Judgment J. C. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) PREM Singh sb Banshi Singh, a constable driver of the Police Station, Sojat was tried under Secs. 302, 342 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing crime, of murder of Ghisulal, some time between night of 20th October, 1991 and 21st October, 1991, in the Police Station, Sojat itself, where the appellant accused Prem Singh was working as a police constable in the capacity of police driver. The Addi. Sessions Judge, Sojat vide his judgment dated 18th January, 1994 after appraising the prosecution evidence, circumstantial evidence and the documents produced in the court by the prosecution, ultimately convicted the appellant under Sees. 302, 342 and 379 of I. P. C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/ 4, in default of which, to undergo 15 days imprisonment under Sec. 302 I. P. C. He was further sentenced under Sees. 379 and 342 I. P. C. as well, and to undergo one yearts imprisonment for each of the offences along with Rs. 50/- as fine and to undergo 15 days imprisonment in the case of default against each of the offences under Sees 379 and 342 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE brief facts as stated in the F. I. R. , lodged by Tarachand P. W. 1, are that on 20-10-199 1, deceased Ghisulal, complainant Tarachand and one Kishore Kumar, P. W. 2 had returned from pali to Sojat, after getting their V. C. Rs. repaired. Ghisulal had got repaired his V. C. R. from the shop of Tilok Chand, P. W. 6. All the three persons had deboarded from the bus at about 10. 15 in the night. The complainant had gone to his Video House/shop, leaving Ghisulal and Kishore Kumar, at the bus stand. After about 15 minutes or so, Ghisulal had met complainant on the way, Ghisulal was accompanied by Kishore Kumar. His V. C. R. was not with him. The complainant was told by de ceased Ghisulal that his V. C. R. has been forcibly taken away by Prem Singh, accused-appellant, who was a driver constable in the said police station. After about 15 minutes or so, Ghisulal had met complainant on the way, Ghisulal was accompanied by Kishore Kumar. His V. C. R. was not with him. The complainant was told by de ceased Ghisulal that his V. C. R. has been forcibly taken away by Prem Singh, accused-appellant, who was a driver constable in the said police station. Ghisulal had further requested the complainant that in case he knows said Prem Singh, then he should help him in getting back his V. C. R. Tarachand, on the asking of Ghisulal, went to the house of Prem Singh, appellant, here he used to live in Mahalla Kumbhar in the Sojat City, but was told there that Prem Singh does not live there any more. It was decided between them to go to Police Station, Sojat and they visited the police station. They were told by a person aged about 20 years that Prem Singh, appellant is in the police station itself and Prem Singh was called from inside police station. Tarachand had requested Prem Singh to return the V. C. R. which request was not agreed to. There had been talks between Tarachand, Prem Singh and Ghisulal inside the police station. Tarachand was strictly and firmly told by Prem Singh, appellant that he may not interfere in this matter. Tarachand was abused and was asked to go out, whereupon, the complainant, Tarachand went to his house, leaving Ghisulal inside the police station. Next morning, a relative of Ghisulal, namely, Nara came to the house of the complainant and told him that Ghisulal had died in the police station, and then they went to Anand Bhati who telephoned to the Superintendent of Police, Pali regarding death of Ghisulal in the police station. Ex. P/l7was recorded as F. I. R. , on the facts mentioned above. It was further mentioned in the F. I. R. that V. C. R, was taken away by Prem Singh forcibly and Prem Singh was also under the in fluence of drinks. This incident was also mentioned to Ladu Ram. This was also mentioned in the F. I. R. that at the police station, when they went to see Prem Singh, there were other 3 or 4 police personals, who had also taken drinks. This incident was also mentioned to Ladu Ram. This was also mentioned in the F. I. R. that at the police station, when they went to see Prem Singh, there were other 3 or 4 police personals, who had also taken drinks. It was also mentioned in the F. I. R. that on asking for return of V. C. R. , they threatened that they would be involved in some case, even a demand of money was also made. The F. I. R. was recorded and investigation was conducted by Jaswant Singh, P. W. 28. The proceedings under Sec. 176 of Cr. P. C. in regard to the death of deceased Ghisulal, was also conducted by S. D. M. , Sojat, Prem Singh was arrested vide Ex. P/9. Prem Singh had also handed over V. C. R. and cassette belonging to the deceased to the Investigating Officer vide Ex. P /9. The dead body of the deceased was examined by the Board of Doctors Le. Dr. Mahaveerlal Bafna P. W. 13, Dr. Shrilal P. W. 20 and Dr. Arvind Kumar P. W. 26 at 3. 