G.D Dube, J.:— This appeal has been preferred by the appellant from jail against the judgment and order of Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur convicting and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life under S. 302 of I.P.C and six months, rigorous imprisonment on each count for voluntarily causing hurt to Mewa Lal, Umesh Chandra, Rajaram under S. 324, I.P.C and to one year rigorous imprisonment for voluntarily causing hurt to Shiv Kumar under S. 324 of I.P.C All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution was that Gaya Prasad had come to his village after taking leave from the District Hospital Hamirpur. He alongwith Prahlad, Bihari, Jagannath and Malkhan were present on the morning of 24-5-1983 in the vegetable field of Ramlal situated in village Kewtara Majra Patara P.S Kurara district Hamirpur. Appellant Gorey Lal came and demanded some vegetable and ‘Kharbuja’. When Ramlal refused to give the vegetable etc. Gorelal became angry and went away saying that soon he will see him. At about 10 a.m on the same day Gaya Prasad P.W 1 and Malkhan P.W 2 were bathing in the nearby river. Ramlal was washing his face near them. Gorey Lal came armed with ‘Song’. He inserted ‘Song’ in the head of Ramlal and turned it several times. He gave several blows with ‘Song’ on the body of Ramlal. Ramlal fell in the river and started crying. Gaya. Prasad and Malkhan chased Gorey Lal. On the alarm raised by Gaya Prasad and Malkhan villagers also chased Gorey Lal. He climbed on a ‘Peepal’ tree of ‘Koreshwar’. Gaya Prasad went to the police station and lodged the report in the police station at 12.30 p.m on 24-5-1983. After lodging of the report Suresh Kumar Singh P.W 6 went to the place of occurrence. He found a huge crowd near Kureshwar temple. He found that the appellant was sitting on the peepal tree near the temple. Despite request of Surendra Kumar Singh the appellant did not come down. Consequently the investigating officer left Umesh Chandra P.W 4 and Rajaram P.W 5 Constables at the spot to watch the accused-appellant. He went to the place of occurrence and conducted the inquest proceeding. He handed over the dead body in a sealed cover to parshuram and Harishchand. He also made other investigation at the spot. The investigating officer came back to Kureshwar temple about 3:45 p.m He saw that the appellant was attacking the crow+d with ‘Song’ in both of his hand. Umesh Chandra had fired twice in the air to overpower the appellant. The appellant became more infuriated and caused injury to Umesh Chandra. Appellant also attacked Rajaram constable P.W 5 Rajaram” in an attempt to save himself from the attack got entangled in a nearby lying cot and received injury. Rajaram had fired a shot which struck appellant in his leg. The appellant made another attack on Rajaram. Rajaram fired again which hit the appellant in his right shoulder. On receiving this shot the ‘Song’ in the hand of appellant fell down and he ran towards the, river Betawa. Surendra Kumar Singh and another arrested him in the river at about 4, p.m Surendra Kumar Singh took the appellant in custody and went to Police Station Kurara and dictated a report of this incident to the Head Moharrir at 5.40 p.m on 24-5-1983. A case under S. 332, 353 and 307, I.P.C was registered against him. This case was investigated by Sub-Inspector Ram Shiromani Gautam P.W 7.

3. The post mortem of the dead body was conducted by P.W 3, Dr. V.K Nigam at 2.30 p.m on 25-5-1983. He found that the deceased was 35 years old. His body was smeared with sand (Morang). 17 antemortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased. The lower Court had not quoted all these injuries in his judgment. Therefore we are mentioning these injuries in our judgment. The injuries were as under:—

1. Lacerated wound 3 cm. × 5 cm. × bone deep on the left partial region 10 cm. above the left ear 18 cm. above the eye brow vertically placed.

2. Penetrating wound. 5 cm. × 2 cm. on the front of right shoulder joint 9 cm. above the out axillary fold.

3. Abrasion 1.5 cm. × 1.5 cm. on the medial surface of right forearm 2.5 cm. above the wrist joint.

4. Abrasion 0.5 cm. × 0.5 cm. on the medial, surface of right forearm 5.5 cm. above the injury No. 3.

5. Abrasion 2.5 cm. ×. 5 cm. on the tip of right shoulder joint.

6. Abrasion 2 cm. × 0.5 cm, on the back of” left side upper border of left scapula.

7. Contusion 18 em. × 10 cm. on the left arm antro lateral surface middle part.

8. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm. × 1 cm, × bone deep on the dorso medial surface of hand 3.5 cm. below the wrist joint.

