JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 28.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.84/2013 (CIS No.241/2014) : Offence Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.20,000/- 6 Months’ Additional S.I. 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. The appellant herein was married to Smt. Rampyari. He and Smt. Rampyari alongwith their three children were living together at the house of Nikki, sister of Rampyari, in the village Ahmedpura for the last 15-16 days prior to the incident and were engaged in harvesting cotton crop. On 10.10.2013, Nikki was playing music on the mobile while harvesting cotton in the field to which Krishna Singh protested on which, Rampyari told him to go elsewhere and work. As per the prosecution, Krishna Singh was habituated of consuming liquor and would quarrel with his wife while being under intoxication. He threatened Rampyari insinuating that she could expect retribution in the night. All the family members completed the job of collecting cotton and reached home where, they had dinner and went to sleep. Nikki and her husband Balwant Singh heard fervent cries in the morning at about 4-5 AM upon which, they and other inmates present in the house, woke up and claimed to have seen the appellant inflicting blows of a lathi or some sharp weapon on the face of Rampyari. Thereafter, he fled away from the spot. Rampyari became unconscious and was lying on the cot. Nikki raised a hue and cry on which, the neighbour Chhinder Kaur came there. Another neighbour Subhash was asked to summon the ambulance and on arrival thereof, Rampyari was taken to the Government Hospital, Pilibanga from where she was referred to Hanumangarh and then on to Bikaner for treatment. Smt. Nikki filed a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO Pilibanga on 11.10.2013 at 3.30 PM with the above allegations whereupon, FIR (Ex.P/2) came to be lodged at the Police Station Pilibanga for the offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC and investigation was commenced. The usual process of investigation was undertaken. The medical reports of Rampyari were procured. The accused was arrested and the usual recoveries were effected. The usual process of investigation was undertaken. The medical reports of Rampyari were procured. The accused was arrested and the usual recoveries were effected. Smt. Rampyari was discharged from the PBM Hospital, Bikaner on 25.10.2013 after her injuries had healed. Her condition suddenly deteriorated on which, she was again admitted to the hospital on 30.10.2013 and expired on the same day. It is important to note that despite Rampyari having been discharged from the hospital purportedly after her wounds had healed, the Investigating Officer did not record her statement. The dead body of Smt. Rampyari was subjected to autopsy at the Government Hospital, Pilibanga by Dr. Bhanupratap Singh (PW-5), who issued the postmortem report (Ex.P./9) opining that apparently, the cause of death of Rampyari was respiratory failure brought around by complications owing to the injuries inflicted to her. On conclusion of investigation, the I.O. proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Since the said offence was Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh where charge was framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 42 documents to prove its case. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the same and claimed to be innocent but did not lead any evidence in defence. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial court, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. Hence this appeal. 4. Shri Deepak Choudhary, Advocate representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses Nikki (PW-1), Raju (PW-3) and Balwant Singh (PW-4) is not reliable. Gagandeep (PW-7), Maya (PW-14) and Kulwant Singh (PW-15), children of the appellant and the deceased, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Thus, as per Shri Choudhary, the trial court was not justified in relying upon testimony of the interested witnesses whose evidence is partisan and discarding the testimony of the three children of the appellant and the deceased for holding the appellant guilty of the charge. Thus, as per Shri Choudhary, the trial court was not justified in relying upon testimony of the interested witnesses whose evidence is partisan and discarding the testimony of the three children of the appellant and the deceased for holding the appellant guilty of the charge. His alternative