Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Singh vs State Of Haryana on 30 January, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(i) Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008
Date of decision : 30.01.2013
Raj Singh
.... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
(ii) Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008
Bharat Singh
.... Petitioner
VERSUS
Raj Singh and others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
***
Present : Mr.Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Deepender, Advocate, for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008. Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008. Mr.Kshitij Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State.
*** INDERJIT SINGH, J This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.D-440- DB of 2008, filed by appellant Raj Singh and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008, filed by petitioner Bharat Singh as these arise out Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [2] of the same judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2008 and order of sentence dated 20.05.2008, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, vide which appellant Raj Singh has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years whereas Raj Pal and Rishi Pal have been acquitted. Petitioner Bharat Singh has preferred the aforesaid revision petition against acquittal of Rishi Pal and Raj Pal and for not convicting Raj Singh under Section 302 IPC and also for convicting Raj Pal, Rishi Pal and Raj Singh under Sections 323, 324, 302, 506, 34 IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 04.12.2004 when ASI Rajinder Singh of Police Station Sohna alongwith other police officials was on patrolling, a message was received from Police Station City Gurgaon regarding receipt of doctor's ruqa from General Hospital, Grugaon about deceased Girdhari. Then he reached police station City Gurgaon and after receiving ruqa, reached General Hospital, Gurgaon. By the side of dead body of Girdhari, Girdhari's younger brother Bharat Singh was found present, who also produced his own medico legal report in which two injuries were mentioned. The statement of Bharat Singh was recorded at 3:10 a.m. on 04.12.2004. In his statement, Bharat Singh mainly deposed that he is resident of village Reethoj and is serving in Army. Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [3] He was on leave for 15 days from 23.11.2004. They are three brothers. He was youngest and Girdhari (deceased) was eldest. On 03.12.2004 at about 6:00 p.m., he (complainant Bharat Singh) was standing on the main gate of house of son of his great uncle Puran where Tilak Raj came to him and they were talking with each other. When they were talking, Rishi holding an axe in his right hand came there and asked him why he is becoming a lion. Complainant Bharat Singh replied that he was not becoming anything. On this, Tilak Raj took the complainant towards his house after holding him and in the meanwhile Rishi without uttering anything gave an axe blow below left hip on his back side as a result of which he fell down and on this Tilak Raj caught hold of him and the complainant rushed to his home. After half an hour, at about 6:30 p.m., Devender Singh, elder brother of complainant, came to home to whom the complainant narrated the incident and then his brother brought him to Dr.Gobind Singh at Badshahpur for treatment. The doctor bandaged his wound and gave an injection and thereafter both the brothers returned to the village. At about 8:30 p.m., complainant's eldest brother Girdhari and one Anil returned from a marriage at Meola to whom the complainant narrated the incident, which was occurred between him and Rishi and after hearing, his brother scolded him and when they were talking with each other at their main gate, they saw Rishi, Raj Singh, Rajender and Raj Pal sons of Lakhmira standing in front of their house. The complainant found that Raj Singh was holding a licenced Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [4] pistol in his right hand, Rishi was holding a country made pistol and Rajender and Raj Pal were holding lathies in their right hands. On seeing them, Raj Singh, after coming near to his brother Girdhari, fired on him from his pistol which hit Girdhari on his chest and in their (complainant party) presence, he fell on the ground. The complainant party raised alarm and when the complainant turned his face to rush to home, Raj Singh fired again on him from his pistol which hit on his left back side below shoulder. Hearing their alarm, Mahabir and his elder brother Gajraj also rushed to the spot. When Mahabir tried to lift his brother Girdhari from the ground, Rishi fired from the country made pistol, held by him in his hand, on Mahabir and again on Gajraj and on this Anil shouted on Rishi etc. what they were doing and whether they wanted to kill all of them. Thereafter, all the four assailants conspired together and Rajender and Rajpal wielded their respective lathies on Gajraj and while leaving, they gave a threat that one of them had been eliminated and on finding occasion and opportunity, they would also kill them and fled away from the spot. Thereafter, complainant Bharat Singh, Mahabir, Gajraj and Anil immediately arranged conveyance from the village and put Girdhari in it and took