The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 304 IPC in determining culpable homicide not amounting to murder, based on reliable witness testimony and the cumulative effect of evidence produced by the prosecution.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 06.07.2000 whereby the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and order on sentence dated 07.07.2000 whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default to payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The fine, if recovered, had been directed to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation.

2. The facts of the case, as per the case of the prosecution, in a nutshell are that on 15.08.1992 at about 3 P.M. Vikrant @ Bunty with Des Raj was returning after changing a video cassette and on the way back, Bunty and Des Raj were abusing the owner of video cassette library who had supplied defective video cassette. When they reached near house of accused Tara Chand, Soma Devi w/o Bhim, the brother of accused, accosted them and alleged that they were abusing her. Vikrant @ Bunty refuted the allegation, but Soma Devi insisted that she had been abused. In the mean time, Bhim, Ashok and appellant/accused Tara Chand, the three brothers came and started beating Vikrant @ Bunty and Des Raj. Accused Tara Chand gave beatings to Vikrant. In the meantime, one Manak Chand came there and tried to save Vikrant @ Bunty saying ‘Kaya Tu Larke Ko Jaan Se Marega’. In the meantime, mother of Vikrant @ Bunty came at the spot. The accused then released Vikrant, picked a brick and gave blow on the head of Manak Chand saying ‘Sale Ab Bacha Le Bunty Ko’. Thereafter blood oozed out of the head of Manak Chand and accused left the spot. Mother of Vikrant @ Bunty asked Manak Chand to go to the hospital, but he went to his house.

3. Manak Chand got private treatment, but on 20.08.1992, his condition worsened so he was taken to RML Hospital. The information about his admission was received at PS: Parsad Nagar and recorded at Serial No. 13A in D.D. Registrer. Copy of the same was handed over to SI Rajinder Singh who along with Const. Manohar Lal reached the hospital. In the hospital, MLC of Manak Chand was collected, but he was declared unfit for treatment. No eye witness was found in the hospital so after perusal of MLC SI Rajinder Singh made an endorsement and got case registered under Section 308 IPC. Then SI Rajinder Singh reached the spot and prepared site plan at the instance of Om Wati, mother of Vikrant @ Bunty and recorded statements of Om Wati and Vikrant.

4. On 25.08.1992, information was received from the Hospital that Manak Chand had died and the information was recorded at serial No.26A in DD Register so the case was converted into one under Section 304 IPC and post mortem of the dead body was conducted. The appellant/accused was arrested, but weapon of offence could not be recovered. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared, filed in the court of M.M. and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial.

5. Charge under Section 304 IPC was framed against the appellant/accused vide order dated 24.10.1994, to which appellant/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses in support of their case i.e. PW-1 Jatinder Kumar, PW-2 Const. Nitter Singh, PW-3 S. Mehto, PW-4 Des Raj, PW-5 Dr.L.T.Ramani, PW-6 HC Prem Chand, PW-7 Raj Kumar, PW-8 Const.Manohar Lal, PW-9 Const.Raj Kumar, PW-10 Omwati, PW-11 Vikrant, PW-12 Dr.Poonam Kapoor, PW-13 HC Dharam Pal, PW-14 SI Rajinder Singh and PW-15 ASI Rameshwar Dayal. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he examined DW-1 Bhim Singh in his defence.

7. In support of the appeal, the appellant/accused has taken the grounds that there is a delay in lodging of FIR in the instant case inasmuch as the incident took place on 15.08.1992 at 3 PM while the FIR was recorded on 20.08.1992 at 4.30 P.M; that the appellant/accused had not been named in the proce