Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 910 (PNJ)

Kuldip Singh And Anr. v. State Of Punjab

2005-08-29

MEHTAB S.GILL, PRITAM PAL

body2005
Judgment Pritam Pal, J. 1. This appeal by appellants, namely, Kuldip Singh alias Giani and Hardip Singh alias Kala, both sons of Swaran Singh, is directed against the judgment dated 14-5-2004 and order dated 18-5-2004 whereby they have been convicted under Sections 302/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as follows :- - Kuldip Singh, appellant No. 1 Under Sections Sentenced to undergo 302 IPC Life alongwith payment of fine of Rs. 2000/- and in de- fault of payment of fine, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month. 323/34 IPC RI for Nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one month. Hardip Singh. appellant No. 2. 302/34 IPC Life alongwith payment of fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month. 323 IPC RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one month. All the sentences were or- dered to run concurrently. 2 Prosecution story as described and established by the witnesses at the trial, is as under :- - On 5-10-2000, at about 5.00 p.m., com-plainant-Iqbaljit Singh (PW-3) and Arvinder Singh alias Nikka (30 years) (since deceased)were irrigating their photo crop sown in the Wakf Board land which was taken by them on lease in the revenue estate of village Daulo Rayian. The possession of the aforesaid land was taken by the complainant-party from one Kararnjit Singh, who was earlier a lessee of the aforesaid land of the Wakf Board. At that time, the appellants armed with dangs came at the spot, started abusing them, and also stated that how could they (complainant-party) take the possession of Wakf Board land which is situated in their village. Thereupon, the complainant and the deceased, who are residents of other village, namely, Jawalapur (Kassochahal), told that they had taken the possession of the aforesaid land after making the payment. Thereafter, appellant Hardip Singh exhorted that they (complain ant-party) be taught a lesson for taking possession of the said land of the Wakf Board situated in their village. Thereupon, the complainant and the deceased, who are residents of other village, namely, Jawalapur (Kassochahal), told that they had taken the possession of the aforesaid land after making the payment. Thereafter, appellant Hardip Singh exhorted that they (complain ant-party) be taught a lesson for taking possession of the said land of the Wakf Board situated in their village. In the meanwhile, appellant Kuldip Singh gave a dang blow on the head of Arvinder Singh alias Nikka with an intention to kill him. As a result of the said dang blow on his head, Arvinder Singh became unconscious and fell-down on the ground. Then, Iqbaljit Singh, complainant stepped forward to rescue Arvinder Singh, but he too was given two dang blows on his left arm and left leg by appellant Hardip Singh. Thereafter, complainant-Iqbaljit Singh raised an alarm which attracted Rashid Mohammad, who was present at the Peer near -by the place of occurence. After the occurrence, both the accused-appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") fled away with their weapons of offence from the place of occurrence. After that, a conveyance was arranged and Arvinder Singh, injured, was removed to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. On the way, Sukhjinder Singh, father of the complainant also met them. There, in the hospital, he was given first-aid. Then, a ruqa (Ex. PT) was sent to the Police Station, Sadar, Kapurthala from where ASI Amarjit Singh rushed to the hospital and obtained the opinion of the doctor vide an application Ex. PH, but injured Arvinder Singh was found unfit to make a statement vide opinion Ex. PH/1. Injured Arvinder Singh was then shifted to Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, for specialized treatment. ASI Amarjit Singh (PW-16) then recorded the statement (Ex. PE) of complainant Iqbaljit Singh (PW-3), another Injured, in the above narration of facts at Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. He made his endorsement Ex. PE/3 and then sent the said statement of Iqbaljit Singh, complainant to the Police Station, Sadar, Kapurthala for "registration of the case on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex. PE/1 was recorded at 8.00 p.m. on the same day i.e., on 5-10-2000 by MHC Ravinder Singh. 3. On 6-10-2000, PW-16 ASI Amarjit Singh, who is the main Investigating Officer in this case, alongwith HC Tarsem Lal and other police officials as well as complainant Iqbaljit Singh went to the place of occurrence in village Daulo Rayian. PE/1 was recorded at 8.00 p.m. on the same day i.e., on 5-10-2000 by MHC Ravinder Singh. 