him to Government Hospital, Gurgaon for treatment where the doctor declared him brought dead and started giving treatment to Mahabir, Gajraj and complainant Bharat Singh. The motive behind the occurrence was that about two years earlier, there was a quarrel between complainant party and accused party Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [5] qua land of house and since then they were not on good terms and having ill will against each other. The accused party intermittently used to give threat to them. The complainant also stated that they had also fired 7-8 times.After recording the statement of complainant, ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered. Then the Investigating Officer conducted proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He prepared the Inquest report Ex.PM/3. The dead body of Girdhari was got x-rayed and thereafter it was sent for postmortem examination. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Then the Investigating Officer went to Kalyani Hospital and recorded the statement of Raj Kumar in that hospital. Then he reached the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer could not inspect the spot on that day because there was weeping etc. in the house i.e. at the place of occurrence. SHO and DSP had also reached the spot on that very day. On 05.12.2004, Investigating Officer alongwith other police officials reached the village Rithoz at the instance of Mahabir, Anil and Gajraj (PWs). Place of occurrence, which is in front of the house of Girdhari, was demarcated. Rough site plan was prepared. He also inspected the spot where Rishi Pal and Bharat Singh had quarreled and site plan of that place was also prepared. Several other persons of the village were inquired about the occurrence confidentially. On 06.12.2004, the Investigating Officer reached the village and collected the persons and inquired from them. SHO and DSP also came to the spot. They also inquired Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [6] from the villagers about the occurrence. From the inquiry, it was revealed that the occurrence had taken place inside the house of Raj Pal and Raj Singh instead of in front of the house of Girdhari. That place was also got photographed. Forensic Science Laboratory team could not come to the spot on that day, therefore, the various clues were kept preserve at the place of occurrence i.e. inside the house of Raj Singh and Raj Pal. On the same day i.e. 06.12.2004, statement of Raj Kumar was verified and that statement was found correct in the cross case. On 07.12.2004, Investigating Officer again inspected the spot. The SHO also came to the spot with the Forensic Science Laboratory team. The Place of occurrence was inspected. The Investigating Officer collected four empties and one live cartridge from the place of occurrence i.e. inside the house of Raj Singh and Raj Pal which were taken into police possession after preparing sealed parcel. On the same day, after cutting two blood stained pieces of polythene, which were covered on a 'Batora', were taken into police possession. One monkey cap and a piece of wood stained with blood were also taken into police possession. On 08.12.2004, the Investigating Officer came to Kalyani Hospital. He took into possession x-ray films and x-ray reports of Raj Pal, Rishi Pal and Raj Kumar. Rishi Pal and Raj Pal were having fractures. Then, on the same day i.e. 08.12.2004, the Investigation was handed over to SHO Kuldeep Singh. On 09.12.2004, on interrogation, Raj Pal and Rishi Pal accused suffered disclosure statements and in Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [7] pursuance thereof, accused Raj Pal got recovered one 'danda' and accused Rishi Pal got recovered one 'kulhari' and the same were taken into police possession after preparing sketch and sealed parcels. Site plans of the places of recovery were also prepared. After necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court.
On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, they were charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324, 307, 506 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Bharat Singh, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW2 Dr.Virender Nagpal mainly deposed regarding conducting the x-ray examination of Bharat Singh. PW3 ASI Partap Singh mainly deposed regarding recording of FIR EX.PD on receiving ruqa. PW4 Kapil, Photographer, mainly deposed regarding taking of photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and negatives Ex.P10 to Ex.P19. PW5 Anil Kumar and PW6 Gajraj Singh, eye witnesses to the occurrence, also deposed as per prosecution version. PW7 Dr.Kulvinder Singh, Senior Scientific Officer, mainly deposed that on 07.12.2004, on receiving message from SHO, Police Station Sohna, he visited the alleged/suspected spots of occurrence. Courtyard of the house of Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [8] deceased Girdhari and courtyard of the house of Raj Pal were thoroughly examined regarding presence of some physical clue related to the crime. Dead body was stated to have been detected at spot 'A' in the courtyard of the house of Raj Pal and the culprit was stated to have fired from spot 'B', mentioned in sketch attached with the report. Blood stains were detected on polythene sheet covered over a bitora at spot 'C'. Splashes of blood were