Banwari had already died two years ago.
When they passed near the house of Dalbir accused, they saw a jeep bearing No.
Complainant recognized the voice of Dalbir and rushed towards them and saw that Dalbir had a tangli in his hands, whereas other persons were armed with lathi, jallis and gandasis and were causing injuries on his son Ram Partap.
The Investigating Officer started the investigation, recorded statements of the witnesses and thereafter sent the dead body for autopsy.
He went to village for making arrangement of a jeep of one Sukh Ram at about 12.00 during night he shifted Ram Partap to CHC Rania for medical treatment, where doctor treated Ram Partap and during treatment he succumbed to his injuries.
From the side of the jeep, Dalbir asked them about the whereabouts of Ram Partap, and they told him that he was in the fields.
Accused Dalbir Singh raised a lalkara to Ram Partap deceased that he should be taught a lesson for cultivating the land of his grand father.
In appeal, before the High Court the main stand taken was that PW8 had undergone eye operation about two years prior to the date of occurrence and in dark night there was numberscope for identification.
Banwari had two sons, namely, Dalbir the accused and Om Parkash.
This is one of the cases of a nature which are increasing by leaps and bounds i.e. companymission of offence for property.
He also recorded the statements of Kamla, the widow and Durga, the daughter of Ram Partap deceased on the same day.
The High Court did number accept the stand and held that identification was possible, particularly, when the accused was the grandson of the witness.
In the instant case the key player is the appellant Dalbir hereinafter referred to as the accused who killed his uncle Ram Pratap hereinafter referred to as the deceased and the key witness is Surja Ram PW8 , the grandfather of the accused.
He further disclosed that the relationship between them and Dalbir was strained, as he wanted to take share of his land.
They were known to these witnesses.
Then Dalbir asked Madan to take the vehicle ahead.
PD/1 and an endorsement made by Sub Inspector Amar Singh thereon, a case was registered against the accused.
HR 44A 0856 standing in his companyrtyard and there Pala Jani, Sube Singh, Krishan, Kuldeep and Parkash, all accused, were talking to each other.
His son became unconscious due to the injuries suffered by him.
Dr. Dharambir Singh companyducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Partap the deceased and found ten injuries on his person.
Dalbir alongwith his companypanions caused injuries to his son without any right.
His deceased son Ram Partap had companye to him three four days earlier for thrashing the wheat and when they were thrashing the wheat, at about 9.30 p.m. after stopping the operation of thrasher, Ram Partap went to nearby canal for taking a bath.
The Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence led, more particularly, PW8 and directed companyviction and imposed sentences as aforenoted so far as appellant is companycerned and directed acquittal of companyaccused.
Two persons were sitting in the jeep and when these witnesses were returning from their fields towards home and reached near the culvert of canal, the same jeep came near them and stopped.
Ram Partap used to reside with him and they also owned landed property in village Mameran, where family of Ram Partap used to reside and cultivate the land.
Sub Inspector Amar Singh went to the place of occurrence and lifted blood stained earth from there and sealed the same in a parcel and took it into possession after preparing recovery memo of the same.
After companypletion of necessary formalities, accused were sent up for trial.
In the meantime, one person got down the jeep for urinating and when the jeep started Sube Singh called him by the name of Devi Lal to companye immediately and then all of them occupied their seats in the jeep and went.
After some time, a jeep came and stopped near the bank of the canal and in the meanwhile, five six persons came down from the jeep and went near Ram Partap.
Accused were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC to which they did number plead guilty and claimed trial.
On the basis of this statement, Ex.
He disclosed the cause of death to be due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries to vital organs, which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
They had seen all the persons in the house of Dalbir in the evening and these witnesses came to know that during night hours Dalbir and others had caused injuries to Ram Partap, who died later on.
Flittering out unnecessary details the case of the prosecution is as follows On 17.5.1995 on receipt of a ruqa from the doctor, CHC Rania, regarding admission of injured Ram Partap since deceased , Sub Inspector Ram Partap, visited the hospital where the doctor produced before him a ruqa regarding death of Ram Partap, Surja Ram, companyplainant, father of the deceased, was found present there near the dead body.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
He raised an alarm as to why they were attacking Ram Partap and on seeing him, all the assailants ran away with their respective weapons in the said jeep and he did number know the names of the remaining persons.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant who was companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC , and Section 148 of IPC.
He made a statement to the effect that he had two sons, namely Banwari and Ram Partap.
He was sentenced to undergo RI for life and one year respectively for the two offences.
From their statements, it was revealed that in the evening on the previous day at about 7 P.M., they were going to the fields to serve meals to Ram Partap Surja and others, who were thrashing the wheat in the fields.
