Mukundakam Sharma, J.

( 1 ). AS against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30th October, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting Suraj Dev and Raj Kumar under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, two appeals were filed in this court by the accused appellants which are registered as Criminal Appeal Nos. 103/1997 and 127/1997. Since the facts and the issues arising for consideration in both the appeals are the same, we propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment and order.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 25th February, 1993 at about 4. 30 P. M. , when Naval Singh went to the place of occurrence on a cycle rickshaw of Ram parvesh and as he was entering the said place from where the kabari business was being carried out on partnership basis, Suraj Dev got annoyed on seeing Naval Singh and in an angry mood he asked Naval Singh as to why he had come to the plot. On that there was exchange of hot words between Naval Singh and Suraj Dev when Suraj dev pushed Naval Singh. Naval Singh being a handicapped person fell down on the push of Suraj Dev whereupon Suraj Dev gave a lathi blow on the back of Naval Singh and on his extortion Raj Kumar, the other accused, who is also the brother of Suraj dev, picked up a chaukhat (wooden log) and hit Naval Singh on his forehead as a result of which Naval Singh started bleeding from his nose and mouth. Seeing the said condition of Naval Singh, Ram Parvesh removed injured Naval Singh to Hindu rao Hospital where he was declared brought dead. The aforesaid information about the incident was given to the police station Samaipur Badli by the duty constable on the basis of which DD No. 17-A was recorded. Thereafter, a case was registered under F. I. R. No. 81/93 against both the appellants/accused persons under section 302/34 I. P. C. During the course of investigation, the police arrested both the appellants on the next date, i. e. , 26th February, 1993, and after completion of the investigation submitted a charge sheet as against both the accused persons. Charge was framed against both the appellants under sections 302 and 34 I. P. C.

( 3 ) DURING the trial the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case, whereas the defence examined two witnesses. The doctor who performed the post mortem examination was examined as PW-1. After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence on 30th October, 1996 which is under challenge in this court in these appeals. By the aforesaid order both the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as also the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

( 4 ) PW-1 is the doctor who performed the post mortem examination. During his post mortem examination he found three external injuries of the following nature: 1. Bruise 3 ? x 1-1/2 ? on the back of rt. Arm middle part. 2. Small abrasion 1-1/4 ? x A ? on the left elbow. 3. Haemetoma 2 ? x 2 ? on the frontal region. In his statement he has given his opinion that injuries were ante mortem and were caused with blunt weapon. He has also stated in his opinion that injury to skull was sufficient to cause death. In cross-examination he has stated that injury on the frontal area of the skull could have resulted from a fall.

( 5 ) PW-2 Ram Parvesh is a witness who was examined as he allegedly accompanied the deceased in his cycle rickshaw to the place of occurrence on the fateful day. In his deposition he has stated that on 25th February, 1993 he was going in his rickshaw with Naval Singh to the place of occurrence and when they reached near the plot, naval Singh went inside the plot which was purchased by Naval in partnership with suraj Dev and Ram Chander. The witnes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document