JUDGMENT

Brasher, J. - The appellant has been convicted under Section 304, part II, Indian Penal Code, in connection with the death of Wazir Singh. The prosecution evidence shows that Wazir Singh with some other men of his village Theti Bhai had gone to Raoke in search of a stray pigeon. On their way back they stayed at the appellant's village Man to watch an entertainment which was being held there. In the course of the entertainment the appellant who had a lathi in his hand asked the people to step back and be gave a blow on the head of Wazir Singh which rendered him unconscious. Wazir Singh was taken to the house of Jaisi, near whom he had been sitting, and his father after being informed of the occurrence made a report at the thana.

2. From this report it appears that the appellant was induced to strike Wazir Singh because he was sitting with some persons who were enemies of the appellant. Wazir Singh died on the following evening without recovering consciousness, and the medical evidence' shows that his death was due to a fractured skull.

3. According to the defence the appellant was not present at the entertainment, and Wazir Singh received his injury in a fight which took place on that occasion between some men of Raoke and the men of Theti Bhai in connection with the loss of Wazir Singh's pigeon.

4. The only witnesses who have supported the prosecution version are Indar Singh, Thara Singh and Mehar Chand who accompanied Wazir Singh from his village and the Magistrate has considered that other witnesses have been won over by the appellant. Jaisi has stated that men of different villages, began to fight and that he does not know who struck Wazir Singh. Two witnesses named Charan Singh and Gurdit Singh belonging to a village Chida, who were mentioned in the First Report as having been present, were examined as Court witnesses, and have also deposed that they do not know who struck Wazir Singh. For the defence some evidence has been produced to show that the appellant was not present at the entertainment while other witnesses state that Wazir Singh was injured in a fight between the men of his village and the men of Raoke.

5. There can be no doubt that the injury received by Wazir Singh was caused by the appellant. The witnesses Indar Singh and Thara Singh were named in the First Report, which was made without delay, and no reason whatever has been shown which would account for the- appellant being implicated if Wazir Singh had in reality been injured by some one else. Although Jaisi has given evidence in favour of the appellant, the appellant him self states that Jaisi is his enemy, and all the facts point to the conclusion that Jaisi was formerly on bad terms with; the appellant, and that on this account Wazir Singh who was sitting near him was struck. It is clear that Jaisi injured as appears from the evidence of the Sub-Inspector, and this is admitted by Jaisi himself. Jaisi appears to have afterwards come to terms with the appellant, but the appellant has himself stated that Jaisi is his enemy.

6. The defence version is in itself improbable and is not supported by any reliable evidence.

7. The appellant must have known that, he was likely to cause death and the conviction is justified, but considering, that only a single blow was struck the sentence is unduly severe, and the fine imposed appears to be unnecessary,

8. I reduce the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment, remitting the sentence of fine. The appeal is otherwise rejected.