9. Abrasion. 3 cm. × 3 cm. on the dorsal surface of left middle finger, middle part.

10. Contusion 18 cm. × 14 cm. on the back of upper part.

11. Abrasion 3 cm. × 3 cm. on the left knee; joint anterior surface, obliquely placed.

12. Abrasion 1 cm. × 3 cm. on the right lower leg 22 cm. below knee joint anterior surface.

13. Abrasion 1 cm. × 5 cm. on the right poplicteal forsa.

14. Abrasion. 5 cm. × 5 cm. on the lateral surface of right knee joint.

15. Abrasion 5 cm. × 5 cm, on the left clcvical fossa 4 cm. medial to injury No. 5.

16. Abrasion 10 cm. × 5 cm. on the left clavicularfossa 2.5 cm. medial to injury No. 6.

17. Contusion 6 cm. × 4 cm, on the back of neck at its base.

4. The doctor had found six ounce of undigested food in the stomach, small intestine contained pasty food and gases, large intestine contained faecal matter and gases. The death was opined to be caused by shock caused by spinal injury.

5. Dr. S.C Gupta, Medical Officer of District Hospital had examined Mewalal, Umesh Chandra Constable, Rajaram Constable and Shiv Kumar aged about 10 years at 10 p.m, 10.20 p.m, 10.40 p.m and 11 p.m respectively. On the person of Mcwa Lal a punctured wound on right side of chest 5 cm. in diameter, margin inverted fresh bleeding present was found at 5 cm, below the right nipple at 6 O'clock position, Wound was muscle deep. Injury was opined to be caused by pointed weapon and simple in nature. On the person of Umesh Chandra two red. abrasions were found; one on right anterior medial surface of lower leg 2 cm. below the lower and of patilla and the other on right anterior medial surface of right lower leg 6 cm. ×. 1 cm. above to injury No. I. On the person of Rajaram multiple red linear abrasion were found on left forearm on posterior medial surface; one red abrasion on lateral surface of left lower leg and another red linear. abrasion on left lateral surface of lower leg. There was complaint of pain on right inner part of thigh. The injury of Umesh Chandra and Rajaram were also opined to be simple and caused by hard and blunt object. On the person of Shiv Kumar a penetrating wound of entry was found on left upper part of thigh on medial surface 3 cm. × 3 cm, × muscle deep. Margin lacerated, fresh blood present on surface 17 cm. above from the left knee joint. Another penetrating wound of exit on posterior surface of left thigh 1 cm. × 1 cm. × muscle deep 6 cm. from the injury No. I. posteriorly, probe passed from wound No. 1. The injuries were opined to be caused by pointed hard weapon. Nature were opined to be simple; All the injuries in the opinion of the doctor were fresh in duration.

6. Appellant Gorey Lal have been also examined at 11.20 p.m on 24-5-1983 in the District Hospital by aforesaid, doctor S: C. Gupta. The following injuries were found on his person:—

1. Lacerated wound on posterior surface of right knee joint size 9 cm. × 4 cm. × muscle deep. Transversly lie. Blackening present at margin of wound. Fresh bleeding present on surface. Direction right to left.

2. Gun shot wound of entry on forearm, right measuring 2 cm. × I cm. × bone deep. On middle part of arm on palmer surface. 8 cm. above from right wrist joint. Margin is black. Edge inverted. Fresh bleeding present. Direction anterior to posterior.

3. Gun shot wound of exit on post surface of elbow joint right in area of 16 cm. × 9 cm. × bone deep. Margin lacerated. Fresh bleeding present 16 cm. from the wrist joint.

7. The doctor had opined that the injuries were caused by gun shot. Their duration was also found to be fresh.

8. The prosecution had examined P.W 1, Gaya Prasad, P.W 2, Malkhan, P.W 3 Dr. V.K Nigam, P.W 4 Umesh Chandra, P.W 5 Raja Ram, P.W 6 Surendra Kumar Singh and P.W 7 Ram Shiroman Gautam. The accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges. He had alleged that the policemen had fired towards him with intention to kill him. He wielded his ‘Barchhi’ in self defence. He had not produced any witness in defence. After appraising the evidence the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence punishable under Ss. 302 and 324 of I.P.C He has been charged by the offence punishable under S. 307 of I.P.C also. On this count he was held not guilty and acquitted.

9. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no explanation for the 11 abrasions found on the person of the deceased. There is also no explanation for the contusion on the dead body. Sri C.P Tripathi amicus curie for the appellant argued that Ext. Ka 7 shows that the investigating officer had quoted plain earth and blood stained earth. On the other hand the post mortem report indicates that the_dead body was smeared with sand. Hence the blood stained sand and plain sand should have been quoted. The very mention of earth shows that the blood stained material was collected from some other place and the place of occurrence had been changed.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the arrest part of the appellant formed another incident. In the second incident the investigating officer, was the reporter. Ram Shiroman Gautam was an Dfficer subordinate to him. He ought not have investigated the case. The investigation ought to have been given to some officer superior to P.W 6 Surendra Kumar Singh.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant doubted the correctness of the second part of the prosecution story. It was urged that it was not at all probable that a single man would have been able to inflict injuries on two constables with a ‘song’ when they were armed with rifles. It was also urged that it has not been shown in any report or evidence that, during the second incident, Mewa Lal and Shiv Kumar had received injury. Learned “counsel for the appellant doubted the prosecution story. On this count also, it was urged that it was quite improbable that, aftefr receiving gun-shot wound on the leg, the appellant could dare, to attack the two constables and others and also injure them. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that some over writing had been made in the inquest report. Formerly, the inquest proceedings were shown to have started at 2.00 p.m; but, later on, it was over-written as 15.20 All these shows that the report was ante-timed and was written after some deliberation with the police.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the State. Learned A.G.A pointed out that there was no previous enmitv of Gaya Prasad (P.W 1) and Malkhan (P.W 2) with the appellant. In their cross-examination, the appellant had not been able to elicit any fact to discredit their testimony. Learned counsel for the State urged that, in common prudence, the collection of blood-stained earth and plain-earth is written in the investigation. In that practice, the Investigating Officer had written the word Mittee (earth) in Ext. Ka-7. This does not affect the prosecution story at all.

13. We accept the above contention of learned A.G.A In the report (Ext. Ka-10) lodged at 5.40 p.m, the Investigating Officer had written that he had brought the dead body on a boat because bullock-cart could not ply in sand. This shows that, near the place of occurrence, there was sand (Moram) on the spot. The mention of word ‘Mitiee’ in in Ext. Ka-7 is only on account of usual habit of the investigating officer to write this word. The investigating officer was not cross-examined on this aspect. Unless the attention of the investigating officer has been drawn to the above fact and he was asked to explain, no argument can be advanced at this stage that the blood was not collected from the site.

14. We agree with the learned counsel for the State that Gaya Prasad and Malkhan are independent witnesses. They were the only person present at the place of occurrence. Their version is not at all contradicted by the medical evidence. Dr. V.K Nigam has stated that the injury No. 1 could be caused by inserting a ‘song’ and turning it several times. It has come in the statement of Gaya Prasad that after inserting the point of ‘song’ in head appellant had inflicted 4-6 blows with ‘Song’ on the body. Consequently the injury Nos. 2, 7, 8, 10 and 17 could be caused by the ‘Song’. We also notice that there were two abrasions on right fore-arm; two abrasions were on right shoulder joint and left upper scapula; one abrasion was on left middle finger; two abrasions were on the left knee and right lower knee; one abrasion was on the right knee joint; two abrasions were on the clevical fossa region. The place of occurrence was full of ‘Moram’ which is a crude sort of sand, when a person is attacked with a ‘Song’ then obviously the person attacked will try to save himself. In this melee some of the blows might have caused abrasion only. The injury on the knee, forearm, and the right leg could be caused by fall on Moram. After receiving such a serious injury any person would wriggle with pain and in that course may himself cause some injury on his clavicular region. The abrasions are fully explained by the presence of ‘Moram’ on the body of the deceased.

15. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant could be true only if the deceased had received the injuries like a log of wood without making any attempt to save himself from the assault.

16. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the second incident could not have happened in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. In the very first information report lodged by Gaya Prasad it has been mentioned that appellant had climbed on a ‘Pipal’ tree and he was still on the ‘Pipal’ tree and the villagers were surrounding him. The investigating officer has also found him on the ‘Pipal’ tree. P.W 4 Umesh Chandra and P.W 5 Rajaram have clearly stated that the appellant had attacked them after coming down on the ground. The version of Rajaram that he had fired twice which hit the appellant is corroborated by the injury quoted above. Injury No. 1 was on the posterior surface of right knee joint. It was through the muscle part of the teg. But the injuries 2 and 3 were caused by one shot because they were entry and exit wounds. In such a circumstance after receiving the first injury the appellant could have made further attempt of assault.

17. When a man became desperate, then daredevilness arises in his nerves. In such a situation, even an armed person could not have dared to arrest him. It appears from the statements of Umesh Chandra and Rajaram that they had exercised great restraint in arresting. Goreylal appellant. They had used only such force which was necessary for the arrest of the appellant. In exercise of this restraint they could have received injuries in attack of the appellant.

18. The first information report (Ext. Ka. 13) itself mentions that the appellant had been chased and he climbed the Peepal tree. Under section (sic), Cr. P.C every citizen has got a right to arrest an offender. We do not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the first offence ended after the commission of murder. The act continued till the appellant was apprehended. The sequence of events namely, committing of murder of Ram Lal at the river side and thereafter a chase by the two witnesses and villagers upto the Peepal tree and thereby the arrest of the appellant by the local police and the Invetigating Officer formed one sequence of event. The scuffle at the time of arrest and the use of force by the two constables were part and parcel of the process of arrest. The offence is not complete as soon as the offender commits the crime. If, after committing the crime, the witnesses chase the culprit and they arrest him, then the whole occurrence from the time of start of crime and the arrest form one bundle of fact constituting one crime. If, at the time of arrest, some more crimes are committed, then these crimes are, a continuation of the first crime. They do not form separate facts and do not constitute two different offences. Such a crime has to be tried together and two trials were not at all required.

19. In this respect we may refer to S. 220, Cr. P.C which reads as under:—

“220. Trial for more than one offence. (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with; and tried at one trial for, every such offence,

(2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of S’. 212 or in sub-sec. (I) of S. 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commision of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.

(3) If the acts alleged constitute: an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with and tried at one trial for, each of such offences.

(4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts.

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect S. 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

20. Since the two incidents, mentioned above, constitute one series of fact connected together as to form one transaction, then, even though more than one offences were committed, the appellant could be charged for all the offences in the same trial. There is no error in joinder of charges.

21. Since the offence constituted one series of acts, it was not at all necessary that the incident at the Peepal tree should have been investigated by an officer senior to the Investigating Officer. It was in the fitness of things that the Investigating Officer had thought it proper to hand over the Investigation of this arrest part of the appellant to the second officer as he was himself an eye witness of a part of the incident.

22. Section 465, Cr. P.C states that no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrants, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or any enquiry or other proceedings under the Code or any error or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution unless in the opinion of the appellate court a failure of justice has been occasioned thereby. Subsection (2) of this. S. 465, Cr. P.C lays down the guide-lines as to how the failure of justice is to be determined. It says that while determining whether error or omission or irregularity etc, had occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. If adjudged from this angle of the view, we find that no objection about the joinder 01 charges was raised before the Sessions Judge. In fact, the trial had not caused any injustice to the appellant. He was not at all prejudiced by the joint trial of the two charge-sheets submitted in respect of the two parts of the offence which had ultimately resulted into two Sessions Trials bearing Nos. 7 of 1950 and 149 of 1985 “both having title State v. Gore Lal.

23. The alleged over-writing in the injury report does not affect the veracity of the prosecution version. The witnesses produced by the prosecution have stated those facts which established beyond doubt that the appellant had committed the crime of murder ‘of Ram Lal and the offence of voluntarily jcatising hurt to four persons with sharp and pointed weapon near the Peepal tree. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. The lower court has rightly believed them.

24. Rajaram has stated that four persons including him and Umesh Chandra had’ received injuries. If the names of the two injured are not mentioned in the report of Investigating Officer then it does hot affect the version. These two had been medically examined along with the constables. Hence these evidences clearly indicated that Mewa and Shiv Kumar had received injuries in the incident near peepal tree.

25. The explanation given by the appellant about his injuries are not satisfactory. The statements of constables fully explain the injuries of the appellant. This-also proves that the appellant had committed the crimes for which he was charged by the lower court. We find no error in the impugned judgment and order. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence.

26. Appeal dismissed.