3. On 6-10-2000, PW-16 ASI Amarjit Singh, who is the main Investigating Officer in this case, alongwith HC Tarsem Lal and other police officials as well as complainant Iqbaljit Singh went to the place of occurrence in village Daulo Rayian. There, he prepared a rought site plan Ex. PM of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes in his hand and lifted the blood stained earth from the spot and made the same into a sealed parcel, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex., PF. He then searched for the accused, but they could not be traced-out. On return to the Police Station, he deposited the case property with the MHC. On the same day, in the afternoon, appellant Kuldip Singh alias Giani was arrested. On his interrogation, he made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-4/A, in pursuance of which, he got recovered a dang (Ex. P1) which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW-4/B. On 15-10-2000, other appellant Hardip Singh was produced before the police by Balwant Singh. 4. On 16-10-2000, a wire-less message was received from the New D.M.C. Ludhiana to the effect that Arvinder Singh injured had expired. Thereupon. ASI Amarjit Singh (PW-16) made an entry in that behalf in the daily dairy and added Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After that he alongwith Constable Bhupinder Singh and PHG Major Singh reached New D.M.C., Ludhiana. There, he prepared an inquest report Ex. PC. The dead-body was handed-over to Constable Balwant Singh for getting the post-mortem examination conducted on the same from the Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. After the post-mortem examination, the clothes of the deceased were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ex. PS and the dead-body was handed-over to the kith and kins of the deceased vide receipt Ex. PR. On return to the Police Station, the case property was deposited with the MHC. 5. After completion of the formal investigation of this case, a report Under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared by Arnrik Singh, the then SI, SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Kapurthala. PR. On return to the Police Station, the case property was deposited with the MHC. 5. After completion of the formal investigation of this case, a report Under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared by Arnrik Singh, the then SI, SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Kapurthala. Ultimately, both the appellants in this case were charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 21 -9-2002, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined as many as 17 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Dr. B. S. Multani, he proved the post-mortem report Ex. PB; PW-2 Dr. Mukesh Gupta, he proved the X-ray report Ex. PD in respect of the injuries of the complainant-Iqbaljit Singh; PW-3 Iqbaljit Singh (complainant) is an injured eye-witness in this case; PW-4 ASI Tarsem Singh, he is a witness to disclosure statement (Ex. PW-4/A) and recovery of dang Ex. P1; PW-5 Dr. B. S. Multani, he was examined in this case second time with the same version; PW-6 Dara Singh, Patwari, he proved Scaled Site . Plan (Ex. PW-6/A); PW-7 HC Ravinder Singh, he had recorded the formal FIR (Ex. PE/1); PW-8 HC Gurdian Singh, he had taken the Special Report (Ex. PE/2) to the CJM Kapurthala; PW-9 Constable Balwant Singh, he placed on file his affidavit (Ex. PW-9/A); PW-10 Dr. J. S. Sandhu, he had attended Arvinder Singh (deceased) on 12-10-2000 at D. M. C. Hospital, Ludhiana, He also produced photocopy of Bed-head ticket as Ex. PW-10/A, PW-11 Dr. R. K. Kaushal, he had admitted the injured-deceased in the DMC Hospital, Ludhiana on. 5-10-2000 at 10.43 p.m. PW-12 HC Sukhdev Singh, he produced his affidavit (Ex. PW-12/A); PW-13 Dr. Raman Sharma, he had also medico-legally examined deceased Arvinder Singh on 5-10-2000 at 6.00 p.m. in Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. He also proved his MLR Ex. PG with pictorial diagram (Ex. PG/1); PW-14 Dr. Rajeshwar Singh, he had medico-legally examined Iqbaljit Singh (complainant) on 5-10-2000 at 8.25 p.m. vide MLR Ex. PK; PW-15 Tarsem Singh, father of the deceased, he proved lease deed (Ex. PU) of Punjab Wakf Board land in his favour; PW-16 ASI Amarjit Singh, he is the main Investigating Officer in this case and PW-17 Mehmood All, a clerk of office of Punjab Wakf Board, he proved the lease deed Ex. PU. 7. PK; PW-15 Tarsem Singh, father of the deceased, he proved lease deed (Ex. PU) of Punjab Wakf Board land in his favour; PW-16 ASI Amarjit Singh, he is the main Investigating Officer in this case and PW-17 Mehmood All, a clerk of office of Punjab Wakf Board, he proved the lease deed Ex. PU. