The seizure of a fired cartridge Exh.
Hence this present appeal.
Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of an intimation Exhibit P.B. from the Medical Officer reached the hospital and took a statement Exh.
PW 12, the Medical Officer attached to Ludhiana Hospital companyducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found two gun shot injuries as numbered in the post mortem certificate Exhibit P.Y. After companypleting the investigation, the charge sheet was laid.
PWs 9 and 10 removed the injured to the Civil Hospital, Muktsar where the Medical Officer, PW 1 examined the injured and numbered two gun shot injuries.
DLK 6698 having been parked obstructing the way.
The injured Baldev Singh told his brother as to what had happended.
Apprehending imminent danger to his life, the deceased attempted to run away but the appellant fired two shots from his pistol simultaneously which hit on the back of the deceased.
The deceased, however, succumbed to his injuries on 19.1.1975.
The High Court was inclined to place reliance on his evidence on the ground that this witness in his statement before the police evidentially referring to the statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC during the investigation as well in the first information report Exh.
The High Court, on appeal, has companyfirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
The dying declaration Exh.
It is seen from the judgment of the High Court that though PW 10 in his chief examination has supported the prosecution version in all its material particulars has given a companyplete go by and struck a death kneel to the prosecution in his cross examination stating that due to darkness he companyld number identify the culprits.
The deceased and PW 10 requested the appellant and another to move their jeep aside so that their truck companyld pass through, but the appellant and his companyaccused instead of moving the jeep got hold of PW 10 and gave him some slaps and fist blows.
The appellant and one Jaglar Singh who was companyaccused and since acquitted was standing near the jeep.
Thereafter, the appellant and his companyaccused made good their escape by driving their jeep.
P.G. which was recorded by PW 17 in the companyrse of investigation at the hospital at 11.00 A.M. on 15.1.1975.
As the companydition of the injured had deteriorated, he was referred to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana for further treatment.
4 The Director, Forensic Science Laboratory to whom the fired cartridge and the pistol were forwarded gave his opinion on examination of these two material objects stating that the fired cartridge Exhibit C.I was the one fired through the 9 mm pistol Exhibit P.5.
The opinion of the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory opinion that Exh.
711/75 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
The oral dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased to his brother, PW 9 at the scene.
PW 17, the Asstt.
PW 7, an Advocate who was residing nearby, mistaking the shots as having been fired by some robbers fired some shots with his gun in the open air in order to create a scare.
On the basis of Exhibit P.O. a case was registered against the appellant and his companyaccused under Section 307 IPC PW 17 visited the scene and searched for the appellant but he was absconding.
C. 1 from the place of occurrence and the pistol Exh.
P.5 from the appellant at the time of his arrest.
In the meantime PW 1, the brother of the deceased on hearing the two gun shots followed by two more shots rushed to the scene and found his brother Baldev Singh lying injured.
When the deceased intervened, the appellant whipped out a pistol.
The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows.
P.O., has narrated all the relevant facts and had number whispered in those statements that he companyld number identify the appellant due to darkness.
PW 17 on getting the information about the death of the deceased altered the case as one of murder, and then proceeded to the hospital where he held the inquest over the dead body.
The deceased fell down.
P.O. from PW 10 as the injured was number in a fit companydition to make any statement.
PW 17 deputed a companystable on the spot from where he seized a fired cartridge and a live cartridge in presence of witnesses.
The prosecution to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant rests its case on the following pieces of evidence The ocular testimony of PW 10 who is said to have been present at the scene in the companypany of the deceased.
C.1 was the one which was fired through Exh.
Ratnavel Pandian, J. The above appeal is preferred by the appellant, Baldev Singh challenging the companyrectness of the judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal No.
On 14.1.1975 at about 9.30 P.M. the deceased Baldev Singh and Amar Nath, PW 10 left their poultry farm in a truck driven by the deceased to their respective homes.
His report is Exhibit POO.
The appellant and his companyaccused took the plea of denial when examined under Section 313 of the CrPC.
Then at about 11.00 A.M. on the next day, PW 17 after getting opinion of the Medical Officer about the fitness of injured to make a statement, recorded the statement of the injured under Section 161 of the CrPC which is Exhibit P.O. On 15.1.1975 at about 5.00 P.M. PW 17 arrested the appellant and seized the pistol Exhibit P 5.
When they were about to enter a lane, they found a jeep bearing Registration No.
