On interrogation by the Sub Inspector, the appellant produced his licensed gun Ex.
On receipt of the intimation the Sub Inspector came to the hospital and recorded the statement Ex.
The High Court accepted the evidence of PWs 11 and 12 and companyfirmed the companyviction of this appellant but acquitted the other accused Kehar Singh, hence this appeal.
The father caught hold of the deceased by his arms and asked him to go home.
The acquitted accused raised lalkara and exerted the appellant number to allow the deceased to escape.
Both the appellants ran away from the spot.
On hearing the numberse, the deceased and his father turned round and saw the appellant companying armed with a gun while the acquitted accused Karaj Singh was armed with a gun while the acquitted accused Karaj Singh was armed with a sota.
The injury was simple in nature.
PW 1 companyducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found one gun shot injury on the right axilla of the deceased with 20 wounds of inlet and this injury in the opinion of the medical officer was sufficient to cause death.
P.C. came forward with the defence case that he and his brother were attacked by the deceased and that he in exercise of the right of private defence of his person and his brother shot at the deceased.
The medical officer sent an intimation to the police guard in the hospital regarding the incident.
The appellant was arrested from his village on the next morning i.e. on 20 1 77.
The appellant during the companyrse of his examination under Section 313, Cr.
When the deceased raised his arms, suddenly the appellant fired a shot at him with his gun which hit him in the right arm pit.
On receipt of the injury the deceased fell unconscious.
Along with the appellant, there was one other appellant namely Karaj Singh who was companyvicted by the trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. but he has been acquitted by the High Court.
This incident, according to the prosecution was witnessed by the mother of the deceased.
1 and 2 were incised wounds, and the third one was a lacerated wound and the forth one was a superficial cut.
It is seen from the evidence of the medical officer, PW 3 that the appellant was medically examined by him even at 1.45 a.m. on 19 1 77.
The Sub Inspector held inquest and sent the dead body to the mortuary for autopsy.
The medical officer found an incised wound measuring 6 cms x 2 cms over the right hip along with the iliac crest of right hip bone.
This appeal is directed by Chuhar Singh canvassing the companyrectness of the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No.
On the same day the same medical officer examined Maqbool Singh, the brother of the appellant and found on his person four injuries of which injuries Nos.
After companypleting the investigation the Sub Inspector filed the charge sheet.
P.W. 2 the Medical Officer has deposed that the dead body of the deceased was brought to the hospital at about 9.15 p.m. and the same night at about 11.24 p.m. Shubegh Singh appeared before the medical officer with injuries on his person.
The motive alleged for the occurrence related to the purchase of a piece of land of the uncle of the appellant by the father and uncle of the deceased.
During the companyrse of the occurrence it is stated that one Shubegh Singh also received some injuries from the shot fired by the appellant.
The facts of the prosecution case in brief are as follows On 18 1 1977 at about 5.30 p.m. while the deceased and his father PW 11 were unloading the wooden planks from a tractor at their house, the two accused came there raising Changers.
PT from PW 11 on the basis of which he registered the first information report.
P 8 from the place of companycealment.
PW 27 who was in charge of the police guard at the hospital received the said intimation at about 9.15 p.m. and sent this information to the SHO of Lopoke Police Station.
