Kulbir Alias Anku v. State of Haryana

1o ooooooooo INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANAo o o o o o AToCHANDIGARHo o o o o o o o o o o ooooooooooCRA-D-700-2019o(O&M)o o o o o o Reser e!o"#$oO%&"'ero27(o202)o o o o o o Pr"#"*#%e!o"#$o12+11+202)

,*-'.ro/oA#0*o o o o o o +++++A11e--2#&oo o o o o o 3ers*so o o o o o o o 4&2&eo"5oH2r62#2o o o o o ++++++Res1"#!e#&

CORAM$ooHON7B8EoMR+oJU4TICEoGUR3INDERo4INGHoGI88 HON7B8EoMR4+oJU4TICEoRAME4Ho,UMARI

Present: Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Munish Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. o RAME4Ho,UMARIoJ+

¶1This appeal is filed by Appellant Kulbir @ Anku hereinafter referred as 'accused' against the impugned judgment of conviction dated

24.05.2018 , and the impugned order of sentence dated 25.05.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri for the offences under Sections 302 IPC and 324 IPC in a case arising out of FIR No. 189, dated 28.08.2017, registered at Police Station Bilaspur, Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) for commission of murder of one Purshotam and of having inflicted simple injuries by sharp edged weapon (knife) on the person of the 2o complainant/injured Kuldeep Singh and eye witness/injured Yashpal and wherein he has been sentenced as under: o O55e#%eo Per."!o"5ose#&e#%eo F.#eo Per."!o "5o se#&e#%eo *#!ero .91"se!o .#o !e52*-&o "5o 4e%&."#o 1269e#&o"5o5.#eo 302 IPCo Imprisonment for Rs.50,000/ RI for one yearo lifeo o 324 IPCo RI for three yearso Rs.5,000/ o RI for one montho o B"&:o&:eose#&e#%eso:2 eo'ee#o"r!ere!o&"or*#o%"#%*rre#&-6+o

2.(i) As per prosecution allegations, PW10 Dr. Shama Parveen, Medical Officer, PHC Bilaspur, sent medical ruqqa Ex.PU alongwith MLRs No.SHP/BSP/17/207, No.SHP/BSP/17/208, No.SHP/BSP/17/209 dated

24.08.2017 Ex.PR, Ex.PS and Ex.PT respectively of injured Purshotam, Kuldeep and Yash Pal to police Station Bilaspur. Thereafter on 25.08.2017, telephonic information was received from MM College and Hospital of Medical Science, Mullana regarding admission of injured Purshotam (since deceased) in the said hospital. Due to duty to maintain law and order in connection to Ram Rahim Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, case action could not be taken. Again on 28.08.2017, telephonic information was received from MM College and Hospital of Medical Science, Mullana that injured Purshotam had died in the said hospital on account of injuries received in a quarrel.

ii) Thereupon, when PW5 ASI Satish Kumar alongwith ASI Ishwar Singh and other officials were going to MM College and Hospital of Medical Science, Mullana then on the way at Shiv Chowk, Bilaspur, PW2 complainant Kuldeep Singh son of Yashpal Singh resident of Sandhaye, Police Station 3o Bilaspur,oDistrictoYamunaoNagarometothemoandoheogotorecordedohisostatemento Ex.PB,owhichoisoinoDevnagrioscriptoandowhenotranslatedoinoEnglish,oitomakeso theofollowingoreading:-o "o Io amo residento ofo aboveo mentionedo addresso ando doingo labouro work.o Myo fathero haso twoo youngero brotherso namely,o Jaio KumaroandoSanjeevoKumar.oTheyoareoalsooresidingowithous.oooOuro housesoareoadjacentotooeachootheroandoalloofousohaveoaocommono courtyard.o Ono 23-08-2017,o myo brother-in-lawo (wife'so brother)o Purshotam,oageoabouto35oyearsosonoofoJasmeroChandoooresidentoofo Yakubpur,oDistrictoYamunaoNagarohadocomeotooourohouse,owhooiso doingolabouroworkoandoatoabouto9:30/10oP.M.oinotheonight,oaftero takingodinner,oIoandomyobrother-in-lawoaboveosaidoPurshotamohado sleptounderoaotreeoinocourtyardoonoaocotoandoatothatotime,osonoofomyo uncleo Jaio Kumaro namely,o Kulbiro aliaso Ankuo waso noto ino house.o Duringotheonightoatoabouto12:00oO'Clock.owhenoweowereosleepingoono cot,ooIoheardotheoshrikeoofomyobrother-in-lawoPurshotamoandowhenoIo wokeoupodueotootension,oIosawothatoKulbiroaliasoAnku,osonoofomyo uncle,owasogivingoaoblowowithoknifeotoomyobrother-in-lawoPurshotamo andowhenoIotriedotoosaveomyobrotheroinolaw,oAnkuogaveofirstoblowoofo knifeoonorightosideoofomyostomach,osecondoblowoonoleftosideoofomyolefto shoulderoandothirdoblowoononearomyoeye.oWhenoIoandomyobrother-in-lawoPushotamomadeo ao noiseo ofo "Bachao-Bacho"o ono hearingo ouro noiseo myo fathero Yashpalo sono ofo Nathio Ramo ando othero familyo membersocameotoorescue,oAnkuoalsooinflictedoinjuryowithoknifeotoomyo fatheroandoafterogivingoinjuriesoAnkuofledoawayofromotheospot.oMyo uncleoSanjeevoKumaro(youngerobrotheroofofather)oandoourofamilyo membersotookousotooCiviloHospital,oBilaspuroforotreatment.oFromo where,oduringonight,oafterogivingousotreatment,oDoctorohadoreferredo uso too Civilo Hospital,o Jagadhri.o Ono 25-08-2017,o Io ando myo fathero YaspalohadobeenodischargedofromoCiviloHospital,oJagadhriobutomyo brother-in-lawo Purshotamo waso referredo fromo Civilo Hospital,o JagadhriotooPGIoChandigarhoforotreatment.oIoandomyofatherohado RAVINDERgKUMAR 2025.11.13g16:36 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand integritygofgthisgdocument <o returnedotooourohouseofromo.ivilo<ostiital,oJagadhri,oafterogettingo theodressingsoonoouroinjuriesoandoonoarrivaloatotheohouseoweo!ameotoo knowo thato be!auseo ofo blo!kageo ofo roads,o leadingo towardso .handigarh,o myo familyo memberso ando relativeso hado goto admittedo ,ushotamo ino Mullanao <ostiitalo foro treatment.o Today,o Io ando myo familyomemberso!ameotooknowothatoduringotreatment,o,ushotamohaso diedodueotootheoinjurieso!ausedobyoKulbiroaliaso6nkuowithoknife,oono interveningonightoofo"#5"?$%&$"%'(,owhoohasoalsooinfli!tedoinjurieso toous.oStri!tolegaloa!tionobeotakenoagainstoKulbiroaliaso6nku.oIoando myofamilyomembersowereogoingotowardsoMullanao<ostiitalothatoyouo metousoatoShivo.howk,o:ilastiur.oIohaveogotore!ordedomyostatementotoo you,oheardoandoiso!orre!t.@

