JUDGMENT

S.RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:— The above appeal is preferred by the appellant Baldev Singh challenging the correctness of the judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 711 of 1975 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:

On 14-1-1975 at about 9.30 p.m. the deceased Baldev Singh and Amar Nath, P.W. 10 left their poultry farm in a truck driven by the deceased to their respective homes. When they were about to enter a lane, they found a jeep bearing Registration No. DLK-6698 having been parked obstructing the way. The appellant and one Jagtar Singh (who was coaccused and since acquitted) was standing near the jeep. The deceased and P.W. 10 requested the appellant and another to move their jeep aside so that their truck could pass through, but the appellant and his co-accused instead of moving the jeep got hold of P.W. 10 and gave him some slaps and fist blows. When the deceased intervened, the appellant whipped out a pistol. Apprehending imminent danger to his life, the deceased attempted to run away but the appellant fired two shots from his pistol simultaneously which hit on the back of the deceased. The deceased fell down. Thereafter, the appellant and his coaccused made good their escape by driving their jeep. P.W.-7, an Advocate who was ,residing nearby, mistaking the shots as having been fired by some robbers fired some shots with his gun in the open air in order to create a scare. In the meantime P.W.-1, the brother of the deceased on hearing the two gun shots followed by two more shots rushed to the pcene and found his brother Baldev Singh lying injured. The injured Baldev Singh told his brother as to what has happened. P.Ws. 9 and 10 removed the injured to the Civil Hospital, Muktsar where the Medical Officer, P.W.-1 examined the injured and noted two gun shot injuries. P.W. 17, the Asstt. Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of an intimation Exhibit P. B. from the Medical Officer reached the hospital and took a statement Exhibit P.O. from P.W.-10 as the injured was not in a fit condition to make any statement. On the basis of Exhibit P. O. a case was registered against the appellant and his co-accused under Sec. 307, I.P.C.

2-3. P.W.-17 visited the scene and searched for the appellant but he was absconding. P.W.-17 deputed aconstable on the spot from where he seized a fired cartridge and a live cartridge in presence of witnesses. Then at about 11.00 a.m. on the next day, P.W.-17 after getting opinion of the Medical Officer about the fitness of the injured to make a statement recorded the statement of the injured under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is Exh. P. G. On 15-11975 at about 5.00 p.m. P. W.- 17 arrested the appellant and seized the pistol Exhibit P-5.

4. The Director, Forensic Science Laboratory to whom the fired cartridge and the pistol were forwarded gave his opinion on examination of these two material objects stating that the fired cartridge (Exh. C. 1) was the one fired through the 9 mm. pistol Exhibit P.5. His report is Exhibit POO. As the condition of the injured had deteriorated, he was referred to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana for further treatment. The deceased, however, succumbed to his injuries on 19-1-1975. P.W. 17 on getting the information about the death of the deceased altered the case as one. of murder, and then proceeded to the hospital where he held the inquest over the dead body. P.W.-12, the Medical Offiicer attached to Ludhiana Hospital conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found two gun shot injuries as noted in the postmortem certificate Exhibit P.Y. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. The appellant and his co-accused took the plea of denial when examined under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court for the reasons mentioned in its judgment convicted the appellant, but however acquitted the co-accused. The High Court, on appeal, has confirmed the j