S.D. Anand, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the hands of Surender son of Gulab Singh is directed against judgment dated 22.2.1999, vide which he was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The prosecution allegations, as upheld by the learned Trial Court at the trial, were as under: The appellant had cordial relations with deceased Raj Singh, husband of PW 10 Mst. Sumitra. They were also on visiting terms with each other. Apart therefrom, there were certain money dealings as well, between them. About one month prior to the impugned occurrence, the appellant raised a loan of Rs. 2000/ -from Raj Singh for the purpose of purchase of certain electrical appliances with a promise to repay it within a month. However, in spite of repeated reminders in the context of repayment, the appellant did not make the re -payment.
(2.) ON the relevant day, at about 2 PM, the appellant visited Raj Singh at latter's house. In the course of conversation, Raj Singh reiterated his demand for repayment of the loan. On account of the insistence on the part of Raj Singh for the repayment of the loan by the appellant, the latter felt visibly annoyed and there was verbal altercation between them. Thereafter, the appellant returned to his house. However, the appellant again went to the house of Raj Singh on that very day at about 8 PM and requested Raj Singh to accompany him for obtaining the loan repayment. All this had taken place in the presence of PW 10 Mst. Sumitra. Raj Singh accompanied the appellant. After sometime thereof, Mst. Sumitra went over in the neighbourhood to participate in the Sangeet ceremony in connection with the marriage of grand daughter of Harnarain. On the return journey to her house at about 10.30 PM, when Mst. Sumitra was passing by the side of the house of the Sarpanch, she heard the cries of her husband who was raising a Raula by saying 'Bachao, Bachao'. Then, she spotted that the appellant was giving brick blows on the mouth of Raj Singh. The number of blows given was 4/5. Besides, Mst. Sumita, the occurrence was also witnessed by Lal Chand PW and Desh Raj (not examined at the trial and given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the appellant). Lal Chand also attempted to rescue Raj Singh from the appellant but the latter pushed him back and fled the spot. However, while fleeing from the spot, the appellant left the brick, he was hitting Raj Singh with, at the spot. Raj Singh was transported to General Hospital, Narnaul in an unconscious state by a four wheeler which happened to come to the spot from the side of Singhana. Raj Singh died at about 2/2.30 AM. The offence was notified to the police by Mst. Sumitra, vide her statement Ex.PH/1 which she gave to the police at about 4 or 5 AM in the hospital. The prosecution examined PW1 Head Constable Suresh Chand, PW2 Constable Ranbir Singh and PW 3 Constable Ajesh Kumar, PW 4 Prahlad, draftsman, PW 5 Dr. Deepak Parkash, PW 6 Satbir Singh, PW7 Sub Divisional Inspector, GRP,Jind Arun Singh, PW8 Singh Raj, PW9 Dr. N.K. Garg, PW 10 Mst. Sumitra, PW 11 Lal Chand and PW 12 Inspector Raghbir Singh in support of its case. PW1 Head Constable Suresh Chand, PW2 Constable Ranbir Singh and PW 3 Constable Ajesh Kumar tendered their affidavits, Ex.PA, Ex.PB and Ex.PC respectively, in to evidence. PW4 Prahlad Sharma, a draftsman in the Civil Courts at Narnaul, had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PD on 1.5.1995. PW 5 Dr. Deepak Parkash had (along with Dr. N.K. Garg and Dr. S.S. Sharma) conducted the post -mortem examination on the dead body of Raj Singh and found the following injuries on the dead body: 1. There was a stitched wound measuring about 3 cms in length, present on the left side of face lateral to lip. 2. There was a stitched wound of the size of 1 cm in length, present on the right side of the face, just below the eye. 3. A stitched wound, extending from upper lip to left side of naso labial fold and nose, measuring 7 cms in length.
(3.) RIGHT eye was swollen, blue coloured and contused. On dissection, Sub conjectival, haemorrhage was present and eye lib was swollen. On opening the skull, free blood was present in the cranial cavity. On further dissection, blood mixed with cerebrospinal fluid was flowing outside the skull. 4. Dr. Parkash opined, on the basis of the above, that the cause of death was extensive haemorrhage and shock, as a result of injury to vital organ like brain. The injuries were opined to be sufficient to cause death in the normal course of life. The injuries were further described to be antemortem in nature. Viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. Thereafter, after perusing Ex.PN (report of the Chemical Examiner), Dr. Parkash reiterated the cause of death as already indicated. He , however, added that Ex.PN indicated that the deceased had consumed Alcohol.;