detected on dung cakes, wooden logs and west side wall near the bitora. One woolen monkey cap was detected at spot 'D'. Five pairs of hawai chappal and a shawl were detected extreme near the spot 'A' in the courtyard of the house of Raj Pal. He also stated that the courtyard of the house of Girdhari was also inspected thoroughly but no blood stains or any other physical clue related to the crime could be detected from there. PW8 Sub Inspector Kuldeep Singh, who partly conducted the investigation, deposed regarding the investigation of this case and regarding the interrogation of accused Raj Pal and Rishi Pal. He also deposed regarding recovery of 'Kulhari' at the instance of Rishi Pal and 'danda' at the instance of Raj Pal in pursuance of their disclosure statements. PW9 Dr.R.K.Sachdev, mainly deposed regarding conducting of postmortem examination on the dead body of Girdhari on 04.12.2004 at 1:20 p.m. On examination, it was found that there was fire arm entry wound on chest on the right side. It was ¾ x ¾ cm in size. No tattooing was present around the wound. 8th and 9th vertebra were eroded. Spinal code membrance were Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [9] lacerated between 8th and 9th vertebra. The bullet track was directed downward, medially and backward. In the opinion of the doctor, the death in this case was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by firearm injury. Injury was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. The postmortem was conducted within 36 hours after the death. PW10 Constable Rajender Singh mainly deposed regarding delivery of special report to Ilaqa Magistrate etc. PW11 Head Constable Kuldeep Singh is a formal witness who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PN. PW12 Inspector Balwan Singh mainly deposed regarding preparing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. PW13 ASI Rajender Singh is the Investigating Officer, who deposed regarding the investigation of this case.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and confronted with the evidence of prosecution. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. Accused Raj Singh also pleaded that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Infact seven persons i.e. Mahabir son of Rampat, Gajraj son of Rampat, Anil son of Gajraj, Devender son of Sarjeet, Satish @ Lallu son of Mahipal, Bharat Singh son of Surjeet and Girdhari deceased gate crashed their house and beat up Rishi and Rajpal with iron rods and lathis. Before entering the gate, they also fired in the air to scare them. Raj Kumar, their brother, who had reached Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [10] there hearing sound of fire shots was also belaboured. The seven persons had entered their house to take revenge of the happening in the evening as in that grappling Rishi had upper hand. In order to desist assailants, he fired in the air few shots from his licenced pistol. The assailants were drunk. They tried to snatch his pistol. He in his self defence and in defence of his brothers and property fired a shot which incidentally hit Girdhari. Except one injury to Girdhari, the complainant party did not receive any other injury in the occurrence. No occurrence, as claimed by the prosecution, took place. The complainant party after due deliberations and consultations concocted a false FIR to implicate them falsely. The allegations of his collusion with the police is totally baseless and false one. The investigation had been verified by high ups of the police department and by a team of Forensic Science Laboratory which also found the place of occurrence inside his house. Physical evidence of the incident was also found inside his house establishing occurrence in his house. Infact, the complainant party never knew that Girdhari had been shot, so first of all they brought him to the house of his elder brother Rajender for taking him to the hospital under the bonafide belief that he suffered heart attack. Rajender has also taken out his Alto car but on the arrival and intervention of ladies he was taken by other conveyance. They are totally innocent and are infact victims of aggression at the hands of the complainant party. Cross case is pending against complainant party. Accused Rishi Pal Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [11] and Raj Pal also took the same plea as taken by accused Raj Singh.
In defence, the accused examined DW1 Dr.Shailza Aggarwal, who deposed regarding preparing of x-ray reports of Raj Pal, Rishi Pal and Raj Kumar and as per x-ray report of Raj Pal, x-ray of right hand with forearm shows fracture of fifth metacarpal. In cross-examination, she stated that she did not take x-rays. She cannot tell who took the x-rays of aforesaid persons and when. She has not gone through the Medico legal reports of aforesaid patients. DW2 Dr.Arun, Medical Officer, Kalyani Hospital, Gurgaon, medico legally examined Rishi Pal on 03.12.2004 and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. CLW on parietal region measuring 6 cm x .5 cm
2. CLW on parietal regions measuring 4 cm x .5 cm
3. Tenderness chest left side.
4. Bruise and contusions on left lateral chest wall.
5. Tenderness and pain left foot.
On the same day, he also medico legally examined Raj Pal and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. ? querry traumatic dislocation of lower incisor.
