S. S. BYAS, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Hanumangarh dated March 30, 1981, by which accused Chhinder Singh was convicted under section 302, I. P. C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that at about 3. 00 A. M. on January 1, 1980, PW2 Major Singh appeared at Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction and verbally lodged a report, which was reduced into writing by the Station House Officer. It is EX. P. 1. It was stated therein that at about 8 00 P. M. on December 31, 1979, his uncle Sardara Singh accompanied with PW 1 Harphool Singh was returning to his house situate in Chak Jahano district Ganganagar. When both of them reached near the primary school of the village, one tractor ESCORT came from behind. Accused Chhinder Singh was driving it. His brother Ginder Singh was sitting on one side of the tractor while Najar Singh was sitting on other side of the tractor. Najar Singh was the owner of the tractor. Since there was family dispute between Sardara Singh and accused Chhinder Singh, and his brother, Ginder Singh, accused Chhinder Singh, in order to kill Sardarasingh, drove the tractor towards him The tractor was so driven by the accused Chhinder Singh that it dashed against Sardara Singh. As a result, Sardara Singh fell down. Accused Chhinder Singh then intentionally drove the tractor on the body of Sardara Singh. Sardara Singh was, thus, crushed by the tractor. Sardara Singh passed away on the spot. PW 1 Harphool Singh rushed towards the house and narrated the story to PW 2 Major Singh, PW 3 Mewa Singh and other members of the family. Major Singh managed to get some tractor and went on it to police station, Hanumangarh, where he lodged the report. It was also stated in EX. P. 1 that Ginder Singh had exhorted accused Chhinder Singh to drive the tractor on Sardara Singh. The police registered a case under section 302/34, I. P. C. against the three persons, viz. , the appellant Chhinder Singh, his brother Ginder Singh and Najar Singhthe owner of the tractor. The S. H. O. P. R. Meena immediately left for the place of the occurrence. At about 9. 00 A. M. on January 1, 1980, he inspected the site and prepared the site plan. He also prepared the inquest report of the victim's dead body. The blood-stained clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed. The postmortem examination report of the victim's dead body was conducted on the spot at about 11. 30 A. M. on January 1, 1980 by PW 6 Dr. Khatri -the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government Dispensary, Dablira-than. He found the following injuries on the victim's deadbody:- Internal 1) A lacerated wound about 7x 1-1/2 cm. sized, above left eye running from middle forehead vertically towards the corner of the left eye. Blood clot was present. 2) Right ear middle lobe torn about 6 x 1/2 c. m. (lacerated wound ). Blood clot was present. 3) Left ear upper two third lobe torn, lacerated about 6 x 1 cm. , but not separated. 4) Multiple bruises on chest and left forearm: a) chest - multiple bruises of 3 x 2 c. m. size (about) in zigzag pattern all over the chest. b) on left forearm : a) A bruise about 5x 4 c. m. size on ventral aspect about 8 c. m. above left elbow. b) A bruise 6 x 4 c. m. sized, about 4 cm. below left elbow dorsal. 5) An abrasion on left forearm, of size about 8x2 cm. ,5 c. m. above the left elbow. 6) Four abrasions on left gluteal region: i) About 2 x 1/2 c. m. sized, 3 c. m. above left thip joint outward, ii) About 3 x \ c m. sized, 4 c. m. above left thip joint outwards, iii) About 3 x 1 c m. sized, 6 cm. above left thip joint inwards, iv) About 2\ x 2\ c m. sized, 4 cm. above left thip joint inwards. 7) An abrasion of about 3 x If cm. sized on back of chest (left side) just below left scapula. 8) Two abrasions of about 1x1-1/2 c. m. sized on back of chest (left side) about 3 c. m. below left scapula. 9) 3 abrasions on left thigh: i) of about 5 x 3 cm. sized, original in shape on left thigh enter region on lefet side; ii) of about 3 x 1 cm. size outer region; iii) of about 7x5 cm. size outer region. 10) Two abrasions - one of about 5x4 cm. sized, about 3 cm. below left knee joint on dorsal surface; second of about 2x1 cm. sized about 5 cm. below left knee joint on dorsal surface. 11) One abrasion of about 25 x 10 cm. size, about 7 cm. below left iliac spine. 12) One abrasion of about 7 x 5 cm. size, about 5 c. m. below left iliac spine. 13) Post- mortem lividity present on right side of chest, back of chest and right side. 14) Fracture of shaft of left humerus in the middle. 15) Fracture of left femur, about 8 c. m. above the left knee joint. Internal 1) Fracture of shaft of left humerus, in the middle. 2) Fracture of shaft of left femur, about 8 c. m. left knee joint. 3) Fracture of 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th ribs on right side, in the right mid-clavicular line. 4) Fracture of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs on left side, in the left mid -clavicular line. In the opinion of Dr. Prasant Khatri, the death of Sardara Singh was due to shock because of brain haemorrhage in the occipital region and multiple injuries. The injuries were ante-mortem. The post-mortem examination report issued by him is EX. P. 9. The tractor was also seized and sealed. On the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan against the three persons, viz. Chhinder Singh, Ginder Singh and Najar Singh, in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, who in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge under section 302, I. P. C. against accused Chhinder Singh and under section 302/34, I. P. C against Ginder Singh and Najar Singh. The accused persons refuted the charges and demanded the trial. They denounced the whole prosecution story as a false and fabricated piece of concoction and claimed absolute innocence. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined one witness. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found no incriminating material as against accused Ginder Singh and Najar Singh. According to him, the prosecution story of accused Ginder Singh's exhorting or inciting his brother Chhinder Singh to drive the tractor on the deceased-victim was totally false and fabricated. He further held that though the tractor belonged to Najar Singh, that alone was not sufficient to connect him with the crime. As a result, accused Ginder Singh and Najar Singh were acquitted of the offence under section 302/34, I. P. C. The charge under section 302, I. P. C. was held duly proved against accused Chhinder Singh. Accused Chhinder Singh was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, accused Chhinder Singh has come-up in appeal. We have heard Mr. M. L. Garg learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. US. Sandhu learned counsel for the complainant. Before we proceed further, it would be useful to briefly notice the relationship of the deceased, the appellant and the prosecution witnesses Major Singh (PW 2), Mewa Singh (PW 3) and Harphool Singh (PW 1 ). The deceased Sardara Singh had two brothers-Mukan Singh and Jela Singh. Accused Chhinder Singh is the son of Jelasingh. PW 2 Major Singh and PW 3 Mewa Singh are the sons of Mukan Singh. The sisters of PW 1 Harphool Singh are married to PW2 Major Singh and PW 3 Mewa Singh. The parties are, thus, closely related inter se. It is alleged that the appellant and the members of his family were unhappy with the deceased Sardara Singh. The reasons stated is that Sardara Singh had no issue and he made a Will of all his assests in favour or Major Singh (PW 2), Mewa Singh (PW 3) and their brother Sewak Singh. The appellant, therefore, harboured an ill-will and hatred against Sardara Singh. It was, thus, the ill-will and hatred which pushed him to kill Sardara Singh. While scrutinizing the evidence of the witnesses, this back-ground will have to be kept in view. Mr. Garglearned counsel appearing for the appellant did not challenge the opinion of Dr. Khatri (PW 6) about the cause of death of the deceased-victim Sardara Singh. We have carefully gone through the testimony of Dr. Khatri and find no reasons to distrust so far it relates to the cause of the victim's death. Sardara Singh was run-over, rolled and crushed by the tractor. His death was, thus, not natural.
(3.) IN assailing the conviction, it was strenuously contended by Mr. Garg that a case of simple accident has been intentionally and mischievously converted into that under section 302, I. P. C. The deceased-victim Sardara Singh was in an intoxicated state when the accident took place. The staggering and could not control his movements. PW 1 Harphool Singh is the real brother-in-law of PW 2 Major Singh and PW 3 Mewa Singh. The deceased-victim Sardara Singh had executed a Will in favour of Major Singh and Mewa Singh. The appellant and the members of his family had entered into litigation with them in connection with the execution of this Will. It was the skill of Major Singh and Mewa Singh that they converted a case of simple accident into that of intentionally killing with the active help of the investigating agency. It was argued that the tractor did not belong to the appellant. It belonged to Najar Singh, who was absolutely unconnected person. It is difficult to imagine that he would allow Chhinder Singh to use his tractor in killing Sardara Singh PW 1 Harphool Singh is not a witness of absolute truth. He has been disbelieved by the trial Judge as against the acquitted accused Ginder Singh and Najar Singh. The story stated by him that Ginder Singh exhorted the appellant to drive the tractor over the deceased-victim has been found false. Thus, the witness has been disbelieved on the major portion of the prosecution story. As such, absolute truth cannot be expected from him. It was also argued that in the information sent by the investigating officer to Dr. Khatri in connection with the post-mortem examination of the victim's dead body, the fact mentioned was that the death of Sardara Singh had taken place due to tractor accident. This fact has been accepted by Dr. Khatri (PW 6) in his statement The testimony of Dr. Khatri shows that it was a case of sheer accident. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on State of Gujarat vs. Haidar Ali (1 ). 8 It was, on the other hand, contended by Dr. Bhandawat that it was a case of deliberate killing where the victim was rolled over and crushed by the tractor. It was argued that according to Dr. Khatri (PW 6 ). the injuries sustained by the deceased were not the result of a single crush but were the results of the movement of the tractor more than once on his body. Appellant Chhinder Singh was unhappy with the deceased-victim Sardara Singh because the latter had executed a Will in favour of Major Singh and Mewa Singh Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Hanuman Bhat v. The State of Rajas-than (2 ). We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. It would be useful to examine the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, taking the testimony of Dr. Khatri (PW 6) to start with. In his cross-examination, Dr. Khatri stated at one place that the injuries found on the victim's dead body were not the results of a single crush. When cross-examined further, he wavered and corrected his opinion by stating that if the wheels of the tractor did not run in the same line, the injuries found on the victim's dead body could be a result of a single crush. It would be useful to quote him in his own words:- ;fn Vsdvj dk vxyk ,oa finyk Vk;j cnu ij ls vyx vyx ykbzu ls tkos rks ;s lkjh pksvsa Single crush vk ldrh gsa** ;