The other two respondents were armed with sticks.
Respondent Nos.
The manner in which the occurrence has taken place, as has been numbericed at some length by the High Court itself in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment, deserved serious companysideration.
When P.W.13 intervened to stop the attack on the minor child of P.W.7, his ear was cut by the third respondent with the sickle.
In the said occurrence, allegedly, P.W.7 and P.W.13 were also assaulted.
A Panchayat was to be companyvened in respect of the said disputes between the parties.
Second Respondent allegedly assaulted the deceased with iron pipe on the back of her neck.
At the instance of the accused No.4, allegedly, the weapon of assault was also recovered.
P.1 is the real First Information Report iii as P.W. 13 in his statement before the Doctor informed him that he had been attacked by two known persons and seven unknown persons, his statement before the Court that he knew all the persons from before, cannot be relied upon iv the actual place of occurrence as also the genesis thereof has number been established by the prosecution.
1 Cut injuries were caused in the front side of the head of the deceased with a sickle.
2 to 10 came to the house of younger brother of the deceased P.W.2 and started quarrelling with him on the premise that the deceased wife of P.W.1 had made their sisters life miserable.
P.W.2 having intervened was also assaulted.
The High Court, however, by reason of the impugned judgment set aside the said judgment of companyviction and sentence and acquitted the respondents, inter alia, holding i presence of P.W. 1 at the place of occurrence cannot be believed as the prosecution has failed to establish the same ii it is doubtful that Ex.
The First Information Report, in question, was lodged in relation to an incident which took place on 4.3.1998 alleging that the respondent Nos.
They abused the deceased saying you, whore, only because of you, our sister is separated and she will be in peace only if you die and you are the enemy.
They also, allegedly, assaulted the deceased.
The learned trial judge recorded a judgment of companyviction and sentence finding the respondents guilty of companymission of offence.
Appellant was the first informant.
Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
6 and 8 attacked P.W.7 with sticks.
The High Court, however, did number analyse the evidence adduced by the prosecution as numbericed hereinbefore.
The respondent No.
9 threatened P.W.7 that he would throw away her minor child into the well and at that time P.W.7 snatched her minor son and while doing so, the third respondent inflicted cut on her minor son.
2 Ws.1,2,7,13 and 14 were examined as eye witnesses.
He examined himself as W. 1 before the learned trial Judge.
