and for hiring taxi for removal of my father to Chandigarh.
These issues were specifically companysidered by both the Courts.
Both PW 1 and PW 2 stated that the motive for the appellants killing Arjun Singh was because of a dispute over land which had resulted in a fight in which the appellant had received a gun shot injury in his abdomen.
The eye witnesses in this case were Nasib Singh PW 1 the deceaseds son, and Banarsi PW 2 , the deceaseds brother.
For the police number to have seen PW 1 and PW 2 either at Kaul or Kaithal or at PGI, Chandigarh when they arrived there, under these circumstances, is number surprising.
DW 2 was number declared hostile by the defence number was the finding of the Trial Court in this regard assailed by the appellant before the High Court.
In the criminal case instituted in this companynection, the appellant had alleged that he had been shot by Arjun Singh.
Both PW 1 and PW 2 raised an alarm.
The doctor of the Centre gave some treatment to Arjun Singh but advised that he should be removed to Kaithal General Hospital.
PO of the appellant and number from any other fire arm.
In default, the appellant was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.
The appellants challenge to this companycurrent finding is two fold first he says that the eyewitness account of his companyplicity was number credible second, that even if one were to accept the eye witness evidence of the event, he companyld number have been companyvicted under Section 302 IPC as the death of Arjun Singh was in fact caused by renal failure, septicemia and respiratory failure.
Kehar Singh raised lalkara that the Sarpanch Arjun Singh should be shot and killed.
Furthermore, the evidence of Dr. Dalbir Singh who companyducted the postmortem examination of Arjun Singh PW 4 was that four injuries had been caused to the body of the deceased, of which injuries Nos.
They went to Kaithal to see Arjun Singh at 8.00 p.m. According to PW 5, numberrelative of Arjun Singh had reached there.
The appellant and Kehar Singh appealed before the High Court.
He was on his way to Chandigarh via the Police Station at Dhand when the police met him and he made a statement Ex.
Amongst the material evidence relied on was the fact that the bullet recovered from the body of Arjun Singh was found by the Forensic Science Laboratory FSL to have been fired from the revolver Ex.
Both PW 1 and PW 2 then left Chandigarh.
Shorn of unnecessary details, both of them testified that on 26.4.91, at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant armed with a revolver and his brother Kehar Singh, empty handed, came to the outside of the house of Shiv Dutt in a lane in village Sakra.
The appellant sought to rely upon the evidence of Dr. Sushil Budhiraja, Senior Resident, PGI, Chandigarh that Arjun Singh was a diabetic and, .
The Trial Courts companyclusion that the death was caused by a shot fired from the revolver of the appellant is in keeping with the evidence on record.
PW 1 returned to his village, Sakra.
Thereupon, the appellant fired three shots at Arjun Singh.
ARF is an abbreviation of acute renal failure.
Apart from finding this companysistency in the evidence given by PW 1 and 2, the Trial Court numbered that the other oral and documentary and material evidence companyroborated their case.
Besides to infer the absence of PW 1 and PW 2 at the scene of occurrence only because their names might number have been numbered by the doctors or in the medical registers of the places to which the deceased was taken for treatment, calls for an illogical inference which the High Court did number and indeed companyld number draw.
He reached his village at 8.00 a.m on 27th April 1991.
The High Court acquitted Kehar Singh holding that Kehar Singh was number present at the scene of occurrence and that this finding was fortified from the fact that but for ascribing him a lalkara that Arjun Singh should be killed, numberrole has been attributed to him.
ATN is abbreviation of acute tubular necrosis.
Both were sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ each.
In his cross examination, PW 2 stated that before the shooting, Arjun Singh was sitting in front of the house of Shiv Dutt when the appellant fired the first shot from a distance of six feet and then came forward by about one or two steps when the second shot was fired and the third shot was fired from about a distance of a foot.
The view was affirmed by the High Court and we find numberreason to interfere with the same.
Zile Singh accompanied them from the Primary Health Centre, Kaul to the General Hospital, Kaithal.
PA before the police.
On re examination, PW 17 clarified, The companyplication of renal failure, septicaemia, DIC and respiratory failure developed because of the injury received by Arjun Singh and companysequent operation.
The first shot hit Arjun Singh on the right side of his chest, the second hit him above the elbow of the left arm and the third on the left wrist.