iii) After recording of aforesaid statement Ex.PB, PW5 ASI Satish Kumar conducted police proceedings Ex.PE and sent the same to police station Bilaspur through HC Surjit Singh and formal FIR Ex. PAA was registered.

iv) PW5 ASI Satish Kumar alongwith ASI Ishwar and complainant PW2 Kuldeep reached MM College and Hospital of Medical Science at Mullana and collected death summary Ex.PF of deceased Purshotam. He conducted proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.PG and recorded statements of PW4 Sumer Chand and Devi Chand under Section 175 Cr.P.C. He also moved application Ex.PH for conducting postmortem on the body of deceased Purshotam and after postmortem dead body by PW1 Dr. Balbir Kaur, Ex. Professor and Head of the Department, MM College and Hospital of Medical Science at Mullana, it was handed over to PW4 Sumer Chand and Devi Chand vide receipt Ex.PD. Postmortem report Ex.PJ which was handed over to him after postmortem. v. Thereafter investigation was handed over to PW11 SI Didar Singh. On

28.08.2017, PW11 SI Didar Singh inspected the spot of occurrence in the )o presence of PW5 ASI Satish Kumar and prepared site plan Ex.PZ. PW2 Kuldeep complainant handed over one lower (0ayajama+o MO1 of brown coloured of deceased Purshotam to PW11 SI Didar Singh, which was converted into a parcel, sealed with seal of "SK" and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PC. vi. On 29.08.2017, PW11 SI Didar Singh was present in the area of Kakdoni turn in connection with patrolling and in search of accused Kulbir when accused was produced by Prabhjot. Accused was arrested and interrogated and as per his disclosure statement Ex.PN, knife (MO2) used in the commission of offence got recovered from underneath the gunny bag lying on a wheat storage tank of tin sheet. The knife (MO2) was measured and its sketch Ex.PN/2 was prepared, converted into parcel, sealed with seal "SK" and taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PN/1. Scaled site plan was got prepared by PW1 Mulak Raj Draftsman on 04.09.2017. Medical record of injured and deceased was obtained on the basis of application Ex.PB. The opinion PY/1 of the doctor was obtained that in injuries on the person of the deceased could be possible by that knife. The opinion regarding the injuries in the MLR and in the postmortem report was also obtained from the concerned doctor. Site plan Ex.PN/3 of the place of recovery of knife was also prepared and statement of witnesses were recorded during the course of the investigation. After investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against the accused before the learned Illaqa Magistrate.

¶3Learned Illaqa Magistrate complied with provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. by supplying copies of challan form and accompanying documents to the accused =o and committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 10.07.2017 by the learned Illaqa Magistrate.

¶4Finding a 0rimao fa!ieo case under Sections 302 and 324 IPC against the accused, he was charged accordingly vide order dated 02.11.2017 by learned trial Court and accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

¶5In order to substantiate its case against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The gist of their testimonies is referred to herein as under:

i) P>1-M*-20oR2? (Draftsman) stated that on 04.09.2017, he alongwith PW11 Didar Singh, SI/SHO visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough notes at the instance of complainant Yashpal (PW3) and on the same day, on the basis of those rough notes, he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PA with correct marginal notes.

ii) P>2-,*-!ee1o 4.#@:o (%"91-2.#2#&) in his testimony before the Court narrated the occurrence and proved his statement Ex.PB recorded by the police and he also deposed that on the same day, he handed over the lower

(pant) of his brother in law Purshotam @ Bablu to the police that was blood stained and it was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PC.

iii) P>;-Y2s:12-o(.#?*re!)ois father of PW2 Kuldeep Singh complainant. He also corroborated the testimony of PW2 Kuldeep Singh regarding the occurrence.

iv) P><-4*9eroC:2#!ostated about identification of dead body of Purshotam on

28.08.2017 and also stated that after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them vide Ex.PD. No cross examination on this witness is conducted. 7o

v) P>)-A4Io42&.s:o,*92r conducted initial investigation in this case and in order to prove his part of investigation, he stated that on 28.08.2017, on the direction of SHO, police station Bilaspur, he alognwith ASI Ishwar and HC Surjeet Singh went to Mullana in order to collect MLR of Purshotam, Kuldeep and Yashpal and when they reached near Shiv Chowk, Bilaspur, he recorded the statement Ex.PB of PW2 Kuldeep Singh, conducted police proceedings Ex.PE and sent the same to Police Station, Bilaspur for registration of FIR. As per his statement, he collected death summary Ex.PF of deceased Purshotam and conducted proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He also moved application Ex.PH for conducting postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Purshotam and after postmortem, dead body was handed over to Sumer Chand (PW4) and Devi Chand. Postmortem report Ex.PJ was also handed over to him. He further deposed that he also joined investigation with PW11 SI/SHO Didar Singh and he is attesting witness of Memo Ex.PC vide which blood stained lower (pants) MO1 of the deceased Purshotam was taken into possession.

vi) P>=-HCo P2r .#!ero 4.#@:o was MHC of police station Bilaspur. At the relevant time, he tendered his affidavit Ex.PK vide which he stated that on

