DAYAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Proce dure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr. P. C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 29-06-1990, passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions trial No. 160 of 1986, whereby all the four accused / ap pellants, namely Dayal Singh, Budh Singh, Resham Singh and Pahalwan Singh have been convicted under Sec tion 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I. P. C.), and one punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. Each one of the convicts is sen tenced by the trial court to undergo im prisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. and rig orous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 323 read with Section 34 of I. P. C.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.

(3.) BEFORE further discussion, it is pertinent to mention here the injuries ob served by the witnesses at the time when the inquest report of deceased Pyara Singh is prepared. The inquest report (Ext. A-6) on the record shows that there were three external injuries visible on the dead body of Pyara Singh. The three external injuries mentioned in the in quest report Ext. A-6) are as under : i) Swelling lump on the head, ii) Swelling on the hip. Hi) Abrasion on the right leg near the ankle. The above three Injuries mentioned in the inquest report, though, does not find corroboration from the postmortem Deport, but they are also shown in the sketch of the dead body Ext. A-7) of de ceased Pyara Singh. The inquest report (Ext. A -6) and the sketch of the dead body (Ext. A-7) were prepared on 08-12- 1985. PW. 3 Dr. C. N. Tiwari who con ducted the postmortem examination and prepared the autopsy report (Ext. A-4) admits in his examination-in-chief itself that the dead body was received along with inquest report and other papers. This Medical Officer could not explain as to why he did not thought it just and proper to inform the police or to the Chief Medical Officer to get done fresh postmortem examination by another Medical Officer, as he did not find any ante mortem injury on the dead body of the deceased, ki his cross-examination, he admits having received a letter on 13th January 1986, from Senior Super intendent of Police, Nainital, seeking his explanation as to why he handed over the dead body in such circumstances to the relatives without informing the po lice on noticing the discrepancy. (P. W. 3 Dr. C. N. Tiwari, appears to have been permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ). On going through the entire evidence on record, we find the conduct of P. W. 3 Dr. C. N. Tiwari is highly doubtful and for the rea sons which we would like to discuss in the following paragraphs would indicate that the act on the part of PW. 3, Dr. C. N. Tiwari. constitutes fabricating false evidence (Section 192 of I. P. C. ).