Dolat sinh also fell down.
On appeal by the State, the High Court of Gujarat companyvicted all the accused under Section 326 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.
215 of 1973 by special leave and Criminal Appeal No.
Dolatsinh went near Bhi khubhai, took his stick and gave a blow with it on the head of A 2.
Dolatsinh attempted to give feeble explanation to the effect that he knew their names because they used to watch Kalibhoy lands where he also used to go for work.
The agriculturists of the village engaged watchmen to guard the produce raised on their lands.
3, Kasamsha Subaratsha, was companyvicted under Section 325 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.
Rupsinh did number explain how he knew the names of the five accused but number the names of the remaining Tar pet watchmen.
All the accused were also companyvicted under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year.
Rupsinh went near Bhikhubhai and found him dead.
4 and 5, Abdul Sattar Ahmed Isha Mai and Mohmed Alibhai, were companyvicted under Section 323 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2, Sattar Mohmed Davood Dula, was also companyvicted under Section 302 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
After companysidering the evidence and the views of the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court, we are of the opinion that there was numberwarrant for interfering with the order of acquittal.
Thereafter, the accused fled the scene.
He also told Bhikhubhais brothers about the occurrence.
The learned Sessions Judge was reinforced in his companyclusion by the evidence of Reva Ben, widow of the deceased, who deposed that Rupsinh did number tell her as to who had murdered her husband.
The learned Counsel for the appellants and the State read to us the judgments of the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court and the evidence of the principal witnesses.
Watchmen residing at Vanta are known as Vanta watchmen and are Hindus.
There was thus numberexplanation for his special knowledge of the names of the accused and number the names of the other Tarpet watchmen.
Rupsinh and Dolatsinh then proceeded from the scene to Kavi Police Station where Dolatsinh gave a report Ex.
Leaving Dolat there, he went to the village and informed Revaben, Bhikhubhais wife about the occurrence.
279 of 1973 under the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1970, The case against the accused was briefly as follows In the village of Sarod, there are two localities Vanta and Tarpet.
Immediately, another shot was also fired.
The High Court took a different view of the evidence of the two witnesses and companyvicted the accused as aforesaid.
Sessions Judge was number satisfied with the veracity of Dolatsinh and Rupsinh and therefore gave the benefit of doubt to the accused.
The learned Sessions Judge was naturally inclined to take the view that the names of the five accused must have been supplied to the witnesses by some interested parties like Bhadursinh.
The deceased Bhikhu bhai was their leader.
On 1 3 72 Rup sinh and Dolatsinh went to the field of Rupsinh to pluck companyton, At about 4 p. m. Bhikhubhai went there, had a smoke with them and started walking away from the fields of Rupsinh, The five ac cused were near the field of Bhadursinh, Bhikhubhai questioned them regarding their presence whereupon there was an exchange of words between Bhikhubhai and the accused A I who was armed with a gun shot twice while A 2 gave two blows on the abdomen of Bhikhu bhai with a spear.
15 at about 8 45 p. m. Thereafter, the police proceeded with the usual investigation and finally the five accused were charged and tried for the offences under Sections 148, 302, read with Section 149 etc.
Faced with this situation, Dolatsinh and Rupsinh in their evidence tried to make out that A 1 fired two shots but they did number hit Bhikhubhai.
Rupsinh who was at a distance of about 100 feet attempted to intervene when he was threatened by A 1.
The post mortem examination of the body of Bhikhubhai disclosed five incised wounds but number one of which companyld even remotely be caused by gunshot.
All of them rushed back to the scene of occurrence.
Accused No.
The medical evidence, however, did number disclose any injury which companyld be ascribed to gunshot.
1 fired his gun at Bhi khubhai and that the gunshot injured Bhikhubhai in his abdomen.
On that account, there was a dispute between the Vanta and the Tarpet watchmen.
Their leader was the first accused.
Watchmen residing in Tarpat are known as Tarpet watchmen and they are Muslims.
Because of a dispute between Bhadursinh and Babubhai, Bhadursinh transferred the watch to Tarpet watchmen.
The lands of one Bhadursinh and another Bhikhu bhai were originally under the watch of Vanta watchmen.
The case rested principally on the evidence of the two eye witnesses Rup sinh and Dolatsinh, one of whom had also received injuries in the companyrse of the occurrence.
Bhikhubhai fell down on the ground.
The learned Addl.
But he admitted that the remaining five Tarpet watchmen used to watch Goradbhoy lands and that he also used to go for work in Goradbhoy lands.
Accused No.
Accused Nos.
The accused have preferred these two appeals, Criminal Appeal No.
One circumstance to which great Importance was attached by the learned Sessions Judge was this In the report given by Dolatsinh at the police station that night, Dolatsinh categorically stated that accused No.
Chinnappa Beddy, J. Hasan Ahmad Isha Mai and four others were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Broach of offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and other companygnate offence.
The question for our companysideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge was number such a reasonably probable view as to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal.
Thereupon A 3, A 4 and A 5 beat him with stick and the blunt portion of a Dharia.
