JUDGMENT Mehtab S.Gill, J.:-This is an appeal against the judgment dated 17.10.1997 of the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby he convicted Sahib Ram son of Surja Ram under Section 302 IPC and Indraj son of Taru Ram under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. Fine of Rs. 3,000/- was imposed, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.P5/A of Sahib Ram son of Surja Ram son of Ishar Ram given to Jaspal Singh ASI on 3.2.1995 at 1.00 a.m. in Civil Hospital, Fazilka. 3. Sahib Ram stated that, he has a brother namely Ram Sarup. Mani Ram son of Lachhman Ram was his cousin brother (uncle’s son). Sahi Ram son of Ram Karan is his maternal uncle (mother’s brother). Sahi Ram had entered into an agreement to sell his three acres of land to Sahib Ram son of Surja Ram son of Jodha Ram. Sahi Ram had three sons namely Krishan, Surinder and Ram Singh. When Sahi Ram agreed to sell the land, which was in the joint khata, his son Krishan protested. Krishan requested his father’s sister’s son Mani Ram to ask his father not to sell the land. Mani Ram asked Sahib Ram son of Surja Ram son of Jodha Ram that he should not purchase the said land. Sahib Ram stated, that he would purchase it, as he had already entered into an agreement. Due to this dispute, a panchayat was called in the village, in which Sahi Ram, Sahib Ram (vendee), Mani Ram (deceased), Sahib Ram (complainant) and many other persons were present. In that panchayat, Sahib Ram (vendee) threatened Mani Ram (deceased), that he would teach him a lesson for not allowing the sale to go through. At about 8.15 p.m. on 2.2.1995, Sahib Ram (complainant) and his brother Ram Sarup were standing in front of the door of their house. Electric bulbs were on in the street. Mani Ram came out of his house on to the street. Sahib Ram (vendee), who was driving his jeep, came from the side of the house of Lakha Ram. Indraj Sarpanch was sitting with him. The jeep had just gone about 10/15 karams after passing them, that Sahib Ram stopped the jeep. Electric bulbs were on in the street. Mani Ram came out of his house on to the street. Sahib Ram (vendee), who was driving his jeep, came from the side of the house of Lakha Ram. Indraj Sarpanch was sitting with him. The jeep had just gone about 10/15 karams after passing them, that Sahib Ram stopped the jeep. On seeing Mani Ram, Indraj raised a lalkara and exhorted Sahib Ram to crush Mani Ram. Sahib Ram drove the jeep rashly and hit Mani Ram. Mani Ram fell down with his face upward and the front tyre of the jeep passed over his neck. Sahib Ram (appellant) and Indraj drove away. 4. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.P5/B was recorded on 3.2.1995 at 2.15 a.m. at Police Station Khuyian Sarwar. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate, Fazilka on the same day at 8.00 a.m. 5. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box Dr. V.K.Munjral PW1, Dr. Yash Pal PW2, Sahib Ram PW3, Ram Sarup PW4, Gurdarshan Lal PW5, Sukhdev Singh PW6, Amarjit Singh PW7, Raj Kumar PW8, Hans Raj PW9, Constable Joginder Singh PW10, Constable Jaspal Singh PW11, Krishan Lal PW12 and ASI Jaspal Singh PW13. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that the fatal injury as per Dr. Yash Pal PW2 was the injury on the right parietal region, which proved fatal and was the one, which caused the death of Mani Ram. Suhib Ram PW3, an eye witness to the occurrence and the author of FIR Ex.P5/B, has stated, that appellant Sahib Ram intentionally struck the jeep on the knee of the deceased and it is thereafter that the head injury was caused. Apart from the head injury, there is no other injury on the person of the deceased. Further he has stated in FIR Ex.P5/B, that the face of the deceased was upward, when he fell down. If the face of the deceased was upward, then the face should have got smashed. But there is no injury on the face of the deceased. In fact what has been stated by Dr. Yash Pal PW2 is that Mani Ram had an injury on the right parietal region. 7. If the face of the deceased was upward, then the face should have got smashed. But there is no injury on the face of the deceased. In fact what has been stated by Dr. Yash Pal PW2 is that Mani Ram had an injury on the right parietal region. 7. The house of deceased Mani Ram and that of Sahib Ram PW3 were in the middle of the village, strangely it took 10 minutes for Sahib Ram PW3 to get a jeep. Strangely, no one came to the help of Mani Ram from the neighbourhood. 