Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. By this common judgment we will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 22-DB of 1997 and Criminal Revision No. 95 of 1997. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 22-DB of 1997 has been filed against the judgment dated 11.12.1996 of the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, whereby appellants Tara Singh alias Jagtar Singh, Nirbhay Singh, Gora Singh and Hakam Singh have been convicted under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo further R.I. for two years. 3. The prosecution case is unfolded by PW-3 Gulzar Singh son of Pal Singh. He has stated that he is a resident of Gurusar Sainewala. He has three sons Karnail Singh, Paramjit Singh and Gurnam Singh. Paramjit Singh was employed as a Driver in a mini-bus of Bhullar Transport. Apart from being an employee, his son also had a share in Bhullar Transport. On 3.2.1994 at 12O clock, Mohinder Singh resident of Rai Khanna had come to meet the complainant. Mohinder Singh and the complainant had a joint plot at Bhatinda and he had come to discuss a few things regarding this plot. After the discussion had concluded, complainants wife Jangir Kaur, Mohinder Singh and the complainant went towards Bus Stop Gurusar Sainewala to see off Mohinder Singh. His son Paramjit Singh after taking his meals, was going ahead of them towards the bus-stop. When Paramjit Singh reached near the field of Kirpal Singh at about 12.30 p.m. appellant Gora Singh armed with a Khabra,Tara Singh armed with a Kulhari and Nirbhay Singh armed with a Gandasa and Hakam Singh empty-handed, came towards the bus-stop on cycles. They surrounded Paramjit Singh and after taking him on one side of the road in Barseen (fodder) field, Hakam Singh then raised a lalkara and appellants Tara Singh, Nirbhay Singh and Gora Singh inflicted several injuries on Paramjit Singh. Gulzar Singh along his wife and Mohinder Singh tried to save Paramnjit Singh, but they were threatened by the appellants. The motive for committing the crime was that the mother of appellant Tara Singh i.e. Basant Kaur widow of Kaur Singh left her house on 31.1.1994. Appellants suspected that Paramjit Singh had taken her away. 4. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box PW-1 Dr. Naresh Kumar, PW-2 Dr. The motive for committing the crime was that the mother of appellant Tara Singh i.e. Basant Kaur widow of Kaur Singh left her house on 31.1.1994. Appellants suspected that Paramjit Singh had taken her away. 4. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box PW-1 Dr. Naresh Kumar, PW-2 Dr. Khem Raj Bansal, PW-3 Gulzar Singh, PW-4 Jangir Kaur, PW-5 ASI Nachattar Singh and PW-6 ASI Joga Singh. 5. Appellants and the complainant-party are closely related to each other. Their relationship is shown in the diagram as under 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that the occurrence did not take place at 12.30 p.m., on 3.2.1994, but somewhere between 7 to 8 a.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Civil Hospital is between 9 to 14 kms. Jangir Kaur (PW-4) has stated in her testimony that deceased Paramjit Singh used to take his meals at 7 a.m. and then leave for his work. She has further stated that the police recorded her statement at 12 noon. PW-3 Gulzar Singhs statement Ex.PF was recorded on 3.2.1994 at 5.30 p.m. by PW-5 ASI Nachhattar Singh. Formal F.I.R. Ex.PF/2 was recorded on 3.2.1994 at 7 p.m. Prosecution used these 10 hours from 7 a.m. till 5.30 p.m. on 3.2.1994 for consultations and confabulations to falsely implicate the appellants. Jangir Kaur (PW-4) has stated in her testimony that her statement was recorded at 12 noon on 3.2.1994. She is an eye-witness to the occurrence. The Investigating Officer should have recorded the F.I.R. on her statement. With these sequence of events, it comes out that the occurrence had taken place sometime between 7 to 8 a.m. Statement of PW-4 Jangir Kaur was recorded at 12 noon but the registration of the F.I.R. was deliberately delayed till 7 p.m. 7. The conduct of the eye-witnesses is suspect. PW-3 Gulzar Singh is the father of deceased Paramjit Singh and PW-4 Jangir Kaur is the mother of the deceased. It is not a case where the appellants/assailants were not known to them. They did not make any