The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of sec. 304 IPC and sec. 323 IPC in cases involving doubt regarding the accused's involvement in the offense.

Virender Singh, J.

1. Satnam Singh son of Nain Singh stands convicted under sec. 304 IPC by impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions judge, Ferozepur dated 24/4/1991. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months.

2. Alongwith the present appellant, his two brothers Munsha Singh, Surjit Singh and mother Kartaro Bai were also booked but they stand acquitted. The State has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal. Jatto Bai is the deceased in this case.

3. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 15/5/1990 Jatto Bai (since deceased) received information from her grandsons that when they were returning from the school they were beaten by the sons of Nain Singh. Jatto Bai went to the house of Nain Singh to reprimand them. In the street Kartaro Bai met her and Jatto Bai reprimanded her. Both had exchanged abuses. It is then the case of the prosecution that Kartaro Bai asked her sons to teach a lesson to Jatto Bai for reprimanding her. Thereupon the present appellant and his brother Munsha Singh came from their house. The present appellant allegedly gave a fist blow near the amblicus to Jatto Bai. Munsha Singh also gave fist blows. She raise hue and cry which attracted Lal Singh who rescued her. Jatto Bai was taken to the hospital. Message was sent to the police station Sadar Fazilka by the doctor whereby ASI Nasib Chand PW4 reached the hospital and recorded statement Ex. PG of Jatto Bai at 7.15 PM on 15/5/1990 itself and an entry to this effect was made in the concerned police station vide Ex. PG/2. Jatto Bai died on the following day i. e.16.5.1990 and consequently a formal FIR Ex. PG/3 was recorded under sec. 304/34 IPC. After completion of investigation the present appellant along with his two brothers and mother were challenged in this case.

4. The learned trial Court had charged all the accused under sec. 304 read with sec. 34 IPC (wrongly mentioned as sec. 307 read with sec. 34 IPC in original judgment ).

5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined PW1 Baldev Singh MHC, PW2 Dr. Inder Mohan Chalana, PW3 Jagir Singh and PW4 ASI Nasib Chand. The defence taken up by the present appellant was of denial.

6. The learned trial court after appreciating the entire evidence has acquitted Kartaro Bai, Munsha Singh and Surjit Singh by extending benefit of doubt to them. However, the present appellant stands convicted under sec. 304 IPC. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence he has preferred the present appeal.

7. I have heard Mr. Bipan Ghai, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. B. K. Mann, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, representing the State of Punjab. With their assistance I have also gone through the entire record. Mr. Ghai has made two fold submissions: (a That the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the present appellant beyond any shadow of doubt;

(b) In case the prosecution evidence is believed as it is, the conviction of appellant under sec. 304 IPC is unsustainable and he at the most can be convicted under sec. 323 IPC.

8. Developing his first limb of argument, Mr. Ghai has vehemently contended that the initial case of the prosecution is based on the statement Ex. PG allegedly made by Jatto Bai (since deceased) in which she has stated that when she was going to the house of Nain Singh, Kartaro Bai had met her on the way and got annoyed due to remonstration and started abusing her. It is then stated in Ex. PG that Satnam Singh (appellant) and Munsha Singh also came there. Satnam Singh gave a fist blow hitting the amblicus of Jatto Bai and Munsha Singh had also given a fist blow. It is then contended by Mr. Ghai that the prosecution agency on the following day had recorded the statement of one Jagir Singh son of Jatto Bai (PW3) under sec. 161 Cr. P. C. in which he has stated that on the scene of occurrence Satnam Singh, Munsha S