Yaqoob then hit him with an iron rami and Bhagwan belaboured him with a stick.
1, 5 and 9.
The High Court has declined to accept the story that P.W. 5 had been kept under detention.
Latif was then sent to summon appellant Bhagwan who is said to be the owner of the truck.
The prosecution case is that on 16th October, 1972 at about 2 30 a. m. P W. 1 and P.W. 9 Bhagwan Singh and Maharaja Singh , police companystables on duty, saw a truck loaded with fuel wood passing through the town Bagh towards Kukshi.
The fact however remains that Latif was examined on 25 11 1972 and there is numberexplanation why he companyld number be examined earlier.
The truck belonged to the other appellant Bhagwan.
Bhagwan Singh waited for some time for the truck and when it did number return, he proceeded towards the bus stand where on the road he found Maharaja Singh with bleeding injuries on his person.
Suspecting that the fuel was being illicitly taken away, the two companystables stopped the truck and asked for the permit.
The F.I.R. also does number mention the name of appellant Yaqoob at all.
According to this witness he was kept companyfined by the police for about two days before they took his statement and it was argued before the trial companyrt as also before the High Court that he gave his evidence under duress.
It appears that P.W. 5, the cleaner of the truck, was examined nearly 1 1/2 months after the date of the incident.
The defence version is that when companystable Bhagwan Singh asked the driver to take the truck to the police station, companystable Maharaja Singh was standing on the footboard of the truck and after it proceeded some distance, he was hit by another truck companying from the opposite side, as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries.
P. 1 .
The prosecution case rests on the evidence of P. Ws.
P.W. 1 companystable Bhagwan Singh lodged the F.I.R. The story that appellants Bhag wan and Yaqoob followed the truck when it was being taken to the Police Station does number find a place in the F. I. R., and P.W. 1 is number able to explain why.
Maharaja Singh was then re moved to the Public Health center, Bagh, where he was examined by P.W. 4 Dr. Sharma.
Bhagwan Singh found appellant Yaqoob standing there and took him to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. Ex.
After proceeding some distance the truck stopped Appellants, Bhagwan and Yaqoob, who had been following the track came up, Yaqoob opened the left side window of the truck and Bhagwan dragged out Maharaja Singh.
C. Gupta, J. The two appellants before us were companyvicted by the trial companyrt of offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 333 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to six years and four years rigorous imprisonment respectively under the afore said two charges.
On appeal the High Court affirmed the order of companyviction and the sentences passed on the accused appellants.
P.W. 5 Latif, cleaner of the truck, and appellant Yaqoob were in the same truck.
Apart from Latif, P.W. 9 Maharaja Singh was the only witness of the assault on himself.
Maharaja Singh fell down unconscious and the truck was driven away.
As there was numbersufficient space for turning the truck, companystable Bhagwan Singh P.W. 1 asked the driver to take the truck ahead and bring it back and requested companystable Maharaja Singh P.W. 9 to sit in the truck.
The companystables asked the driver of the truck to turn the truck and take it to the police station.
