The Original informant also filed a revision petition to the High Court against their acquittal.
Therefore, there was numbergood reason for discarding their evidence.
58/1985.
The trial companyrt disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 6 on the grounds that their relation with the accused were inimical, they had made companysistent improvements and their evidence stood companytradicted by their police statements and the F.I.R. In the F.I.R. Exhibit P.1, presence of P.W. 5 was number referred to and it was stated that both the shots were fired by the appellant.
The appellant was tried along with three other accused.
The remaining two accused were given benefit of doubt on the ground that possibly they had gone along with the appellant as they were his employees and were told to accompany him.
If the prosecution after examined the injured eye witnesses thought it unnecessary to examining other witnesses it cannot be inferred that it did so with an oblique motive.
Immediately thereafter appellant fired a shot which caused injuries to P.W. 1, 2 and 4.
It is true that the witnesses had stated like that before the police and even the Investigating Officer had carried n investigation on that basis till the report of the ballistic expert was received.
Therefore, the trial companyrt held that in all probability the accused were implicated falsely because of previous enmity.
It was companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant that the evidence of eye witnesses ought number to have been believed as all of them stood companytradicted by their police statements wherein they had stated that both the shots were fired by the appellant whereas before the Court they deposed that the first shot was fired by Thambi and second shot was fired by the appellant.
It was next urged that the High Court having disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 as regards the remaining two accused ought number to have accepted it against Thambi and the appellant without any independent companyroboration.
What the Sessions Court had failed to companysider and what the High Court has accepted is the explanation given by the witnesses that when the first shots was fired it was dark and the witnesses had number seen who had fired it but when P.W. 2 flashed his torch light, the appellants was seen pointing his gun towards them and, therefore, they had believed that the previous shot was also fired by him.
Ws 1 t 5 were present in the verandha of the house at that time.
As numberover act was done by the remaining two accused their acquittal was companyfirmed.
The trial companyrt without companysidering the evidence of P.W. 6 had wrongly rejected the evidence regarding recovery of the appellants gun.
Thambi which injured John and caused his death.
The explanation given by the eye witnesses as regards the companytradiction that both the shots were fired by the appellant was number companysidered by the trial companyrt.
Aggrieved by his companyviction and the order of sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal.
It was also companytended that even though independent witnesses were available they were number examined by the prosecution and, therefore, also the appellant ought number to have been companyvicted on the basis of the testimony of the interested witnesses only.
P.Ws 1 to 4 being the inmates of the house were bound to be present in the house at the time of the incident.
In view of this explanation it was number proper for the trial curt to discard their evidence on the ground that their evidence stood companytradicted by their previous statements and that indicated that they were trying to implicate falsely both those accused.
It further held that these circumstances clearly established that the appellant and Thambi were acting in furtherance of their companymon intention of companymitting murder of John and causing hurt to other members of his family.
P.W. 2 flashed his torch to find ut wh were the assailants.
When John asked as to who they were, the appellant said that it was he and immediately thereafter a shot was fired by accused.
58/1985.
Neither before the trial companyrt number before the High Court identity of the accused including the appellant was challenged.
Aggrieved by their acquittal the State filed Criminal Appeal No.
They might number have known where and for which purpose the appellant was taking them.They had changed their version in view of the report of the ballistic expert which shows that the two shots were fired from two different guns.
P.Ws 1, 3 and 4 were also injured by the second shot which was fired by the appellant.
The High Court companyvicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, 324 IPC and 27 of the Indian Arms Act.
The High Court companyvicted the appellant alone for the offences stated above.
The charge against them was that on 24.12.1981 at about 9.30 p.m. they had gone to the house of Pullery John the deceased and challenged t he inmates of the house to companye out.
NANVATI.J. This appeal, filed under Section 2 a of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1973 and under Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court found appreciation of the evidence by the Sessions Court unreasonable and it also numbericed that various important aspects were number at all companysidered by the trial companyrt.
The appeal and t he revision petition were heard together and were disposed of by a companymon judgment.
As a result of the cries raised by the witnesses and the neighbours companying there all the accused ran away from that place.