15 P. M. to 5. 25 P. M. on 21-10-1994 vide Ex. P/li. The cause of the death mentioned in the report was an injury on the head. Some oral haemorrage was found in brain. Death of Ghisulal was caused in the police barrack of the police station, Sojat. The F. S. L. Report of the small and big intestine, liver, kidney, spleen, heart and lungs were also procured vide Ex. P/22, which were found to be as negative so far any poison etc. was concerned. The accused had denied the allegations in the statements under Sec. 313 of Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the prosecution, P. W. 1 Tarachand, P. W. 2 Kishore Kumar, P. W. 3 Mohanlal, P. W. 4 Ladu Singh, P. W. 5 Babu Singh, P. W. 6 Trilok Singh, P. W. 7 Mahendra Singh, P. W. 8 Jai Narain, P. W. 9 Lalit Prakash, P. W. 10 Rokarchand, P. W. 11 Mahipal Singh, P. W. 12 Krishan Ram, P. W. 13 Dr. Mahaveer Lal Bafna, P. W. 14 Satya Narain, P. W. 15 Narainlal Sam, P. W. 16 Bhanwar Dan, P. W. 17 Amar Singh, P. W. 18 Krishanlal, P. W. 19 Jaiveer Singh, and other prosecution witnesses, total in number 29 were produced. Mahaveer Lal Bafna, P. W. 14 Satya Narain, P. W. 15 Narainlal Sam, P. W. 16 Bhanwar Dan, P. W. 17 Amar Singh, P. W. 18 Krishanlal, P. W. 19 Jaiveer Singh, and other prosecution witnesses, total in number 29 were produced. After recording of the statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. of the accused, the accused had produced in defence D. W. 1 Chhaganlal and D. W. 2 Chhaviraj Singh. ( 4 ) OF course, there is no direct eye-witness to the occurrence leading to death of the Ghisulal, nor there could be any in the circumstances, if the death has been caused in the police station, sometime after 11. 00 P. M. of 20th October, 1991. It is one of that case, where the police officers are misusing the powers, by using third degree methods in the police stations, on the persons who are called for interrogation or visit in police station or otherwise as well, but in the present case, it seems that death has been caused in the police station, of the accused Ghisulal who was not required for any interrogation but had dared to enter the police station, only for asking the return of his own V. C. R. said to have been snatched by Prem Singh, Constable. It is admitted fact that even as per defence that Prem Singh, Constable was in the police station. It is also admitted fact that V. C. R was also handed over by said Prem Singh to the Investigating Officer. It is, also admitted fact that Prem Singh in the defence as well, under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. had taken a plea that Ghisulal was one of his guests of the police station and he had slept in the police station but does not know, the cause of his death. A heavy burden was cast on the prosecution to prove the cause and the person responsible for causing death of Ghisulal, specially when death had occurred, admittedly in the police station, sometime in the mid-night, no independent witnesses except police personnels in the police station, could have assisted the prosecution. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances, the prosecution was burdened with the responsibility of providing (1) the motive or interest of Prem Singh, Constable in causing death of Prem Singh. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances, the prosecution was burdened with the responsibility of providing (1) the motive or interest of Prem Singh, Constable in causing death of Prem Singh. (2) previous conduct of Prem Singh, appellant just a few hours before the death of Ghisulal, (3) visit of the deceased with others to the police station at the relevant time and to ask for return of V. C. R. and talks held between accused and P. W. 1 at the police station, (4) evidence in regard to staying of the deceased at the police station on 20-101991 after P. W. 1 had left him at the police station, (5) the dead body of the deceased found to be in police station, (6) the conduct of the appellant in forcing the relatives of the deceased to take away dead body from the police station, (7) the hue and cry raised by the public at the death of deceased Ghisulal in the police station, (8) downing shutters of the market in protest against the death of Ghisulal in the police station, (9) visit of the Superintendent of Police and receiving the complaint by the police, and (10) the injuries found by the Police Officer /magistrate, during enquiry at the body of the deceased apart from fatal injury, etc. etc. ( 6 ) THE abovementioned were the some factors for the prosecution to prove the complete chain of evidence against the appellant in linking him with the murder of Ghisulal. ( 7 ) THE prosecution has produced Tarachand P. W. 1, who has narrated the story as mentioned in the F. I. R. he has stated that on 20th October, 1991 they i. e. he, Ghisulal and Kishore Kumar Sindhi had reached from Pali, after getting their. V. C. Rs. repaired. Ghisu had got his V. C. R. repaired from Trilok Singh, and then, they had boarded bus at about 9. 