29.08.2017 vide DDE No.10 of 29.08.2017, one parcel containing iron knife was deposited with him in Malkhana and vide DDE No.13 dated 11.09.2017 after taking out the said parcel from the Malkhana, he handed over the same to the PW11 Didar Singh SI/SHO for obtaining the opinion of the doctor. On

11.09.2017 vide DDE No.15 of 11.09.2017, a parcel of cloth containing iron knife, duly sealed with seal "SK" and one seal of doctor alongwith sample Ao seal was deposited with him. He also deposed about integrity of the case property.

vii) P>7-Dr+oB2-'.ro,2*roconducted postmortem of the deceased Purshotam on the basis of police application Ex.PH and also proved the Postmortem Report Ex.PJ that was signed by her and other members of the Board of Doctors. She also proved inquest report Ex.PG and death summery Ex.PF. She gave description of injuries suffered on the body of deceased Purshotam when post mortem was conducted on his dead body.

viii) P>A-Dr+oA?.&oP2-o4.#@:(oMe!.%2-oO55.%erodeposed that on 24.08.2017, he radiologically examined Kuldeep (PW2) for abdominal area and nothing was detected. No bony injury was seen. He proved X ray report dated 05.09.2017 Ex.PL. X ray film Ex. PL/1 of Kuldeep. He also radiologically examined Purshotam. No bony injury was seen and proved his X ray report vide Ex.PM and X ray film vide Ex.PM/1.

ix) P>9-HCo 4*r?.&o 4.#@: was with the PW5 ASI Satish Kumar when the statement Ex.PB of complainant (PW2) was recorded. His testimony further reveals that on the basis of statement Ex.PB, FIR was registered by MHC of police station Bilaspur and he is also attesting witness of receipt Ex.PT vide which dead body of Purshotam was handed over to his relatives by PW5 ASI Satish Kumar. He is also attesting witness of memo Ex.PC vide which lower

(MO1) of deceased Purshotam was taken into possession by PW5 ASI Satish Kumar and disclosure statement Ex.PN of accused and recovery Memo Ex.PN/1, vide which the accused got the knife recovery and also attesting witness of sketch Ex.PN/2 of knife. 9o

x) P>10-Dr+o 4:292o P2r ee#(o Medical officer, PHC Bilaspur, initially medically examined Purshotam (since deceased), PW2 Kuldeep and PW3 Yashpal on 24.08.2017 and in order to prove these facts, he tendered his affidavit Ex.PQ in which he narrated the injuries received by above named three persons and MLR is proved vide Ex.PR, Ex.PS and Ex.PT respectively. He also stated since the patients were serious therefore, after giving them first aid and their medical examination, they were referred to General Hospital, Jagadhri which is also mentioned in the MLR of these patients and he sent ruqa Ex.PU to the police station. He also proved his opinion Ex.PV/1 that the possibility of the injuries by weapon in question cannot be ruled out and this opinion was given on 09.09.2017 on the basis of police application Ex.PV. The knife (MO2) was produced at the time of recording of his statement. He also give opinion Ex.PX/1 regarding the nature of injuries on the person of Kuldeep and Purshotam. He also gave opinion Ex.PY/1 on the basis of police application Ex.PY that injuries mentioned in the MLR correspond to injuries No.2 and 7 of autopsy while injuries No.3,4,5 and 6 were surgical wounds as patient was operated later on. Injury No.1 was small and could be added later on.

xi) P>11-4IoD.!2ro4.#@: conducted subsequent investigation in this case and as per his testimony, he inspected the spot on 28.08.2017 and prepared site plan Ex.PZ, took into possession lower of the deceased vide memo Ex.PC, arrested the accused on 29.08.2017. He interrogated the accused and also proved disclosure statement Ex.PN on the basis of which accused got recovered knife

(MO2), the sketch of which was prepared Ex.PN/1 and taken into police possession vide Ex.PN/2 after making its parcel and sealed. He also got 10o prepared scaled site plan from PW1 Mulak Raj on 04.09.2017. As observed earlier, his testimony reveals that on 11.09.2017, on the basis of application Ex.PX, he obtained X ray report and opinion Ex.PB of doctor vide Ex.PB/1 regarding the use of knife in the offence and again opinion of the doctor vide Ex.PY/1.

¶6Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, the entire evidence was put to the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. to enable him to explain the same, but the accused denied the entire prosecution case in toto and pleaded false implication. The accused took the plea that deceased Purshotam had come to the house of his sister as there was dispute between his brother in law Kuldeep, Yashpal father of Kuldeep and Jai Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar brothers of Yashpal regarding partition of house. There was quarrel between Purshotam and his brother in law Kuldeep and Kuldeep inflicted injuries to Purshotam due to which Purshotam died. Accused was not present in his house at the time and had gone to his work. Accused did not have any cordial relations with his uncle PW3 Yashpal.o The accused did not examine any witness in defence.

¶7Learned trial Court upon considering the evidence on record found the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and sentenced him accordingly vide impugned judgment, as referred in para No.1 of this judgment.

¶8Learned counsel for the accused contended that accused is falsely implicated in this case and assailed conviction and order of sentence on the ground that : 11o

(i) The injuries on the body of Purshotam as per MLR are different from the injuries found on him when his postmortem examination was conducted.

(ii) Apart from the statement of the PW2 complainant Kuldeep and PW3 Yashpal (his father), there is no other eye witness to corroborate their testimony.

(iii) Although, the accused allegedly gave injuries to PW2 Kuldeep Singh, PW3 Yashpal and Purshotam by means of knife and due to injuries Purshotam died but it is not possible that the injuries to three persons would have been given and accused suffered not a scratch on his body.

(iv) It is not possible to inflict fatal injuries on the person of Purshotam with simple knife. Had Purshotam been taken to PGI instead of MM College and Hospital of Medical Science, Mulana, District Ambala, he would have been survived.

(v) There is a delay in lodging of FIR. The incident occurred on the intervening night of 23/24 08 2017 and the deceased Purshotam died on

28.08.2017. No efforts were made to record his statement before his death.

vi) False recovery of knife (MO2) is implanted upon the accused, he never suffered any disclosure statement. There is no eye witness of recovery of knife Ex. MO2 allegedly from the possession of accused.

(vi) The knife Ex. MO2 was never sent to FSL. There was no blood on the weapon i.e. knife Ex. MO2 and knife was new and in rusting condition.

