B.P. Singh, J. - (1.) The sole appellant before us Balwan Singh has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and to six months imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC by judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.314-D of 1997 dated 20th August, 1998. The appellant A-1 along with Jai Singh A-2, Inder Singh A3 and Rakesh A-4 were put up for trial. The Sessions Judge, Sonepat by judgment and order dated 21/22 March, 1997 acquitted A4 Rakesh but found remaining accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC. The High Court in appeal affirmed the conviction of the appellant herein under Sections 302 and 323/34 IPC but acquitted A2 and A3 of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC and convicted them instead under Section 323 IPC for causing simple injuries to some of the witnesses. A2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and A3 was released on probation. Therefore, the said A2 and A3 have not preferred appeals before this Court. A special leave petition has been preferred by the State of Haryana against the acquittal of A2 and A3 of the charges under Section 302/34 IPC.
(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on the 23rd May, 1992 PW5 Virender Singh, son of the deceased Ram Chander, a resident of village Nadipur Majra had gone to attend the marriage of a friend in village Juan. The barat party had left for village Juan at about 6.00 A.M. A1 and A2 who are brothers also went to attend the same marriage on their motor cycle. He requested Balwan A1 to take the bridegroom on his motor cycle to the Chaupal of the village for the vidai ceremony. This infuriated A2 Jai Singh and it is alleged that he slapped PW5 which was followed by an altercation. While returning to their village A1 and A2 threatened PW5 and told him that they will teach him and his father a lesson after they returned to their village. The further case of the prosecution is that at about 7/7.30 P.M. when PW5 was going to his house in the village, he saw that A1 to A4 were giving injuries on the person of his father Ram Chander (deceased). They were armed with Jailis and lathis and were inflicting injuries on his father in front of the house of Chander Bhan Mahajan, a co-villager. He also noticed that his mother Omwati PW7, wife of the deceased, and Tek Ram PW8, a neighbour had come to the rescue of his father. He also rushed to the rescue of his father but when he was trying to do so, A1 aimed Jaili blow at him which injured him on his right shoulder while A3 struck him on his left eye and the right shoulder. A4 aimed a Jaili blow at him which injured the wrist of his left hand. Tek Ram PW8 was also given a blow on his head by A2. When they raised alarm, all the accused ran away. The further case of the prosecution is that injured Ram Chander was removed to the civil hospital at Gannaur but they were advised to take him to the MCH hospital at Rohtak. Instead of taking him to the hospital at Rohtak, they decided to take him to AIIMS at Delhi but the authorities at the AIIMS directed them to the Safdarjang hospital and from there they were directed to take them to Ganga Ram hospital, where he was brought at about 3/3.30 A.M. on 24.5.92 i.e. early in the morning following the evening of occurrence. A first information report was lodged by PW5 at the Ganga Ram hospital on 25.5.92 at about 8.00 A.M. It appears from the record that the police officer who had come to know about the occurrence went to the village to record the report but on being told that the injured had been removed to Gannaur, he went to Gannaur and thereafter ultimately found them at Delhi in the Ganga Ram hospital.
(3.) The prosecution examined PW5, the informant, PW7 Omwati, wife of the deceased and PW8 Tek Ram, a neighbour to prove its case. It also relied on the medical evidence to prove that Ram Chander (deceased) had received serious injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. As earlier noticed, the trial court acquitted PW4 but found the remaining accused guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. On appeal, the High Court acquitted A2 and A3 of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC but maintained the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC . A1 to A3 were also found guilty under Section 323/34 IPC.;