The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of acceptable evidence and strict proof of guilt to impose criminal liability, especially in cases involving the cause of death.

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

The epitome of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that on 29.05.2001 at about 5.00AM, Suresh(deceased), brother of complainant Rattan Kumar (PW1) son of Balwan Singh had gone with appellant-convict Madan son of Desh Raj and acquitted co-accused Rohtas son of Chote Lal, on his(appellant's) tractor-trolley bearing Registration No.HR12A0526, for selling Millet(fodder)(Jawar) at Rohtak. At about 1.30 PM, they brought Suresh in an injured and unconscious condition to his house. The liquor smell was coming out of their mouths. The complainant asked them to remove his brother Suresh to the hospital, but they went away. Thereafter, the complainant along with his brother Baljeet brought Suresh to the Civil Hospital, Dighal, from where he was referred to PGI Rohtak. As luck would have been, he expired on the way and his deadbody was brought to the village. The matter was reported to the police. After postmortem examination of his deadbody, the complainant developed suspicion regarding the cause of death of his brother. Subsequently, he came to know that in fact a quarrel had taken place between Suresh and the accused, at a place near Irrigation Minor, falling within the area of Dighal. Appellant-Madan and his other co-accused Rohtas were stated to have caused injuries to him.

2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, the complainant claimed that on 29.05.2001, his brother Suresh had died on account of injuries, caused by the appellant and his other co-accused, culminating into his death. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint (Ex.PA) of complainant-Rattan Kumar, the present case was registered against the appellant and his other co-accused, vide FIR No.113 dated 31.05.2001, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar, in the manner described hereinabove.

3. After completion of the investigation, final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against them to face the trial for the pointed offences.

4. Having completed all the codal formalities, the appellant and his other co-accused were chargesheeted for the commission of offences, in question. As, they did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution by the trial Court.

5. Sequelly, the prosecution in order to substantiate the commission of crime against the appellant, has mainly relied upon the statement of eyewitness PW5 Naresh Kumar, who has deposed in the following terms:

“On 29.5.2001 at about 12.00 Noon, I was going to Rohtak on scooter and on the way near Dighal Canal, accused Rohtas and Madan were beating Suresh. Madan was carrying lathi in his hand and Rohtas was carrying handle of hand pump in his hand and both were beating Suresh and caused injuries to Suresh. Tractor of Madan was also parked nearby. I intervened and rescued Suresh from the clutches of accused. Suresh received injuries on his head and Madan gave a lathi blow to Suresh on his hand. Rohtas caused injuries to Suresh with the help of iron handle of hand pump in his head. I separated them and advised them to take the injured to hospital and then I went to Rohtak on my scooter. On the same day, in evening, I received telephonic message that Suresh has died. On 31.5.2001, police recorded my statement.”

6. Likewise, complainant PW1 Rattan Kumar has also supported the prosecution version. Instead of reproducing his entire statement and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that he has corroborated the contents, contained in his initial statement(Ex.PA), which formed the basis of FIR(Ex.PC).

7. Now adverting to the medical evidence, PW4 Dr.Kumud Sharma