(vii) Prabhjot, who allegedly produced the accused is not examined, nor his signature is obtained on any disclosure statement. 12o

(viii) No motive is proved for causing injuries on the person of Purshotam, PW2 Kuldeep, PW3 Yashpal.

(xi) The accused was not present at the alleged place of commission of offence. He was present at the place of his work. Learned defence counsel vehemently prayed for acquittal of accused.o

¶9Learned State counsel relied upon the statement of prosecution witnesses examined before the learned trial Court and vehemently contended that the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, therefore he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶10(i) It has come on record that PW7 Dr. Balbir Kaur, the then Head of the Department, MMCHMC, Mulana, alongwith other members of the Board of Doctors conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Purshotam on 28.08.2017. Seven injuries were found on the dead body of deceased Purshotam, which are as follow: "i) Surgical stitched wound of size 24 cm having 15 stitches present on midline of abdomen anteriorly from epigastric area to public symphysis area. On dissection pus and clotted blood present in abdominal cavity.

ii) Stitched incised wound of size 2 cm with 1 stitch present in left iliac region. On dissection surgical stitches wound present in intestine and pus and clotted blood present in 1;o

iii) Stitched incised wound of size 1 cm with 1 stitch present in left lumbar region. On dissection surgical stitches wound present in intestine and pus and clotted blood present in abdominal cavity.

iv) Surgical incised wound of size 1 cm on left sided abdomen, 5 cm from injury No.1 and 24 cm from left nipple.

v) Stitched incised wound of size 2 cm with two stitches present in right illiac area in abdomen. On dissection surgical stitches wound present in intestine and pus and clotted blood present in abdominal cavity.

vi) Surgical incised wound of size 1XI cm on left side of abdomen, 10 cm from injury No.1 and 32 cm from left nipple present.

vii) Surgical incised wound of size 1X1 cm on right side of abdomen, 4 cm from injury No.1 and 30 cm from right nipple present." She has also stated that as per record of the Hospital, Purshotam died due to septicemia and multi organ failure after injuries sustained in assault. The post mortem report is proved as Ex.PJ. Thus, the death of Purshotam as culpable homicide as opposed to suicide and natural death is proved on record. 10(ii) The testimony of PW10 Dr. Shama Parveen and her affidavit reveals on 24.08.2017 she medicolegally examined Purshotam, Kuldeep and Yashpal at PHC Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar and proved their MLRs as Ex.PR, Ex.PS and Ex.PT. She also sent a ruqqa Ex.PU to the police station. 1<o She further stated that on 20.09.2017, police gave application Ex.PY to seek opinion regarding number of injuries on the person of Purshotam as there was variance in the number of injuries in the MLR and the postmortem report and she gave her opinion Ex.PY/1 that patient Purshotam was brought to casualty in serious condition as he was having severe bleeding through both the above mentioned injuries so he was rushed to higher centre after stabilizing his condition. Injuries mentioned in the MLR correspond to injuries No.2 and 7 of the autopsy report while other injuries 3,4,5 and 6 were surgical wounds as patient was operated later on. Injury No.1 was small and could be added later on. Since injury No.1 was small, it was not noticed when MLR Ex.PR of injured Purshotam was prepared. The Doctor had focused on two severe injuries which were bleeding and thus there is no contradiction in Medicolegal report and post mortem report of deceased Purshotam regarding the injuries suffered by him. 10(iii) PW3 Yashpal father of injured Kuldeep Singh narrated the whole incident on solemn affirmation. PW2 Kuldeep Singh also proved his statement Ex.PB on the basis of which FIR Ex.PA/1 was registered. Statements of both these witnesses prove that the incident took place on the intervening night of 23/24.08.2017 at about 12.00 midnight and deceased Purshotam is the brother of wife of PW2 Kuldeep Singh who had come to his house. PW2 Kuldeep Singh in his testimony before the trial Court specifically stated as follows: "At about 12.00 midnight of intervening night of 23/24.08.2017, Kulbir alias An u a!!used gave nife blo"s to m# brother in la" $urshotam. % heard the shrie s of m# brother& in&la" $urshotam on a!!ount of his having re!eived nife in'uries. % tried to intervene to res!ue m# brother&in&la" 15o whereupon Kulbir inflicted knife blow on left side of my abdomen and gave another knife blow on my left shoulder. Kulbir gave another knife blow with landed near my left eye. On hearing our alarm my father Yash Pal was attracted to the spot. Kulbir also inflicted knife blow on the person of my father which hit on his right shoulder. He gave another blow which hit on the finger of right hand of my father and thereafter Kulbir fled away. He must have taken the knife along with him. My uncle Sanjeev Kumar shifted us to Government Hospital, Bilaspur in his vehicle where we were hospitalized at about 12.30 midnight." oooooooooooo StatementoofoPW3oYashpaloisocorrespondingotootheotestimonyoofo PW3oKuldipoSinghoandoheoalsoostatedothatoaccusedogaveoknifeoblowoonohiso shoulderoandorightohand.oo ooooooooooooooooooMLRsoEx.PR,oEx.PSoandoEx.PToofotheseothreeoinjuredopersonsoalsoo proveothatotheyowereobroughtotootheohospitaloato12.30omidnight.oPW10oDr.o Shamao Parveeno wheno medicolegallyo examinedo PW2o Kuldeepo Singho ono

