Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 698 (PNJ)

Chandroop Singh v. State of Haryana

2014-04-11

JASPAL SINGH, RAJIVE BHALLA

body2014
JUDGMENT Jaspal Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging their conviction and sentence imposed vide impugned judgment dated March 11, 2002 and order of sentence dated March 14, 2002 passed in case bearing FIR No. 112 dated May 1, 2000, under Sections 302/34 IPC Police Station Sadar Rohtak whereby they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine to the tune of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further under go rigorous imprisonment for one month. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution as unfolded by Daya Chand (deceased) is that on April 25, 2000 at 6/7:00 p.m., he was going to Sehaj Ram for hiring his services for thrashing crop but he was intercepted on his way by appellant/Chandroop. He took him in his grip and called his sons there. In the meanwhile, Parveen @ Tillu and Dinesh both armed with Jailies came there. Parveen @ Tillu dealt a Jaili blow thrust wise on his chest and Dinesh @ Nanha inflicted a Jaili blow on his back. They also caused other injuries. He raised alarm which attracted Partap Singh and Naresh to the spot who were going with their cattle to the pond. On seeing them, Chandroop and his sons fled from the spot. He was rushed to PGIMS, Rohtak in a three-wheeler by Partap Singh and Naresh. Prior to that on April 17, 2000, Kale son of Daya Chand had an altercation with Ashok s/o Chandroop. The matter could not be compromised and proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr. P.C. were initiated against him and Kale. On receipt of information regarding admission of Daya Chand in PGIMS, Rohtak at Police Station Sadar Rohtak, HC Satpal Singh reached there. After collecting a copy of MLR and other information, he sought opinion with regard to the fitness of Daya Chand to make statement from the concerned medical officer and when he was declared fit to make statement, he recorded statement of Daya Chand. Since no cognizable offence was made out, HC Satpal Singh got registered DDR No. 16 dated April 26, 2000. At the time of medico-legal examination of Daya Chand, Dr. Raman Gupta kept the injuries under observation. Daya Chand was discharged on April 30, 2000 and returned to his house. Since no cognizable offence was made out, HC Satpal Singh got registered DDR No. 16 dated April 26, 2000. At the time of medico-legal examination of Daya Chand, Dr. Raman Gupta kept the injuries under observation. Daya Chand was discharged on April 30, 2000 and returned to his house. However, he felt pain in his chest on the same day in the evening and was rushed to PGIMS, Rohtak where he was declared as brought dead. 2. On receipt of an intimation regarding his death, SI/SHO Jagpal Singh registered the FIR No. 112 dated May 1, 2000 under Section 302/34 IPC. Then, he visited PGIMS, Rohtak and conducted inquest proceedings in respect of dead body of Daya Chand. He also recorded statements of witnesses with regard to the identification of dead body; visited the spot; prepared rough site plan of place of occurrence; recorded statements of Partap Singh. Naresh and constable Satyawan under Section 161 Cr. P.C and deputed constable Satyawan for getting conducted autopsy on the dead body of Daya Chand. After getting the needful done, he produced a sealed parcel containing Dhoti of the deceased, besides, the post mortem report and other papers before SHO. During investigation of this case, SI/SHO Jagpal Singh arrested the accused on May 4, 2000. They were subjected to interrogation. Tillu @ Parveen during his interrogation suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that he has kept concealed Jaili having single prong in the room meant for parking of tractor. His statement was recorded to this effect which was signed by him and attested by Satdev Singh. Similarly, when Dinesh @ Nanha was subjected to interrogation, he also made disclosure statement that he has kept concealed a Jaili double pronged in the room earlier pointed out by Tillu @ Parveen. His statement was also put into black and white which was signed by him and witnessed by Satdev Singh. Then, both the accused while in custody got recovered Jailies in pursuance of their disclosure statements. After preparation of sketches of both Jailies, these were converted into separate parcels and were sealed by Investigating Officer. He also prepared site plan of the place of recovery of the aforesaid Jailies. Thereafter, parcels containing Jailies were taken into possession vide separate memos. Statements of witnesses were also recorded in this regard. After preparation of sketches of both Jailies, these were converted into separate parcels and were sealed by Investigating Officer. He also prepared site plan of the place of recovery of the aforesaid Jailies. Thereafter, parcels containing Jailies were taken into possession vide separate memos. Statements of witnesses were also recorded in this regard. He also got prepared a scaled site plan of the place of occurrence from constable Sumit Kumar on June 22, 2000. 