2. CLW on right forehead measuring 2.5 x 1 cm.
3. CLW on right parito temporal region.
4. Pain and swelling right wrist.
5. Pain and swelling left elbow.
On the same day, he also medico legally examined Raj Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [12] Kumar and found one injury i.e. CLW on right parital region measuring 3 cm x .5 cm on his person. DW3 Dr.Subhash Khanna, deposed that on 03.12.2004, Rajpal, Rishipal and Raj Kumar were admitted in emergency ward of Kalyani Hospital, Gurgaon. He also proved the treatment charts Ex.D7, Ex.D8 and Ex.D9 of Raj Pal, Rishi Pal and Raj Kumar respectively.
The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced appellant accused Raj Singh and acquitted Raj Pal and Raj Kumar, as stated above.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the place of occurrence in the present case is house of appellant and the appellant party caused the injuries in self defence. The complainant party was aggressor in the present case. Therefore, when the complainant armed with weapons were giving injuries to the appellant party, appellant Raj Singh fired in self defence which is justified. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the motive for the complainant side to attack the appellant is that Rishi Pal gave injuries earlier to Bharat Singh, as per prosecution version. He contended that as the complainant party is aggressor and caused injuries while entering into the house of appellant, therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable and should be acquitted accordingly.
On the other hand, learned Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana, contended that the prosecution has duly proved its case by Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [13] leading cogent evidence. He further contended that there is no merit in the appeal and the same should be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner contended that there is no cogent evidence on the record that the accused have acted in self defence. Secondly, the complainant party was not the aggressor. Rather, the accused were the aggressors. Accused Raj Kumar has committed the murder of Girdhari by firing on his chest and he should be convicted under Section 302 IPC. Rishi Pal and Raj Pal, who have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, should also be convicted as they have taken active participation in the commission of crime. He further contended that the revision petition, having merit, should be allowed accordingly.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana and learned counsel for the revision petitioner and with their assistance we have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
From the record, we find that there is no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant- accused Raj Singh in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken the plea that when complainant party entered his house and tried to snatch pistol from him then in self defence, he fired a shot which incidentally hit Girdhari but this version cannot be believed. Firstly, no defence witness has been produced by the accused to support and corroborate this defence version. Secondly, Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [14] as per statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused fired when complainant party tried to snatch pistol from him which means that the fire was shot by the accused from a close range but there was no blackening around the wound which shows that the fire was shot from a distance. Thirdly, the version of the appellant that the complainant party was assailants also cannot be believed. Girdhari was shot dead by appellant Raj Singh by firing on his chest whereas there are no serious injuries on the person of appellant and on the person of his party members namely Rishi Pal, Raj Pal etc. As per DW2 Dr.Arun, he has not mentioned the duration of the injuries in the medico legal reports of any of the injured. Secondly, alleged history of assault, while sleeping, by some people, has been given which is also contradictory to the defence version. He has also admitted that he has not mentioned the dimension of injury No.3 on the person of Raj Pal. He has also not mentioned the depth of any injury in the medico legal reports. He has stated that Kalyani Hospital is a private hospital. He has also stated in his statement that on examination, patients were conscious. Perusal of the record shows that mainly the injuries on the person of Rishi Pal and Raj Pal are not of serious nature. Some of the injuries are tenderness, pain and swelling etc. There is no cogent evidence, produced by the defence, on record to show any of the injury as grievous on their person. DW1 Dr.Shailza Aggarwal, who prepared x-ray reports of Raj Pal, Rishi Pal and Raj Kumar, has stated in her statement that Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [15] she has not taken the x-rays of these persons. She had not gone through their medico legal reports at the time of giving x-ray reports. She has also stated that the possibility of fracture being caused on the person of Raj Pal and Rishi Pal as a result of fall, cannot be ruled out. She has also stated that she cannot comment how old the injuries are. She cannot say whether the x-rays co-relate with the medico legal reports of these persons. Therefore, there is no cogent evidence on record to show that the appellant-accused has acted in self defence and has caused murder of Girdhari by firing shot at him.