24.10.2017ofoundofollowingothreeoinjuriesoonohisoperson:-o "oi)ooooAnoincisedowoundoofo3x05ocmosizeoonotheoleftosideoofoupperooo oooooooooabdomen-odeathocouldonotobeoassessedoandofreshobleedingooooo oooooooooopresent.o o o ii)o IWoofo1xti.5ocmosizeoonotheoleftoeyeobrowotissueodeep;o o iii)o IWoofo3oxo1ocmosizeoonotheoupperoshoulder-deathocouldonotobeoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooassessed."o ooooooooo o o MLRo Ex.PTo ando theo testimonyo ofo PW10o Dr.o Shamao Parveeno provedothatotwooinjuriesowereofoundoonotheopersonoofoYashpalo(PW3)owhenoheo wasomedicolegallyoexamineoonotheonightoofo24.08.2017oandotheseoinjuriesoare:-o o o "i)o Anoincisedowoundoofo2oxoti.5ocmosizedointootissueodeepoonotheoo o o o rightoshoulder-mildobleeding;o o o ii)o Superficialored,oIWoonotheoright-handodorsumo1oxo01ocmoo o o o size."o o o o TheoinjuriesoinflictedobyoaccusedoonotheopersonsoofoPW2oKuldeepo Singho ando PW3oYashpalo asostatedobyothemo ino Courtoono solemno affirmationo RAVINDERgKUMAR 2025.11.13g16:36 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand integritygofgthisgdocument 1=o correspondent to the medical evidence in the form of affidavit Ex.PQ as testimony of PW10 Dr. Shama Parveen and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of both the above named injured witnesses and PW10 Dr. Shama Parveen. The occurrence took place at 12.00 midnight and all these three injured including Purshotam were immediately rushed to nearest medical institute. The incident took place at midnight when PW2 Kuldeep Singh, PW3 Yashpal and deceased Purshotam were sleeping in the courtyard of the house of PW2 Kuldeep Singh. The accused attacked them while they were sleeping and inflicted injuries at the dead of night. Since victims were sleeping and it is not possible for them to react violently to inflict injuries on the accused persons and for this reason the accused escaped from the spot without a stretch on his body. Moreover, every person will react differently when attacked at midnight and mere fact that accused did not suffer any blow from the hands of victims is no ground to disbelieve the testimonies of these witnesses. The incident took place at the dead of night and Sanjeev Kumar uncle of PW2 Kuldeep Singh visited the spot when accused had already fled the spot and he got admitted the injured in the hospital and therefore, there cannot be any other natural eye witness to corroborate the testimonies of injured PW2 Kuldeep Singh and PW3 Yashpal. 10(iv) During the course of arguments, much emphasis laid by the learned defence counsel for delay in lodging of FIR Ex.PAA. As per the testimonies of PW2 Kuldeep Singh and PW3 Yashpal, the incident took place on the intervening night of 23/24.08.2017 at midnight and injured were immediately shifted in the hospital and medically examined at 12.30 A.M. on 17o

24.08.2017. It has already been mentioned in police ruqqa Ex.PU and FIR Ex.PAA that police officials were busy to maintain the law and order situation due to episode of Baba Ram Rahim. The delay itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses when the delay is well explained. Reference can be made to the observations made by the Apex Court in para 15 in Sekaranovs.oStateoofoTamiloNaduo2024(2)oSCCo176,owhich are as under: o "��� %n !ases "here dela# o!!urs, it has to be tested on the anvil of other attending !ir!umstan!es. %f on an overall !onsideration of all relevant !ir!umstan!es it a((ears to the !ourt that the dela# in lodging the 2%3 has been e4(lained, mere dela# !annot be suffi!ient to disbelieve the (rose!ution !ase5 ho"ever, if the dela# is not satisfa!toril# e4(lained and it a((ears to the !ourt that !ause for the dela# had been ne!essitated to frame an#one as an a!!used, there is no reason as to "h# the dela# should not be !onsidered as fatal forming (art of several fa!tors to vitiate the !onvi!tion.1 Thus, when the State police machinery gave preference to maintain law and order situation due to the matter pertaining to Baba Ram Rahim of Dera Sachha Sauda, Sirsa, the rights of private individuals were ignored and this fact is well proved in this case. PW3 Yashpal in his examination stated that his younger brother Sanjeev Kumar got shifted them in Government Hospital, Jagadhri from Government Hospital, Bilaspur and after treatment they were discharged and Purshotam was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. He further stated that in view of the law and order situation, large number of people had gathered on the way from Bilaspur to Chandigarh in connection with a case relating to Baba Ram Rahim and they shifted Purshotam to Medical College, Mulana. PW2 Kuldeep Singh in his complaint 1Ao Ex.PB has also mentioned this fact. This part of statement of PW3 Yash Pal and Ex.PB explain two things; firstly, on the fateful night, there was law and order situation going on due to the matter pertaining to Baba Ram Rahim of Dera Sachha Sauda, Sirsa and for this reason also the police ignored the medical ruqqa Ex.PU and did not visit the spot or the hospital to record the statements of the injured witnesses and it was for this reason also deceased Purshotam could not be taken to PGI, Chandigarh and was shifted to Medical Hospital, Mulana. PW5 ASI Satish Kumar during cross examination has deposed that Medical College, Mulana is equal to PGI, Chandigarh in health care. Thus contention of learned defence counsel that there is delay in lodging of FIR which is not explained and the contention that had injured Purshotam been taken to PGI, Chandigarh, he could have been saved, cannot be accepted. 10(v) Learned defence counsel vehemently contended that recovery of knife Ex.MO2 is planted on the accused and he never suffered any disclosure statement and the knife was never sent to FSL for examination and it is not possible to inflict fatal injuries on the person of deceased Purshotam with simple knife and there was no blood on the knife. Knife Ex.MO2 was got recovered by PW11 Sub Inspector Didar Singh on the disclosure statement Ex.PN and was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PN/1 and after recovery its sketch Ex.PN/2 was prepared. All the memos prepared by PW11 SI Didar Singh were attested by PW9 HC Surjeet Singh. Recovery of knife Ex.MO2 effected by PW11 SI Didar Singh in discharge of his official duties while investigating the case and the police officials had no enmity with the accused and therefore, they had no reason to 19o planto ao falseo recoveryo ofo knifeo Ex.MO2o upono theo accused.o Noo adverseo inferenceo cano beo drawno againsto theo policeo officialso foro theo absenceo ofo independentowitnessowhileomakingorecoveryoofoincriminatingosubstanceoonotheo disclosureostatementoofoaccused.oReferenceocanobeomadeotootheoobservationso madeobyoApexoCourtoinoCrl.oAppealoNo.o2363oofo2023oarisingooutoofoSLPo

