Another submission of Shri Mulla was that the P. Ws.
He proceeded to Kod village, to the scene of occurrence, prepared a panchnama and thereafter recorded the statements of the witnesses, On companypletion of investigation the appellants were tried and companyvicted and sentenced as mentioned at the outset.
The case of the prosecution was that on November 10, 1970, at about 8 p. m. Gita Bai P.W. 1 , wife of Ganga Ram, her two children, Janibai P.W. 6 , wife of Badri, brother of Gangaram, her two children, Gangarams brother Brijlal P.W. 3 , his wife Suhagbai and their children were in the house of Gangaram.
All of them stated that Gangarams house was burnt down on the night of November 10, 1970 but that they did number see any of the accused persons at the place and that numberone prevented anyone from trying to extinguish the fire as was claimed by P. Ws, 1, 2 and 6 Shri Mulla submitted that D. Ws.
The house was burnt to ashes.
At about 8 p. m. the thirteen accused persons, one of whom is another brother of Gangaram, broke open the front door of the house, entered the house and inflicted some injuries on Gita and Janibai.
Next morning Gita, Janibai and Brijlal proceeded to the Police Station Kanwan and gave a report to the Head Constable who was in charge of the Station at about 11.30 a. m. In this report though ten to fifteen persons were alleged to have entered the house, broke open the door and set fire to the house, the names of only A1, A2, A3, A4, A10 and A11 were mentioned, Gita and Janibai were sent to the Hospital for treatment and it was found that each of them had a companyple of simple injuries.
Shri A. N. Mulla, learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the evidence of P. Ws.
Gita and Janibai went to the village Bidwal, and spent the night there as Gangaram was in that village.
The Sub Inspector of Police, P.W. 7.
1, 2 and 6 deposed that the Police had recorded their statements on 11th immediately after the First Information Report was given.
An appeal preferred by the accused was dismissed by the High Court in a laconic and if we may say so, a perfunctory judgment without discussing the evidence except making one or two general observations.
1, 2 and 6 should number be accepted as their cross examination showed that they had prevaricated on several points.
The Sub Inspector who was examined as P.W. 7 stated in his evidence that he recorded the evidence of witnesses on November 12, 1970 and that numberstatements had been recorded on November 11, 1970.
The accused examined three defence witnesses and one of them was Pannalal, brother of Gangaram.
But, the companyies of the statements supplied to the accused bore the date November 12, 1970 and the Public Prosecutor told the Sessions Judge that the case diary did number companytain any statements recorded on November 11, 1970.
So Brijlal also went to Bidwal.
Gita, Janibai and their children were in the ground floor while Brijlal, his wife and children were on the first floor.
Gangaram himself was number at home number was Badri.
who was on tour, returned to Kanwan and took over the investigation on November 12, 1970.
1, 2, and 3 were number subjected to any cross examination and therefore their evidence should be unhesitatingly accepted.
