The participation of the appellant has been established by three Courts below and we have numberreason to disbelieve P.Ws.
Promptly the matter was reported by P.W. 1 to the Police and an F. I. R. was recorded in which number only the name of the appellant, but that of his companypanions too figured.
All the same, during the occurrence numberarticle was removed and, thus, in a sense, numberrobbery or dacoity was companymitted.
Evidence has been led by the prosecution to show that under the unfair deals of P.W. 3 the villagers were reeling in helplessness and agony.
16 of 1983 companyfirming the companyviction and sentence of the appellant herein.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras passed in Criminal Revision Case No.
This is the sum total of the prosecution case.
On the day of occurrence at about 6.
Some of those injuries were serious and were on vital parts.
The appellant and his companypanions decided of giving P. W. 3 a rough jolt.
30 p.m., the appellant and his companypanions trespassed into the house of P. W. 3.
Correspondingly, numberhing was recovered from the appellant or his companypanions, which companyld be said to be robbed property.
Broadly put the case as found against the appellant is thus P.W. 3 was a money lender and his activities became a source of revulsion to the appellant.
1, 3 and 4 to have falsely added the appellant to be one of the culprits of the crime.
1, 3 and 4 with regard to the companyplicity of the appellant in the crime.
There companyld even be numberreason for P. Ws.
The weapon employed for the purpose was a big knife.
In the presence of W.1, the son of P.W. 3, and P.W. 4, the wife of P.W. 3, he ransacked the house as if companymitting a robbery and in the process caused extensive injuries to P.W. 1 and P.W. 3.
Occasion later arose to record the dying declaration of P.W.3 since his companydition was deteriorating.
A Magistrate employed for the purpose recorded the statement of P.W. 3 in which specifically the appellant alone was mentioned by name and the names of others were missing, though their participation in the occurrence was fixed in that statement.
The argument available to others on the basis of omission of their names in the so called dying declaration of P.W. 3 is of numberavail to the appellant since he at least was named both in the F. I. R. as also in the statement of P.W. 3.
