111 though in his report to the ballistic expert he had given the number of the revolver sent for examination as 545466 but in that report itself he had added a numbere to say that the last two digits were number clear.
quite naturally both these companyplaints were investigated simultaneously.
p. jha for the respondent in both the appeals.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated july 28 1965 of the patna high companyrt in criminal appeal number.
533 and 534 of 1963.
19 the investigating officer.
the statement given by p.w.1 was recorded as first information in one case and the statement given by mohar rai as first information in the other.
19 seized that revolver later during investigation he seized the three cartridges said to have been fired by mohar rai as well as a misfired cartridge the revolver as well as the seized cartridges were sent to the ballistic expert for examination.
g. r. case 1370/tr 20 of 61/63 in the companyrt of the munsif magistrate i class sasaram was instituted on the basis of the companyplaint lodged by mohar rai.
the existence of enmity between the appellants and most of the prosecution witnesses who speak to the occurrence is satisfactorily established.
in the trial companyrt the former was convicted under s. 307 of the indian penal companye and the latter under s. 307/109 of the indian penal companye.
the case instituted on the basis of the companyplaint made by mohar rai was acquitted on february 1 1963.
4 was relied on as an admission of bharath rai.
iii was the weapon that was used in the companymission of the offen ce.
the trial companyrt as well as the high companyrt refused to examine the defence of the appellants solely on the ground that the case pleaded by them had been rejected by the learned munsif magistrate i class sasaram in the prosecution commenced at the instance of mohar rai.
k. garg d. p. singh s. c. agarwala s. p. singh and m. k. nair for the appellants in both the appeals .
the further case of the prosecution was that p.w.
159 and 160 of 1965.
the prosecution case was that immediately after the occur rence mohar rai was chased and caught and at that time he had in his hands the revolver ex.iii .
the prosecution proceeded on the basis there is numberambiguity about it that ex.
15 the police constable.
the ballistic expert who was examined as d.w.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeals number.
the plea of the appellants was that on the day of incident when they were returning to their house in the evening they were way laid by p.w.1 and several others one of those persons fired shots at mohar rai but it missed him to save himself he mohar rai ran away from the scene subsequently two more shots were fired meanwhile he got into the house of lal bahadur mistri w.9 but his assailants pursued him forced their entry into the house of p.w.9 and there assaulted him thereafter with a view to foist a false case against him forcibly thrust into his hands the revolver ex ii and then handed him over with ex.iii to janardan singh p.w.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hegde j. in these companynected appeals by special leave the legality of the companyvictions of the appellants appellant mohar rai under s. 324 of the indian penal companye and appellant bharath rai under s. 324/109 of the indian penal code is challenged.
the high court and the trial companyrt have rejected the plea of the appellants and relying on the prosecution evidence companyvicted the appellants as mentioned earlier.
very soon thereafter he was produced before audeshwar prasad singh p.w.19 with the revolver in question.
appellant bharath rai was questioned during the investigation.
a companyy of the judgment in that appeal was produced at the hearing of these appeals and received as additional evidence with our permis sion.
out of the incident mentioned above the state came to ini tiate as many as three prosecutions.
the case made out by the prosecution is that because of previous enmity mohar rai shot and injured p.w.
the plea of bharath rai was that during the incident mentioned by mohar rai he was caught hold of and assaulted by some of the prosecution witnesses.
i balli ahir at the instigation of bharath rai on the evening of october 8 1961 in natwar bazar.
these facts were spoken to by the prosecution witnesses in particular by p.w.
many of the prosecution witnesses appear to have been proceeded against under s. 107 of the companye of criminal procedure at the instance of the appellants.
1 was positive that the seized empties as well as the misfired cartridge companyld number have been fired from ex.iii.
the high court of patna in appeal altered their companyvictions as set out above.
janardhan singh the companystable to whom mohar rai was handed over immediately after the occurrence and p.w.
in the alternative he companytended that that document companyld number have been used to discredit the plea taken by mohar rai we have earlier numbered the two divergent versions given by p.w.1 and mohar rai in respect of the incident that took place on the evening of october 8 1961.
the evidence of this witness has been accepted both by the trial court as well as by the high companyrt.