15 P. M. for Sojat and had reached Sojat Bus Stand after one hour. He has further stated that he went to his Video House, leaving Ghisulal and Kishore Kumar at the bus stand, and after some time, Ghisulal and Kishore Kumar met him and he was told by Ghisulal that his V. C. R. has been taken away by Prem Singh, Constable of the police station. He has further stated that he went to his Video House, leaving Ghisulal and Kishore Kumar at the bus stand, and after some time, Ghisulal and Kishore Kumar met him and he was told by Ghisulal that his V. C. R. has been taken away by Prem Singh, Constable of the police station. He has further requested that in case, he knows Prem Singh, then he should help him to get his V. C. R. returned to him he tried to meet Prem Singh in Kumbharo Ka Bas but was told that Prem Singh does not live there any more and it was decided to meet Prem Singh at the Police Station. Prem Singh, appellant had met them at the police station and was requested to return the V. C. R. Other persons were also sleeping in the police station. P. W. 1 was firmly told by Prem Singh not to interfere and to run away from the police station and that, he would deal with the matter with Ghisulal directly. He left Ghisulal at the police station and went to his house. Next morning, he was informed by a relative of Ghisulal and that Ghisulal had died in the police station and both of them went to Anand Bhati and told him the whole story and then went to the police station. The Superintendent of Police was also informed and he had also come to the police station. The Superintendent of Police was told all the details and a report Ex. P. 1, was given to the Superintendent of Police in this regard. He had further stated that when he had left Ghisulal at the police station, Ghisulal deceased was in a perfect good condition of health. ( 8 ) HE has further stated that when the Superintendent of Police has come to the Sojat City, whole of the Bazar was closed, as protest on account of death of Ghisulal. He was joined in the investigation. More than 100 residents of the City including relatives of the deceased, had collected in the police station. Kishore Kumar was also there and he was also investigated by the Superintendent of Police. ( 9 ) P. W. 2 Kishore Kumar, who had also accompanied P. W. 1 and the deceased from Pali, has corroborated statement of P. W. 1 Tarachand. Kishore Kumar was also there and he was also investigated by the Superintendent of Police. ( 9 ) P. W. 2 Kishore Kumar, who had also accompanied P. W. 1 and the deceased from Pali, has corroborated statement of P. W. 1 Tarachand. He has stated that they had travelled from Pall to Sojat City and deboarded at the. Bus stand. Prem Singh had met them at the shop of Panwala at the bus stand, who was sitting there on the bench. On this very bench, Ghisu and Tarachand had placed their V. C. Rs. and Prem Singh had lifted one V. C. R. , which was in the bag. Prem Singh, accused started asking of the papers of the V. C. R. and further directed the V. C. R. shall only be given back if the documents of the V. C. R. are produced before him. He has further stated that he along with deceased went to Tarachand, P. W. 1 and narrated the action of Prem Singh in taking away the V. C. R. of Ghisulal. He had also deposed that Tarachand and Ghisu went to the police station. Next morning, he had come to know that Ghisu had died in the police station he went to police station and found a large gathering in the police station. In addition to above two witnesses, who have narrated the part played by Prem Singh, the appellant in snatching the V. C. R. from Ghisulal, the prosecution has produced P. W. 3 Mohanlal, an AS. I, who was stated that on 20th October, 1991 from 10. 00 P. M. to 2. 00 AM. , Amar Singh, Constable was on the sentry duty in the police station, Sojat and Mahipal was on the wireless duty. He felt sleepy at about 11. 00 P. M. and slept on the bench and got up only at 4. 00 A. M. He goes on to say that at about 11. 