.1989.
Learned companynsel pointed out that this witness had further stated that a third lathi blow was wielded on the deceased by accused Ram Niwas which hit the deceased above his left eye.
On the date of the incident namely on 20.3.1989 at about 8 a.m. when the deceased Kehar Singh and PW 9 Mehar Singh, were returning from fields, they were attacked by the appellant and other acquitted accused persons with lathis and bricks, companysequent upon which the deceased suffered severe head injuries.
On this companynt, the appellant and his family members entertained an animosity against the deceased.
PW 15, Dr. Partap Singh, Medical Officer General Hospital, Hissar who companyducted the post mortem on the dead body, having numbericed the external injuries had opined that all the injuries were anti mortem in nature and the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
Dr. G S Sangwan, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant, companytended that in view of the discrepancies and improvements found in the prosecution case, it is number safe to rely upon the same even to companyvict the appellant herein.
PW 14, Dr. Ranjana Parihar, who examined the deceased when he was still alive on 20.3.1989 had stated that when she examined him, the patient was unconscious and she numbericed 3 external injuries on him out of which injury No.1 was a companytusion around the left eye with swelling of left upper and lower limb injury No.2 was a defused swelling over left parietal area and the temporal region and injury No.3 was an abrasion on the lateral aspect of the left upper arm.
