JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral).:- The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 302 IPC on the allegations that he intentionally and knowingly caused injuries to Krishan Kumar on 21.10.1993, which proved fatal. Vide judgment and order dated 4.9.1995, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, however, held him guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC only and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, he filed the present appeal, in which he was granted the concession of bail on 1.2.1996. 2. The FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by PW2 Ram Sarup. He stated therein that he was resident of village Barot and a labourer by profession. He had two sons. His younger son Krishan Kumar, aged about 18 years, had been suffering from mental sickness for about 2½ months. About 20 days earlier to the occurrence, he was taken to the Medical College, Rohtak where he was given treatment. He did recover to some an extent but again for the last 2/3 days before the occurrence his condition became the same as it was before. On 20.10.1993, the appellant, who was residing in a Dera set up in the fields near the village, came to the complainant’s brother Sunehra and told him that Krishan Kumar was under the influence of some evil spirit and asked him to bring Krishan Kumar to his Dera since he possessed powers to rid Krishan Kumar of the same. On 21.10.1993 at about 6.30 p.m. the complainant and his brother Sunehra and one Ramdhan took Krishan Kumar to the Dera of the appellant where the appellant and his father Dhanna were found to be present. The appellant lit an earthen lamp containing Desi Ghee and Krishan Kumar was made to sit in front of it. The appellant recited some mantras and also marked a line with ash all around Krishan Kumar and told him that there was spirit of Sayad Mohd in Krishan Kumar. Pointing towards Krishan Kumar, the appellant said in a loud voice as to whether the said spirit would leave Krishan Kumar or not. The appellant then took up a lathi lying there and started causing injuries to Krishan Kumar. Krishan Kumar started crying in pain. Pointing towards Krishan Kumar, the appellant said in a loud voice as to whether the said spirit would leave Krishan Kumar or not. The appellant then took up a lathi lying there and started causing injuries to Krishan Kumar. Krishan Kumar started crying in pain. The complainant and his brother asked the appellant not to give lathi blows to Krishan Kumar by stating that he would succumb to those injuries. At this, the appellant replied that the injuries inflicted by him were being suffered by the evil spirit and not by Krishan Kumar. The appellant then tied both the feet of Krishan Kumar and gave him lathi blows. He also gave hot chimta blows to Krishan Kumar, who kept on crying due to pain. The complainant could not bear all this and started weeping. The appellant told him not to worry as the injuries were being inflicted upon evil spirit and, thereafter, nothing would happen to Krishan Kumar. However, Krishan Kumar became unconscious. The complainant and his brother told the appellant that Krishan Kumar had become unconscious as a result of being beaten by the appellant. The appellant again reiterated that nothing would happen to Krishan Kumar, who would be all right after some time. They were directed to come again the next morning at 9.00 a.m. at the Pir near the canal bank where he would also reach. Sunehra lifted Krishan Kumar on his back and brought him to the house. The body of Krishan Kumar became swollen. He did not regain consciousness. Next day, i.e. on 22.10.1993 at about 10.00 a.m. Krishan Kumar succumbed to the injuries. According to the complainant, it was the appellant, who had murdered his son by giving beatings with lathi and also with hot chimta. 3. After registration of the case, the police started the investigation. The inquest report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and the dead body sent for post mortem examination. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The appellant was arrested on 2.11.1993, who then suffered a disclosure statement pursuant to which he got recovered lathi Ex.P1 and chimta Ex.P2. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was sent to face trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, vide order dated 22.12.1993 committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The appellant was arrested on 2.11.1993, who then suffered a disclosure statement pursuant to which he got recovered lathi Ex.P1 and chimta Ex.P2. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was sent to face trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, vide order dated 22.12.1993 committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of ocular account, the prosecution examined PW2 complainant Ram Sarup and PW3 Sunehra whereas PW5 Dr.Vijay Pal Khanagwal and PW7 Dr.S.K.Jain deposed about the medical evidence. The investigation part of the case was proved by PW6 SI Dilpajir Singh, PW8 SI Rattan Singh and PW4 Constable Dharambir. Scaled site plan Ex.PA of the place of occurrence was proved by PW1 Mahesh Sharma, Draftsman. 5. When examined under Section 313, the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he was innocent and falsely implicated. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on the record, the trial Court believed the prosecution case regarding infliction of injuries by the appellant to Krishan Kumar-deceased. However, it was held that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to kill Krishan Kumar. At the most, he could be attributed the knowledge that the injuries caused by him were likely to cause the death, which would make him liable for offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and, accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced under Section 304 Part II IPC, as mentioned above. