JUDGMENT

Ruma Pal, J.-This appeal has been preferred from the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the appellant s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant was found guilty by both the Trial Court and the High Court of having fatally shot one Arjun Singh. The appellant s challenge to this concurrent finding is two fold: first he says that the eyewitness account of his complicity was not credible; second, that even if one were to accept the eye witness evidence of the event, he could not have been convicted under Section 302 IPC as the death of Arjun Singh was in fact caused by renal failure, septicemia and respiratory failure.

2. In taking up the first plea, it would be well to keep in mind that this Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is strong reason to do so, such as a manifest error of law in arriving at the finding or when the finding is perverse in the sense that any material fact has been overlooked or is based on any legally inadmissible evidence.

3. The eye witnesses in this case were Nasib Singh (PW1) the deceased s son, and Banarsi (PW2), the deceased s brother. Shorn of unnecessary de