Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Vide this judgment, the above mentioned appeals will be disposed of as these have arisen out of a common incident.

2. FIR No.5 dated 9.1.2000 was registered at 9 a.m. at Police Station Mahendergarh on the basis of statement made by complainant Sher Singh against appellants Prem Singh, Raj Kumar and Ajay Singh under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). Complainant Sher Singh made a statement before ASI Chand Singh at 9 a.m. on 9.1.2000 that Mani Ram was his younger brother. Complainant and his brother Mani Ram were residing separately and were agriculturist. A day before, at about 4.30 p.m., complainant along with Mani Ram, Jagdish, Bani Singh, Hoshiar Singh, Zile Singh and Satbir were playing cards at a vacant place in front of the house of Jagdish. In the meantime, Prem Singh came there and took away Mani Ram with him. However, Mani Ram did not return back home. Parveen son of the complainant and Premwati wife of Mani Ram went looking for Mani Ram. At about midnight, when they reached near the house of Nanak Ram Parjapati, they saw that Ajay and Raj Kumar were coming while lifting Mani Ram. On seeing Parveen and Premwati, they fled away from the spot after leaving Mani Ram in the street near the house of Nanak Ram Parjapati. Parveen and Premwati then narrated the above occurrence to the complainant. About 20/ 25 days earlier an altercation had taken place between Mani Ram, Ajay and Raj Kumar qua a motocycle. There was a possibility that Ajay, Raj Kumar and Prem Singh had committed the murder of Mani Ram in connivance with each other after administering some poisonous substance to him in liquor. There were marks of injuries on the right eye and cheek of Mani Ram.

3. After registration of the FIR, on the basis of the statement of the complainant, the prosecution case was set in motion. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused. Charge was framed against accused under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses.

4. PW-2, Dr.Ashok Kumar Yadav deposed that on 9.1.2000, he had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mani Ram at 1.30 p.m along with Dr.Rekha Yadav. They found following injuries on the person of the deceased:-

“1. There was a bluish red contusion of 8 x 6 cms size around right eye, right side of forehead and temporal. Sub conjunctival reddish hemorrhage was present in right eye. On dissection, there was fracture of right frontal and temporal bone. Clotted blood was present in sub-dural, subarocrachnoit tissues on further dissection there was laceration of brain tissues corresponding to the fracture.

2. There was 3 x 1 cm was brown coloured abrasion on left cheek. 3 cm from the angle of mouth.

3. There was a bluish red contusion, just lateral to left nostril.”

5. In their opinion, the probable time between the injuries and death was within few months and between death and postmortem examination was within 24 hours. The injuries on the person of deceased Mani Ram could be caused with blunt weapon.

6. The complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW-9, deposed that on 8.1.2000 at about 4 p.m. they were playing cards in the area of village in the plot of Jagdish. The complainant was accompanied by Hoshiar Singh, Prem, Jagdish. Mani Ram, Zile Singh, Bani Singh and Satbir were playing cards near them. Prem asked Mani Ram as to whether they should leave the place and thereafter both of them went away. On the same day, at about 11 p.m., he came to know that condition of Mani Ram was bad. Premli (described as Premwati in the FIR) wife of Mani Ram, came to him and started crying and told him qua the bad condition of Mani Ram. He saw the dead body of Mani Ram lying near the house of Nang potter. There was injuries on the person of Mani Ram. He returned back to his house and narrated the said facts to his cousin Jagdish.