(Crl)oNo.o9710oofo2023oo(Sathyanovs.oStateoofoKerala)owhereinoinopara-22oito hadobeenoheldoasounder:-o o o " 22. Conviction being based solely on the evidence of police officials is no longer an issue on which the jury is out. In other words, the law is well settled that if the evidence of such a police officer is found to be reliable, trustworthy then basing the conviction thereupon, cannot be questioned, and the same shall stand on firm ground."� o o Whileogivingoaboveonotedoobservations,oreferenceoisoalsoomadeotoo theojudgmentoinoPramodoKumarovs.oStateo(Govt.oofoNCToofoDelhi)o2013(6)o SCCo588,owhereinoitohasobeenoheldoasounder:-o "����This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh [1988 Supp SCC 686 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 48] , State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil [(2001) 1 SCC 652 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 248] and Ramjee Rai v. State of Bihar [(2006) 13 SCC 229 :

(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 626] has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana [(2013) 6 SCC 595 : 2013 AIR SCW 3102] that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the Department of Police should be viewed with RAVINDERgKUMAR 2025.11.13g16:36 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand integritygofgthisgdocument 20o distrust. 8his is also based on the (rin!i(le that 7ualit# of the eviden!e "eighs over the 7uantit# of eviden!e.1

It has also come on record that knife was not sent for FSL examination for the simple reason that there was no blood on the knife. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that no recovery of knife was effected from the possession of accused, that would not have given any benefit of doubt to the accused. Reference can be made herein to the observations made by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1750 51 of 2022 (2022 Live Law (SC) 851) wherein it is observed that "assumingothato theore!overyoofoweationousedoisonotoestablishedoorotirovedoalsoo!annotobeoao groundotooa!Duitotheoa!!usedowhenothereoisoaodire!toeviden!eoofoeyeowitness.o ;e!overyoofoweationousedoinotheo!ommissionoofooffen!eoisonotoaosine$Dua$nono too!onvi!totheoa!!used.oIfothereoisoaodire!toeviden!eoinotheoformoofoeyeowitness,o evenoinotheoabsen!eoofore!overyoofoweation,otheoa!!usedo!anobeo!onvi!ted.@ 10(vi) The contention of learned defence counsel that it is not possible to inflict fatal injuries by means of knife Ex.MO2 on the person of deceased Purshotam cannot be accepted because PW11 SI Didar Singh moved application Ex.PV to PW10 Dr. Shama Parveen on 09.09.2017 with sealed parcel of the knife which Ex.MO2 was got recovered from the accused, to seek opinion if injuries on the person of deceased could be possible by that knife or not and PW10 Dr. Shama Parveen that after opening the said sealed parcel and after examining the same specifically opined vide Ex.PV/1 Doctor examined the same and gave opinion Ex. PV/1 that "possibility of injuries by the weapon in question cannot be ruled out", and then re sealed the knife in parcel and handed over to PW11 Inspector Didar Singh. PW10 Dr. Shama 21o Parveen also noted that the dimensions of the knife were found same as mentioned in the application Ex.PV. Knife Ex. MO2 was produced in Court at the time of recording of the statement of PW10 Dr. Shama Parveen bearing seal SHP at its top and four seals of SK on the parcel of knife. Thus there is a specific opinion of the expert witness that possibility of injuries by the weapon in question on the deceased Purshotam cannot be ruled out. The knife Ex.MO2 was used by the accused as a weapon of offence and now the learned defence counsel cannot take a plea that said knife Ex.MO2 was not strong/sharp enough to inflict fatal injuries on the person of deceased Purshotam. 10(vii) It has come in the statement of PW11 SI Didar Singh that he arrested the accused on 29.08.2017 at Kakdoni turn when he was present along with other police officials in that area for patrolling and also for search of accused Kulbir. He further stated that said accused was produced by one Prabhjot. Undisputedly, said Prabhjot was not examined by the prosecution for the simple reason that prosecution was not required to examine each and every witness who joined the police party during investigation of the case. Neither it was necessary for PW11 SI Didar Singh to obtain his signatures on memo of arrest of accused. The prosecution is required to examine material witnesses in the Court who could have linked the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt with the commission of offence. 10(viii) Learned defence counsel pleaded for innocence of accused on the ground that no motive is proved for inflicting injuries on the person of deceased Purshotam and injured PW2 Kuldeep Singh and PW3 Yashpal. 22o ooooooooooooooooooooooHon'bleoApexoCourtotimeoandoagainoheldothatomereoabsenceoofo motiveodoesonotoresultoinoacquittal.oInoSureshoChandraoBahriovs.oStateoofo Biharo1995oSuppl.o(1)oSCCo80,ootheoApexoCourtomadeoobservationsotootheo followingoeffect:-o o o "21. At the very outset we may mention that sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty of the offence charged with. But it has to be remembered that the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime??????" o ooooooooooooooooooooooIno Purshottamo Choprao Vs.o Stateo (Governmento ofo NCTo ofo Delhi),o(2020)o11oSCCo489odecidedoono07.01.2020,oHon'bleoSupremeoCourto heldothatoprosecutionocaseocannotofailoonlyoforowantoofoproofoofomotive.oIno BasheeraoBegumoVsoMohammadoIbrahimoandoothers,o(2020)o11oSCCo174o decidedoono31.01.2020,oSatishoKumaroandoanotheroVs.oStateoofoHimachalo Pradeshoandoanother,o(2020)o7oSCCo637odecidedoono02.03.2020,oHon'bleo ApexoCourtoheldothatowhereothereoisocircumstantialoevidenceopointingotootheo guiltoofotheoaccused,oitoisonecessaryotooproveoaomotiveoforotheocrime.oHowever,o motiveoneedonototoobeoprovedowhereothereoisodirectoevidence.oInotheolatesto judgmentotitledoChetanoVs.oStateoofoKarnatka,o(2025)o9oSCCo31oHon'bleo RAVINDERgKUMAR 2025.11.13g16:36 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand integritygofgthisgdocument 2;o Supreme Court held that "theolawoisowelloestablishedothatotheoeviden!eoofo motiveo !ertainlyo strengtheno theo 0rose!ution*so !aseo basedo ono !ir!umstantialo eviden!eobutofailureotootiroveoitomayonotobeofatal@.o Deceased Purshotam had come to the house of the in laws of his sister. PW2 Kuldeep Singh is the husband of the sister of deceased Purshotam and crime was committed at the dead of night when deceased Purshotam alongwith the husband of his sister Kuldeep and Yash father in law were sleeping in the courtyard of the house of PW2 Kuldeep Singh. Thus, only accused knows why he perpetuated the crime of inflicting fatal injuries on the person of deceased Purshotam. Accused also inflicted injuries on the persons of PW2 Kuldeep Singh and PW3 Yash Pal and by that time he was not aggressive or forceful in inflicting injuries. Accused first inflicted injuries on the person of deceased Purshotam, while he was under deep sleep and for this reason deceased Purshotam could not have got the time to resist or to inflict injuries on accused. Accused ran away after inflicting injuries which are simple in nature on the persons of PW2 Kuldeep Singh and PW3 Yashpal and for this reason he escaped unhurt. The accused cannot attribute injuries on the person of Purshotam deceased by PW2 Kuldeep Singh or PW3 Yashpal because it has not come on record that wife of Kuldeep Singh who is sister of Purshotam since deceased was not having any cordial relations with PW2 Kuldeep Singh. It seems that this desperate plea is made by the accused only to save himself from the clutches of the law. Accused is son of Jai Kumar and when his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he took a plea that deceased Purshotam had come to the house of his sister as there was a family dispute between his brother in law Kuldeep Singh (PW2), Yashpal 2<o

