The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of medical evidence, eyewitness testimony, and the relevance of injuries in determining guilt under IPC Section 304 Part-II.

1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 22.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara, by which he convicted the accused appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced him to five years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months S.I. and he further convicted the accused appellant under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days S.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:-

On 11.6.1998, PW 5 Smt. Shatu Bai gave a parcha bayan Ex.P/7 to PW 14 stating that at about 8.00 AM in the morning accused Mohanlal beat her son Narayan, PW 2 and thereafter, her father-in-law Ramlal (hereinafter to be referred as deceased) went to accused Mohanlal for talks and asked him why he has beaten PW 2 Narayan. Upon this, accused Mohanlal gave a lathi blow on the head of the deceased and thereafter, deceased became unconscious and died on the same day. On the said parchaya bayan Ex.P/7, police registered the case and FIR Ex.P/16 was chalked out by PW 12 Gyarsi Lal. After that, it appears that deceased was got examined medically on 11.6.1998 at 9.50 AM and his injury report is Ex.P/19. PW 2 Narayan was also got medically examined and his injury report is Ex.P/18. The accused was also got medically examine and his injury report is Ex.P/12. The post-mortem report of the deceased is Ex.P/20. After usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused appellant for the offence under Secs. 302 and 323 IPC. The charges were framed against the accused appellant for the offence under Secs. 302 and 323 IPC on 30.11.1998. The accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial as many as 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and many document were got exhibited and, thereafter, statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and one witness was produced in defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 vide his judgment and order dated 22nd October, 1999 convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Secs. 304-II and 323 IPC and sentenced as stated above.

3. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 22nd October, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara, the accused appellant has filed this appeal.

4. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the accused appellant has made the following submissions :

1. That deceased was aggressor and accused Mohanlal also had one head injury and, therefore, whatever injury has been caused by accused Mohanlal, is caused in the right of self defence and, thus, he should be acquitted on this ground.

2. That in this case, there is no eye witness except the grand-son of the deceased i.e. PW 2 Narayan and he is the interest witness and, therefore, his evidence is not reliable.

3. That in case Court comes to the conclusion that offence under Section 304 Part II is proved against the accused appellant, lenient view be taken in awarding sentence to the accused appellant.

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case.

7. First let us take up the medical evidence in the present case.

8. The statement of PW 13 Dr. Sunil in this respect may be referred to. He states that on 11.6.1998 at about 9.50 AM he examined deceased and found a lacerated wound on parietal region 4"X 1"X1/2" on left side and he has further stated that the patient was semi-unconscious. He has proved his injury report Ex.P/19. On the same day at about 3.30 PM he conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased and found injury on the