8. Dr. Yash Pal PW2 has stated, that Constable Jaspal PW11 had got the deceased admitted in the hospital, but Sahib Ram PW3 has stated, that he is the one who had got the deceased admitted. Both these witness are contradicting each other. In fact both the eye witnesses Sahib Ram PW3 and Ram Sarup PW4 were not at the scene of the occurrence and they have been implanted. No blood was picked up from the spot, nor were moulds of the tyre marks of the jeep picked up from the ground. 9. The Investigating Officer Jaspal Singh ASI PW13 after investigating the case and taking into consideration the statements of about 50-60 persons, found appellant Indraj innocent. He was placed in column No.2, when the challan was presented before the Court. At the most, a case under Section 304 IPC can be made out against appellant Sahib Ram. In fact it is a case of accident, where Mani Ram was hit by a vehicle in the night, but the appellants were falsely implicated. 10. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that the case cannot fall under Section 304 IPC. There was a strong motive to commit the offence. As per both the eye witnesses Sahib Ram PW3 and Ram Sarup PW4 and as per FIR Ex.P5/B, appellants were inimical towards Mani Ram because of the sale of the land. On seeing Mani Ram coming out, appellants drove the jeep over him to make it an accident. It has come out in the evidence of the witnesses, that the lanes of Village Siwana are such that a jeep cannot be driven at a fast speed, whereby an accident could take place. The lanes being small, the jeep which was driven by appellant Sahib Ram deliberately hit deceased Mani Ram, who fell down. It has come out in the evidence of the witnesses, that the lanes of Village Siwana are such that a jeep cannot be driven at a fast speed, whereby an accident could take place. The lanes being small, the jeep which was driven by appellant Sahib Ram deliberately hit deceased Mani Ram, who fell down. Appellants purposely took the tyre over the head of Mani Ram. 11. There is no delay in lodging of the FIR. Occurrence took place on 2.2.1995 at 8.15 p.m. Both the eye witnesses Sahib Ram PW3 and Ram Sarup PW4 saw the incident taking place in an electric light. FIR Ex.P5/B came into existence on 3.2.1995 at 2.15 a.m. at Police Station Khuyian Sarwar, which was at a distance of 15-20 K.Ms. from the place of occurrence. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate, Fazilka on the same day at 8.00 a.m. The distance between Police Station Khuyian Sarwar and the Ilaqa Magistrate, Fazilka is 60 K.Ms. In the first week of February, it is still quite cold. Police proceedings were done at night time. FIR Ex.P5/B is prompt. In fact this itself goes a long way in proving the guilt of the appellants. 12. Though Sahib Ram PW3 has stated, that it took 10 minutes to get the jeep, but one cannot exactly take 10 minutes by the clock. Sahib Ram PW3 had to get the jeep from the next door and it is thereafter that Mani Ram was taken to Civil Hospital, Fazilka. No one could come from the neighbourhood, for the reason, that Sahib Ram PW3 and Ram Sarup PW4 wanted to take Mani Ram to the hospital promptly to save his life. 13. It cannot be overlooked, that both the appellants after hitting Mani Ram ran away from the spot. If they were innocent and the occurrence had taken place accidentally, they would have themselves picked up Mani Ram and taken him to the hospital, instead they preferred to leave the place of incident as quickly as possible. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 15. Sahib Ram PW3 and Ram Sarup PW4 have corroborated each other on all material aspects of the case. Sahib Ram PW3 has stated, that his maternal uncle Sahi Ram had agreed to sell three acres of land to appellant Sahib Ram. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 15. Sahib Ram PW3 and Ram Sarup PW4 have corroborated each other on all material aspects of the case. Sahib Ram PW3 has stated, that his maternal uncle Sahi Ram had agreed to sell three acres of land to appellant Sahib Ram. Krishan Lal son of Sahi Ram came to Sahib Ram PW3 and asked him that his father Sahib Ram should be stopped from entering into an agreement to sell the land, as they already had little land. A panchayat was convened. In that panchayat, deceased Mani Ram asked appellant Sahib Ram not to purchase the land of Sahi Ram. Appellant Sahib Ram told deceased Mani Ram, that he should not interfere and was becoming a hindrance in the sale of the land and he would teach him a lesson. Appellant Indraj, who was the Sarpanch, was along with appellant Sahib Ram. 16. On the fateful night of 2.2.1995 at 8.15 p.m., he (PW3) along with his brother Ram Sarup were standing in front of their house. They saw in the light of the electric bulb appellant Sahib Ram driving a jeep. Next to him was sitting appellant Indraj. They stopped the jeep at a distance of 10/15 karams. Deceased Mani Ram was coming from the opposite direction. Appellant Sahib Ram thereupon hit deceased Mani Ram and ran the jeep over him. This statement is supported by Ram Sarup PW4. 