00 A. M, on the next day, he was told that one Sunar was called by Prem Singh, Constable driver in the barrack and that Sunar had died. On hearing this, he after putting on his uniform, went to the office and came to know that name of Sunar was Ghisulal, whose V. C. R. was brought by Prem Singh, constable driver. On hearing this, he after putting on his uniform, went to the office and came to know that name of Sunar was Ghisulal, whose V. C. R. was brought by Prem Singh, constable driver. This, Ghisulal was kept in the barrack, when he had come to the police station. Prem Singh was not on duty because of the reason that the police vehicle was out of order. He goes on to say that because of the reason that he was feeling sleepy, he could not hear any noise of beating given to Ghisulal, nor he was told any such thing by Amar Singh, Sentry or Sentry Prabhu Dan or Prem Singh, because of the reason that he was feeling sleepy, he cannot say as to when Prem Singh, appellant had come to the police station with V. C. R. and as to when Ghisulal had come to the police station. ( 10 ) P. W. 6 Trilok Chand, has been produced by the prosecution to depose that Ghisulal and Tarachand had come to him for getting their V. C. Rs. repaired and he had repaired V. C. R. of Ghisulal and after taking V. C. Rs. these persons have left the shop. ( 11 ) P. W. 8 Jai Narain has deposed that on 21-10-1991 he has informed by Jugal that dead body of Ghisulal is lying in the police station and he along with others went to Anand Bhati, and later on, four of them went to the police station. In his presence, the S. D. O. had also come there in the police station site plan was prepared at the spot. He was one of the Motbir witness along with Anandji, satyanarain etc. The site plan Ex. p /5 bear his signature. Ex. p /6 is the exhibit which depicts the condition of the dead body and it bears his signature. There were, injuries marks on the back of Ghisulal, which were reddish and greenish in colour, P. W. 9 is Lalit Prakash, son of deceased Ghisulal. He has narrated that on 21-10-1991 in the morning time, he was visited by Narainji and later on, he found dead body of his father lying in the police station, Sojat. He and P. W. 10 Rokar Chand had visited the police station and they were asked to take the dead body to their home, to which they refused. He has narrated that on 21-10-1991 in the morning time, he was visited by Narainji and later on, he found dead body of his father lying in the police station, Sojat. He and P. W. 10 Rokar Chand had visited the police station and they were asked to take the dead body to their home, to which they refused. They had asked for investigation in the matter and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them vide Ex. P. 7 which bears signature of P. W. 10. The clothes of the deceased Ghisulal, were sealed and exhibited as Ex. P. 8. P. W. 10 also states that on the dead body of Ghisulal was seen, there were 34 injury marks of bluish colour and there was one injury at the head also. Mahipal Singh is another police witness P. W. 11, who says that he was on duty of wireless. He confirms that Amar singh, Santry was on duty from 10. 00 P. M. to 2. 00 AM. Even though, this witness has been produced as prosecution witness but this witness goes to the extent in saying that Ghisu Lal had come to the police station as guest of Prem Singh and he had seen a stranger, may be Ghisulal, sleeping at a cot and he slept up to 5. 00 A. M. and he was told by one Krishanlal that guest of Prem Singh, who was sleeping at the cot, had died. Dr. Mahaveer, P. W. 23 and Dr. Lal, P. W. 20 had examined Ghisulal, deceased, aged about 45 years as members of the Medical Board. The dead body of Ghisulal was brought by Jaswant Singh, C. I. of Pali and another member of the Board P. W. 26 Dr. Arvind Kumar Nawal, examined the dead body. They found swelling on the left peranto occipital region of 5 cm. x 4 cm. and also found clotted blood of 8 cm. x 6 cm. under the bone and the skin of such swelling, when they opened it. The brain was congested and because of injuries on it, sub-dural haemotoma was found of red colour. This injury was found to be sufficient for causing death. The cause of death had been given by the Board of Doctors vide Ex. P/12. x 6 cm. under the bone and the skin of such swelling, when they opened it. The brain was congested and because of injuries on it, sub-dural haemotoma was found of red colour. This injury was found to be sufficient for causing death. The cause of death had been given by the Board of Doctors vide Ex. P/12. Another police official, produced as prosecution witness is Amar Singh, P. W. 17 who is said to be on duty on the night of 20th October, 1991 from 10. 00 P. M. to 2. 