JUDGMENT : Surinder Singh, J. The appellants felt aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed against them by the learned trial Court in SC No. 60-N/VII/03/ST No. 3 of 2004, decided on 25.4.2005/26.4.2005, whereby appellant Angrej Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and another appellant Kewal Singh was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code with the default clause. In case of realization of the fine, the same is ordered to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Ashok Kumar. Hence the present appeal. In brief, the prosecution story can be stated thus. On 24.3.2003, PW3 complainant Teja Singh was working as a labourer-cum-driver in the tractor. In the evening around 5/6 pm, he alongwith his maternal uncle PW5 Girdhari Lal reached at busstand, Kopra. Ashok Kumar (deceased) also had come to bus-stand in his jeep. Some altercation was going on between PW4 Bir Singh and appellant Angrej Singh and Ashok Kumar (deceased) intervened. Angrej Singh picked up a wooden piece (Pacher) Ext. P6 with both the hands and hit on the head of Ashok Kumar. On receiving injury, he fell unconscious on the spot. Thereafter appellant Kewal Singh came running and dealt a blow on the head of PW3 Teja Singh. On hearing hue and cry, lot of people gathered on the spot. The appellants made clear pair of heeds and while leaving the place they threatened the complainant party with dire consequences. 2. Injured Ashok Kumar was immediately taken in his jeep to the hospital, but while on way he had died. Doctor reported 'brought dead'. 3. Police was informed about the incident telephonically. PW21 Inspector R.P. Jaswal, reached hospital around 9.35 pm and recorded the statement Ext. PW3/B of Teja Singh u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which culminated into FIR Ext. PW6/A, under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. During the investigation, spot was inspected. Site plan Ext. PW21/A was prepared in the presence of the material witnesses. Photographs of the dead body were also taken and the police also prepared the inquest papers. 5. PW6/A, under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. During the investigation, spot was inspected. Site plan Ext. PW21/A was prepared in the presence of the material witnesses. Photographs of the dead body were also taken and the police also prepared the inquest papers. 5. Autopsy of the dead body was performed on the request of the police by PW2 Dr. P.K. Ahluwalia. On the examination of the dead-body, he noticed a lacerated wound one finger above right eye-brow on the forehead 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm and another injury a lacerated wound left parital tuberosity 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm with depressed fracture. Left parital bone below left parital tuberosity, bone chip was embedded in brain tissue with intra cranial bleed. He also noticed bleeding from both nostrils and bleeding from right ear. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to depressed fracture and injury to the brain, leading to shock due to intra cranial bleed, shock which was irreversible in nature, which led to death and he also opined about injury No. 2 could be caused by "Pachar" Ext. P6. The aforesaid injuries were found ante-mortem in nature. Probable duration elapsed between injury and the death within few minutes and between death and postmortem within 24 hours. Postmortem report is Ext. PW2/C. Viscera was also preserved and sent for examination. 6. On 24.3.2003 injured Teja Singh was also examined by PW1 Dr. Sushma Sharma around 8.30 pm. She noticed a lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm on the middle of forehead and bleeding was found present. The injured was advised to CT scan of the head, but it was normal study as reported by the Radiologist. To this effect she issued MLC Ext. PW1/A. She testified that the injury in question could be caused by Danda Ext. P1. 7. Police also lifted the blood stained earth in match box vide memo Ext. PW4/B from the spot alongwith five buttons of the shirt vide memo Ext. PW4/A and the small blood stained stone which was sent for forensic examination. The appellants hereinafter to be referred as 'the accused' were arrested on 25.3.2003. They were also got medically examined. 8. 7. Police also lifted the blood stained earth in match box vide memo Ext. PW4/B from the spot alongwith five buttons of the shirt vide memo Ext. PW4/A and the small blood stained stone which was sent for forensic examination. The appellants hereinafter to be referred as 'the accused' were arrested on 25.3.2003. They were also got medically examined. 8. Pursuant to the statement recorded u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, accused Angrej Singh got recovered "Pachar" (wooden piece) which was lying hidden under the bushes. It was photographed and was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW21/D. There were blood stains on one side of the "Pachar" at two places alongwith some hair on the other side, which were lifted. Its sketch map Ext. PW11/B was also prepared and it was sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW21/F. 9. Accused Kewal Singh pursuant to his disclosure statement also got recovered Danda Ext. P1 which was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW21/H after preparing its sketch map Ext. PW9/B. 10. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also found the involvement of Girdhari Lal, the third accused. He was also arrested. Later all the three accused were granted bail. 11. Forensic reports Ext. PA and PB were also received. On completing the Challan, it was presented against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. 12. Finding a prima facie case for causing the death of Ashok Kumar by the accused persons and having caused simple injury to Teja Singh in furtherance of their common intention, they were accordingly charge-sheeted under Sections 302, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 13. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW3, injured Teja Singh, PW4 Bir Singh and PW5 Girdhari Lal to prove the incident and also examined PW1 Dr. Sushma Sharma and PW2 Dr. P.K. Ahluwalia to prove the injuries on the persons of PW3 and deceased Ashok Kumar, besides examining the formal witnesses and the Investigating Officer. 14. The statements of the accused persons u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded separately. The circumstances which were found attendant upon each of them were put. Sushma Sharma and PW2 Dr. P.K. Ahluwalia to prove the injuries on the persons of PW3 and deceased Ashok Kumar, besides examining the formal witnesses and the Investigating Officer. 14. The statements of the accused persons u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded separately. The circumstances which were found attendant upon each of them were put. They alleged that there was a dispute with respect to path with PW3 Teja Singh due to which they were falsely implicated in the case. When called upon to enter into their defence, they did not lead any evidence. 15. The learned trial Court did not find cogent evidence against accused Girdhari Lal, as such he was acquitted. However, after appreciating the evidence on record, accused Angrej Singh was found guilty of committing culpable homicide of Ashok Kumar, not amounting to murder and accused Kewal Singh for causing simple injury on the forehead of PW3 Teja Singh, as such each of them were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 16. Shri N.S. Chandel, learned Counsel duly assisted by Ms. Kanta Thakur, vehemently argued that from the evidence adduced on record it transpires that there were many eye witnesses present on the spot, but police did not bother to examine any of them except the interested witnesses and further that there was a delay in lodging FIR as PW3 injured and deceased Ashok Kumar were taken to the Police Station and then to the hospital, thus there was a chance for the complainant party to fabricate a case against the accused. The learned trial Court ignored important aspect of the case as such conviction is bad in law. 17. Contra, Shri A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General duly assisted by Shri R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and submitted that the judgment of conviction and sentence is based upon proper appreciation of evidence. 18. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully and meticulously reappraised the evidence on record. 19. On scanning evidence on record, I do not find that any of the witnesses has any axe to grind and falsely implicate the accused in the case. PW3 Teja Singh is the complainant and injured witness. His testimony cannot be easily rejected outright but however, his testimony requires scrutiny with more than ordinary case. 19. On scanning evidence on record, I do not find that any of the witnesses has any axe to grind and falsely implicate the accused in the case. PW3 Teja Singh is the complainant and injured witness. His testimony cannot be easily rejected outright but however, his testimony requires scrutiny with more than ordinary case. His statement was initially recorded by the police on reaching hospital. As PW3 he testified that when he reached bus-stand, Kopra alongwith PW5 Girdhari Lal in the tractor he saw Ashok Kumar (deceased) and Angrej Singh accused altercating with each other. He also stated about the presence of PW4 Bir Singh. He categorically stated that when Angrej Singh and Ashok Kumar started quarreling with each other he separated them and it was then accused Angrej Singh went to his house and came with his brother Kewal Singh. Angrej Singh picked up a "Pachar" Ext. P6 from a 'Khokha' and dealt a blow on the head of Ashok Kumar and Ashok Kumar fell down. He also stated that Kewal Singh another accused gave a blow of Danda on his head with the result he got a bleeding injury and threatened to kill him. Thereafter they picked up Ashok Kumar in his jeep to Police Station and then to Nurpur hospital where the doctor told them that he had already died. He also stated about his own medical examination by the doctor and proved his signatures on Medico Legal Certificate, Ext. PW1/A. He further stated that police recorded his statement and arrested accused persons. He also identified "Pachar" Ext. P6 with which Angrej Singh accused had hit deceased Ashok Kumar. This witness was subjected to meticulous cross-examination, but nothing material could be extracted. The manner in which the