submission was that even if the prosecution case is accepted to be true on the face of the record, manifestly, the accused neither had any motive nor any intention to commit the murder of his wife. The incident appears to have occurred at the spur of moment without any premeditation. The injuries which were inflicted by the appellant to the deceased Rampyari, were all located on the non-vital body part i.e. zygomatic area and on the cheek. Smt. Rampyari was admitted at the PBM Hospital where she was provided treatment and the injuries healed as per the bed head ticket (Ex.P/35). Thereafter, the family members got her discharged against the medical advice because there was a pertinent direction of the treating doctor to get the X-ray examination of the victim conducted but the family members did not agree for the same and she was got discharged on 25.10.2013. There is no evidence on record of the case so as to indicate the circumstances under which, Smt. Rampyari remained during the period of five days after her discharge till 30.10.2013. Shri Choudhary submitted that Smt. Rampyari had recovered by 25.10.2013 but even then, no effort whatsoever was made by the investigating agency to get her statement recorded. He drew the Court’s attention to the following admissions made by the Medical Jurist in his cross-examination. Shri Choudhary submitted that Smt. Rampyari had recovered by 25.10.2013 but even then, no effort whatsoever was made by the investigating agency to get her statement recorded. He drew the Court’s attention to the following admissions made by the Medical Jurist in his cross-examination. ^^pksV uaŒ& 1 o 2 ds fy;s jk; dh vko';drk Fkh ysfdu pksV laŒ&3 o 4 lkekU; izd`fr dh FkhA pksV uaŒ& 1 o 2 dh izd`fr ml oDr ,slh ugha Fkh fd e`R;q dkfjr gks ldsA eSa ;g ugha dg ldrk fd vkgr dks dkSu ysdj vk;k Fkk eSa rks ek= ;g dg ldrk gwa fd izn'kZ ih&8 iqfyl izfrosnu ij rS;kj dh xbZ FkhA eSaus ejht dks mlh oDr gk;j lsUVj ds fy;s jsQj dj fn;k FkkA pksV laŒ& 1 o 2 fdlh ,DlhMsUV dh otg ls Hkh vk ldrh gSA iksLVekVZe ds fy;s Hkh iqfyl gh 'ko ysdj vkbZ FkhA eSaus tks jk; nh Fkh oks izkjfEHkd gSA ;g lgh gS fd e`rdk dh e`R;q 'olu fØ;k Qsy gksus ls gqbZ FkhA e`rdk dk cka;k QsQM+k lqdMk gqok Fkk o dUtsLVsM Fkk rFkk cka;s QsQMs+ ds pkjksa rjQ ikuh Hkjk gqok FkkA QsQM+ksa esa ikuh Hkjuk bUQsD'ku dh otg ls Hkh gks ldrk gSA pksV laŒ& 1 o 2 e`R;q dk lh/kk dkj.k ugha gS cfYd pksVksa dh dksEiyhdslh ds dkj.k gSA bu pksVksa ds dkj.k D;k dksEiyhdslh gqbZ blds ckjs esa eSa fuf'pr jk; ugha ns ldrk blds fy;s eSaus dsfedy ,Xtke ds fy;s foljk fy;s Fks rFkk fo"k dh tkap gsrq Hkh foljk fy;s FksA pksV uaŒ& 1 dk ?kko tc mls iksLVekVZe ds fy;s yk;k x;k] rc Hkj pqdk FkkA eSaus ,Q ,l ,y tkap gsrq fyoj] iyhgk] xqnZs o QsQM+ksa ds va'k fy;s FksA czsu fV;'kq ds Hkh dqN ikVZ tkap gsrq fy;s FksA esjh jk; tks eSaus izkjfEHkd crkbZ gS og jk; iw.kZ rc gksxh tc ,Q ,l ,y o dsfedy] iSFkksyksftdy fjiksVZ vk;sxhA esjs ikl tc ejht dks pksVksa ds eqvk;us gsrq igyh ckj yk;s rc ejht cksy ugha ik jgh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd ;fn ejht dks gk;j lsUVj ij lgh le; ij bZykt feyrk rks e`rdk cp ldrh FkhA esjs ikl tc e`rdk dks iksLVekVZe ds fy;s yk;s rks mlds ?kko fjis;j gks pqds FksA esjs ikl tc e`rdk dks ysdj vk;s rks ?kko esa bUQsD'ku ugha Fkk] ?kko lgh gkykr esa FksA izFke ckj tc ejht dks esjs ikl yk;s rks ?kko ds fdukjs dVs gqos FksA e`rdk ds fdlh ekfeZd vax ij dksbZ pksV ugha FkhA cSM gSM fVdV esa ejht ds QsQM+ksa esa ejht dh 'olu fØ;k esa :dkoV ds dkj.k tfVyrk;sa cढuk vafdr FkkA ,susLFkhfl;k dh fjiksVZ esa vkgr dks N% fnu ls dQ vkuk o yxkrkj N% fnu ls cq[kkj vkuk o 'okal esa rdyhQ gksuk ekuk FkkA ;s rhuksa laØe.k ds y{k.k gSa rFkk ihfM+rk /kqeziku dh vkfn FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd e`rdk ds dksbZ pksVsa ugha vkbZ gksA** and urged that the doctor clearly admitted that the injuries Nos.1 and 2 were not directly related to the death of Smt. Rampyari. He offered an uncertain opinion that her death resulted owing to complication of the injuries. However, in the next breath, he admitted that he could not give a precise opinion as to what were the resultant complications because of these injuries. The doctor also admitted that as per the report of the Anesthetist, the lady was suffering from cough and fever for the last six days and she was also habituated of smoking. The Medical Jurist also admitted that none of the injuries was located on the vital body parts and when the dead body was brought to him for postmortem, all the wounds had healed. Shri Choudhary thus urged that even if the prosecution case is accepted on the face of the record, the offence attributed to the appellant would not travel beyond Section 326 IPC. On these submissions, he implored the Court to set aside the impugned judgment and to either acquit the appellant of the charge or tone down his conviction from the offence under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 326 IPC and to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him which is in excess of more than eight and half years. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that the prosecution case is based on reliable ocular testimony of Nikki (PW-1), Raju (PW-3) and Balwant Singh (PW-4) who had no animosity against the appellant whatsoever so as to falsely implicate him for the murder of his wife. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, the appellant won over his children and thus, they did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Regarding the contention of Shri Choudhary that the offence should be toned down, learned Public Prosecutor urged that the appellant inflicted repeated injuries on the facial region of the victim which led to pus formation associated with secondary infection and lung collapse and consequent respiratory failure. He thus urged that the intention to cause such injuries, which invariably would result into death of Smt. Rampyari, can clearly be imputed to the appellant and hence, as per the learned Public Prosecutor, the impugned Judgment warrants no interference whatsoever by this Court. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the impugned Judgment. 7. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the impugned Judgment. 7. At the outset, we may state that Nikki (PW-1), the first informant, her husband Balwant Singh (PW-4) and her son Raju (PW-3) had no animosity whatsoever against the appellant which would instigate them to falsely implicate him for the assault made on Smt. Rampyari. On a threadbare perusal and reappreciation of testimony of these three witnesses, we are duly satisfied that their version is truthful and does not suffer from any infirmity or major contradictions. All these three witnesses have made categoric allegation that the appellant herein inflicted blows by a sharp weapon on the face of Smt. Rampyari and then escaped from the spot. The reason for the incident is alleged to be some trivial dispute which took place between the spouses during the course of previous day while they were plucking cotton in the field of Nikki and her husband. However, the evidence of all these witnesses, does not give any such indication that the appellant had ever harassed or humiliated his wife on any previous occasion. The spouses were married almost 27-28 years ago and the prosecution has led no evidence whatsoever to show that Smt. Rampyari made any complaint to anyone against the appellant during her married life. Thus, there was no motive for the appellant to have inflicted the injuries to his wife. The incident apparently took place after some sudden altercation which might have erupted after some trivial dispute between the spouses during the night. The prosecution has faltered gravely on the aspect of leading appropriate medical evidence so as to bring home the charge of murder attributed to the accused appellant. In this regard, the following significant facts are notable. (1) That the incident took place on 11.10.2013. Smt. Rampyari was got admitted to the PBM Hospital on the very next day as is evident from the bed head ticket (Ex.P/35). She remained admitted in the Bikaner hospital and was provided treatment for almost 13 days. She was discharged on 25.10.2013. However, the prosecution made no effort whatsoever to examine any of the treating doctors at PBM Hospital to lead evidence regarding the condition of Smt. Rampyari during the period when she remained admitted in the hospital. She remained admitted in the Bikaner hospital and was provided treatment for almost 13 days. She was discharged on 25.10.2013. However, the prosecution made no effort whatsoever to examine any of the treating doctors at PBM Hospital to lead evidence regarding the condition of Smt. Rampyari during the period when she remained admitted in the hospital. (2) On a bare perusal of the discharge note appended on the bed head ticket, it becomes clear that the family members did not cooperate with the doctors in the matter of getting the injured subjected to x-ray examination. (3) The Medical Jurist Dr. Bhanupratap Singh (PW-5) initially examined Smt. Rampyari when she was brought to the PHC, Pilibanga just after the incident and also conducted postmortem on her dead body. The Medical Jurist took note of 4 sharp weapon injuries all located on the facial region of the injured. He opined that as per observations noted in the bed-head ticket (Ex.P/35) received from the higher center, the injuries Nos.1 and 2 were grievous in nature. 