effort to confront the appellants and save their son who was being attacked and injured in front of their eyes. Non- intervention on their part belies their claim of being present on the spot. 8. It is not a case where the appellants/assailants were not known to them. They did not make any effort to confront the appellants and save their son who was being attacked and injured in front of their eyes. Non- intervention on their part belies their claim of being present on the spot. 8. The motive introduced by the prosecution that deceased elopped with Basant Kaur the widowed wife of Kaur Singh is not believable. Basant Kaur was 50 years old. Deceased Paramjit Singh was 30 years of age. It is not imaginable that a young boy of 30 years would elope with his old aunt of 50 years of age. 9. The cause of death is due to the negligence shown on the part of the doctors attending to the deceased. Out of 21 injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased, 18 injuries are on the arms and legs. Three injuries are in the head region. Death in this case was due to excessive bleeding for which the doctors are responsible, life of the deceased could have been saved. 10. Appellant Hakam Singh has brought into the witness-box three defence witnesses DW-1 Fakir Chand alias Gandhi, DW-2 Sukhdev Singh and DW-3 A.S. Waraich, D.S.P. (Rural). Hakam Singh has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was plying his truck and carrying goods of Aggarwal Sanitary Store, Bhatinda to Muktsar to be delivered to Jain Sanitary Store at Muktsar. He had shown all the relevant documents to the Investigating Officer which were verified by D.S.P. Amrik Singh. Hakam Singh was found innocent. It is alleged by the prosecution that at the time of occurrence, appellant Hakam Singh was not carrying any weapon in his hand. It is strange that though the other three appellants namely Tara Singh, Nirbhay Singh and Gora Sirgh were armed with Gandasa, Kulhari, Khaprarespectively, Hakam Singh was empty- handed. 11. Learned counsel for the State has stated that occurrence took place on 3.2.1994 at 12.00 noon. Bed-head ticket Ex.PC and medico-legal report Ex.PA show that deceased had reached the hospital on 3.2.1994 at 12.15 p.m. Distance between the place of occurrence and the hospital is about 8 to 10 kilometres. The doctor has opined that all the injuries were freshly bleeding, meaning thereby that the deceased had been brought to the hospital with no loss of time. The doctor has opined that all the injuries were freshly bleeding, meaning thereby that the deceased had been brought to the hospital with no loss of time. PW-4 Jangir Kaur has stated correctly that deceased used to go at 7 or ,7.30 a.m. to his place of work, but on the day of occurrence, he left at about 12 noon. Jangir Kaur being a lady, had inadvertently stated that her statement had been recorded on 3.2.1994 at 12 noon. The Investigating Officer PW-5 ASI Nachhattar Singh stated that he reached the spot at 5.45 p.m., on 3.2.1994 after PW-3 Gulzar Singh had given his statement. Injuries on the person of deceased were inflicted within 2/3 minutes. Appellants saw Paramjit Singh coming and on seeing him, they surrounded him and inflicted 21 injuries on his person. PW-3 Gulzar Singh has stated that they came forward to save Paramjit Singh, but appellants threatened them. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 13. The arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants that occurrence had taken place on 3.2.1994 between 7 a.m. to 8 a.m., does not appeal to reason. Learned counsel for the appellants has laid much stress on the statement of PW-4 Jangir Kaur to this effect that Paramjit Singh used to leave his house at 7 or 7.30 a.m. This is a truthful statement by Jangir Kaur that deceased used to leave his house at 7 or 7.30 a.m., Paramjit Singh used to go to his place of work i.e. Bhatinda by bus which was 10 to 12 kilometres away. PW-4 Jangir Kaur in her testimony before the Court has stated that on the day of occurrence, Paramjit Singh left at about 12 noon. He was carrying a tiffin in which there was food for his Conductor. There is nothing unusual for the deceased to have left for Bhatinda at 12 noon on 3.2.1994. 