3. After completion of the investigation and other formalities, challan was presented in the Court of learned Jurisdictional Magistrate which was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated August 8, 2000. 4. Finding a prima facie evidence appearing in the report filed under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C as well as documents annexed with it, accused-appellants Tillu @ Parveen and Dinesh Kumar @ Nanha were charged to face trial under Section 302/34 IPC vide order dated August 22, 2000. They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to substantiate the charge framed against accused-appellants, prosecution examined Partap Singh as PW-1, an eye witness of the occurrence who has reiterated the contents of his statement earlier made to the police. Constable Satyawan/PW-2 got conducted an autopsy on the dead body of Daya Chand and handed over the sealed parcels containing clothes of deceased to SHO/SI Jagpal Singh. Constable Sumit Ku-mar/PW-3 prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence, Ex.PB at the demarcation of PW Naresh Kumar. Constable Balwan Singh/PW-4, Ajmer Singh MHC/PW-5, Constable Ram Dhan/PW-6 handled the case property and were also associated during investigation of this case. Dr. V.K. Nagpal/PW-7 conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Daya Chand, HC Satpal Singh/PW-8 conducted initial investigation and recorded statement of Daya Chand Ex.PL and PW-9/SI Jagpal Singh is the investigating officer. Thereafter, the learned public prosecutor closed evidence after tendering the reports of Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban Ex.PS and PS/1. 6. When the incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence were put to the accused by the learned trial Court for eliciting their explanation as provided under Section 313 Cr. P.C. they denied them and pleaded innocence. Following specific plea was taken in defence by the accused-appellants:- Deceased Daya Chand was rough and tuff of the village. 6. When the incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence were put to the accused by the learned trial Court for eliciting their explanation as provided under Section 313 Cr. P.C. they denied them and pleaded innocence. Following specific plea was taken in defence by the accused-appellants:- Deceased Daya Chand was rough and tuff of the village. A few days before his death he fought with Balbir and Anoop sons of Shri Ram Singh over a plot and they threatened to teach him a lesson, Daya Chand sold a plot to one Dhobi Nawab Ali and obtained Rs. 10,000/- from him. He did not execute the sale deed in his favour nor returned the money. He had dispute with Ram Singh, Amar Singh etc. who had their agricultural land adjacent to the land of Daya Chand. He was given some beatings by unknown person in the absence of Partap and Naresh Pws. They were informed by Dharambir son of Manphool at the instance of Daya Chand. They took him to the hospital. He suffered simple injuries and was conscious throughout. We have been falsely implicated by the police because of rollah and false statement of Daya Chand was created in connivance with police. He was discharged from the hospital. He was alright and suffered a heart attack at his residence and died a natural death. 7. Accused-appellants opted to adduce evidence in defence and examined DW-1/Kashmiri Lai Draftsman who prepared the site plan Ex.DB at the instance of Naresh Kumar/DW-2. DW-3 Dharambir son of Manphool who has deposed that on April 25, 2000 at about 6/6:15 p.m., Daya Chand sustained injuries at a place near his house. He was brought by him to his house and served with Milk. A message was sent to Partap and Naresh who came there and took him (Daya Chand) to Medical College Rohtak. Thereafter, he returned to his house after recovery in the evening on April 30, 2000 but breathed his last during night. 8. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor, learned defence counsel and appraisal of the evidence, appellants were convicted and sentenced as reflected in para No. 1 of this judgment. 9. Feeling aggrieved, accused-appellants preferred the instant appeal which was admitted for hearing by this Court. Lower Court's record was also requisitioned and received. 10. 8. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor, learned defence counsel and appraisal of the evidence, appellants were convicted and sentenced as reflected in para No. 1 of this judgment. 9. Feeling aggrieved, accused-appellants preferred the instant appeal which was admitted for hearing by this Court. Lower Court's record was also requisitioned and received. 10. At the very out-set of the arguments, learned counsel for appellants has submitted that during pendency of the instant appeal, an enquiry was conducted regarding the juvenility of Dinesh Kumar @ Nanha and he has been found to be juvenile under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the date of commission of alleged offence. He did not challenge the conviction of appellant Dinesh Kumar @ Nanha vide impugned judgment dated March 11, 2002 on merits but prayed that since he has already undergone a substantive sentence of more than 5 years i.e. more than the period of 3 years prescribed under the Act and is aged about 28 years, he be released forthwith after setting aside the sentences awarded to him. To fortify his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered in Lakhan Lal vs. State of Bihar, 2011 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 494: 2011 (2) SCC 251 . 