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the occurrence had taken place on 21.10.1993 at about 6.30 p.m. yet FIR Ex.PB was recorded on 22.10.1993 at 5.00 p.m. There was, thus, a long delay of 24 hours in informing the police. 9. It was mentioned by the complainant in FIR Ex.PB that after the occurrence, he was assured by the appellant that no harm would be caused to Krishan Kumar and they should take him back and bring him on the next morning at 9.00 a.m. However, on 22.10.1993 at about 10.00 a.m. Krishan Kumar succumbed to the injuries. 9. It was mentioned by the complainant in FIR Ex.PB that after the occurrence, he was assured by the appellant that no harm would be caused to Krishan Kumar and they should take him back and bring him on the next morning at 9.00 a.m. However, on 22.10.1993 at about 10.00 a.m. Krishan Kumar succumbed to the injuries. At that time brother of the complainant, namely, Sunehra, Ramdhan and his son Ramphal had gone for labour. He called them back and leaving them at the spot to take care of the dead body, he went to the Police Station to lodge the report. Therefore, whatever delay occurred in giving necessary information to the police, stood satisfactorily explained. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no opinion had been obtained by the prosecution as to whether the injuries found on the dead body of Krishan Kumar were ante mortem or post mortem in nature. 11. It is clear from the record that a probable time of 24 hours had elapsed between the injuries and death. This shows that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Mere fact that no specific opinion had been given by PW5 Dr.Vijay Pal Khanagwal, is no ground to hold that none of the injuries was ante mortem in nature. 12. It is also submitted that no opinion had been given about any of the injuries on the dead body of Krishan Kumar to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, the appellant, at the most, could be held guilty for causing injuries to Krishan Kumar deceased and not for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. 13. As per the opinion given by PW5 Dr.Vijay Pal Khanagwal, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of cumulative effect of injuries found on the dead body. As many as 21 injuries were found on the dead body. Some of the injuries were multiple injuries. In view of the categorical opinion of Dr.Vijay Pal Khanagwal that the cause of death was cumulative effect of the injuries found on the dead body, the appellant can be held guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. 14. As many as 21 injuries were found on the dead body. Some of the injuries were multiple injuries. In view of the categorical opinion of Dr.Vijay Pal Khanagwal that the cause of death was cumulative effect of the injuries found on the dead body, the appellant can be held guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. 14. Another argument submitted by learned counsel for the appellant is that while preparing the inquest report, the police officials had noticed only eight injuries, as stated in column 10 thereof whereas according to the post mortem report there were 21 injuries on the dead body. 15. I have perused column 10 of the inquest report Ex.PE/1. Though the police officer while preparing the inquest report stated that there were eight injuries on the dead body yet a perusal of the same would show that the various injuries as noticed in the post-mortem report were clubbed and ultimately, only eight injuries were mentioned. To be precise, injury No.1 was described as contusion mark on the back, injury No.2 was described as marks of contusion on front of both the thighs, so on and so forth. No benefit of the same can be extended to the appellant. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant finally argued that the appellant was 28 years of age at the time of framing of the charges, i.e. on 23.2.1994. A period of 16 years has elapsed since then. The appellant has already undergone a substantive period of two years in jail out of the sentence of seven years imposed upon him. Therefore, the substantive sentence of the appellant be reduced. 17. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant by submitting that the appellant had caused a number of injuries to Krishan Kumar knowing fully well that those injuries were likely to cause death. He has already been dealt with leniently in the matter of sentence, as the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC can be punished upto ten years’ imprisonment, whereas he has been awarded only seven years’ imprisonment. 18. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1993. He was arrested on 2.11.1993 and it was only on 1.2.1996 that he was granted the concession of bail by this Court in the present appeal. 18. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1993. He was arrested on 2.11.1993 and it was only on 1.2.1996 that he was granted the concession of bail by this Court in the present appeal. He has, thus, already undergone a substantive sentence of about two years and three months. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the sentence of seven years imposed upon the appellant is slightly on the higher side and it needs to be reduced to five years’ imprisonment. 19. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC is maintained. However, his substantive sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ——————