14. PW-1 Dr. Naresh Kumar has stated in his testimony that on 3.2.1994 at 3.35 p.m., he conducted medico-legal examination on Paramjit Singh. The bed- head ticket Ex.PC and the medico-legal report Ex.PA show that injured Paramjit Singh reached the hospital at 12.15 p.m. on 3.2.1994. The medico-legal report Ex.PA further states that PW-3 Gulzar Singh is the person who brought him. All the injuries were freshly bleeding. The bed- head ticket Ex.PC and the medico-legal report Ex.PA show that injured Paramjit Singh reached the hospital at 12.15 p.m. on 3.2.1994. The medico-legal report Ex.PA further states that PW-3 Gulzar Singh is the person who brought him. All the injuries were freshly bleeding. Vide endorsement Ex.PB/1 at 4.35 p.m. on 3.2.1994, PW-1 Dr. Naresh Kumar opined that Paramjit Singh was not fit to make statement. Statement of PW-3 Gulzar Singh was recorded. The doctor (PW-1) further stated that though the patient reported at 12.15 p.m. on 3.2.1994, the formal medico-legal report was prepared at 3.45 p.m. It is clear from these documents that occurrence had taken place not more than half an hour before injured Paramjit Singh (since deceased) reached the hospital. He was brought to the hospital in a car which was owned by one Natha Singh. The distance between the hospital and the place of occurrence is about 8 kilometres. One can safely presume that occurrence had taken place between, 11.30 a.m. to 12 noon on 3.2.1994. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant had argued that the occurrence had taken place between 7 to 8 a.m. on 3.2.1994. It is clear from the documents Exhibits PA and PB that Paramjit Singh had reached the hospital at 12.15 p.m. on 3.2.1994. It cannot be imagined that from 7 to 7.30 a.m. till 12.15 p.m. on 3.2.1994, injured Paramjit Singh who had suffered 21 serious injuries on his person, was not given any medical aid. PW-1 Dr. Naresh Kumar has opined that all the injuries were freshly bleeding. Paramjit Singh would have bled to death between 7.00/7.30 a.m. to 12.15 p.m. on 3.2.1994, if he had not been immediately brought to the hospital for medical care. 16. In her testimony before the Court PW-4 Jangir Kaur has stated that her statement was recorded at 12 noon. This is an inadvertent lapse on the part of this witness who is a lady. Her statement could not have been recorded at 12 noon, as the Investigating Officer PW-5 ASI Nachhattar Singh has stated that police party reached the place of occurrence at about 4.45 p.m. on 3.2.1994. They remained at the spot for 2-1/2 hours. It is after the police party reached at the spot, that the statement of PW-4 Jangir Kaur was recorded. 17. They remained at the spot for 2-1/2 hours. It is after the police party reached at the spot, that the statement of PW-4 Jangir Kaur was recorded. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has laid much stress on the conduct of the eye-witnesses that they did not intervene. No doubt, PW-3 Gulzar Singh is the father and PW-4 Jangir Kaur is the mother of the deceased, but from the testimony of these witnesses it is clear that PW-3 and PW-4 along with Mohinder Singh tried to intervene, but they were threatened by the appellants. This has been corroborated by the F.I.R. Ex.PF/2. PW-3 Gulzar Singh has stated that within 2/3 minutes, appellants inflicted injuries and ran away. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Paramjit Singh died due to the negligence shown on the part of the doctors who were attending on him. Injuries were inflicted on the person of Paramjit Singh on 3.2.1994 and he died on 6.3.1994. The cause of death was not due to the injuries inflicted, but due to the negligence shown by the doctor in not giving him medical treatment in time. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants does not cut any ice. 21 injuries were inflicted on the person of the deceased. Injury No. 1 is an incised wound on the fore-head. Injury No. 2 is an incised would on the top of the head. Injury No. 3 is on the back of the head. Injuries Nos. 4 to 21 are on the leg, arms and hands of deceased Paramjit Singh. PW-1 Dr. Naresh Kumar has opined that injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20 were caused with sharp- edged weapons, whereas injuries Nos. 14, 16, 17, 18 and 21 were caused by blunt weapon. There is a note in the bed-head ticket that patient was losing blood continuously. This note was given after an injection of Mephetine was given for the purpose of raising the blood-pressure of the patient. On 4.2.1994, condition of the patient was noted as moderate and conscious. Same condition was noted on 5.2.1994. The patient became serious on 6.2.1994 and he developed respiratory distress. In the bed-head ticket, it has been mentioned that patient died due to cardiac arrest. 