KANTA BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement dated 24 -2 -1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, by which, the appellants, Jabar Singh, Jalam Singh and Pokaria, were convicted for offences Under Sections 302 read with Sections 149, 325 read with Section 149, 323 and 147 I.P.C. and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - each and in default of payment of fins each to undergo two year's rigorous imprisonment on the first count; one year's rigorous and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each and in default of payment of fine each to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment on the second court, and 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ - each and in default of payment of fine each to under six months' rigorous imprisonment on the third and fourth count.
(2.) AT the commencement of the arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that he does not want to argue the case on merits, but confines his arguments to the finding regarding the establishment of the charge Under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. against the three appellants and the quantum of sentence of fine awarded to the appellants for the remaining offences. Mr. Singhi, learned Counsel for the appellants, drew our attention to the statement of Dr. Jaswant Singh Bhandari, P.W. 21 and submitted that none of the injuries sustained by the deceased Moti Singh, according to the Doctor was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, Dr. Bhandari had conducted the post -mortem examination deceased Moti Singh and prepared the post -mortemt Examination Report Ex. P. 43. Dr. Bhandari initially stated under looking to the injuries mentioned in Ex. P. 43 that injury No. 6 which was a fracture of parietal bone, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. But later on be stated that the deceased could have survived despite injury No. 6 if prompt medical aid could be made available to him. On being asked further on this point the Doctor specifically stated that the patient might not have died because of that injury. In view of this submission, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that when the weapons said to have been used by the appellant submitted that when the weapons said to have been used by the appellants were lathis and except injury No. 6 all the injuries were on non -vital parts of the body of deceased Moti Singh, the case does not fall within the ambit of Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. Learned Counsel submitted that the case at best may fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part -II, I.P.C. In view of the specific statement of the Doctor the learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute this position.
(3.) CHATAR Singh P.W. 10, who has been believed by the learned Judge, to base the conviction, has given an emnibus statement about all the assailments giving beating to Moti Singh deceased and the witness himself.;