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined in terms of Section 313, Cr, P. C. wherein they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against, them. In their defence, they examined DW-1 Rashid Mohd.; DW-2 Inderjit Singh, DW-3 Constable Sukhwinder Singh; DW-4 Rajiv Kumar, Patwari; DW-5 HC Raunqi Ram; DW-6 HC Tarlochan, Singh. In this case, copy of FIRs Ex. D/l, D/2, D/3, D/5 and D/6 were also tendered into evidence which indicate the involvement of Arvinder Singh (deceased) in some of the criminal cases. Besides this, copy of Khasra Girdwari Ex. D/4 was also tendered into defence evidence which indicates that Khasra Nos. 226, 227 and 228 were earlier under the possession of one Karamjit Singh. 8. Learned trial Court after appraising the evidence on record and hearing learned Counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced both the appellants, as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, they have come up in this appeal. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the file carefully. 10. At the outset of his arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the presence of PW-3 Iqbaljit Singh, a solitary eye-witness in this case, is highly doubtful at the place of occurrence on the given date and time. In that behalf, it was vehemently argued that there was no occasion for the complainant and the deceased to be there together in village Daulo Rayian. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, there was no motive behind the occurrence of this case inasmuch as the complainant and the deceased, who belonged to village Kassochahal, were not in possession over the Punjab Wakf Board land on the day of occurrence and as such, question of sowing their potato crop did not arise. At the same time, it was argued that there is no mention in the ruqa Ex. PT regarding the company of Iqbaljit Singh, eye-witness, with Arvinder Singh (deceased) to the Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. At the same time, it was argued that there is no mention in the ruqa Ex. PT regarding the company of Iqbaljit Singh, eye-witness, with Arvinder Singh (deceased) to the Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. Injuries on the person of said solitary eye-witness could be self-suffered as the same were found simple in nature vide his MLR Ex. PK, which was conducted at about 8.25 p.m. on 5-10-2000 at Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. It was then also argued that had the complainant been present at the time of occurrence, he being the cousin of the deceased, would have intervened and sustained serious injuries at the hands of the appellants. At the fag-end of his arguments, in the alternative, learned Counsel for the appellants argued that at the most, if at all, any case was made out, that could be only Under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and that too, against appellant No. 1, namely, Kuldip Singh, only inasmuch as in this case, injured Arvinder Singh died after 10 days of the occurrence due to septicaemia and pus in his brain and that had happened only due to the carelessness in the treatment of the attending doctors. In support of this argument, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Rajngam V/s. State (Tamil Nadu), AIR 1993 SC 2636 : (1993 Cri LJ 3680) and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sumer Chand V/s. State of Haryana etc., 1998 (2) Crimes 228. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab has repelled the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the appellants. At the first place, he: rebutted the contention regarding the possession over the land in question. In that regard, he submitted that as per the revenue records i.e. Khasra Girdwari, Ex. D4, the land of the Punjab Wakf Board was lying vacant in the year 2000 as there was no source of irrigation at that time. The land was earlier in possession of one Karamjit Singh, from whom PW-15 Tarsem Singh, father of the deceased, had taken possession 4-5 months prior to the date of occurrence. Thereafter, Tarsem Singh had installed a bore and then the complainant-party had sown a potato crop in the said land which was taken on lease vide lease deed Ex. PU. The land was earlier in possession of one Karamjit Singh, from whom PW-15 Tarsem Singh, father of the deceased, had taken possession 4-5 months prior to the date of occurrence. Thereafter, Tarsem Singh had installed a bore and then the complainant-party had sown a potato crop in the said land which was taken on lease vide lease deed Ex. PU. In