KANTA BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) APPELLANTS Maghar Singh and Bikar Singh @ Amarjeet Singh were tried for the offences under sections 307, 326 and 324 read with Sec. 34 I. P. C. by the Sessions Judge, Sri-Ganganagar. By the judgment dated Feb. 9, 1982 accused Bikar Singh @ Amarjeet Singh was convicted for the offence under section 326 I. P. C. and Maghar Singh for the offence under section 326 read with sec. 34 I. P. C. & both of them were sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment each. By the same judgment Maghar Singh was held guilty for the offence under section 324 and Bikar Singh for the offence under section 324 read with sec. 34 I. P. C. and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment each with an order that the substantive sentences awarded to both the appellants shall run concurrently.
(2.) IT is in grievance that judgment that the appellants have preferred this appeal in this Court. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to the trial of the appellants and the appeal filed by them are as under: - Gurdeosingh injured was owing Rs. 10/- from the appellant Bikar Singh. On December 18, 1980 there was hot altercation between the two regarding that money. On the same day in the evening at about 5 15 P. M. , when Gurdeosingh had gone to the shop of Rama to make some purchases, the two appellants and Sarjeet Singh and Dilip Singh, sons of Maghar Singh, surrounded Gurdeosingh Bikar Singh was having a 'burchhy', Maghar Singh a 'gandasa' and Sarjeet Singh and Dilip Singh lathis at that time. On his hearing the cry Pritam Singh (P. W. 1) Rola Singh (P. W. 2 ). Kartar Singh (PW 3) and (Sultan (P. W. 7) also reached there. Bikar Singh inflicted 'burchhi' blow, damaging the right eye of Gurdeosingh. Maghar Singh caused injury with 'gandasa'. Sultan and Pritam Singh immediately took the injured Gurdeosingh to Sri Ganganagar hospital where the Medical Jurist Dr. Amarjeet Singh (PW. 4) examined his injured and prepared the injury report Ex. P. 1-A, On the next day i. e. on December 19, 1980 at about 9. 00 A. M. Pritam Singh went to Police Station, Sri Ganganagar and lodged the report Ex. P. 1 before the Station House Officer Krashna Avtar (P. W. 8 ). The Station House Officer went to the site and conducted necessary investigation there and prepared the site inspection memo and the site plan. On January 2, 1981 when Gurdeosingh regained consciousness, his statement was recorded by the Station House Officer. The blood stained clothes of the injured were taken in possession. On December 21, 1980 the appellants Bikar Singh and Maghar Singh were arrested vide memos Ex. P 7 and Ex. P. 8 respectively. On December 23, 1980 Bikar Singh furnished information to the Station House Officer for getting recovered the 'burchhi' from his house and got recovered the same. Maghar Singh furnished information for getting recovered 'gandass' from the place where his cattle were kept and got it recovered. Dr. Amarjeet Singh (P. W. 4) referred the case to the eye specialist for ascertaining the nature of the injury to the eye and also for treatment. Dr. Manohar Singh (P. W. 6) examined Gurdeo Singh and prepared the report Ex. P. 2 and opined that the injury to the eye was grevious in nature. The investigating agency did not find any evidence against Sarjit Singh and Dilip Singh. On the completion of investigation, charge-sheet against the present appellants was filed in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sri-Ganga-nagar. The learned Magistrate by the order dated March 17, 1981 committed the appellants to the court of Sessions Judge, Sri-Ganganagar to stand their trial there, The learned Sessions Judge charge-sheeted the appellants for the aforesaid offences and recorded their pleas. Both of them denied the indictments and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses in all. The appellants in their statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied all the allegations levelled against them. Maghar Singh stated that it was on account of enmity with one Amarjeet Singh and that at his instance that he was falsely implicated in the case. Bikar Singh took the plea that while he was returning from another village with his ricksaw' he saw a gathering and Gurdeosingh lying injured but he did not stay there and went to his house. No defence witness was examined. The learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the prosecution evidence he'd the appellants guilty and sentenced them by the impugned judgment as stated above.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that in the absence of the statement of Gurdeosingh, the evidence of other witnesses should not have been placed reliance to establish the guilt against the appellant's. That, the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities. THE witnesses named in the First Information Report have not been examined. THEre is delay in recording the statements of the alleged eye witnesses. Most of the eye witnesses are interested in the injured. THEre is delay in lodging the First Information Report without there being any explanation for the same. To substantiate his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on certain authorities which would be discussed at the appropriate stage. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution case has been duly established by the four eye witnesses viz. Pritam Singh (P. W. 1), Rola Singh (PW. 2), Kartar Singh (P. W. 3) and Sultan (PW 7) and there is no reason to disbelieve them. That, there is explanation for the delay in examining all the witnesses and delay in filing the First Information Report. At the very outset it may be observed that the injured could not be examined at the trial as he had expired prior to it. Pritam Singh (P. W. 1) has stated about taking his son to various hospitals for the treatment of the eye injury and his dying prior to the trail. The learned trail Judge has rightly held that there is no evidence to connect the death of Gurdeosingh to any of the injuries sustained by him. In the absence of the statement of the injured in the case, the prosecution case will have to be seen from the statements of the four eye witnesses. ;