17. The stopping of the jeep and it being restarted and taken towards Mani Ram, when appellant Sahib Ram saw Mani Ram, clearly shows, that appellant Sahib Ram was waiting for Mani Ram to come out of his house. The attack on Mani Ram was premeditated. The motive for the commission of the offence was that appellant Sahib Ram was angry with Mani Ram, as he was becoming a hindrance in the purchase of land by appellant Sahib Ram from Sahi Ram. Appellant Indraj did not have any motive to help out appellant Sahib Ram and there was no need for him to go along with appellant Sahib Ram in the night to put to death Mani Ram. The Investigating Officer Jaspal Singh ASI PW13 in his testimony before the Court has stated as under: - “ At the place of occurrence 50-60 persons collected. I also interrogated them. The Investigating Officer Jaspal Singh ASI PW13 in his testimony before the Court has stated as under: - “ At the place of occurrence 50-60 persons collected. I also interrogated them. After interrogating those persons and from my investigation, it revealed that Indraj accused was innocent, on that very day”. As per the statement of the Investigating Officer (PW13), he found appellant Indraj innocent on that very day i.e. the day of occurrence, when he started his investigation. He interrogated about 50-60 persons. Appellant Indraj seems to be roped in. During the presentation of the challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C., he was put in column No.2. It was later on that he was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the learned trial Court. 18. FIR Ex.P5/B is prompt. Occurrence had taken place on 2.2.1995 at 8.15 p.m. in Village Siwana and by 2.15 a.m. on 3.2.1995, the FIR had been recorded at Police Station Khuyian Sarwar. The distance between Village Siwana and Police Station Khuyian Sarwar is 15 K.Ms. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate, Fazilka on 3.2.1995 at 8.00 a.m. The distance between Police Khuyian Sarwar and the Ilaqa Magistrate, Fazilka is 60 K.Ms. All these proceedings of the police were done in the night time, in the first week of February. At that time of year, the nights are dark and cold. There is no delay in lodging of the FIR. This itself goes a long way in proving the case against appellant Sahib Ram. 19. Deceased Mani Ram belonged to the same village as appellant Sahib Ram. If by accident appellant Sahib Ram had hit Mani Ram, he would not have run away, but would have picked up Mani Ram and taken him to hospital. The incident had taken place in the village street and all of them i.e. appellant, deceased and the witnesses knew each other. The injury on the person of the deceased as pointed out by Dr. Yash Pal PW2 is as under: - “Swelling 2 cms x 2 cms on right parietal region, under the skin of scalp small haemotemma was present. On dissection, on opening of skull, there was extra dural haemotemma 7 cms x 7 cms on right parietal region compressing underlying brain matter which was found to be congested”. The cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the head injury. 20. On dissection, on opening of skull, there was extra dural haemotemma 7 cms x 7 cms on right parietal region compressing underlying brain matter which was found to be congested”. The cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the head injury. 20. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, that as per FIR Ex.P5/B and the statement of Sahib Ram PW3, Mani Ram fell down with his face upward, is devoid of any force, as Dr. Yash Pal PW2 has categorically stated, that it is possible that the injury on the person of the deceased, could be caused if the deceased is struck by a vehicle and he falls down on the ground. The hitting of the deceased by the jeep by appellant Sahib Ram was seen in the night time in the light of an electric bulb. It was not possible for the witnesses to see in that split second whether Mani Ram fell on his right side or on his back. Naturally after the vehicle had gone over him, his reflexes would have turned him on his back and that is why Sahib Ram PW3 has stated, that the face of the deceased was upward. As per the discussions and observations above, we find that appellant Indraj is innocent. Appeal qua him is allowed. His conviction and sentence is set aside. He is acquitted of the charges framed against him. If in custody, he be set free forthwith. Appeal of appellant Sahib Ram is dismissed. If on bail, he is directed to present himself before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. ——————————