Mahavir Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by Ghanshyam against his conviction under Section 302, IPC and a sentence of imprisonment for life.
(2.) THE prosecution case was that the deceased Pyarey was suffering from dysentery and, therefore, he often used to go to ease himself. On 13-10-1970 at about sunrise he felt a strong urge for easing himself. So he went inside the Khandahar of the appellant which was to the back and east of his residential house. It is said that the appellant saw the deceased easing himself in his Khandahar and so he assaulted him with a Sonta. On the cries of the deceased, his son Ram Bhawan (PW 1), Sheo Darshan (PW 2), Brindaban (PW 3) and Matai (PW 4), who were all neighbours, rushed towards the Khandahar. THE appellant ran away saying that the deceased had gone mad as he was easing in his Khandahar. On receipt of the injuries the deceased had become unconscious. He was, therefore, taken to the village hospital and then to Unchahar. He was advised to be taken to Rae Bareli. In the meantime he had gone to P.S. Mustafabad and lodged a report (Ext. Ka-1) at 9.30 A. M. The case was, however, registered by Bhuneshwar Pal Singh, Head Constable (PW 5) under Section 323, IPC only and was kept as a non- investigating one. The Station Officer was also not present at the police station. The complainant returned to the Police station at 10.30 A. M. and informed the Head Constable that the condition of his father was not good and he was not being treated properly. So he had sent the constable to the hospital. Then the injured was taken to Rae Bareli but he died there in the evening. The Station Officer Sheo Mant Singh (PW 6) returned to police station the next day, i.e. 14th October, 1970 and learning about this fact he first got it changed into one u/Sec. 308, IPC and took up the investigation. He reached the village the same day at 10.30 A. M. and interrogated the witnesses and prepared a site plan. Next morning he learnt about the death of Pyarey when Ram Bhawan returned to the village. He was interrogated. The case was also got changed from Section 308 to Section 304, IPC and a charge sheet was submitted against him for that offence. The committing court, however, framed the charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and committed him to stand bis trial for that offence.
(3.) THE appellant had denied the change altogether and alleged his implication in the case because of enmity. He examined his father in defence as DW 1. The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case and held that it was the appellant who had given blows to Pyarey when he was easing himself in his Khandahar. He also held that the: offence was one under Section 302, IPC and so convicted him as such but sentenced him only to imprisonment for life:.;