However, the evidence of PW 1 and PW2 as to the presence of Raghbir Singh and his companymission of the crime was accepted after an elaborate discussion of the evidence.
Arjun Singh companylapsed.
The High Court was also of the view that had Kehar Singh been at the scene of occurrence, he would number have companye empty handed.
The evidence of DW 3 was rejected by the Trial Court number only on the ground that he was an interested witness, as the appellant had supported him in the Assembly Election and because he was an accused in an incident regarding a dispute over land in which PW 1 was the companyplainant , but also because DW 2 categorically denied that either DW 3 or the appellant were known to him or had stayed with him.
The claim of the appellant that the death of Arjun Singh companyld have been caused for reasons other than the bullet injury is equally unsustainable.
The first challenge of the appellant regarding the credibility of the eye witnesses account is, therefore, unsustainable and is rejected.
The appellant was found guilty by both the Trial Court and the High Court of having fatally shot one Arjun Singh.
On the second ground of challenge, the police at Kaithal were first informed at 7.20 p.m. on 26.4.91 when they received a ruqa from the General Hospital at Kaithal PW 5 .
The Trial Court found that the rushing of the victim to the Hospital to save his life instead of first going to the police station was a satisfactory explanation for the delay in making the companyplaint.
Arjun Singh expired on 1.5.91 in PGI.
His statement was recorded by the police on 30th April 1991.
PW 1 and PW 2 both said that they left Kaithals General Hospital for PGI, Chandigarh at 8.30 p.m. on 26.4.91.
The High Court upheld the appellants companyviction and also allowed the revision application filed by PW 1 by enhancing the fine to Rs.10,000/ and directing the same to be paid to the companyplainant.
1, 3 and 5 companyld be caused by a fire arm.
Arjun Singh was examined at Kaithal by the Doctor and was referred to the Post Graduate Institute PGI , Chandigarh where Arjun Singh was ultimately admitted.
Banarasi PW 2 s account of the incident of the shooting was substantially the same.
Similarly, numberinference of PW 1s and PW 2s absence from the scene of the crime can be drawn merely because the police officers did number see PW 1 and PW 2 when they went to Kaithal and Chandigarh.
The grounds on which the credibility of the eye witnesses account have been assailed before us are, i delay in informing the police by PW1 ii the fact that the police did number find PW 1 or PW 2 when they went to Kaithal or Chandigarh and iii the number mentioning of the names of PW 1 and PW 2 by the doctors or in the records of the Primary Health Centre, Kaul, General Hospital, Kaithal or the PGI, Chandigarh.
Before that PW 1 was busy buying medicines etc.
Arjun Singh was removed by PW 1 and PW 2 to the Primary Health Centre, Kaul.
The companyplainant, PW 1 also filed a revision application seeking enhancement of the fine and companypensation.
With regard to the delay in filing the FIR, both the Courts have found that there was numberdelay in filing the FIR.
The police thereafter accompanied PW 1 to the scene of the shooting.
The Trial Court accordingly found the guilt of the appellant and Kehar Singh established and companyvicted them under Section 302/34 IPC.
SI Balbir Singh, CIA staff of Police Station, Dhand said that he received a wireless message from the police station at Kaithal at 7.30 p.m. on 26.4.91 and reached the PGI, Chandigarh at 3.00 a.m. on 27.4.91 when he found numberone there with Arjun Singh except the attending doctor.
Both witnesses said that they arrived at the PGI, Chandigarh at 11.30/11.45 p.m. and both left at 12.30 p.m. after admitting Arjun Singh.
There were four causes of the death in the present case i.e. renal failure, septicaemia, DIC and respiratory failure.
In this case blood had been infected.
Significantly, the plea does number appear to have been raised before the High Court at all.
RUMA PAL, J. This appeal has been preferred from the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the appellants companyviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code IPC .
On the third ground, we find that there was sufficient evidence to show that Arjun Singh was accompanied by some persons number only at Kaul but also at Kaithal and at the PGI, Chandigarh and, as companyrectly held by the High Court, it would be unreasonable to expect the doctors to name the persons accompanying the patients.
As far as PW 2 is companycerned, he said that after arriving at Kaithal Hospital at 7.00 p.m. he remained inside the laboratory in companynection with arranging blood and I also gave my blood in the laboratory of the Civil Hospital, Kaithal.