11. We have given an anxious thought to the aforesaid submissions. Appellant-Dinesh Kumar @ Nanha has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the commission of the murder of Daya Chand. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on April 25, 2000 and as per the report, his date of birth is 22.7.1985 meaning thereby that he was less than 18 years of age i.e. a juvenile on the date of commission of alleged offence. In such situation, it was obligatory upon the prosecution to present the challan before the Juvenile Justice Board for an enquiry to be faced by him. 12. It would be apt and proper to refer Section 7(A) of the Act which prescribes the procedure to meet with such a situation. In such situation, it was obligatory upon the prosecution to present the challan before the Juvenile Justice Board for an enquiry to be faced by him. 12. It would be apt and proper to refer Section 7(A) of the Act which prescribes the procedure to meet with such a situation. It reads as under:- 7(A) Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court –– (1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the Court shall make an inquiry, make such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be. Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. (2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a Court shall be deemed to have no effect. 13. A glance at the aforesaid provision makes it clear that claim of juvenility can be raised before "any Court" and even after final disposal of the case which is required to be determined in terms of provisions contained in this Act. The Court is also obliged to make an enquiry and collect necessary evidence to determine the age of such a person to record a finding whether such a person is a juvenile or not. It further provides that in case, a convict is found to be juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, his conviction shall be deemed to have no effect and he shall be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any. 14. It further provides that in case, a convict is found to be juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, his conviction shall be deemed to have no effect and he shall be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any. 14. Reverting to the facts of the case, an enquiry was conducted by Sukhpreet Singh, PM, JJB, Rohtak, and report dated October 23, 2013 has been received in compliance of the orders of this Court which discloses that appellant Dinesh Kumar @ Nanha was juvenile on the date of commission of the offence. State of Haryana has also not controverted the report furnished in this regard. So, he was required to face enquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board. Undisputedly, he has undergone a substantive sentence of more than five years. 15. Now, the question arises, whether it would be proper and in the interest of justice to direct the appellant to face an enquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board. An identical question arose in case Lakhan Lal (supra) in which, appellants had undergone a substantive period of sentence for more than 3 years i.e. the maximum sentence provided under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering that the age of the accused and detention rendered in a special home, irrelevant while sustaining conviction u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC, set aside the sentence by observing as follows:- The next question for our consideration is as to what order and sentence is to be passed against the appellants for the offences committed by them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code? Both the appellants have crossed the age of 40 years as at present and therefore it will not be conducive to the environment in the special home and at any rate, they have undergone an actual period of sentence of more than three years the maximum period provided under Section 15 of the 2000 Act. In the circumstances, while sustaining the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentences awarded to them are set aside. They are accordingly directed to be released forthwith. This view of ours to set aside the sentence is supported by the decision of this Court in Dharambir (supra). 16. They are accordingly directed to be released forthwith. This view of ours to set aside the sentence is supported by the decision of this Court in Dharambir (supra). 16. Learned counsel for the State of Punjab could not cite any contrary authority or law to divert from the view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lakhan Lal (supra) as already discussed. Appellant/Dinesh Kumar @ Nanha has undergone substantive sentence for more than five years and is now aged about 28 years. So, it would not be proper and in the interest of justice to send him to face enquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board afresh or to send him to a Special home. 17. Resultantly, we dispose of the appeal qua Dinesh Kumar @ Nanha by affirming his conviction and setting aside the sentence imposed vide impugned judgment and order or sentence. He is ordered to be set free forthwith, if he is in custody. 