JUDGMENT

Special leave granted in both the matters.

2. We first take up the case of Punjab Singh. Miss Lily Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant contended that Punjab Singh had not participated in the assault on the deceased. P. W. 5, P. W. 6 and P. W. 8 clearly state in their evidence that Punjab Singh gave a gandasa blow to the deceased. This evidence has been accepted by both the Courts. The only contention raised was that medical evidence is inconsistent with the direct testimony. This contention must fail for two reasons :

(i) that if direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence; and

(ii) as pointed out by Mr. K. G. Bhagat, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State of Haryana, that if medical evidence is properly read, it only shows two alternative possibilities but not any inconsistency. That appears to be correct. That is the only point pressed in favour of the Punjab Singh. Miss Lily Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant contended that Punjab Singh is a young man and he is a college going student and that some consideration may be shown to him. We are satisfied that no case is made out fo