The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible evidence to support the conviction and the rejection of the appellant's claim of self-defense due to the excessive force used and the brutal nature of the injuries inflicted.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Believing Ram Gopal PW-1, Ct.Rajbir Singh PW-9 and HC Hanuman Singh PW-21 to be truthful eye witnesses, vide judgment dated May 29, 1998, appellant Pawan has been convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC but has been acquitted of the charge of having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated May 13, 1998 the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Appellant was charged for having murdered one Rakesh, by causing fatal injuries with a chopper (Gandasa) on July 17, 1993 at 6.40 PM at Sealing Point, Sadar Thana

Road and for having attempted to murder HC Hanuman Singh using the same chopper (Gandasa).

3. We are not concerned in the instant appeal with appellant being acquitted for the charge of having attempted to murder HC Hanuman Singh because the State has not challenged said part of the decision impugned in the appeal by Pawan, but would be noting that the reason why Pawan has been acquitted from the charge of having attempted to murder HC Hanuman Singh is that there was no evidence of he having attempted to murder HC Hanuman Singh. As we would be noting from the facts hereinafter recorded, the only evidence was that when HC Hanuman and Ct.Rajbir Singh attempted to over power Pawan he lunged at HC Hanuman.

4. That a person had caused fatal injuries to another person near Sealing Point Sadar Thana Road was recorded by ASI Bharat Singh PW- 15 vide DD No.16-A, Ex.PW-15/B at 6.45 PM and in respect of which fact we find that the testimony of ASI Bharat Singh remains unchallenged. Copy of DD No.16-A was handed over to ASI Pankaj Singh PW-23, who reached the spot where he found HC Hanuman Singh, who informed him that while on duty at the Sealing Point Sadar Thana Road with Ct.Rajbir (examined as PW-9), at 6.40 PM they saw a man being chased by another man who was having a Gandasa in his hand and the said man caused injuries to the man he was chasing. That Ct.Rajbir fired a shot from his licensed stengun at the assailant to disarm him and since the shot missed the assailant, he i.e. HC Hanuman Singh used his service revolver to fire a shot at the assailant because the assailant attempted to assault him with the Gandasa.

5. Aforesaid facts were noted in the statement Ex.PW-21/A of HC Hanuman Singh and beneath the statement an endorsement Ex.PW-21/B was made by ASI Pankaj Singh recording therein that a person seriously injured was lying on the road and the assailant who had been apprehended, and was injured, was at the police booth. That both persons i.e. the seriously injured person lying on the road and the injured assailant were sent to Hindu Rao hospital under supervision of SI Ram Niwas (examined as PW-12). It was noted that the Gandasa having blood stains was lying at the spot. And needless to state, neither testimony of SI Pankaj Singh PW-23 nor the testimony of HC Hanuman Singh PW-21 with respect to the contents of the rukka and the tehrir i.e. statement Ex.PW-21/A and the endorsement Ex.PW-21/B have been challenged.

6. The seriously injured person was Rakesh Kumar and the MLC Ex.PW-25/A records that he was brought to Hindu Rao hospital at 7.15 PM by SI Ram Niwas and was declared dead by Dr.Anil Sahni PW-26. MLC Ex.PW-25/B of appellant Pawan records that he was brought to Hindu Rao hospital at 7.10 PM by SI Ram Niwas and had a

simple cut injury on the little finger of his hand.

7. We note that contents of neither MLC have been challenged.

8. We need not note the testimony of various formal witnesses associated with the investigation in the form of those who witnessed various seizure memos being prepared, the exhibits being kept in the Malkhana and taken to the forensic laboratory, for the reason presence of the appellant at the spot with injury on his person and deceased Rakesh Kumar lying seriously injured at the spot stands established by the rukka itself and learned counsel for the appellant