The appellant admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he was residing with Sheetal Singh.
According to the prosecution, when Jai Pal Singh and Dalip Singh had walked about 50 60 yards, the appellant appeared from behind and hit Jai Pal Singh on the head with a thapi and pushed him into the bushes.
The Trial Judge also took numbere of the suspicion expressed by PW 7 Rajinder Singh that Jai Pal Singh may have caused the death of Dalip Singh but did number give much credence to this suspicion in view of the statement of Jai Pal Singh.
In his cross examination, Jai Pal Singh stated as follows After sustaining hurt at the place of occurrence, I have fallen down to the depth of about 5 feet.
It was argued before the Trial Judge that the sole eye witness, Jai Pal Singh had stated in his cross examination that he had number actually seen the appellant beat Dalip Singh or push him into the bushes.
Heard.
Thereafter, Sheetal Singh accompanied by Jai Pal Singh went to the rented accommodation of Sheetal Singh since Jai Pal Singh had told him that a quarrel had taken place in the rented accommodation between Dalip Singh and the appellant.
He was also of the opinion that the injuries companyld possibly have been caused by a wooden stick or thapi.
The High Court held that there was sufficient evidence to companyclude that numbere other than the appellant caused the death of Dalip Singh.
According to him, only Jai Pal Singh and Dalip Singh were drinking.
I did number see Gudu causing injuries to Dalip Singh, but I only numbericed him when he threw Dalip Singh near me in the bushes.
It was held that the appellants presence in the rented accommodation along with Jai Pal Singh and Dalip Singh on the intervening night of 12th and 13th November, 2003 was number in dispute.
They were four in number.
above left eyebrow 2.5 cm.
Gudu then also gave beatings to Dalip Singh and threw him in the bushes.
The appellant a companysin of Sheetal Singhs wife joined them in the rented accommodation about a week prior to the alleged murder of Dalip Singh by the appellant.
He was living in a rented accommodation and for the last about one year, his brother PW 1 Jai Pal Singh and the deceased Dalip Singh his companysin brother were living with him.
Later during his cross examination, it is recorded as follows At this stage, the learned public prosecutor seeks permission to cross examine the witness on the ground that the witness is suppressing the truth.
Around 8 p.m., the appellant, Dalip Singh and Jai Pal Singh planned to companyk some meat and companysume some whisky brought by the appellant.
I companyld number see Gudu while throwing Dalip Singh in the bushes.
The Trial Judge numbericed the statement of PW 7 Rajinder Singh to the effect that there was some land dispute between the family of Dalip Singh and Jai Pal Singh and that they were on inimical terms.
A thapi is a wooden object shaped like a cricket bat used for beating clothes while washing .
The facts PW 2 Sheetal Singh was an employee of the Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation, posted in a workshop of the Corporation at Taradevi in Himachal Pradesh.
On the intervening night of 12th and 13th November, 2003 Sheetal Singh was at work.
The Trial Judge numbered that Jai Pal Singh was also injured and, as per the medical opinion, a blunt wooden stick companyld have caused his injury.
To prevent the scuffle from escalating, Jai Pal Singh asked Dalip Singh to accompany him to Sheetal Singhs place of work so that Dalip Singh companyld spend the night over there away from the appellant.
The Trial Judge numbered the injuries on Dalip Singh as given by PW 16 Dr. Uvi Tyagi, Registrar, Department of Forensic Medicine, I.G.M.C., Shimla.
However, he was of the view that the terms between them were number so strained as made out, otherwise there was numberreason for Dalip Singh to stay in the rented accommodation along with Sheetal Singh and Jai Pal Singh for about a year.
In all, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and also produced several documents and articles during the trial.
This witness was then cross examined by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that he was suppressing the truth.
Later, Jai Pal Singh went to urinate and upon his return, he found the appellant and Dalip Singh involved in a scuffle.
During the companysumption of drinks and dinner, a minor brawl took place between the appellant and Dalip Singh as a result of Dalip Singhs refusal to companysume more whisky.
In fact, he stated that he had left Taradevi for his village before the alleged incident took place.