8. We have our reservations on the acceptability of this opinion because in order to prove the fact that the injuries were found to be grievous during the treatment procedure, the prosecution was required to examine the Medical Jurist/ Doctor who treated the deceased at the hospital or at least to prove the X-ray reports and plates so as to establish that the injuries were, as a matter of fact, grievous. Significantly enough, the Medical Jurist Dr. Bhanupratap Singh (PW-5) did not make any observation based on the autopsy findings that any of the injuries inflicted to the deceased was grievous in nature. Thus, there is a grave lacuna in the prosecution case on the aspect of the Medical Evidence. Dr. Bhanupratap observed that the cause of death of Smt. Rampyari was complications which set in as a result of injuries caused to the lady. In cross-examination, the doctor explained that the left lung of the victim had collapsed and was congested and fluid was noticed around the same. He candidly admitted that injuries Nos.1 and 2 were not the direct cause of death and that the lady died because of the complications which arose from these injuries. However, he admitted that he could not give a positive evidence as to what these complications were. The injuries had healed by the time the postmortem was carried out. He candidly admitted that injuries Nos.1 and 2 were not the direct cause of death and that the lady died because of the complications which arose from these injuries. However, he admitted that he could not give a positive evidence as to what these complications were. The injuries had healed by the time the postmortem was carried out. He further admitted that as per the report of anesthetist, Smt. Ramprayri was complaining of cough, fever and respiratory distress for the last 6 days. All these three symptoms were indicative of infection. The lady was habitual of smoking. 9. Manifestly, the observations so made by the Medical Jurist clearly establish that the cause of death of Smt. Rampyari was not directly related to the injuries received in the incident and as a matter of fact, she developed secondary infections which led to her death. In this background, the fact that the lady was got discharged against medical advice and that the family members did not cooperate in the matter of getting her subjected to X-ray examination assumes great significance. 10. Consequently, we have no hesitation in holding that by inflicting the injuries on the face of the deceased, the accused can, at best, be attributed knowledge that by causing such injuries, he may endanger the life of his wife. Thus, the offence attributed to the accused can, at best, travel to Section 304 Part I IPC. 11. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that injuries sustained by the deceased were not sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. However, looking to the fact that the accused intentionally caused such bodily injuries to the deceased, the cumulative effect whereof was likely to cause death, the act of the accused is covered by the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC. 12. As a consequence of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby accepted in part. The conviction of the accused appellant Krishan Singh as recorded vide impugned judgment dated 28.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.84/2013 (CIS No.241/2014) for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is modified and toned down to Section 304 Part I IPC. For that offence, the accused is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him which is nearly 8 years and 6 months. For that offence, the accused is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him which is nearly 8 years and 6 months. The fine of Rs.20,000/- imposed by the trial court is maintained. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo 6 months’ additional simple imprisonment. Upon depositing the amount of fine, the appellant be released from prison if not wanted in any other case. 13. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the accused appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court.