- (1.) BY his judgment, dt. 8. 3. 78, the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar convicted the accused Gura Singh under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The accused has come up in appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that deceased-victim Gandasingh had two sons Paharasingh and P. W. 1 Mohansingh. The appellant is the son of Paharasingh. Paharasingh passed away nearly 20 years ago. Gandasingh had forty bighas of agricultural land for cultivation. After the death of Paharasingh he gave thirteen bighas of land to the appellant, thirteen bighas of land to Mohansingh (PW 1) and retained the remaining thirteen bighas or so for himself. Gandasingh lived with Mohansingh (PW 1 ). As such Mohansingh was cultivating 26 bighas of land. The accused was not serious about the work and gathered a company of bad elements around him. Gandasingh used to ask the accused off and on to be serious at the work and give up the company of bad associates. In the morning of the day of occurrence 6. 8. 76, Gandasingh asked the accused to give up rowdyism and be careful about the work as he had to support his mother and wife. This led to a wordy wrangle between the two. Mohansingh intervened and the matter got sub-sided. Gandasingh lay down on a cot in his Bethak shown by mark "1" in site plan Ex. P. 2. The accused went away. Mohan Singh (PW 1) went to bring cattle fodder stacked in a Kotha, shown by mark "19" in Ex. P. 2. His wife Mst. Surjeet Kaur (PW 2) started cooking food in the courtyard situate just in front of the Bethak of Gandasingh. While she was cooking the food, the accused came with a 'tamba' (lathi) and struck blows to Gandasingh with it. Surjeet Kaur raised cries. PW 1 Mohansingh and PW 3 Jogendra Singh, who were passing that way, rushed to help the victim. Mohansingh challenged the accused and the accused then went away. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds of the victim. Many persons from the locality gathered there. Gandasingh did not survive and succumbed to the injuries after a little while. P. W. 1 Mohansingh went on foot to Police Station Kesarsinghpur and verbally lodged report Ex. P. 1 of the occurrence at about 1. 30 P. M. The Police registered a case and took up the investigation. Narainsingh (PW 9), A. S. I. arrived at the place of occurrence and while he was inspecting the site, PW 8 Prem Narain, Station House Officer, also, reached there. The site was inspected and the site plan was prepared. The inquest report of the victim's dead body was also prepared. The accused was arrested and in consequence of the information furnished by him whilst under police custody, Tamba was recovered. The bloodstained articles were also seized and sealed. The post-mortem examination of the victim's dead body was performed at about 10. 30 A. M. on 7. 8. 76 by PW 6 Dr. Ram Lai Beniwal, the then Medical Officer in charge. Government Dispensary, Guiabewala. On examination, the doctor found the following injuries: 1) A contusion on chest wall anteriorly left side upper part 4" x 1". 2) A contusion with fracture of the left forearm in its lower part 2" x 1". 3) Lacerated wound on right hand dorsally at the base of thumb 2" 1/4" x 1/8". 4) A lacerated wound on right maxilla lateral part 3/4" x " x 1/8". 5) A lacerated wound on the left maxilla below eye lid 2" x " x " with fracture of underlying bone. 6) A contusion on the base of nose " x " with fracture of nasal bone. 7) Four lacerated wounds on the forehead (with fracture of frontal bone) 1 x bone deep. 8) Fracture of lower jaw on the right side of mid line and on left side at the angle of mandible with a contusion at the angle of mandible 2" x 1". 9) Laceration of membranes of brain at the sites of frontal bone fractures. 10) Laceration of frontal lobes of brain. In the opinion of Dr. Beniwal, the cause of death of Gandasingh was multiple injuries on the body with fracture of bones and injury to vital organ brain leading severe haemorrhage and shock. After when the investigation was over, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 302, I. P. C. against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. Denouncing the prosecution case as fabricated piece of concoction he claimed absolute innocence. According to him, Gandasingh had executed a will in favour of the wife and sons of his uncle Mohan Singh (PW 1 ). He has been falsely implicated because Mohansingh wants to take the entire land of Gandasingh. During trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced by the accused. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge held the charge duly brought home to the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the accused has taken this appeal.
(3.) THERE is no room for doubt that the death of victim Gandasingh was not natural but homicidal. According to Dr. beniwal (PW 6), as stated above, as many as ten antemortem injuries were found on the victim's dead body. He further deposed that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.;