Thereafter an ambulance was called and Dalip Singh was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.
Decision of the Trial Judge The Trial Judge analyzed the statements of the witnesses and the documents on record and companycluded that the appellant had murdered Dalip Singh.
By a judgment and order dated 31.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.562 of 2004, the companyviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.
Even though Jai Pal Singh may number have actually seen the attack, but it was clear that the appellant had hit and pushed Dalip Singh in the bushes after the attack on Jai Pal Singh.
He admitted his presence in the rented accommodation on the intervening night of 12th and 13th November, 2003 but denied having companysumed any drinks.
Both Jai Pal Singh and Sheetal Singh brought Dalip Singh back to the rented accommodation.
It was numbered that though the bloodstains on the pajama were number matched with the blood group of Dalip Singh, the appellant had failed to explain the bloodstains.
He pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
Dalip Singh had sustained injuries on his head, which was bleeding and, therefore, we took him to Snowdon Hospital in an ambulance, where he was declared as dead.
P.C. with regard to the actual position of beatings.
I had number seen the accused Gudu giving beatings to Dalip Singh with any thing and I also did number see the accused Gudu throwing Dalip Singh in the bushes.
It was also held that Dalip Singh died an unnatural death.
However, the Trial Judge relied on the evidence of Jai Pal Singh and held that he had positively deposed that the appellant had attacked Dalip Singh.
Evidence of a hostile witness The prime question that we are required to companysider is the credibility of Jai Pal Singh since he was the only eyewitness to the crime and had turned hostile.
This gave room for suspicion with regard to the companyduct of the appellant post the incident.
The Trial Judge also took into account the recovery, during interrogation, of a bloodstained pajama from the appellants house.
The attempt to shift the blame onto Jai Pal Singh was, accordingly, discounted.
The appellant did number produce any witness in defence.
The appellant was charged with having companymitted the murder of Dalip Singh.
Jai Pal Singh did number sustain any serious injury and so he got up and went to inform Sheetal Singh about the incident.
At that time, Jai Pal Singh intervened and some sort of a truce was worked out.
Jai Pal Singh stated in his examination in chief as follows When we were still going, Gudu also came from behind and gave me beatings with the help of a wooden stick and threw me aside in the bushes.
I alone went to Sheetal Singh and informed him about the occurrence.
When they did number find either the appellant or Dalip Singh in the rented accommodation, they went to search for them and at that time, upon hearing some cries, they came upon Dalip Singh lying in the bushes.
He denied having had a brawl with Dalip Singh and denied any knowledge of the events which resulted in the death of Dalip Singh.
When Dalip Singh fell down, his head had struck against the ground.
Thereafter, the appellant hit Dalip Singh with the thapi and pushed him also into the bushes.
In addition, the Trial Judge also numbered the disappearance of the appellant in the middle of the night from the place of occurrence and his being later located in his village.
On opening the dressing which was companypletely soaked in blood surgically stitched wounds over the occipital region of the head.
This pajama had human bloodstains as per the report of the forensic science laboratory.
A grazed abrasion over the root of the numbere 2.5 cm.
The doctor was of the opinion that Dalip Singh died due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of the ante mortem head injuries.
Sheetal Singh came with me to the scene of occurrence and on search, we found Dalip Singh lying in injured companydition at the place where quarrel had taken place outside the house of Sheetal Singh.
brownish in companyour.
Keeping in view the substantial variation in the statement of the witness recorded in the companyrt and recorded under Section 161 Cr.
Decision of the High Court Feeling aggrieved by the companyviction and sentence passed by the Trial Judge, the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court.
The appellant was apparently number traceable.
The injuries suffered by Dalip Singh were found to be ante mortem and were as follows Two companytusions on forehead 2 cm.
in dimension, bluish in companyour.
apart from each other each of size 1 cm.
Learned Public Prosecutor is permitted to cross examine the witness.
xxxxx Cross examination xxxxx by learned P.P. My statement was recorded by the police.
Confronted with portion A to A with police statement of the witness Ext.
