PRITAM SINGH OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - In this case there were six accused before the trial Court arraigned for the offences under S. 302 read with Section 149 and under Sections 324, 325 and 120B of I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted all the accused of all the offences. The trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Against the acquittal, the State preferred an appeal. The High Court came to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the trial Court was unreasonable and held that the offence under Section 304, Part II read with Sec. 149 for the death of victim-Kishore Chand and the offence under Sections 324 and 325 read with Section 149 for causing injuries to witness-Virender Kumar (PW7) were proved against the appellants. The High Court, however, held that the offence of conspiracy was not proved. Having come to the said conclusion, the High Court accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each for the conviction under See. 304, Part 11 and to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment each for the offences under Sections 324 and 325 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. As regards, the original accused No. 5, he was 19 years of age at the time of the incident. He was also the first offender and hence he was given the benefit of the probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

(2.) As regards the first contention, we are satisfied that the Court, after taking into consideration the eye-witness account as well as the two dying declarations, has come to the right conclusion that it was the accused who were responsible for the attack both on the deceased-Kishore Chand and the injured witness-Virender Kumar in the manner alleged by the prosecution, According to us, therefore, no interference is called for with the said finding.

(3.) As regards the second contention, Mr. Kohli relied on the fact that the incident took place on 11-4-1977, and Kishore Chand died about fortnight thereafter on 26-4-1977. He further relied on the fact that the Doctor, Mr. Pramod Gill (PW 2) who performed the postmortem examination, did not give his opinion with regard to the exact cause of the death at the time of the said examination. On the other hand, after performing the post-mortem examination, he sent the kidneys of the deceased to the Pathologist (PW 1) on the same day. The Pathologist gave his report on 12-5-77 and thereafter on 28-5-77, Dr. Gill gave his opinion based on the said report, that the death was on account of the short supply of blood to the kidneys as a consequence of the multiple injuries which the deceased had received. Shri Kohli referred us in this connection to the evidence of PW 1-Pathologist where the Pathologist has stated that the short supply of blood to the kidneys can be on account of various reasons including the injuries in question. The Pathologist has also stated that the said cause of death can be detected only within 3 days of the death. Since though the post-mortern was conducted within 3 days of the death, the report was submitted only on 12-5-77, according to Mr. Kohli, the report given by the Pathologist and the opinion of Dr. Gill based on the said report has to be discarded. He also stressed that the Pathologist had not mentioned in the report, the grounds on which he had come to the conclusion that, in the present case, there was a short supply of blood to the kidneys.