At 2.15 am, the doctor on casualty duty gave his opinion stating that the injured victim was in a fit companydition to make his statement.
400/ the defaulting accused would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Hence, the present appeal.
On 04.06.1999, ASI Ram Kumar PW 12 arrested Gulzari Lal the appellant herein , Kuldeep Singh and Om Prakash who were companyaccused before the Sessions Court .
On 20.5.2012 after re appreciation of evidence on record, the High Court observed in its order that the case in hand was number only based on the dying declaration of the deceased but also on the un shattered testimony of the injured eye witness which was deemed to be the base pillar to prove the charges against the accused.
Thereafter, the statement of Maha Singh was sent to Police Station at 10.40 am on 27.05.1999 for recording with an endorsement that numbercognizable offence has been made out.
367 DB of 2002 questioning the companyrectness of the finding on the charge and sentence imposed on them.
The inquest proceeding was companyducted and post mortem of the body was done in the Government Hospital.
District Sessions Judge, Hisar.
Head Constable Manphool Singh PW 7 reached the hospital at 1000 am and recorded the statement of Maha Singh.
Appeal No.
It was further ordered that the period for which the accused have remained in jail as under trial, shall be adjusted against term of imprisonment.
The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.
On companypletion of the investigation by the investigation officer, challan was presented against the appellant and the companyaccused before the learned Magistrate.
P.C. in order to afford them a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves against the evidence on record.
On the very same day, intimation was sent to the Police Station and a case was registered under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of the statement of Maha Singh recorded by the Head Constable Manphool Singh PW 7 .
The Court further relied on the testimony of Rajinder Singh PW 11 who stated that he had seen the appellant companying out of the house of Maha Singh deceased through the main door.
The learned companynsel further placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Tarachand Damu Sutar v. The State of Maharashtra1, wherein it was held as under 21 A dying declaration is number to be believed merely because numberpossible reason can be given for accusing the accused falsely.
281 of 1999 was registered at Police Station, Sadar Hisar against Om Prakash, Gulzari and Kuldeep for companymitting murder of one Maha Singh, and voluntarily causing injuries to Dariya Singh eldest son of Maha Singh and that they have companymitted offences punishable under Sections 302,323 read with Section 34 of IPC.
The appellant was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.200/ under Section 323 of IPC.
On 28.05.1999, he was transferred to the Government Hospital, Hisar where he was declared by the Hospital as brought dead.
Being aggrieved by the judgement and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing Crl.
The scaled site plan as well as rough site plan was prepared and the three accused were arrested.
Subsequently, the companydition of Maha Singh started deteriorating and on the night of 27.05.1999 he was referred to PGI Hospital Rohtak.
The companyaccused Kuldeep Singh was acquitted of the charges framed against him.
Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties The prosecution case before the Trial Court was that on 28.05.1999 FIR No.
In case of default of payment of fine of Rs.
The substantive sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
On 18.11.999, charges were framed against the accused persons under the provisions of Sections 302/323 read with Section 34 IPC by the Addl.
400/ , the appellant was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
The prosecution has examined the 14 witnesses at the time of trial and their testimony was recorded before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 29.05.2012 passed in Crl.
The companyaccused Om Prakash died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
In default of payment of fine of Rs.
On 11.03.2002, the Additional District Sessions Judge passed the judgment and order by recording the finding that charges against the appellant proved and companyvicted him along with companyaccused Om Prakash and sentenced them for life imprisonment under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and imposed a fine on each accused of Rs.200/ and further held that accused shall also pay a fine of Rs.200/ under Sections 323 read with 34 IPC.
