http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: PRITAM SINGH AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/01/1993

BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. MOHAN, S. (J)

CITATION:  1993 AIR 2604            1994 SCC  Supl.  (1) 532

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.In  this case there were six accused before  the  trial court arraigned for the offences under Section 302 read with Section  149 and under Sections 324, 325 and 120-B  of  IPC. The  trial  court  acquitted  all the  accused  of  all  the offences.   The  trial court held that the  prosecution  had failed  to  prove  the  charges  beyond  reasonable   doubt. Against  the acquittal, the State preferred an appeal.   The High Court came to the conclusion that the finding  recorded by  the  trial  court was unreasonable  and  held  that  the offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149  for the  death  of victim-Kishore Chand and  the  offence  under Sections  324  and  325 read with Section  149  for  causing injuries  to  witness  Virender Kumar  (PW  7)  were  proved against the appellants.  The High Court, however, held  that the  offence of conspiracy was not proved.  Having  come  to the  said conclusion, the High Court  accordingly  convicted and   sentenced   the   appellants   to   undergo   rigorous imprisonment  for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs  500  each for the conviction under Section 304 Part 11 and to  undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment each for the offences under Sections  324  and 325 read with Section 149  of  IPC.   The sentences  were directed to run concurrently.   As  regards, the  original accused 5, he was 19 years of age at the  time of  the incident.  He was also the first offender and  hence he  was  given  the  benefit  of  the  probation  under  the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2.Mr Kohli, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, challenges the finding of conviction on the ground that  the prosecution had failed to establish the offence against  the accused  beyond  reasonable doubt and,  in  particular,  the prosecution  had  failed  to  establish  that  a  particular accused  had  inflicted  a particular  injury  both  on  the deceased-Kishore  Chand as well as on the  witness  Virender Kumar  (PW  7).  His second contention is that  it  was  not established that the death of the deceased was on account of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

the injuries in question. 3.As regards the first contention, we are satisfied  that the  court, after taking into consideration  the  eyewitness account  as well as the two dying declarations, has come  to the  right  conclusion  that it was  the  accused  who  were responsible  for  the attack both  on  the  deceased-Kishore Chand  and the injured witness Virender Kumar in the  manner alleged by the prosecution.  According to us, therefore,  no interference is called for with the said finding. 4.As  regards the second contention, Mr Kohli  relied  on the fact that the incident took place on April 11, 1977, and Kishore Chand died about a fortnight thereafter on April 26, 1977.   He  further relied on the fact that the  Doctor,  Mr Pramod Gill (PW 2) who performed the postmortem examination, did  not give his opinion with regard to the exact cause  of the death at the time of the said examination.  On the other hand,  after performing the postmortem examination, he  sent the kidneys of the deceased to the pathologist (PW 1) on the same day. 534 The  pathologist  gave  his  report  on  May  12,  1977  and thereafter  on May 28, 1977, Dr Gill gave his opinion  based on  the  said report, that the death was on account  of  the short supply of blood to the kidneys as a consequence of the multiple  injuries  which the deceased had  received.   Shri Kohli referred us in this connection to the evidence of PW 1 pathologist where the pathologist has stated that the  short supply of blood to the kidneys can be on account of  various reasons including the injuries in question.  The pathologist has also stated that the said cause of death can be detected only  within  3  days  of  the  death.   Since  though   the postmortem  was  conducted within 3 days of the  death,  the report  was submitted only on May 12, 1977, according to  Mr Kohli,  the report given by the pathologist and the  opinion of Dr Gill based on the said report has to be discarded.  He also stressed that the pathologist had not mentioned in  the report,  the grounds on which he had come to the  conclusion that, in the present case, there was a short supply of blood to the kidneys. 5.We  have carefully considered the evidence both of  the pathologist  (PW 1) and of Dr Gill (PW 2) who performed  the postmortem examination.  The record shows that the deceased- Kishore  Chand  had received as many as 13 injuries  on  his person of which five were serious according to Dr Gill.  The postmortem report also shows that the wounds in question had developed  septic.  It is not in dispute that Kishore  Chand died  after 15 days as a consequence of the  said  injuries. The  only question to be considered in the present case,  on the  contention of Mr Kohli, is whether these  complications had resulted in a short supply of blood to the kidneys which was  the  proximate cause of death.  The  pathologist  while stating that the short supply of blood to the kidneys can be on  various  accounts,  has also stated  that  the  multiple injuries received by the deceased could also be the cause of such  short  supply.   The prosecution is  not  required  to exhaust  all causes that may lead to a disease  or  ailment. All  that prosecution had to establish in the  present  case was  whether the multiple injuries received by the  deceased would  have  resulted in the short supply of  blood  to  the kidneys  which was the immediate cause of the death  of  the victim.   We  are satisfied that the opinions given  by  the pathologist  and  by Dr Gill, establish the  fact  that  the short supply of blood to the kidneys in the present case was on account of the multiple injuries received by the  victim. We, therefore, find nothing wrong in the conclusion  arrived

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

at   by  the  High  Court.   Hence,  we  sustain  both   the convictions as well as the sentences of the appellants,  and dismiss the appeal. 535