(PW3) father of Kuldeep and Jai Kumar and Sanjeev brothers of Yashpal

(PW3) regarding partition of house. The accused further taken a plea in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that there was dispute between Kuldeep Singh and Purshotam and therefore, Kuldeep Singh inflicted injuries to Purshotam, due to which he died. Though the prosecution has not attributed any motive for the commission of offence, the accused being son of Jai Kumar who had a partition dispute with PW2 Kuldeep and PW3 Yashpal and Sanjeev Kumar had a reason to be violent towards PW2 Kuldeep Singh and PW3 Yashpal and deceased Purshotam who was sleeping in the house of PW2 Kuldeep Singh as guest on the fateful night. PW2 Kuldeep Singh and PW3 Yashpal are stamped witnesses and there is direct evidence of these prosecution witnesses against the accused. They themselves suffered injuries at the hands of accused on the fateful night. They have no reason to depose against the accused and their testimonies cannot be discarded. 10(ix) The accused has also taken a plea of alibi that he was not in the house at the commission of offence. The accused was given number of opportunities to lead defence evidence but accused has not examined even a single witness that on the fateful night he was present at his work place. Even the name of work place is not mentioned by the accused. The learned trial Court did not accept the plea of the accused that he was not present at the time of commission of offence in the house or place of crime. 10(x) The learned defence counsel contended that injuries suffered by deceased cannot be connected with his death because deceased died due to 25o 10(xi)o o Theo learnedo trialo Courto convictedo theo accusedo foro commissionoofomurderoofoPurshotam.oMurderoisodefinedounderoSectiono300oofo theoIndianoPenaloCodeowhichoreadsoasounder:-o oo"300.oMurder.—o Exceptoinotheocasesohereinafteroexcepted,oculpableohomicideoisomurder,oifo theoactobyowhichotheodeathoisocausedoisodoneowithotheointentionoofocausingo death,oor—o (Secondly)—oIfoitoisodoneowithotheointentionoofocausingosuchobodilyoinjuryo asotheooffenderoknowsotoobeolikelyotoocauseotheodeathoofotheopersonotoo whomotheoharmoisocaused,oor—(Thirdly)—oIfoitoisodoneowithotheointentiono ofocausingobodilyoinjuryotooanyopersonoandotheobodilyoinjuryointendedotoo beoinflictedoisosufficientoinotheoordinaryocourseoofonatureotoocauseodeath,o or—o (Fourthly)—o Ifo theo persono committingo theo acto knowso thato ito iso soo imminentlyodangerousothatoitomust,oinoalloprobability,ocauseodeathoorosucho bodilyoinjuryoasoisolikelyotoocauseodeath,oandocommitsosuchoactowithouto anyo excuseo foro incurringo theo risko ofo causingo deatho oro sucho injuryo aso aforesaid."o ooooo ooooooooooooooooooAsoperotheotestimonyoinotheoformoofoaffidavitoEx.oPQoofoPW10ooooooooooooooooo Dr.oShamaoParveen,owhenosheomedicallyoexaminedoPurshotamosinceodeceasedo ono24.08.2017oato12.30oAM,ofollowingotwooinjuriesowereofoundoonohisoperson:-o "i)o Anoincisedowoundoofo2oxoti.5ocmosizeoonotheorightoiliacofossa-o o depthocouldonotobeoassessed;o