deceased and accused Angrej Singh stated to have been altercating was exchanging of heated arguments. The identification of "Pachar" Ext. P6 has not been disputed. The above statement is duly corroborated by PW4 Bir Singh and PW5 Girdhari Lal. Their names do find mention in the FIR. Their presence at the relevant time on the spot has also not been disputed and even in their crossexamination no material discrepancy could be brought either to reject the prosecution case or disbelieve them. The above statement is duly corroborated by PW4 Bir Singh and PW5 Girdhari Lal. Their names do find mention in the FIR. Their presence at the relevant time on the spot has also not been disputed and even in their crossexamination no material discrepancy could be brought either to reject the prosecution case or disbelieve them. The defence which by and large was put to them that it was the complainant party who had attacked in darkness with the Danda and got hit their own member is denied. Whereas every witness is categoric with respect to inflicting the blow by Ext. P6 on the head of deceased by Angrej Singh which proved fatal and Kewal Singh is proved to have caused simple injury to PW3 Teja Singh by Danda Ext. P1. 20. Further, PW2 Dr. P.K. Ahluwalia did not rule out the possibility of causing fatal injury to the deceased with "Pachar" Ext. P6. Similarly PW1 Dr. Sushma Sharma stated about the possibility of the injury found on the person of PW3 Teja Singh by Danda Ext. P1. 21. "Pachar" Ext. P6 was got recovered by accused Angrej Singh and Danda Ext. P1 by Kewal Singh. The recovery, in the fact situation is only having a corroborative importance, which need not to be discussed in detail as also the use of these weapons in the episode is not disputed as aforesaid. Otherwise also, it stands proved and linked with the injuries in question. Nothing has been put to any of the witnesses showing that they were interested in the success of the case and also on scrutiny with great care and caution I do not find any discrepancy therein. 22. The Apex Court in Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, JT 2012 (2) SC 553, held that the interested witnesses must have interest in having the accused convicted for extraneous reasons, but the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses does not show any of the extraneous reasons by which they could be interested to falsely implicate the accused persons. 23. Further, I also do not find any delay in FIR which was recorded and received by the Illaqua Magistrate on the same day. Though PW3 stated that first they went to Police Station and then to hospital, but this does not mean that the story was concocted by them. 23. Further, I also do not find any delay in FIR which was recorded and received by the Illaqua Magistrate on the same day. Though PW3 stated that first they went to Police Station and then to hospital, but this does not mean that the story was concocted by them. To save the injured was a matter of prime importance and in cross-examination nothing was extracted that they deliberated with police. The story of dispute over a path as stated in the statements u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also not suggested to any of the witnesses. 24. Thus, on the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence and also the fact that there was a fatal single blow on the head caused by accused Angrej Singh with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury is likely to cause death and further that Kewal Singh had dealt Danda blow on the head of PW3 Teja Singh, which caused simple injury. In my considered opinion each one of the accused-appellants were rightly convicted by the learned trial Court as aforesaid. 25. The learned Counsel for the convicts prayed for leniency. I have considered his submissions. The sentence passed on accused Kewal Singh does not require any reduction, as having undergone the sentence and deposited the fine, but keeping in view the sentence imposed upon Angrej Singh who at the time of the alleged incident was only 24 years of age and the incident in question was the result of the heated discussion ensued inter se the parties, his substantive sentence without disturbing the fine is reduced to four years. To this extent the sentence stands modified. The fine amount is stated to have been deposited by both the accused persons. The sentence of Kewal Singh is already complete as having undergone, but the sentence imposed upon Angrej Singh was suspended by this Court vide order dated 10.5.2005. Thus, he (Angrej Singh) is hereby ordered to surrender before the learned trial Court on 18.4.2012 to serve out the remaining sentence, failing which coercive steps to commit him to prison shall be taken by the learned trial Court, in conformity with this judgment. The period already undergone by him during the investigation/trial shall be set-off as per the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The period already undergone by him during the investigation/trial shall be set-off as per the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The amount of fine shall be disbursed as directed by the learned trial Court. The appeal is dismissed with the above modification in sentence as passed against Angrej Singh convict/appellant.