As regarding the fact whether complainant party is aggressor, we also find that there is no cogent evidence on record to show that complainant party was aggressor. First of all, in defence, no person has appeared to depose that the complainant party came to the house of accused and then occurrence took place. The complainant has alleged that the police, in connivance with the accused party, changed the place of occurrence after 3-4 days of the occurrence. The occurrence took place in the evening of 03.12.2004. The FIR was registered on the basis of statement of complainant Bharat Singh (Ex.PA) recorded at 3:10 a.m. (night) on 04.12.2004 whereas the defence version was registered at 2:40 p.m. on 04.12.2004 by way of cross case. The version, given by complainant Bharat Singh, in this case is much prior to the version given by the accused and the accused reported the matter regarding cross version after a substantial delay which has not been explained. Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [16] As already discussed, the injuries on the person of accused party were not serious and simple one and they remained conscious and no cogent explanation came for the delay in recording their version. Secondly, the cross-examination of PW8 Kuldeep Singh, who partly conducted the investigation of this case, shows that his statement regarding the place of occurrence cannot be believed. In cross- examination, he has stated that on 04.12.2004 at about 4:00 p.m., he alongwith Sube Singh, DSP, ASI Rajender Singh etc. went to the spot, as alleged in the FIR. As per record, no site plan has been prepared at the spot by the Investigating officer on 04.12.2004. The explanation, given by PW13 ASI Rajinder Singh, Investigating Officer, in chief-examination that ladies were weeping etc. is no explanation. On 05.12.2004, he prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, as given in the FIR. Lateron, on 07.12.2004, team of experts from Director, Forensic Science Laboratory was called and spot was inspected and the place of occurrence was shifted to the house of accused. The articles which the experts from Forensic Science Laboratory have taken into possession from the spot on 07.12.2004 look unnatural. There is no explanation why these articles remained there for 4-5 days from 03.12.2004 till 07.12.2004 and were not taken into police possession. The empties, monkey cap, hawai chappals and some blood on polythene etc. can easily be fabricated within these days before the visit of experts of Forensic Science Laboratory team by the accused party. In the site plan, which was prepared on Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [17] 05.12.2004, the place of occurrence was in front of the house of Girdhari (deceased) and not in the compound of the house of the appellant-accused. Furthermore, PW13 ASI Rajinder Singh has also stated that he made inquires and came to know regarding the actual place of occurrence i.e. the house of appellant from some persons but no such person has been examined in the present case to show that the place of occurrence was the house of accused.
As already discussed, no DW has been examined by the accused to support his version, as stated by him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. From the evidence on record, it looks that Investigating Officer had helped the appellant by changing the place of occurrence and to this extent his investigation was found defective. It is settled law that due to defective investigation, the whole of the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out.
From the evidence on record, we find that the complainant party was not the aggressor. Rather the occurrence took place, as deposed by the complainant and the eye-witnesses. It is admitted case of the accused that fire was shot by Raj Singh which hit Girdhari. Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that the findings of the trial Court holding accused Raj Singh guilty under Section 304 Part I IPC are incorrect. Rather Raj Singh is guilty of committing murder under Section 302 IPC.
As regarding the guilt of Rishi Pal and Raj Pal for causing injuries to Bharat Singh etc., no medico legal report has been Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [18] produced on record to prove that they have caused injuries to Bharat Singh. There is only one fire arm injury on the dead body of Girdhari which is attributed to Raj Singh appellant. As the prosecution has not produced the evidence regarding the injuries on the person of other injured (PWs), therefore, they (Rishi Pal and Rajpal) have been rightly given benefit of reasonable doubt.
Therefore, from the above discussion, we find that statement of Bharat Singh, complainant, has been duly supported and corroborated by the statements of PW5 Anil Kumar and PW6 Gajraj Singh. Their oral statements have been duly supported by medical evidence. There are no material improvements or contradictions in their statements. There is nothing in their statements to disbelieve their version. Their presence on the spot also cannot be doubted. The defence version is not believable. Prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence against appellant-accused Raj Singh.
Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that Raj Singh has committed murder of Girdhari and he is held guilty under Section 302 IPC instead of Section 304 Part I IPC and accordingly he is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. In other words, the sentence of imprisonment and sentence of fine shall be the same as awarded under Section 304 Part I IPC.
Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 [19] Therefore, with the aforesaid modification Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 is dismissed and Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008 is partly allowed qua respondent No.1- Raj Singh, convicting him under Section 302 IPC whereas it is dismissed qua Rishi Pal and Raj Pal-respondent Nos.2 and 3.
(JASBIR SINGH) (INDERJIT SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
30.01.2013
mamta