this regard, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab also made a reference to the statement of PW-15 Tarsem Singh and PW-17 Mehmood Ali, a Clerk of the Punjab Wakf Board. Not only that, a reference was also made to the receipt Ex. PV/2 (at page 168 of the original file of this case) proved in the statement of PW-17. This receipt issued by the Punjab Wakf Board indicates that the land measuring 25 Kanals comprised in Khasra Nos. 221/222/226/227 and 228 was leased out to PW-15 Tarsem Singh, father of the deceased for the year 2000-2001 and arrears to the tune of Rs. 7,000.00 for the pervious year were also shown in the lease-deed Ex. PU, though executed on a later date i.e., on 29-11-2000. After taking the possession and sowing the potato crop at the spot by the complainant party, the appellants wanted to dispossess them as the land was situated in their Village Daulo Rayian. In this regard, learned State counsel also made reference to the statement of DW-2 Inderjit Singh, who in his cross-examination categorically admitted that the Wakf land was cultivated by Tarsem Singh, father of the deceased, in the year 2000. He further admitted it to be correct that in October, 2000, potato crop was sown in the Wakf Board land. Not only that DW-2, who is a witness of the appellants, has also admitted that Arvinder Singh, deceased and the complainant used to go to the said land for irrigating the same and that accused had no concern with the said land of the Wakf Board. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab then further submitted that the Wakf Board land is visible from the court-yard of the said DW-2, who has admitted that on 5-10-2000, i.e. the date of occurrence, Arvinder Singh (deceased) and Iqbaljit Singh (complainant) were irrigating the said land and in his presence, a fight had taken place between complainant-party and the accused. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab then further submitted that the Wakf Board land is visible from the court-yard of the said DW-2, who has admitted that on 5-10-2000, i.e. the date of occurrence, Arvinder Singh (deceased) and Iqbaljit Singh (complainant) were irrigating the said land and in his presence, a fight had taken place between complainant-party and the accused. After putting forth the aforesaid points of arguments, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab also argued that in this case, FIR was recorded promptly on the basis of the statement of the complainant (Ex. PE) recorded at 7.30 p.m. and then formal FIR was recorded at 8.00 p.m. At the fag-end of his arguments, he further submitted that in this case, presence of PW-3, Iqbaljit Singh, complainant-injured is well established at the place of occurrence at the given time i.e., 5.00 p.m. on 5-10-2000. The complainant-injured had also sustained injuries, though simple in nature, as per MLR Ex. PK, conducted at 8.25 p.m. by PW-14, Dr. Rajeshwar Singh. At the last leg of his arguments, he also relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Suraj Bhan V/s. State of Haryana, 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal) 250 : (2003 Cri LJ 4935) and then rebutted the contention of learned Counsel for the appellants for altering the conviction from S. 302 to S. 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that in the instant case, a dang blow was given with a force on the head of the deceased with an intention to kill him and ultimately, the said injury proved to be fatal. In support of his this contention, he also made a reference to the medical evidence consisted in the statements of PW-1 Dr. B. S. Mulati, PW-.l 1 Dr. R. K. Kaushal and PW-13 Dr. Raman Sharma. After putting forth the aforesaid points of arguments, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab contended for dismissal of this appeal. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and find no merit in any of the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the appellants inasmuch as here, in the instant case, there was a well established occasion for the complainant and the deceased for their being present in the land belonging to Punjab Wakf Board. It is also well proved on the file from the statements of PW-15 Tarsem Singh, PW-17 Mehmood All and DW-2 Inderjit Singh that earlier, the land was being cultivated by one Karamjit Singh, who also failed to cultivate the land in the year 2000, perhaps, for no source of irrigation in the land. Later on, i.e., about 45 months prior to the date of occurrence, PW-15 Tarsem Singh, father of Arvinder Singh (deceased) had taken the possession of the land and after making the bore for the purpose of irrigation, a potato crop was sown even