18. While assailing the impugned judgment, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is inadequate and insufficient to warrant conviction against any of the appellants. The main plank of the prosecution is the statement of Daya Chand Ex.PL which is alleged to have been recorded by HC Satpal Singh PW-8 on April 26, 2000 at about 9:30 a.m. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, DDR No. 19 Ex.PL/2 was registered. Daya Chand was discharged from the hospital on April 30, 2000 but again he is alleged to have developed some health problem and was brought back to the hospital where he was declared "brought dead". The statement Ex.PL cannot be said to be a dying declaration; firstly on the ground that there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution that Daya Chand was fit to make statement at the time allegedly recorded by HC Satpal Singh; secondly the application Ex. PK seeking the opinion of the concerned medical officer was signed and moved by Jaipal Singh SI/SHO but the statement of Daya Chand was not recorded by him. There is nothing on the record to suggest as to why Jaipal Singh SI/SHO did not record the statement. Moreover, the endorsement Ex.PK/1 "Pt. is fit for giving statement at this time" has not been proved by the prosecution. Dr. There is nothing on the record to suggest as to why Jaipal Singh SI/SHO did not record the statement. Moreover, the endorsement Ex.PK/1 "Pt. is fit for giving statement at this time" has not been proved by the prosecution. Dr. Gauri Shankar who allegedly recorded fitness of the deceased on April 26, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. has not been examined. Even Dr. Raman Gupta PW-10 who medico-legally examined Daya Chand on April 25, 2000 at 9:15 p.m. also observed that the patient was semi conscious and irritable. So, when Daya Chand was not fit to make statement, his alleged statement Ex.PL is nothing but a fabrication, which otherwise does not bear the time of its recording. No explanation has also been furnished by the prosecution in this regard. The statement Ex.PL should be ruled out of consideration. 19. The second contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is an unaccounted delay in reporting the matter to the police. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on April 25, 2000 at about 6/7:00 p.m. and Daya Chand was admitted in PGIMS Rohtak on the same day at 9:15 p.m. but the statement of Daya Chand Ex. PL was recorded on April 26, 2000 at 9:35 a.m. Neither his brother Partap nor his son Naresh who allegedly witnessed the occurrence and attracted to the spot made any effort to report the occurrence to the police. The delay of more than 14 hours in reporting the matter to the police has been utilized by the prosecution for falsely implicating innocent persons and to coin a false story by giving a coloured version to the occurrence. 20. The third contention of the learned counsel for the appellants challenging the case of the prosecution is that neither PW-1 Partap nor Naresh was present at the time of occurrence. In fact, deceased Daya Chand was given beatings by some unknown persons and Partap and Naresh Pws were informed about the said fact by Dharamveer son of Manphool at the instance of Daya Chand. Thereafter, they took him to the hospital and he was discharged in a satisfactory condition but on the same day, he suffered a heart attack at his residence and died but by twisting the facts the present appellants were involved as there was prior animosity of Daya Chand with the appellants. Thereafter, they took him to the hospital and he was discharged in a satisfactory condition but on the same day, he suffered a heart attack at his residence and died but by twisting the facts the present appellants were involved as there was prior animosity of Daya Chand with the appellants. Dharamveer has been examined in defence by the appellants who has lent support to the defence version. Since Partap PW is a procured or made up witness, no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of such a witness. 21. The fourth contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that no injury has been ascribed to Chandroop who is alleged to have caught hold of the deceased when injuries were inflicted to him by the appellants Dinesh and Parveen. He has been ascribed such a role just to involve him in this case. Allegations of catching hold of the victim or of any extortion are inevitably made when the number of injuries on the injured party do not co-relate with the number of accused or in the alternative in an attempt to rope in as many persons as possible from the other side. To buttress this contention, reliance has been placed upon Balwantbhai B. Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2010 (5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 352: (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 684. 