Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. Sukhdev Singh - since deceased had kept some poultry birds in his village, Lakkarwali. At about 5.00 p.m. on 12th November, 1988, some of the birds went into the dera of the accused Hamir Singh, which was adjoining his house. Sukhdev Singh followed the birds into the dera, on which, Hamir Singh scolded him for letting the birds lose in his dera. Sukhdev Singh told Hamir Singh that the dera did not belong to him alone and as the birds had accidentally entered the dera, no fault could be put on him. On this, accused Hamir Singh lost his temper and inflicted two lathi blows on him (Sukhdev Singh), one the head and another on the chest. The incident was witnessed by PW-3 Manjit Singh and PW-5 Harbans Kaur, wife of Sukhdev Singh, and both of these witness intervened and rescued Sukhdev Singh injured. He was then shifted to Primary Health Centre, Baragudha, where he was medico-legally examined by PW-7 Dr. Raminder Singh at about 7.30 p.m., who found the following two injuries on his person :- "1. A lacerated wound 6 cm x 1 cm placed on right skull on right parietal bone. Freshly clotted blood was present. The wound was bone deep and x-ray was advised. 2. Reddish contusion 8 cm x 2 cm placed horizontally on outer side of right chest". 2. Both these injuries were subsequently found to be simple in nature. The doctor also sent a ruqa Ex.P1 to the Incharge of the Police Station, Baragudha and on receipt of this information, PW-8 ASI Om Parkash arrived there and moved an application Ex.PM at about 9.30 p.m. for ascertaining whether the injured was fit to make a statement or not. Dr. Raminder Singh submitted his opinion into affirmative. The statement of the injured Sukhdev Singh was, thereafter, recorded and on its basis, a Daily Diary Entry was made in the Police Station, at 11.45 p.m. the same night, as no cognizable offence had then been disclosed by then. The injured died on 18th November, 1988 and an F.I.R. for an offence punishable under Section 304(1) of the I.P.C. was thereafter drawn up. The injured died on 18th November, 1988 and an F.I.R. for an offence punishable under Section 304(1) of the I.P.C. was thereafter drawn up. The dead body was also subjected to a post mortem examination and the doctor found a stitched wound 6 cm long on the right of the right parietal region and on dissection, no fracutre of the skull bone was seen. On dissection of injury No. 2, which was on the right side of chest, it was also found that there was no fracture underneath. The doctor opined that the cause of death could not be attributed to the two injuries inflicted by the accused, but was in fact a perforation of the small gut leading to faecal peritonitis which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. As it appeared from the opinion of the doctor that no case had been made out against the accused, S.I. Raghbir Singh recommended the cancellation of the case. The superior police officers and also the trial Magistrate, however, did not agree with the cancellation report and the investigation was handed over to PW-9 S.I. Mange Ram, who on 25th February, 1991, secured the opinion, Ex.PB/1, from PW-1 Dr. Gulab singh that the possibility of the reputure of the intestine of the deceased could have been caused due to the compression injury on his chest, although, such a possibility was remote. The accused was, thereafter, brought to trial for an offence punishable under Section 304(1) of the I.P.C. 3. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution story with regard to the causing of the injuries to the deceased, stood proved from the evidence on record but it nevertheless appeared that there was absolutely no nexus between the injuries and death six days later, as from the opinions rendered of PW-1 Dr. Gulab Singh and PW-7 Dr. Raminder Singh, it was clear that death had been caused not by the injuries in question, but on account of the preforation of the small gut, as a result of which faecal matter had come into the abdominal cavity and led to peritonitis which had caused the death. The accused was, accordingly, convicted for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C., for voluntarily causing simple hurt to the deceased and ordered to be released on probation. The accused was, accordingly, convicted for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C., for voluntarily causing simple hurt to the deceased and ordered to be released on probation. The present appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana, seeking the conviction of the accused for an offence punishable under Section 304(1) of the I.P.C. 4. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court very carefully with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The fate of this appeal would hinge on the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution. PW-7 Dr. Raminder Singh, who had treated the deceased before his death, had found that both the injuries caused were simple in nature. He had also stated that there was no obvious injury on the abdomen of the patient and that the intestines could not have been ruptured because of the injuries caused to the deceased. This opinion was corroborated by the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Gulab Singh, who, on the application made by S.I. Mange Ram, was uncertain in his assessment when he had stated that the possibility of the rupture of intestine due to injury No. 2 could not be ruled out although this possibility was remote. He also opined that the cause of death was preforation of small intestine leading to faecal peritonitis, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no categoric opinion that the injuries caused by the accused had some connection with the death of the deceased. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision is also dismissed. Appeal dismissed.