JUDGMENT Mr. Fateh Deep Singh, J.: - All the three appellants-accused Charna, Amrika and Bittu before the trial Court has challenged their conviction by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar through judgment and order of sentence dated 05.08.2005 whereby Charna and Bittu have been found guilty for commission of offence under Section 302/34 IPC and Amrika under Section 302 IPC. Accused Amrika has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Accused Charna and Bittu have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1/1/2 years. 2. The precise allegations levelled by complainant Puran Chand father of deceased Gindhi are that on 18.02.2003 his three sons and two daughters along with others had come to attend the marriage ceremony of his neighbour at Karam Palace, Jandiala Road, Tarn Taran. It is stated that at the ceremony Kanso, who happens to be daughter of uncle of the complainant was abused and given slaps by Charna and his sons Amrika and Bittu wherein deceased Gindhi had interfered and refrained them from quarrelling. It is alleged that after the ceremonies around 4.00 P.M. when they were leaving the marriage palace all the three accused accosted the deceased whereby Charna caught hold of the deceased from the right arm, Bittu by the left arm whereas Amrika gave blows to the deceased with a knife, who fell down and was rushed to Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran where he succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of this, statement Exhibit PF made before SI/SHO Anil Kumar after endorsement Exhibit PF/1, the present case by way of FIR Exhibit PF/2 was got registered. 3. During the investigations, the Investigating Officer prepared inquest report and the post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Paramjit Singh. The Investigating Officer prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence and lifted blood stains from the spot. Statement of witnesses were recorded and accused were formally arrested. It was on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Amrika had led to the recovery of the weapon and after necessary formalities, rough site plan, the articles taken into police possession, were dispatched to the laboratory. 4. After usual formalities, consequent upon completion of investigations, challan was presented. 5. Statement of witnesses were recorded and accused were formally arrested. It was on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Amrika had led to the recovery of the weapon and after necessary formalities, rough site plan, the articles taken into police possession, were dispatched to the laboratory. 4. After usual formalities, consequent upon completion of investigations, challan was presented. 5. The accused denied the allegations and were put to trial in which the prosecution examined eight witnesses to establish its case. 6. When the accused were asked to explain the incriminating evidence oral as well as documentary, denied the allegations, pleading innocence and false implication. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. Thus leading to their conviction. 7. We have heard Mr. Mohit Rampal, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Pavit Mattewal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. The homicidal death of Gindhi is established beyond any doubt by Dr. Paramjit Singh PW-1, who has observed an incised wound on the right inguinal region leading to cutting of the femoral artery. The doctor has opined that it was a case of death due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. He has proved his post-mortem report Exhibit PA. The witnesses to this occurrence are PW-5 Kanso, PW-6 Sham Lal and PW-7 Salwinder @ Kattu. Pursuing their testimonies, it is not in any manner disputed or put to question as to inter se relationship of the parties to this feud. Though Kanso has supported the prosecution version how the fight ensued but has not come forth to testify manner of this murder. It has been rightly argued by Mr. Mohit Rampal, counsel for the appellants that she has only brought about the cause of this fight and not more than that and which could not be controverted by the State counsel. The other witness is Sham Lal PW-6, who is a child witness and happens to be the son of the deceased. Though the witness has identified all the three accused and has only stated that the three accused assaulted his father but has not specified the manner of this assault. The other witness is Sham Lal PW-6, who is a child witness and happens to be the son of the deceased. Though the witness has identified all the three accused and has only stated that the three accused assaulted his father but has not specified the manner of this assault. As after the fight had started, he had run around to call his maternal uncle and the cross-examination of this witness reflects that he is on shaky wicket qua the role of Bittu and Charna and thus leaves Salwinder Singh @ Kattu PW-7 as the only other witness and has been declared hostile but nothing could be illustrated in his testimony which could in any manner be of any benefit to the prosecution except the fact that Gindhi was taken to hospital where he had died. The non-examination of the complainant Puran Chand certainly is a distressing feature for the prosecution, evaluating the residual effect of the evidence of Sham Lal child witness and which is corroborated by the medical evidence. Together with that of the Investigating Officer Anil Kumar PW-8 has established beyond any doubt that consequent upon arrest of accused Amrika through memos Exhibits PL and PM on his interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement Exhibit PN leading to the recovery of the knife whose rough sketch Exhibit PO has been proved on record which was sealed and taken into police possession through memo Exhibit PP. The due dispatch of the article to the laboratory has been well elaborated by PW-3 Constable Lakhwinder Singh and PW-4 LC Jasbir Singh through their affidavits Exhibits PC and PD respectively. The Forensic Science Laboratory report proved on the record irrefutably establishes that the pants and shirt worn by the deceased and the soil lifted from the place of occurrence were certainly stained with human blood. The mere fact that the weapon has not been dispatched certainly as has been argued by the State counsel is a remiss which has no bearing on the case in hand as the eye witness account clearly establishes and is corroborated by the medical evidence leads to the only inference that the deceased was murdered by knife injuries inflicted by Amrika. 8. 8. Evaluating the entire evidence on the record, it clearly establishes that there is no element of pre-mediation and what apparently stands reflected is that the parties at the wedding had a tiff and a consequence of which in a sudden and grave provocation has led Amrika hitting the deceased by means of the weapon in a fit of rage. Only a single injury has been caused further illustrates that the accused did not had the requisite intention to cause this death and it was on account of cutting of the femoral artery has led to excessive bleeding and death. The allegations as to the role of Charna the old man who is father of Amrika and Bittu and the involvement of Bittu being brother of Amrika rather prevails on the mind of the Court that wildest allegations have been levelled against these two persons for a dispute which Amrika had with the deceased and which is a common tendency amongst rural folks. 9. The learned trial Court has taken a pure lackadaisical approach into the matter and has wrongly interpreted the evidence qua appellants Charna and Bittu. Thus giving them benefit of doubt their conviction is set aside. However, in view of the testimonies detailed above, being case of sudden fight the offence falls within the category under Section 304 Part-II. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of sentence are modified holding Amrika guilty for commission of offence under Section 304 Part-II and accordingly, is sentenced to undergo 10 years of imprisonment. However, the fine to remain the same. Appeal of the appellants thus stands disposed of by this modification. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————