22. Even as per the version of Partap PW-1 as well as ruqqa Ex.PL Parveen @ Tilu dealt a jaili blow on the chest of Daya Chand and Dinesh @ Nanha gave a jaili blow on the back but as per the statement of PW-7 Dr. V.K. Nagpal, the injuries No. 1 and 2 are not possible with the Jaili blows allegedly recovered by the appellants Ex.P-1 and P-2, respectively. As far as alleged injury suffered by the deceased on the head/left parietal region is concerned, it has not been specifically attributed to any of the appellants. So, in such circumstances also the case of the prosecution is doubtful. 23. Lastly, it has been stressed by the learned counsel for the appellants that offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out from the oral as well as medical evidence. PW-7 Dr. So, in such circumstances also the case of the prosecution is doubtful. 23. Lastly, it has been stressed by the learned counsel for the appellants that offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out from the oral as well as medical evidence. PW-7 Dr. V.K. Nagpal has opined that the cause of death in this case was due to secondary complications to injury No. 1 and further that it was dangerous to life but during his cross examination, it has been deposed by him that the injuries were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature but in the next breath, he hastened to add that injury No. 1 was dangerous. The cardiac temponents i.e. secondary complications might have developed subsequently at any time before death and the cardiac temponent was the cause of death in this case. Moreover, the intention to cause death is missing in the instant case. Daya Chand did not state while making his alleged statement Ex.PL that there was any such intention of the appellants to cause his death. An opinion expressed by Doctor/PW-7 that injury No. 1 is dangerous to life or that it is likely to cause death does not mean that these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. So at the most, the case would fall under the 1st Part of Section 304 IPC. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Jayraj vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1976) 2 SCC 788 and B.N. Kavatkar and Another vs. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 304. 24. While concluding his arguments, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction and sentence of the appellants is based upon conjectures and surmises and inadequate evidence which deserves to be set aside. However, in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the occurrence did take place involving the appellants, offence under Section 302/34 IPC is liable to be diluted to an offence under 1st Part of Section 304 IPC. 25. Learned State counsel has controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that statement of Daya Chand since deceased was recorded by HC Satpal Singh on April 26, 2000 who has attributed specific role to all the appellants. 25. Learned State counsel has controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that statement of Daya Chand since deceased was recorded by HC Satpal Singh on April 26, 2000 who has attributed specific role to all the appellants. Daya Chand passed away due to sustaining of injuries at the hands of the appellants on April 30, 2000. His statement Ex.PL stands converted into a dying declaration which is a substantive piece of evidence. It is well settled that the dying declaration can be made the basis of the conviction of the assailants without any further corroboration. In the case in hand, his statement Ex.PL rather finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-1/Partap an eye witness of the occurrence as well as the medical evidence. The cause of death in this case opined by PW-7/Dr. V.K. Nagpal is specific that it was due to secondary complications to injury No. 1 described in PMR. While appearing in the witness box, he has also specifically deposed that there was laceration of heart with collected blood present in the percardial cavity which had caused cardiac temponents on heart and further that injury No. 1 itself was dangerous to life. The impugned judgment and order of sentence are absolutely inconsonance with the evidence as well as the legal proposition and the appeal being devoid of merits deserves dismissal. 26. We have given an anxious thought to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 27. As far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, Daya Chand was rushed to PGIMS Rohtak immediately after the occurrence and was admitted in the hospital on April 25, 2000 at 9:15 a.m. The medical officer sent the ruqqa with regard to his admission to the police, In response to the said ruqqa, HC Satpal PW-8 visited PGIMS Rohtak; moved an application Ex.PK under the signatures of Jaipal Singh SI/SHO seeking opinion of concerned medical officer with regard to the fitness of injured Daya Chand to make statement and vide endorsement Ex.PK/1, he was declared fit to make statement on April 26, 2000 at 9:35 a.m. then he recorded the statement of Daya Chand Ex.PL. No doubt Dr. No doubt Dr. Gauri Shankar who made the endorsement regarding the fitness of injured has not been examined by the prosecution but his non examination is not sufficient to discard the evidentiary value of the statement Ex.PL which becomes the dying declaration after the demise