JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-The judgment and order dated December 6, 1984 rendered by the Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur in trial No.42 of 1984 is under challenge in this appeal. By the impugned judgment the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 302 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. (a) Shorn of details the prosecution case is that Darbara Singh (the deceased) was the driver of a truck and Uttam Singh (P.W.5) was its conductor. On March 31, 1984 at or about 7 P.M. when they were consuming liquor near the poultry farm of the appellant, he also came there and shared the drinks. Mit Singh (P.W.4) and Kartar Singh, father and brother of Darbara Singh respectively, were then irrigating their land nearby. After finishing his drinks the appellant went back to his poultry farm. He however came back a little later and told Darbara Singh that he would teach him a lesson as he had forcibly taken away one of their cows. He then picked up a kassi and started assaulting Darbara Singh with it. On being so assaulted Darbara Singh fell down dead. In the mean time Uttam Singh had taken up a small toki which was lying nearby and attacked the appellant. The appellant then inflicted a number of blows on Uttam Singh with the kassi. When Mit Singh and Kartar Singh rushed to the spot the appellant fled away with the kassi. After deputing Kartar Singh to look after the dead body of Darbara Singh, Mit Singh went to Bagha Purana Police Station and lodged a first information report whereupon a case was registered against the appellant. Uttam Singh had in the meantime been taken to the hospital for treatment of his injuries.

(b) After registering the case. Madan Gopal (P.W.6), Station House Officer, came to the spot accompanied by Mit Singh, held inquest upon the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. He seized some blood-stained earth from the spot and prepared a sealed packet in respect thereof. During investigation the appellant was arrested on April 7, 1984 and pursuant to his statement made before S.I. Mukhtiar Singh (P.W.7) a kassi was recovered. Mukhtiar Singh took possession of the kassi and sent it to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After his arrest the appellant was also sent to the hospital as there were some injuries on his person. After receipt of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and completion of investigation Mukhtiar Singh submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and in due course the case was committed to the Designated Court.

3. The defence of the appellant, who pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him, was that on the date of the incident Uttam Singh (P.W.5) and the deceased Darbara Singh quarrelled with each other which ultimately ended in a mutual assault and injuries to both of them. When he (the appellant) tried to intervene he also sustained some injuries. He then went to Surjit Singh of his village and informed him about the incident and he (Surjit Singh), in his turn, informed Mit Singh. Accompanied by Surjit Singh and Mit Singh he went to the spot where the dead body of Darbara Singh was lying. They then took Uttam Singh, who was injured, in a car to the Police Station. Leaving him (the appellant) behind at the Police Station to narrate the incident Surjit Singh took Uttam Singh to the hospital. He then narrated the incident to the police but instead of recording his version they wrongfully detained him for several days and falsely implicated him.

4. In support of its case the prosecution examined seven witnesses of whom Mit Singh (P.W.4) and Uttam Singh (P.W.5) figured as eye-witnesses. The appellant also examined Surjit Singh (P.W.1) to prove his version of the incident. On consideration of the evidence the Designated Court accepted the version of the prosecution in preference to that of the defence and accordingly passed the impugned order of convicted and sentence.

5. That Darbara Singh met with a homicidal death stands conclusively proved