ii)o AnotheroIWoofo2.0oxoti.5ocmosizeoonoleftooiliacofossa-depthoo o couldonotobeoassessed."o o oooooooooooooooooIto haso alreadyo beeno observedo thato thereo iso ao testimonyo ofo PW2o KuldeepoSinghoandoPW3oYashpalothatotheseoinjuriesowereoinflictedobyoaccusedo byomeansoofoknifeoEx.MO2.oDeceasedowasoimmediatelyoprovidedomedicalocareo withohalfoanohouroofoinflictingoinjuriesoandothenohisoinjuriesowereomanagedoatoooooooooo MMo Collegeo ofo Hospitalo ando Medicalo Science,o Mulana,o Districto Ambalao whereo heo diedo dueo too septicemiao ando multio organo failureo aftero injurieso RAVINDERgKUMAR 2025.11.13g16:36 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand integritygofgthisgdocument 2=o sustained in assault. The cause of his death was "haemorrhage and shock and resultant infection due to injuries" as stated by PW7 Dr. Balbir Kaur in her testimony before the Court and the post mortem report Ex.PJ. Reference can be made hereto the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in *aniklalo Sahuo vs.o Stateo ofo Chhattis)arho (Criminalo2""ealo No.o !!7#oofo2024)o202!o+NSCo1107.oIn the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the judgment of High Court wherein High Court had partly allowed the appeal and altered the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC into one Section 307 IPC. In the said case, the accused trespassed into his house and flung him down. When he was thrown down from the terrace, he was assaulted with sticks and fisticuffs. The injured was shifted to the hospital in very critical condition and later on he died during treatment due to septicemia and pneumonia leading to cardio respiratory arrest. The trial Court rendered judgment of conviction under Section 302 IPC, which was reduced to conviction under Section 307 IPC. Hon'ble Apex Court in *aniklal3socaseo (Supra) examined a catena of judgments, Sections 299, 300 and 302 IPC and in para No. 68 observed that: "Ee are ta en b# sur(rise as to on "hat basis the +igh 6ourt has re!orded a finding that the de!eased su!!umbed to the in'uries suffered b# him due to la! of (ro(er treatment. 8here is absolutel# no eviden!e in this regard. Aot a single suggestion in this regard "as (ut b# the defen!e !ounsel in the !ross& e4amination of the do!tors. Gven other"ise this as(e!t is "holl# irrelevant in vie" of G4(lanation 2 to -e!tion 2;; %$6. %n other "ords, a!!ording to the +igh 6ourt, sin!e, the de!eased died after about nine months from the date of the in!ident due to la! of (ro(er treatment the !ase is not one of murder. 8his finding in our o(inion is erroneous. )n one hand, the +igh 6ourt believes that the !ause of death "as due to in'uries suffered b# the de!eased, and on the other hand, ta es the vie" that as he died after nine months due to la! of (ro(er treatment the offen!e "ould fall "ithin -e!tion 307 of the %$61 o 27o ooooooooooooooooooInoManiklal'socaseo(supra)oHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinoparaoNo.69o ofotheojudgmentolaidodownofewobroadoprinciplesothatotheoCourtsomustokeepoino mindoandotheseoareoasofollows:-o " 69. We may highlight few broad principles that the courts must keep in mind:- a. If it is proved that the injury was fatal and the intention was to cause death, though the death occurred after several days of septicemia or other complications having supervened, yet it is undoubtedly a murder as it falls within the first limb of Section 300 of the IPC. b. If it is proved that the injuries by themselves were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and if it is established that those injuries were the intended injuries, though the death might have occurred after septicemia or other complications had supervened, yet the act of the accused would squarely fall under the third limb of Section 300 of the IPC and the accused is therefore liable to be punished under Section 302 of the IPC. c. If it is proved that the injuries were imminently dangerous to life, though the death had occurred after septicemia or other complications had supervened, yet the act of the accused would squarely fall under the fourth limb of Section 300 of the IPC, provided, the other requirements like knowledge on the part of the accused, etc. are satisfied and so the accused would be liable to be punished under Section 302 of the IPC. Here also, the primary cause of the death is the injuries and septicemia. d. In judging whether the injuries inflicted were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the possibility that skillful and efficient medical treatment might prevent the fatal result is wholly irrelevant. e. If the supervening causes are attributable to the injuries caused, then the person inflicting the injuries is liable for causing death, even if death was not the direct result of the injuries. f. Broadly speaking, the courts would have to undertake the exercise to distinguish between two types of cases; first, where the intervening cause of death, like peritonitis, is only a remote and a rather improbable consequence of the injury; then it can be RAVINDERgKUMAR 2025.11.13g16:36 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand integritygofgthisgdocument 28o said that the injury is one which may, in particular circumstances, result in death, but which may not in ordinary course of nature be likely to lead to it. Secondly, where the complication which is the intervening cause of death is itself a practically inevitable sequence to the injury. In that event, the probability is very high indeed, amounting to practical certainty i.e., death is a result in due course of natural events. A deep abdominal thrust with a knife followed by injury to the internal organs is practically certain to result in acute peritonitis causing death. It is clearly a case of murder under Section 302 and not merely of culpable homicide. g. Even when the medical evidence does not say that any one of the injuries on the body of the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, yet it is open to the Court to look into the nature of the injuries found on the body of the deceased and infer from them that the assailants intended to cause death of the deceased. If none of the injuries alone were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased, cumulatively, they may be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. h. What the courts must see is whether the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or to cause such bodily injuries as the accused knew to be likely to cause death although death was ultimately due to supervention of some other cause. An intervening cause or complication is by itself not of such significance. What is significant is whether death was only a remote possibility, or is one which would have occurred in due course. i. To sum it up, where death is delayed due to later complications or developments, the courts should consider the nature of the injury, complications or the attending circumstances. If the complications or developments are the natural, or probable, or necessary consequence of the injury, and if it is reasonably contemplated as its result, the injury could be said to have caused death. If on the other hand, the chain of consequences is broken, or if there is unexpected complication causing new mischief, the relation of cause and effect is not established, or the causal connection is too remote then the injury cannot be said RAVINDERgKUMAR 2025.11.13g16:36 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand integritygofgthisgdocument 29o to have !aused death. %f the original in'ur# itself is of a fatal nature, it ma es no differen!e that death is a!tuall# !aused b# a !om(li!ation naturall# flo"ing from the in'ur# and not the in'ur# itself, sin!e !ausal !onne!tion is (ro4imate1

Coming back to the facts of the present case, the accused inflicted injuries on the person of Purshotam since deceased on his right iliac fossa and left iliac fossa region of the body, without any provocation with sharp edged weapon i.e. knife Ex.MO2. The injuries are inflicted intentionally. The offence committed by the accused of inflicting injuries comes within the definition of clause thirdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code as the death of Purshotam is caused by accused by intentionally inflicting above referred two injuries by means of knife which is sharp edged weapon and these injuries inflicted with sharp edged weapon are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In view of the overwhelming evidence collected by the prosecution during the investigation of the case i.e. testimonies of star witnesses of this case i.e. PW2 Kuldeep Singh and PW3 Yashpal who themselves suffered injuries from the hands of accused by means of knife on the fateful night and the MLRs, post mortem report, recovery of knife Ex.MO2 from the possession of accused, as discussed above collected by PW11 SI Didar Singh during the course of investigation, the learned trial Court rightly held that the prosecution has proved against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt of committing the murder of Purshotam and inflicting injuries on the persons of PW2 Kuldeep Singh and PW3 Yashpal. ;0o

¶11In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court and therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶12A copy of this judgment be sent to quarters concerned for necessary compliance.

(oGUR3INDERo4INGHoGI88o)o o o o(RAME4Ho,UMARI) JUDGE JUDGE

th12 November, 2025 o

sonia arora/ ravinder

Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No

o