prior to the execution of the lease deed, Ex. PU as is apparent from receipt Ex. PV/2. The lease amount was also realised by the Punjab Wakf Board in respect of the previous year also i.e. 2000-2001, from the father of the deceased. In that behalf, a mention has been made in the lease-deed Ex. PU regarding realisation of arrears to the tune of Rs. 7,000.00 . Thus, taking into account the testimony of the aforesaid three witnesses, namely, PW-15 Tarsem Singh, PW-17 Mahmpod All and DW-2 Inderjit Singh as also execution of receipt Ex. PV/2, we have no hesitation to hold that on the day of occurrence, it was the complainant party, who was in possession over the land situated in the revenue estate of Village Daulo Rayian. It has also come in the evidence that the appellants wanted to take possession of the said land which was situated in their village, whereas, the complainant-party was resident of other village i.e., Kassochahal. In this well established back-ground of this case, we find that there was a motive behind (his occurrence and the appellants armed with dangs had reached the place of occurrence after making a plan. 13. In this case, according to PW-3 Iqbaljit Singh, injured, his father Sukhjinder Singh and PW-15 Tarsern Singh, father of the deceased, were having joint holding as such, they were cultivating the land jointly. So, on the day of occurrence also, they were cultivating land belonging to Punjab Wakf Board, the possession of which was taken from one Karamjit Singh. On 5-10-2000, at about 5.00 p.m., they were irrigating the potato crop sown in the said land. So, on the day of occurrence also, they were cultivating land belonging to Punjab Wakf Board, the possession of which was taken from one Karamjit Singh. On 5-10-2000, at about 5.00 p.m., they were irrigating the potato crop sown in the said land. At that time, both the appellants, namely, Kuldip Singh alias Giani and Hardip Singh alias Kala, sons of Swaran Singh resident of Village Daulo Rayain had trespassed in their land and they were armed with dangs. They both had started abusing them and remarked that the land belonged to their village and as such who were they to take possession of the said land. First of all, appellant Hardip Singh had raised a lalkara that they would teach them a lesson for taking possession of the land. Thereafter appellant Kuldip Singh had given a dang blow on the head of Arvinder Singh. Due to the impact of that dang blow, he became unconscious and fell down. PW-3 further deposed that when he tried to save Arvinder Singh, appellant Hardip Singh gave two dang blows which hit on his left leg and left shoulder. Thereafter, he raised an alarm. Then, the appellants had run-away with their respective weapons. This aforesaid solitary witness, namely PW-3 Iqbaljit Singh was cross-examined at length. Except for some minor contradictions, which do not go to the root of this case, nothing fruitful could elicited from his mouth favouring the appellants. Rather, his statement also finds corroboration from the medical evidence i.e., MLR Ex. PK which was conducted at 8.25 p.m. on the same evening of occurrence in the Civil Hospital at Kapurthala by PW-14 Dr. Rajeshwar Singh. Though the injuries on his person were found simple in nature, yet they are proved to have been sustained at the hands of appellant Hardip Singh and it is no where asked if those could be self-suffered. In fact, when Arvinder Singh (deceased) was found unfit to make statement at 6.30 p.m. on 5-11-2000, as per opinion Ex. PH, then PW-16 ASI Amarjit Singh recorded the statement (Ex. PE) of complainant Iqbaljit Singh at 7.30 p.m. who was present there in the Civil Hospital, Kapurthala itself. In fact, when Arvinder Singh (deceased) was found unfit to make statement at 6.30 p.m. on 5-11-2000, as per opinion Ex. PH, then PW-16 ASI Amarjit Singh recorded the statement (Ex. PE) of complainant Iqbaljit Singh at 7.30 p.m. who was present there in the Civil Hospital, Kapurthala itself. It is well established that at about 6.30 p.m., on the day of occurrence itself, Arvinder Singh who had sustained serious injury on his head, was shifted from Civil Hospital, Kapurthala for his C, T. Scanning and other treatment to D. M. C. Hospital, Ludhiana by Sukhjinder Singh, father of the complainant. There, in spite of his best treatment, he could not survive and ultimately, expired on 15-10-2000. As per post-mortem report Ex. PB, the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased while conducting his post-mortem examination by PW-1 Dr. B. S. Multani :- - 1) An already dressed and stitched would on right side of scalp starting from right side of forehead 2 c.m. above right eye blow and 4.5 c.m. from centre extending on to parietal and occipital region up to posterior hair line and again coming on to temporal region just above the pinna and then coming down in front of right ear measuring 20 c.m. in total length. Wound was stitched all along its length with black thread. On removing the stitches, underline skull bone was missing. Membrances were missing underline the stitched wound. A part of brain matter in parietal region was missing. Brain matter at places was necrosed and creamish pus was present at some places. 