00 AM, as a Sentry. He had stated that Mohanlal, AS. I. was on duty but he stated that Mohanlal, P. W. 3 had slept on the bench at about 9. 00 or 10. 00. Prem Singh, appellant had come at the police station at about 11. 30 accompanied by Ghisulal and Prem Singh had introduced to him this Ghisulal as his guest. Ghisulal was having in his hand a bag. Ghisulal and Prem Singh had been talking up to 12. 00 and found Ghisulal, later on sleeping on the cot of Mahipal, and after giving charge to one Prabhulal, he went to sleep on another cot. He had asked Prem Singh at about 6. 30 A. M. as to how, his guest was sleeping even up to this time and Prem Singh had told him that because of the reason, they had been talking quite late, therefore, the guest is, perhaps, in the sound sleep. But after some time, Prem Singh came and told that Ghisulal had died and in charge Bajrang Das was informed. Similar is the version given by another police official, who has been produced as P. W. 18. There is no difference in the statement of P. W. 17 and P. W. 18 who had tried to show that Ghisulal had come as guest to the police station after 11. 30 P. M. and slept there. Apart from above, the prosecution has produced P. W. 19 Jaiveer Singh, private driver stating that nothing had happened in the police station. ( 12 ) P. W. 22 Shailendra Kumar Shrimali, had been produced by the prosecution who had held an enquiry into unnatural death of Ghisulal and had prepared Najari Naksha Ex. P /20. Apart from above, the prosecution has produced P. W. 19 Jaiveer Singh, private driver stating that nothing had happened in the police station. ( 12 ) P. W. 22 Shailendra Kumar Shrimali, had been produced by the prosecution who had held an enquiry into unnatural death of Ghisulal and had prepared Najari Naksha Ex. P /20. He had found in his preliminary enquiry that Ghisulal had died because of the injury given at his head and also because of the reason of some quarrel between appellant and Ghisulal for V. C. R. He had sent his enquiry to the District Collector. He had also recorded the statements of number of witnesses including P. W. 1 Tarachand, P. W. 2 Kishore Kumar, P. W. 4 Ladu Singh, etc. The prosecution had also produced P. W. 24 Prabhu Dan, police official of the same police station, who goes to say that Ghisulal had come to the police station ani was guest of Prem Singh, appellant and P. W. 28 Jaswant Singh, who was police station in charge of Kotwali Pali on 21-10-1991 and had accompanied Superintendent of Police to Sojat and was handed over F. I. R. relating to the Police Station, Sojat for investigation. He had recorded statement of number of witnesses. V. C. R. was handed over to him by Prem Singh at 6. 30 A. M, on 21-10-1991. ( 13 ) IN the statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant Prem Singh had taken defence that deceased Ghisulal was his friend and he had come to the police station to him and because of the late hours, he had stayed in the police station itself. He had denied of any torture given to Ghisulal. Apart from above, D. W. 1 Chagganlal and D. W. 2 Chhaviraj Singh had been produced by the defence who deposed that they were in the police station, in connection with certain cases and they did not see any beating, rather Prem Singh and Ghisulal had been talking with each other and cutting jokes and they had slept in the barrack. ( 14 ) APART from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also, brought on record Ex. P /5 spot inspection report as required under Sec. 176 of Cr. P. C. , prepared on 21-10-1991, Ex. P/6 spot enquiry, prepared by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sojat under Sec. 176 of Cr. ( 14 ) APART from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also, brought on record Ex. P /5 spot inspection report as required under Sec. 176 of Cr. P. C. , prepared on 21-10-1991, Ex. P/6 spot enquiry, prepared by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sojat under Sec. 176 of Cr. P. C. Both the exhibits are attested by the independent witnesses Anand Bhati, and Jainarain, Clothes of the accused were also sealed vide Ex. P /8 on 21st October, 1991. Recovery of V. C. R. was also made and sealed by Jaswant Singh, S. H. O. P. W. 28, vide recovery memo Ex. P /10 which is also signed by Prem Singh, appellan. Ex. P/li is the postmortem report conducted by three doctors of the Medical Board. The dead body was brought by Jaswant Singh, C. I. , S. H. O. Pali for conducting post mortem. Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Sojat and Addi. Superintendent of Police, Pali were also present at the time of post-mortem. The Board of Doctors had opined vide Ex. P /12 that cause of death is to be head injury. Naksha Najarit was also prepared by the S. D. M. vide Ex. P/ 20. F. S. L. reports were received vide Ex. P /22 and from the result of the chemical examination of the portion of visera, a negative report was received in regard to metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates and insecticides. ( 15 ) THE trial court, after linking the chain of events had come to the conclusion after considering the circumstances, and prosecution evidence, that appellant Prem Singh was guilty of the offence charged. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, had vehemently argued that it has not been proved on record that the appellant was a person responsible for killing deceased. ( 17 ) THE only question which arises for consideration is whether there is link of chain to connect the appellant with the murder. To our opinion, the prosecution has clearly established all the links and circumstances leading to such murder in the police station itself. Even according to the defence, it is admitted fact and has also been proved by the prosecution that Ghisulal, deceased was present in the police station on the night of 20th October, 1991. To our opinion, the prosecution has clearly established all the links and circumstances leading to such murder in the police station itself. Even according to the defence, it is admitted fact and has also been proved by the prosecution that Ghisulal, deceased was present in the police station on the night of 20th October, 1991. The story of the defence, brought out by way of defence evidence, cannot be believed to the fact that deceased was a friend of appellant, Prem Singh, and he had come with Prem Singh to the police station and they had been gossiping till late night in the police station and in the morning, he was found dead. To our mind, there cannot be more absurd defence than this. If, a friendship between deceased and appellant is believed, the injuries caused on the deceased on that unfortunate night,. do tell, a different story. The prosecution has proved by reliable evidence through P. W. 1 Tarachand and P. W. 2 Kishore Kumar that Prem Singh, appellant did, take away V. C. R. of the deceased, forcibly with him to the police station on a false pretext. It was but natural for the deceased to have visited police station, to recover his V. C. R. It is in the evidence, brought by the prosecution that deceased and P. W. Tarachand, did meet Prem Singh, appellant in the police station at about 11. 00 P. M. on 20th October, 1991 and requested him to return the V. C. R. It is also in the evidence that it was Prem Singh who had asked Tarachand to get lost and that he would deal with Ghisulal himself. Tarachand was made to run from the place and when at the time he had left the police station, deceased was in the company of Prem Singh, appellant. This part of the story put forward by the prosecution is, natural and truthful. After the deceased is left with Prem Singh, appellant in the police station, it is Prem Singh, with, whom the deceased is last seen. It is Prem Singh, appellant who had snatched, or forcibly taken away the V. C. R. from the deceased at the bus stand. It is again appellant who admits that he was present in the police station on that fateful night. It is Prem Singh, appellant who had snatched, or forcibly taken away the V. C. R. from the deceased at the bus stand. It is again appellant who admits that he was present in the police station on that fateful night. It seems that after Tarachand had left Prem Singh with a motive to grab the V. C. R. or to show his might, did use force so brutely, that ultimately killed Ghisulal. ( 18 ) FROM the evidence of the prosecution, as discussed above, it has again come on record that Prem Singh, appellant had sent messages to the relatives of the deceased to take away the dead body of Ghisulal, from the police station. The rum our of killing of Ghisulal in the police station, spread like wild fire in the city of the Sojat. The residents of Sojat accompanied by relatives of the deceased, refused to take the dead body from the police station. The market was closed as a protest and I shutters were down. This has come in the evidence of the prosecution that social spirited person informed the Superintendent of Police, Pali, with the result that immediately i. e. on 21st October, 1991; itself the Superintendent of Police, appointed one Jaswant Singh, C. I. , P. W. to investigate the matter. The S. D. M. Sojat completed the proceedings as required under Sec. 176 of the Cr. P. C, on the same day. The evidence collected by the police during the investigation point out to guilt of the appellant. All these Circumstallcesand the evidence, do link Prem Singh, appellant with the committing