- (1.) The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 22.09.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.21/1992: Offence Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 304 7 Years' R.I. Rs.500/- Two months' Part-I IPC Additional R.I.
(2.) Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
(3.) Shri Ashok Upadhyay, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contends that conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court for the charge under Section 304 Part-I IPC is absolutely unjustified because the trial court discarded the identical allegations of the prosecution witnesses qua the co-accused Balvir, Bhuraram, Daleep, Indraj and Amar Singh and acquitted them from the charges on the same ends. As per Shri Upadhyay, all the accused were commonly charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. No separate charge was framed against the accused appellant for the charge under Section 302 IPC simplicitor and as such, his conviction as recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC is totally uncalled for. He further contends that the motive to commit the offence was rather attributable to the complainant party. His further submission was that the accused appellant also received two significant blunt weapon injuries on his head in the very same incident and the prosecution has not offered any explanation whatsoever for these injuries. He further urges that the prosecution case regarding all the six charge-sheeted accused having given indiscriminate blows to the deceased by barchhis, lathis, etc. is totally contradicted by the medical evidence and as such, the evidence of the eye- witnesses deserves to be discarded. On this grounds, he implores the court to accept the appeal; set aside the impugned Judgment and acquit the accused appellant of the charge.;