of Daya Chand. Similarly, mere fact that PW-10 Dr. Raman Gupta observed while conducting medical examination of Daya Chand to be semi-conscious and irritable is also not sufficient to hold that Daya Chand was not fit to make statement. Moreover, semi-conscious does not mean that he was not fit to make statement or was not in a sound mind. Non examination of Dr. Gauri Shankar can be termed to be a lapse or omission on the part of the prosecution but simply for this reason the entire case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away especially in the circumstances that there is some other cogent, convincing or reliable evidence. Moreover, the case of the appellants is that Daya Chand sustained simple injuries at the hands of some unknown persons and remained conscious throughout. Even he was discharged from the hospital in a satisfactory condition on April 30, 2000 the day he expired due to the suffering of cardiac problem. So there is sufficient evidence that Daya Chand was in a fit state of mind at the time his statement Ex.PL was recorded by HC Satpal Singh PW-8 and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. 28. As regards, the delay in reporting the matter to the police is concerned, mere delay in lodging the FIR with the police is not necessarily, as a matter of right, fatal to the prosecution. The effect of delay depends upon all the facts and circumstances of a given case and the explanation put-forth by the prosecution. However, it is desirable that there should be prompt lodging of FIR so that it may not result into introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or implication of innocent person as a result of deliberation and consultation. In the case in hand, Daya Chand was admitted in the hospital immediately after the occurrence and an intimation with regard to his admission was sent to the police. The delay, if any, is on the part of the police officials and it cannot be attributed to the injured or eye witness. In the case in hand, Daya Chand was admitted in the hospital immediately after the occurrence and an intimation with regard to his admission was sent to the police. The delay, if any, is on the part of the police officials and it cannot be attributed to the injured or eye witness. Since the injured was lying admitted in the hospital, the primary duty of the eye witness was to save the life of the injured and reporting of matter to the police becomes, secondary. Moreover, there is nothing that Ex.PL was got recorded by Daya Chand, since deceased, after having deliberations and consultations with any person. He has only attributed the injuries and the role played by the present appellants. So, the delay, if any, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. 29. So far as the third contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that neither Partap P W-1 nor Naresh was present at the alleged occurrence is concerned, the same is also without any substance. As per the contents of Ex. PL as well as the statement of Partap PW-1, it is evident that Chandroop took the deceased in his grip, called his sons Dinesh and Parveen and in response to his call, they came while armed with Jaili and caused injuries. Moreover, Partap has also categorically staled that he alongwith Naresh was proceeding towards the village pond with buffaloes whereas Daya Chand was going to hire a thresher, they heard an alarm raised by Daya Chand upon which they were attracted to the scene and witnessed the occurrence. So, their presence at the spot is not improbable. Similar fact also finds mentioned in the statement of Daya Chand Ex.PL. 30. The fourth contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is also without any legal weight. Each case has its own peculiar facts and it cannot be observed as a straight jacket formula that the allegations of catching hold are generally made to falsely involve innocent persons. In the case in hand, a specific role has been attributed to all the appellants by Daya Chand in his statement Ex.PL as well as by Partap PW-1 an eye witness. So far as the possibility of non infliction of injuries with Jailies Ex.P-1 and P-2 is concerned, it is only an opinionative evidence and cannot prevail upon the eye witness account. So far as the possibility of non infliction of injuries with Jailies Ex.P-1 and P-2 is concerned, it is only an opinionative evidence and cannot prevail upon the eye witness account. Similarly, non ascribing of injuries appearing on the head of the deceased is also of no help to the appellants as it has emerged in the statement that the appellants also gave more beatings to him with Jailies. Even otherwise, the presence of all the three appellants and causing of injuries by them is fully established on record. 31. Now, the question of determination remains whether in the given circumstances and the evidence available on file, ocular and medical, an offence under Section 302 IPC is made out or it would fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part-I IPC. Occurrence took place on April 25, 2000 at 6/7 p.m. in which Daya Chand sustained injuries. He was rushed to PGIMS Rohtak and admitted there on the same day at 9:15 p.m. He was medico-legally examined by Dr. Raman Gupta PW-10. He observed the following injuries on his person:- (1) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm over back of chest in midline about 10 cm below the neck. (2) Punctured lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.5 cm over back of the lower abdomen right side. (3) Lacerated wound 3 x 0.5 cm over anterior fold of left axilla. (4) Lacerated wound 2 x 0.5 cm over left parietal region. 