SUKHDEV SINGH KANG, J.

(1.) This appeal by Jasbir Singh is directed against the judgment dated September 14, 1983, of the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby he has convicted the appellant under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The facts of the prosecution case are Surinder Singh (PW. 3) had three brothers, namely Jaswant Singh, Kulwant Singh and Lal Singh (decreased of this case). They all resided in Street No.5 of Kot Harnam Dass, Amritsar. Jasbir Singh, appellant, and his co-accused Manjit Singh (since acquitted) are sons of Dalip Singh. On May 10, 1983, at about 8 a.m. Surinder Singh (PW. 3) was present at the shop of Sukhdev Singh, Daulat Ram, both milk vendors. Surinder Singh used to purchase milk on credit. He had gone there to settle the account. Jaswant Singh, his younger brother was present there. Their another brother Lal Singh passed their side and went to a nearby shop to have his breakfast by taking puns Dalip Singh, Manjit Singh and Jasbir Singh, appellant, dame out of their shop, which is in the neighborhood of the shop of Sukhdev Singh. Jasbir Singh, was armed with a chhura; Dalip Singh had a datar; and Manjit Singh had an iron rod, which is used for measuring cloth. All of them encircled Lal Singh. Dalip Singh raised a lalkara that Lal Singh be taught a lesson for snapping the relationship. Kulwant Singh, above mentioned, had been engaged with the daughter of the sister of the wife of Dalip Singh. The relationship had snapped a few days prior to the date of marriage. Kulwant Singh had been married with another girl on May 1, 1983. Jasbir Singh gave a chhura blow on the chest of Lal Singh. Lal Singh fell down. Kulwant Singh came to the rescue of Lal Singh. Dalip Singh gave a datar blow to Kulwant Singh on the fingers of his right hand. Kulwant Singh tried to intervene. Dalip Singh gave another datar blow on his fore-head. Kulwant Singh fell down. Manjit Singh gave a blow with iron rod on the head of Kulwant Singh. On the alarm being created, the assailants ran away. Surender Singh and Kulwant Singh carried Lal Singh to the hospital, where he was admitted in the Emergency ward at 9 or 10 a.m. In the evening Kulwant Singh also started feeling pain. He Was admitted in the hospital at about 10 p.m. on that day. Pal Singh Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW. 19) reached the hospital, where Lal Singh and Kulwant Singh were admitted. He obtained the opinion of the doctor. The doctor opined that Lal Singh and Kulwant Singh were not fit to make statements. In the meantime, Surinder Singh (PW. 3) met him and made his statement. The same was sent to Police Station B Division, Amritsar, and a case under sections 307/304/323, read with the section 34, Indian Penal Code, was registered at 10 .35 a.m. on May 11, 1983. On May II, 1983, at about 6.45 p.m. Dr. Jaspal Singh (PW. 15) examined Lal Singh and found the following injuries on his person:

1. Stitched wound 24 cm (18 stitches) on the right paramedian region going lateral 20 cm stitched wound (14 stitches) and below the right nipple. 2. Scabbed abrasion in an area of 5 cm x 1 cm on the left side of the fore-head.

(3.) Abrasion 2 cm X 1 cm on the back of the lumber region (spine) in its lower proportion.

(4.) Abrasion 5 cm above right nipple. Lal Singh was unconscious at that time. He died in the hospital on May 16, 1983. The information was sent to the police. The offence was changed to one under section 302, Indian Penal Code. On May 17, 1983, Dr. Devinder Sharma (PW. 13) performed autopsy on the dead body of Lal Singh. He found four injuries on his person. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of injuries to the pericardium, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Jasbir Singh, Dalip Singh and Manjit Singh were arrested on May 17, 1983. Jasbir Singh in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered chhura, Exhibit M.O./I. Similarly Dalip Singh got recovered datar, Exhibit M.O/2.

3. During trial, Jasbir Singh, appellant, made a statement giving counter version. He stated that a month prior to the occurrence, Lal Singh deceased, and his mother had brought some lady shirts and dupttas for embroidery work. About a week later the said clothes were taken away by the said two persons duly embroidered after making payment for the work done. On the day of occurrence Lal Singh came to the shop of Jasbir Singh and complained that the colour of the thread used for embroidery had faded, and therefore Jasbir Singh should return Rs. 70/- charged by him. He also demanded the price of the cloth which had been spoiled. Jasbir Singh stated that he purchased the yarn used for embroidery and could hOt guarantee the quality of the yarn. He refused to make any payment. It lead to a quarrel. Lal Singh pulled him from the shop with right hand and tried to attack him with a hockey stick which he carried with him. Jasbir Singh caught hold of him from his wrist and the hockey did not hit him. Then Jasbir Singh and Lal Singh grappled with each other when Jasbir Singh tried to snatch the hockey. During the scuffle both of them fell down on the ground. While getting up, Lal Singh gave belows with his hockey stick to Jasbir Singh. Jasbir Singh then in self-defence gave a blow with a small kirpan which he was wearing at that time. On receipt of this blow, Lal Singh staggered and set down closed to his shop at a short distance. Jasbir Singh closed his shop and went to the Civil Surgeon to get him medically examined. He could not be examined on that day because the P.C.M.S. Class II Doctors in that office had gone to demonstrate at Ludhiana to protest against the unnatural death of a doctor. When no doctor came, Jasbir Singh went to the Emergency Ward and got himself admitted there. Next morning he was medically examined. Four injuries were found on his person. Two of the wounds were stitched.

