1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.2.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in sessions case No. 11/97 whereby the learned Judge has convicted the accused under sections 302, 452 and 333 I.P.C. and sentenced him to under go for life imprisonment.

2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public prosecutor for the State, We have scrutinised the record and re appreciated the evidence on record.

3. The prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence is that; P.W.1 lodged an F.I.R. in the police station on 1.9.1996 stating that he along with another Forest Guard had earlier confiscated certain illegal cut wood which was cut unauthorisdely by Usman Khan. Having come to know that the illegal cut wood has been seized, Usman armed with a 'Sella' (spear) accompanied by 3-4 persons came to the place where the Forest Guard were sitting and assaulted Ram Khiladi with the 'Sella', the first blow landed on the thigh and Ram Khiladi fell to the ground, even thereafter, two more blows were given by the accused as a result of which victim became unconscious and was admitted to the hospital. On the basis of this F.I.R., case under section 307 I.P.C. was registered. However, four days after the incident, the victim succumbed to the injuries and died. The opinion of Doctor is that he died because of acute peritonitis, the crime was therefore altered to one under section 302 and the accused was prosecuted for the offences as aforesaid. The prosecution has examined as many as twenty one witnesses to prove its case. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of this evidence, came to the conclusion of guilt and convicted the accused u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the appeal is preferred by the accused. The learned Judge however, gave benefit of doubt to three other accused and acquitted them, so the present appeal is on behalf of sole convict Usman Khan.

4. PW. 1 is Hans Raj who, at the relevant time in August, 1996, was working as a Forest Guard along with the victim Ram Khiladi. He has narrated the basic prosecution story with enough clarity and details. He stated that on 31 August, 1996 at about 5.00 in the afternoon, the witness along with victim Ram Khiladi was on duty and they saw a tractor loaded with illegally cut wood and they therefore, accosted person accompanied the tractor, whom the witness has identified in the court. They stated that the tractor and the wood belonged to Usman Khan and they then ran away with the tractor along with wood at the site. The witness thereafter, made a report of this incident to the higher authorities. Next day i.e. 1st Sept., 1996 at about 7 o'clock, the accused Usman Khan with some others came to the residence of Ram Khiladi and on seeing Ram khiladi, Usman Khan hit him with 'Sella' on the thigh asking him as to why they stopped his wood felling Ram Khiladi started running away then Ram Khiladi again hit him on the right thigh. He fell down and was again hit by the accused. Hearing shouts people around gathered.and the accused ran away. The witness then states that with the help of the villagers, the injured Ram Khiladi was taken to the hospital in Hanumangarh town and first information report was lodged by the witness, he proceeds to prove certain documents executed in his presence by the police. During the course of investigation, the witness has been thoroughly cross-examined and he has satisfactorily answered the questions put to him by the counsel for the defence. In the cross-examination, there are certain questions, in answer to which, some discrepancies can be spelt out. However, it is not such as can be considered discrediting the veracity of the statement made by the witness and the witness has very correctly answered;

"eSa nksuks