19. PW-2 Dr. Khem Chand Bansal stated that injuries Nos. On 4.2.1994, condition of the patient was noted as moderate and conscious. Same condition was noted on 5.2.1994. The patient became serious on 6.2.1994 and he developed respiratory distress. In the bed-head ticket, it has been mentioned that patient died due to cardiac arrest. 19. PW-2 Dr. Khem Chand Bansal stated that injuries Nos. 1, 6, 11, 16, 18 and 19 were grievous in nature. In his post-mortem report, a total number of 19 injuries have been stated. In the opinion of the doctor (PW-2), the cause of death was due to shock as a result of injuries which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It is clear from the testimony of both the doctors (PW-1 and PW-2) that death of Paramjit Singh is a direct result of the injuries inflicted on him. As per report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PZ, Gandasa Ex.P1, Khapra Ex.P2, Kulhari Ex.P3 which were used in the commission of offence, were stained with human blood. 20. Appellant Hakam Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that on the day of occurrence, he had taken the goods from Aggarwal Sanitary Store, Bhatinda which were to be delivered at Muktsar on his truck. He has brought into the witness-box DW-1 Fakir Chand alias Gandhi who was working as a Clerk in the Truck Union. He has stated that goods were booked on that day of the occurrence, i.e. 3.2.1994. Truck No. PAR-1987 was assigned the work of taking the goods from Aggarwal Sanitary Store, Bhatinda to Muktsar. Goods were registered as per booking at 10.15 a.m. He made announcement at 10.30 a.m. Goods were allotted to Truck No. PAR-1987 belonging to appellant Hakam Singh. Entry was made in the booking register. Appellant Hakam Singh had taken the goods on his truck to Muktsar and he returned from Muktsar at 4 p.m. He placed on record the booking register, announcement and the freight rates. Photostat copies of these documents are Exhibits DG, DG, and DH. 21. DW-2 Sukhdev Singh has stated that he was a conductor on truck No. PAR-1987. He reiterated that he along with appellant Hakam Singh went to Muktsar and delivered the sanitary goods at Muktsar. 22. Photostat copies of these documents are Exhibits DG, DG, and DH. 21. DW-2 Sukhdev Singh has stated that he was a conductor on truck No. PAR-1987. He reiterated that he along with appellant Hakam Singh went to Muktsar and delivered the sanitary goods at Muktsar. 22. DW-3 A.S. Waraich, D.S.P. has stated that after enquiring into the matter and looking into the records of the Truck Union, he found that Hakam Singh had been falsely implicated. He directed the S.H.O., Police Station Sangat that Hakam Singh be discharged from the case. Discharge application Ex.DE was forwarded by him. 23. No worthwhile cross-examination has been done of these witnesses. Appellant Hakam Singh who as alleged by the prosecution, had also come with a pre-meditated mind along with other appellants to inflict injuries on Paramjit Singh, was not armed with even a stick. He has shown to be empty handed. 24. Appellant Hakam Singh is given the benefit of doubt. Appeal qua appellant Hakam Singh is allowed. He is acquitted of the charge framed against him. 25. The prosecution has fully proved its case against the remaining accused. 26. Appeal qua appellants Tara Singh, Nirbhay Singh and Gora Singh fails and is dismissed. They are on bail and are directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhatinda to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Cr. Revision No. 95 of 1997 27. Criminal Revision No. 95 of 1997 has been filed by the complainant for awarding compeisation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs on account of murder of Paramjit Singh deceased. Criminal Revision is dismissed. However, the complainant can proceed for this relief as per law by availing any other legal remedy available to him.