4. The learned trial Judge ,came to the conclusion that the injuries on the person of Kulwant Singh were fabricated. He had received only one injury on the head when he fell down while trying to rescue Lal Singh. The learned Judge, therefore, giving benefit of doubt to Manjit Singh and Dalip Singh, acquitted them. He, however, convicted and sentenced Jasbir Singh, appellant, as stated in the opening part of the judgment.

(5.) Mr. Ram Singh, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the occurrence had not taken place at the time and in the manner deposed to by the prosecution witnesses. The appellant or relation had no motive to cause injuries to Lal Singh. Even according to the prosecution case, it was Kulwant Singh, who had been betrothed to a relation of Dalip Singh. Surinder Singh (PW) was the eldest brother. Lal Singh was the youngest. If the relationship in the marriage did not fructify, Surinder Singh and Kulwant Singh were to blame. Lal Singh had no say in the matter. It does not appeal to reason that leaving aside Surinder Singh and Kulwant Singh, the appellant Jasbir Singh and his companions caused injuries to Lal Singh. We find merit in this submission. Surender Singh was the head of the family. The decision for marrying Kulwant Singh with the wifes sisters daughter of Dalip Singh must have been taken by him or by Kulwant Singh. Lal Singh must not have played any role in this issue. There is no allegation against him in the first information report to the statements made in Court. According to the prosecution story Surinder Singh was present at the shop of Sukhdev Singh which is adjacent to the shop of the appellant. Kulwant Sing had also reached there. If at all they had to take revenge the appellant and his companions would have attached Kulwant Singh or Surinder Singh. Lal Singh was the last to reach there. According to the prosecution, he had not provided any provocation to the assailants. We do not believe that Lal Singh had been attacked because of snapping the relationship between the parties. Even the learned trial Judge has not placed reliance on the evidence of Kulwant Singh and the other eye-witnesses, regarding the role of Manjit Singh and Dalip Singh. He has recorded a positive finding that Kulwant Singh was not given beating by Dalip Singh and Manjit Singh. He had manoeuvred these injuries. The circumstances of the case do support this finding. The occurrence took place at about 8.00 a.m. on 10/5/1983. The injured was admitted to the hospital at about 9.30 a.m. There were three brothers namely Surinder Singh, Kulwant Singh and Jaswant Singh who claimed to have seen the occurrence. They all went to the hospital there is a police post in the hospital itself None of these witnesses went to that police post to report the matter. Mangal Singh, Head-Constable (PW.10) who was in-charge of the police-guard at the hospital sent a telephonic message to Police Station B Division Amritsar at 6.16 p. m. regarding the admission of Lal Singh in the hospital in a serious condition. Kulbir Singh, Head-Constable (PW. 8) went to the hospital. He found that Lal Singh was not fit to make a statement. He did not find any person near Lal Singh or in the ward, who may be aware about the occurrence. Kulbir Singh therefore, came back from the hospital without recording the statement of anybody. Thereafter, Assistant Sub-Inspector Pal Singh (PW. 19) went to the hospital at about 11.00 p.m. on May 10, 1983. Kulwant Singh and Lal Singh were admitted to the hospital. They were unfit to make statements. Surinder Singh (PW. 3) met him and made a statement which was completed at 1.20 a.m. There is thus a delay of about 17 hours in making the report. Even though Lal Singh was seriously injured, anyone of the three brothers could have gone to the police post, which was in the precincts of the hospital itself, and made a report. The explanation rendered by Jasbir Singh appellant is plausible. Mr. Bindra is justified in submitting that the delay bad taken place only because the complainants knew that they were at fault and of that reason had not reported the matter. It was only when Assistant SubInspector Pal Singh contacted Surinder Singh that he came out with the present version.

(6.) The prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries on the person of Jasbir Singh. Dr. Harjinder Singh (PW.14) had stated that Jasbir Singh had arrived in the hospital on May 10, 1983 and admission-slip was prepared there. The doctors were on strike on that day. Jasbir Singh was medically examined by this doctor on May 11, 1983, at 8.00 a.m. who found the following injuries on his person:

1. Stitched wound 4.5 cm long on the right side of the fore-head with three stitches vertically placed 5 cm above the right eye brow and 13 cm from the right year. 2. Contusion red in colour 3 cm X 2 cm on the back and the upper part of the left fore-arm. 3. A stitched wound 5 cm long with five stitches transversally placed on the front of the right leg in its upper one-third. 4. Abrasion 4 cm X 2 cm on the left side of the face between left eye and left ear area.

5. Complaint of severe plain in the chest. Injuries 1 and 3 were stitched wounds. It indicates that they were not superficial injuries. Injury No. 1 was on the fore-head. Ordinarily nobody self-suffers an injury on a vital part like a fore-head. The prosecution witnesses have not explained these injuries. It means that the prosecution is suppressing genesis of the fight. On the other hand, Jasbir Singh has given his own version which sounds plausible. It fits in with the medical evidence also. Though the occurrence had taken place in the area where nearby shops were open at that time, yet no person from those shops has come forward to support the prosecution story. Sukhdev Singh on whose shop Surinder Singh claims to be present was cited as a witness but was not produced. It may be that no independent person was coming forward because the case set up by the complainants was not true statement of facts.

(7.) For the foregoing reasons, we find that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. We therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him of the charge. Appeal allowed and conviction set aside.