- (1.)THE State has filed these appeals as the respondent was not convicted by the High Court under section 302 IPC and has been acquitted after setting aside his conviction under section 304 Part I and section 323 IPC by the Sessions Court, Bharatpur.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated, the allegation against the respondent was that on 5.7.79 at about 6 a.m. he had caused the death of Harveer, his nephew, by firing two shots at him and also by giving stick blows. According to the prosecution this incident was witnessed by PW 1 Govind Singh, PW 2 Vimla, PW 3 Kastoori, PW 4 Bhan Kaur, PW 5 Teji, PW 8 Ramjilal and PW 9 Jeevan Singh. The defence of the accused was that he was attacked and injured by Harveer and others, that he had no gun with him and that whatever injuries were found on the persons of the other side were inflicted by his wife in order to save him. The trial Court believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the respondent under section 304 Part I. The trial Court, however, did not believe the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against the co -accused Ghamandi and acquitted him.
Aggrieved by his conviction, the respondent filed an appeal before the High Court. The State had also filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under section 302 IPC.

(3.)THE High Court after re -appreciating the evidence and considering the reasons given by the trial Court held that the trial Court was wrong in holding that the prosecution had established its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court mainly gave two reasons for taking this view. It held that the medical evidence was inconsistent with the evidence of the eye witnesses. The eye witnesses had stated that the two shots fired by the respondent had caused injuries to Harveer. But not a single injury on Harveer was found to have been caused by a gun shot. After appreciating the evidence of the doctor who had first examined Harveer, and also of the doctor who had performed the post mortem and the Radiologist, the High Court held that the injury found on Harveer were not caused by a gun shot. The High Court disbelieved the eye witnesses as it was their positive case that both the shots fired by the respondent had injured Harveer and because of those injuries he had fallen down.