The appellant then inflicted a number of blows on Uttam Singh with the Kassi, when Mit Singh and Kartar Singh Rushed to the spot the appellant filed away with the Kassi.
He then narrated the incident to the police but instead of recording his version they wrongfully detained him for several days and falsely implicated him.
After receipt of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and companypletion of investigation Mukhtiar Singh submitted charge sheet against the appellant and in due companyrse the case was companymitted to the designated Court.
When he the appellant tried to intervene he also sustained some injuries.
After registering the case, Madan Gopal P.W.6 Station House Officer, came to the spot accompanied by Mit Singh, Held inquest upon the dead body and sent it for post mortem examination.
Mukhtar Singh took possession of the Kassi and sent it to the forensic Science Laboratory for examination.
By the impugned judgment the learned Judge companyvicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 302 and 325 of the India Penal Code.
In support of its case the prosecution examined seven witnesses of whom Mit Singh P.W. 4 and Uttam Singh P.W. 5 figured as eye witnesses.
The appellant also examined Surjit singh D.W.1 to prove his version of the incident.
Mit Singh P.W. 4 and Kartar Singh, father and brother of Darbara Singh respectively, were then irrigating their land nearby.
The evidence of Dr. Aggarwal further reveals that on March 31, 1984 at 11.30 P.M. he had examined Uttam Singh P.W. 5 and found three lacerated wounds and a swelling on his person which.
The doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as result of the injuries sustained and that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
according to him, were freshly caused by blunt weapon.
Dr. S.P. Bansal P.W.2 , a Radiologist testified that on April 4, 1984 Uttam Singh was x rayed by him and the Skiagram showed fractures of both parietal and occipital bones.
The defence of the appellant, who pleaded number guilty to the charges levelled against him, was that on the date of the incident Uttam Sing P.W. 5 and the deceased Darbara Singh quarrelled with each other which ultimately ended in a mutual assault and injuries to both of them.
On perusal of their evidence we find that even though they were cross examined at length, numberhing companyld be elicited by the defence so as to discredit them.
He seized some blood started earth from the spot and prepared a sealed packet in respect thereof.
On March 31, 1984 at or about 7 P.M. when they were companysuming liquor near the poultry farm of the appellant, he also came there and shared the drinks.
As, earlier numbericed, to prove this part of its case the prosecution rested primarily upon the evidence of P.Ws.
Accompanied by Surjit Singh and Mit singh he went to the spot where the dead body of Darbara Singh was lying.
2 a Shorn of details the prosecution case is that Darbara Singh the deceased was the driver of a truck and Uttam Singh P.W. 5 was its companyductor .
That Darbara Singh met with a homicidal death stands companyclusively proved by the unimpeachable testimony of Dr. Jawahar Lal Aggarwal P.W.1 who held autopsy on the dead body of Darbara Singh on April 1, 1984 and found ten injuries.
During investigation the appellant was arrested on April 7, 1984 and pursuant to his statement made before S.I. Mukhtiar Singh P.W.7 a Kassi was recovered.
In the companytext of the above trustworthy medical evidence the question that number falls for out determination is whether the appellant was responsible for causing the death of Darbara Singh and Grievous injuries on the person of Uttam Singh P.W. 5 .
He however came back a little later and told Darbara Singh that he should teach him a lesson as he had forcibly taken away one of their companys.
He then picked up a Kassi and started assaulting Darbara Singh with it, On being so assaulted Darbara Singh fell down dead.
After deputing Kartar Singh to look after the dead body of Darbara Singh, Mit Singh went to Bagha Purana Police Station and lodged a first information report whereupon a case was registered against the appellant.
Uttam singh had in the meantime been taken to the hospital for treatment of his injuries.
4 and 5.
After arrest the appellant was also sent to the hospital as there were some injuries on his person.
J. The judgment and order dated December 6, 1984 rendered by the Judge, Special companyrt, Ferozepur in trial No.
They took Uttam Singh, who injured, in a car to the Police Station to narrate the incident Surjit Singh took Uttam Singh to the Hospital.
K. MUKHERJEE.
On companysideration of the evidence the Designated Court accepted the version of the prosecution in preference to that of the defence and accordingly passed the impugned order of companyviction and sentence.
After finishing his drinks the appellant went back to his poultry farm.
He then went to Surjit Singh of His village and informed him about the incident and he Surjit Singh , in his turn, informed Mit Singh.
42 of 1984 is under challenge in this appeal.
In the mean time Uttam Singh had taken up a small toki which was lying nearby and attacked the appellant.
