Out of the remaining five accused.
He is said to have narrated the details of the occurrence to PW 5, Ramanuj who reduced the same into a writing which writing was presented at the police station becoming the First Information Report on the strength of which investigation was carried out.
The Prosecution at the trial did number have the benefit of the statement of Harkhit Singh since he had died in the meantime.
The Courts below have placed implicit reliance on the statement of PW 2, Narayan Singh and this has remained the point of dispute throughout as to whether PW 2 should be believed in the facts and circumstances We have gone through the judgment under appeal.
It has been found that Tuna Singh had fired from a gun whereupon the deceased fell down, Shivjee Singh appellant caught hold of the deceased while alive in order to facilitate Kedar Singh chop off the neck which was accordingly cut.
PWs 4 to 7 the other eye witnesses did number support the prosecution case.
This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the three companyvicts named, Kedar Singh, Shivjee Singh and Tuna Singh.
PW 5 alone was examined as the scribe of the statement.
The only eye witness to the crime who supported the prosecution case was PW 2 Naryan Singh.
The prosecution case is that eight persons inclusive of the three appellants at about 8.00 p.m. on 19th September, 1980 came having formed an unlawful assembly and caused the murder of Ramhit Singh, deceased close to a temple.
Surendra Singh had died during trial, Tanik Singh had absconded and his trial stood separate, Ramsewak Singh, Lodhi Singh and Sunil Singh stood acquitted by the High Court.