2) An incised wound having reddish swollen margin was present on front of neck in middle part measuring 1.2 c.m. in maximum dimension oval in shape, underlying trachea had corresponding wound. 3) A stitched wound on front of chest in upper part on right side just near clavical in mind clavicular line measuring 0.2 c.m. in length underlying vein subclavical was sutured and having a cut in its wall. On dissection of Chest cavity, pleurae on right side was congested and pleurae cavity was full of cermish pus. Lurigs were congested. 4) A stitched wound on scalp on just right to mid line on crown of the head measuring 1.2 c.m. Structure underlying injuries Nos. 1 to 4 were congested and unfiltered with blood. On dissection of Chest cavity, pleurae on right side was congested and pleurae cavity was full of cermish pus. Lurigs were congested. 4) A stitched wound on scalp on just right to mid line on crown of the head measuring 1.2 c.m. Structure underlying injuries Nos. 1 to 4 were congested and unfiltered with blood. 5) A stitched wound on left side of scalp in frontal parietal region 8 c.m. from the left eye brow and 6 c.m. above left pinna measuring 10.6 c.m. in length, underlying soft tissues were congested. 14. Further in his opinion, the cause of death in this case was injury on the vital part i.e., brain and septicemia shock, which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were described as ante-mortem in nature. In his further cross-examination, he categorically denied the suggestion that the death in this case is not the result of injuries to brain, as mentioned by him. Thus, a perusal of the medical evidence goes a long-way to rebut the contention of learned Counsel for the appellants that in this case, the death of Arvinder Singh had taken place due to septicaemia and pus on account of negligence on the part of the attending doctors. Further, a perusal of the statement of Dr. R. K. Kaushal (PW-11) who is specialized in Neuro Surgery in D. M. C. Hospital, Ludhiana, shows that there was bleeding in the brain with brain swelling. Initially, the injured was treated with drugs, but his condition deteriorated and then he was operated upon on 8-10-2000. After surgery, there was an improvement till 12-10-2000 where after, his condition started deteriorating. All this goes to show that in spite of best treatment in the premier medical institute, Arvinder Singh could not be saved. In fact, the injury on his head was given with such a force that underline skull bones and membranes were also found missing while conducting the post-mortem examination in respect of the head injury. Faced with such a situation, no benefit can be derived from the observations made by their Lordships in Sumer Chands case (1998 (2) Crimes 228) (supra) because in that case, it was opined by the doctor that the death could be only on account of septicaemia. Faced with such a situation, no benefit can be derived from the observations made by their Lordships in Sumer Chands case (1998 (2) Crimes 228) (supra) because in that case, it was opined by the doctor that the death could be only on account of septicaemia. Similarly in Rajangams case (1993 Cri LJ 3680) (supra), accused were not proved to have had an intention to kill the victim in that case. In the instant case, there was a strong motive behind the occurrence and it has come in the statement of the complainant-injured, who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, that the appellants had an intention to kill Arvinder Singh. In Suraj Bhans case (2003 Cri L.J. 4935) (supra) relied upon by learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accused had given one lathi blow with force on the head of the deceased causing fracture and death and on that count, accused was held guilty of offence punishable Under Section 302 and not Under Section 304, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. Here, in the instant case, as discussed above, we find that the ocular version and the medical evidence are in consonance to each other on all material points. 15. Hence, no interference is called for in any of the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.