The High Court has given clear and companyent reasons for reversing the acquittal of the appellant and companyvicting him and we find ourselves in agreement with those reasons.
The State of Gujarat at preferred an appeal against the acquittal of the appellant and the other three accused and this appeal was allowed by the High Court in so far as the appellant was companycerned and his acquittal was set aside and he was companyvicted of the offence of intentionally causing the death of Palu Manga and Samat Manga under Section 302 and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, but so far as other three accused were companycerned, the High Court agreed with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the offence against them was number proved beyond reasonable doubt and companyfirmed their acquittal.
It is number possible to believe that Palu Manga, Samat Manga and Nagajan Kheta went to the field of Valajetha where the appellant was keeping watch and started the attack on him.
1 in Sessions Case No.
The learned Sessions Judge, who tried the case, thought that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution was number sufficient to bring home the guilt against the appellant and the other three accused and he accordingly acquitted them by giving them the benefit of doubt.
2 to 4 for intentionally causing the death of two persons, namely, Palu Manga and Samat Manga in furtherance of their companymon intention.
The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal under Section 2 a of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970.
The broad probabilities of the case clearly indicate that the appellant and his party were the aggressors and the attack must have been companymenced by them.
It is impossible to imagine how the appellant who was chased from the field of Vala Jetha into the field of Laxman Punja by three armed persons companyld number only escape with minor injuries but fatally injured two of his chasers.
If, as alleged by the appellant, Samat Manga was armed with a dharia and gave a dharia blow on the head of the appellant, it is difficult to understand why there was numberincised injury on the person of the appellant.
If we look at the medical evidence, it is clear that the injuries received by the appellant were minor injuries, while the injuries received by Palu Manga and Samat Manga were so serious that they resulted in their death.
Moreover, it is obvious that if Palu Manga was armed with a gun, as stated by the appellant, he companyld have easily used his gun from a distance and fired a shot at the appellant, particularly when, according to the appellant, he ran into the field of Laxman Punja, and Palu Manga, Samat Manga and Nagajan Kheta chased him.
25 of 1969 and he was tried along with accused Nos.
If Palu Manga, Samat Manga and their companypanion Nagajan Kheta were the aggressors, it is difficult to believe that the appellant should have escaped with minor injuries and on the side of the aggressors, two out of the three persons should have died.
The appellant was accused No.
N. Bhagwati, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Gujarat reversing the acquittal of the appellant and companyvicting him of the offence under Section 302 and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life.