32. He was discharged from the hospital on April 30, 2000 but in the evening he developed some problem and was immediately rushed to PGIMS Rohtak but on his examination he was declared brought dead. Dr. V.K. Nagpal PW-7 conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Daya Chand and proved the report Ex. PF. He opined the cause of death due to secondary complications to injury No. 1 and further injuries appearing on the body were ante-mortem in nature. He has categorically stated that the injuries observed by him on the dead body of Daya Chand were not sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. However, injury No. 1 was dangerous. Injury No. 2 was corresponding to 5th I.C. which was usually caused by the Doctor to put inter costal tube. He has categorically stated that the injuries observed by him on the dead body of Daya Chand were not sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. However, injury No. 1 was dangerous. Injury No. 2 was corresponding to 5th I.C. which was usually caused by the Doctor to put inter costal tube. It has further been stated by him that the deceased had received the injuries on April 25, 2000 and was discharged on April 30, 2000 and further that discharged by the Doctor means that patient has responded to the treatment. 33. Now, in view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, the question arises as to what offence has been committed by the appellant. When an injury is intentional and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and death follows, the offence is of murder. Where the intention of the appellants was not to kill the deceased outright, but to inflict injuries on his person but with the knowledge that the injuries would be likely to cause death, the assailant can escape the rigor of Section 302of the IPC. The distinction between Part-I and Part-II of Section 304 IPC is that the first paragraph applies to the offences of culpable homicide not amounting to the murder of the act by which the death is caused, is done:- (a) With the intention of causing death. (b) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 34. A case under sub-clause (a) will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder only if it falls within any of the exceptions to Section 300; or otherwise, it would fall under the first clause of Section 300 and would amount to murder. The second paragraph of this Section applies to acts which are done without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as likely to cause death, but which are done with the knowledge that they are likely to cause death. 35. Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, the injuries were caused to Daya Chand with Jailies which are agricultural instruments. The injuries were not grievous in nature even as per MLR as well as the statement of PW-10 Dr. Raman Gupta. Daya Chand was discharged from the hospital on April 30, 2000 in a satisfactory condition. 35. Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, the injuries were caused to Daya Chand with Jailies which are agricultural instruments. The injuries were not grievous in nature even as per MLR as well as the statement of PW-10 Dr. Raman Gupta. Daya Chand was discharged from the hospital on April 30, 2000 in a satisfactory condition. There is a categoric opinion that injury No. 1 was not sufficient to cause death though dangerous to life but here it would be appropriate to mention that dangerous to life or that likely to cause death does not connote that injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW-7 Dr. V.K. Nagpal has also opined that the cause of death in this case was due to secondary complications to injury No. 1, though, injuries on the body were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In fact, cardiac temponent was the cause of death in this case. Intention to cause death also cannot be inferred from the above referred facts and circumstances. So, the instant case would not come within the purview of Section 302 IPC and would be squarely covered under Section 304 Part-I IPC. 36. In the light of above discussion, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. However, the conviction of the appellants Chandroop and Parveen @ Tillu under Section 302 IPC is modified and they are convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each and in default thereof, the defaulter shall have to further undergo RI for a period of one year. Period of detention already undergone by the appellants/convicts namely Chandroop and Parveen @ Tillu during investigation and trial shall be set off under Section 428 Cr. P.C Amount of fine, if recovered, shall be given to the legal heirs of deceased Daya Chand in equal shares as compensation. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is partly allowed.