of murder. The other police official, who are, said to be present in the police station i. e. Mahipal P. W. 1 I, Wireless Operator, Amar Singh P. W. 17. Sentry, Mohanlal A. S. I,. P. W, 3 of Sojat have categorically stated that deceased was seen with Prem Singh, appellant. Even though, they had tried to give a twist to the, prosecution story, by deposing that deceased had come to the police station as a friend and guest of appellant which is not believable. it is a common knowledge that police officers of the same police station, where similar type happening occur, do try to save their colleague. The conduct of these three persons is certainly unnatural and not appreciable. it is a common knowledge that police officers of the same police station, where similar type happening occur, do try to save their colleague. The conduct of these three persons is certainly unnatural and not appreciable. It cannot be believed that Mohanlal, P. W. 3 had slept at 11. 00 P. M. and woke up only after 5-6 A. M. when was supposed to be on duty throughout the night. It is the, conduct of Mahipal and, Amar Singh. P. Ws. of Sojat Police Station, Thus, prosecution witnesses of 1997 Page 8 of 8 the police station, Sojat had tried to hold wink law, riot only by concealing the truth but also giving a twist to the prosecution story in order to save one of the colleague, It is a case, where the police authorities should have ought have started some proceedings against such police officials who had tried to conceal the truth from the court in order to save the skin of his colleague. Prem Singh, appellant is a driver constable. Primarily, his functions are to be driving of the police vehicle. It is unimaginable that he would be permitted to act in the manner he had acted. It is unimaginable that one citizen, dies in the police station on whom, fatal violence has been used but still none of the police officials of the police station are prepared to come forward to assist the law. The finding of guilt and conviction of the appellant cannot be interfered with. The guilt of the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. ( 19 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that because of the reason that there is only one head injury, and that too in the absence of any evidence, and the weapon used, and there being no other injuries on body of the deceased, as per medical report of the Panel of Doctors Ex. P /11 and P /12, the intention of appellant could not have been to cause death. If the appellant wanted to cause death, there would have been the severe injuries. In the present case, there is one injury on the hear which unfortunately resulted in the death of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon the judgment reported in Panchaiah and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, which authority squarely covers the nature of injury as inflicted in the present case. In the present case, there is one injury on the hear which unfortunately resulted in the death of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon the judgment reported in Panchaiah and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, which authority squarely covers the nature of injury as inflicted in the present case. The Apex Court set aside the conviction under Sec. 302 and convicted an accused under Sec. 304 Part II I. P. C. in that case. He has also relied on another case reported in Sadasivan, Mohanachandran v. State of Kerala, where the death had occurred in the police custody. The conviction of police official was maintained under Sec. 304 Part II. In the present case also, there is only one injury on the head and there is no evidence as to what type of weapon had been used. There is no external bleeding injury inflicted on the head was sufficient to cause death, about which the appellant had the knowledge. Therefore, it shall be appropriate in the circumstances of the case that conviction of the appellant under Sec. 302 I. P. C. be set aside and he be convicted under Sec. 304 Part II of the I. P. C. and the order is accordingly passed. The other sentences already awarded by the trial court under Sees. 379 and 342 I. P. C. are maintained. ( 20 ) FOR the reason that, the appellant has now been convicted under Sec. 304 Part II of I. P. C. , and in the circumstances of the case, when appellant, a police officer had killed the deceased being police official in the police station, he is not entitled to any leniency in regard to award of punishment under Sec. 304 Part II I. P. C. and therefore, he is convicted for 10 years R. I. under Sec. 304 Part II with the same fine as awarded by Trial Court. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed partly