The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Indian Penal Code, particularly the assessment of the nature of injuries, conflicting medical opinions, and the applicability of Section 34 in determining the liability of the appellants.

JUDGMENT

Virender Singh, J. - Sheru and Sharfu sons of Abhey Singh have been convicted vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon dated 6.9.1991 under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code and 324/34 Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo RI for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case in short is that on 17.4.1990, Zakir the injured in this case was watering his fields at about 3 PM. Sheru appellant diverted the said water flow. Zakir consequently stopped that diversion. Both the appellants then reached there and started abusing Zakir. Zakir asked them not to do so. Sheru appellant was armed with a tabbal (a sharp edged cutting weapon) in his hands. He inflicted a tabbal blow on the head of Zakir and then inflicted another blow from the reverse side of tabbal on the eye of Zakir. Sharfu appellant also gave a lathi blow which hit on the back of Zakir and another blow hit on his left eye. Umar and Harun PWs who were incidently present in the nearby fields reached the spot after hearing raula. Both the appellants then ran away. Injured was removed to the hospital by the witnesses.

3. After the investigation both the appellants were challaned in the present case. They were consequently charged.

4. In support of its case the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses.

5. PW1 Rampal SI is a formal witness. He had recorded the first information report and had also prepared the report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code PW2 is Dr. BB Aggarwal. He on 28.4.1980 had radiologically examined Zakir, the injured in this case and found that there were multiple fractures over parietal area of skull on right side. His report is Ex. PB. PW3 is Dr. Jai Kishan who had on 17.4.90 at 7.15 PM had medico-legally examined Zakir and found the following injuries :-

"1. An incised wound of size 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm present on left parietal temporal region. Margins were regular. Oozing of fresh blood was present. Advised x-ray skull, AP & lateral view. Injury kept under observation.

2. A bruise of size 2 cm x 1 cm present above left eye pain and swelling were also present.

3. Patient was unable to open left eye. Swelling was present on whole of the left eye. On examination of left eye congestion of conjunctive was present. Pupil normal.

4. A bruise of size 2 cm x 1 cm present on left arm. Swelling was present. Advised x-ray AP & lateral view.

5. A bruise of size 5 cm x 2 cm present of back. Pain and swelling was also present. Advised x-ray thoracic cage, AP & lateral view."

6. He had also given opinion Ex. PH/1 that the injuries on the person of Zakir could cause death if proper treatment has not been given. He had also opined that the injuries on the person of Zakir were possible by lathi Ex. P1 and tabbal Ex. P2. PW4 is Saphed Khan Patwari. He had prepared the scaled plan. Umar is PW5. He is an eye witness of the occurrence. PW6 is Zakir the injured witness. He has disclosed the prosecution story to the effect that Sheru had diverted the water flow when he was watering his fields and when he (Zakir) had stopped diversion both the appellants gave him injuries. He has then stated that he was referred to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon where he remained admitted for 15/16 days. PW7 is S.A. Nasir who has stated that Sheru appellant in pursuance of his disclosure statement has got recovered tabbal from his kotha and Sharfu has got recovered lathi. SI Siri Chand has been examined as PW8. The investigation has been conducted by him. He also talks about various applications on which he had obtained the opinion of the doctor. He also recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared site plan of the occurrence. He then talks about the arrest of both the appellants and the recovery of tabbal and lathi effected in pursuance of the disclo