RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant as well as Public Prosecutor and perused the record. The crux of evidence which has resulted in conviction of appellant Nand Lal under Section 302 I.P.C. for committing murder of one Pratap son of Jagmal Ram is that according to prosecution at about 10 P.M. on 3rd July, 1998, a quarrel took place bet -ween Nand Lal accused and the Pratap deceased in connection with the amount demanded by Nand Lal from said Pratap. It was alleged that Nand Lal, who carries on a tea shop near the flour mill of one Mohan Singh, has made a demand of Rs. 600/ - against deceased Pratap, which was due in his account. Whereas the Pratap was saying that he has already paid Rs. 300/ - and remaining amount shall be paid to him afterwards to which Nand Lal was not agreeable and that resul -ted into a scuffle between the two. The complainant Sumer Singh son of Mala Ram is also cousin of deceased Pratap and another Mahaveer separated Nand Lal and Pratap. On separation the said Nand Lal went to the house of Sattar Manihar and returned with a ˜lathi and gave a blow on head of Pratap. As a result of the said blow Pratap fell down and became unconscious and he was taken to hospital, Churu, where he died. About this incident Sumer Singh lodged a written FIR. The written comp -laint was delivered to SHO at Churu Hospital at about 5 P.M. as per the endorsement on said written complaint when the proceedings regarding post -mortem was going on. However the same was registered at Police Station at 9 P.M. on that date.
(2.) THE death of Pratap was homi -cidal which was proved as a result of the post -mortem report. According to which the injury which was caused on the head resulted in fracture of the skull bone which has resulted in death of Pratap. P.W. 1 Sumer Singh, P.W. 2 Mahaveer Singh, P.W. 3 Sita Ram and P.W. Mala Ram have all supported the prosecution case as eye -witnesses that blow of ˜lathi was caused by Nand Lal in the said scuffle referred to above. Relying on the statement of eyewitnesses and the sworn testimony of P.W. 9 Dr. Satyapal, trial court found that the appellant Nand Lal was guilty for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and awarded the sentence of life imprison -ment with a fine of Rs. 250/ - and in default of payment of fine the accused was further directed to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
(3.) MR . Garg learned counsel for the appellant has contended that from the prosecution evidence itself and other material placed on the record including the FIR the prosecution does not make out a case of murder against the appellant. It was urged that the injury was not caused with any sharp weapon to put any bodily harm to cause death of Pratap. It was a case even according to prosecution in which death has caused following a sudden quarrel which has taken place at the tea shop on account of settling some amount between Nand Lal and deceased, and as a result of which Nand Lal has given a single blow of ˜lathi on the head of deceased Pratap, which injury resulted in his death. He urged that the prosecution case does not travel beyond Part II of Section 304 I.P.C. and conviction cannot be held under Section 302 I.P.C.;