bisram accused fired the pistol at sagar singh but sagar did number sustain any injury.
i saw injuries on the body of jeet bahadur.
the appellants.
prepared site plan recorded statements of the witnesses and seized blood stained mud.
jeer bahadur p.w.
the field of sagar singh p.w.
and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.
1 and p.w.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated october 6 1967 of the allahabad high companyrt lucknumber bench in criminal appeal number 164 of 1966.
5 investigated the crime.
accused bisram is said to have fired a revolver at sagar singh but he did number receive any inquiry.
believed the eye witnesses and relying upon ex.
it is the prosecution case that on that day both the accused armed with kantas went to the field of jeet bahadur and challenged him.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by jaganmohan reddy j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the allahabad high companyrt setting aside the companyviction of hori lal and bisram under s. 307 read with s. 34 of the i.p.c.
thereafter the accused ran away towards the village.
ka 11 .
incised wound 4 1/2x 1 bone on the left leg middle back and laterally cutting the underlying tibia bone shaft.
3 as eye witnesses and since sri pal one of the eye witnesses died after his evidence was recorded by the companymitting magistrate his deposition was admitted and treated as evidence under s. 33 of the evidence act ex.
thereupon deo dutt lodged a companyplaint in the police station.
the investigation officer bhanu prakash sharma p.w.
sagar singh was raising alarm.
2 along with his laborer sri pal deceased was reaping the harvest.
the defence of the accused is that they had been falsely implicated.
immediately thereafter they began to deal kanta blows on jeet bahadur.
1 is situate just adjacent to the field of jeer bahadur with only a chak road between their fields.
criminal appellat jurisdictioncriminal appeal number70 of 1968.
2 cried out whereupon sagar singh p.w.
and instead companyvicting them under s. 326 read with s. 34 i.p.c.
1 hearing the shouts rushed to his aid.
2 and maya ram p.w.
1 took him to the police station and there lodged a report ex.
maya ram p.w.
because of this complaint relations between the parties became strained as a result of which the accused stopped working for jeet bahadur and sagar singh and even asked the other members of his beradari to follow suit.
3 and himachal and ram pal who were nearby also rushed to the aid of jeet bahadur.
agarwal and uma dutta for the appellants.
jeet bahadur was admitted to the district hospital at unnao.
ka 1 at about 9.55 p.m. on march 29 1965.
after it we took jeer bahadur to hasanganj on a company.
p. rana for the respondent.
as jeet bahadur was injured sagar singh p.w.
the prosecution examined sagar singh w. 1 jeet bahadur p.w.
on march 29 1965 at about 5.30 p.m. jeet bahadur p.w.
srivastava examined him on march 30 1965 at 8.30 a.m. and found as many as 10 injuries of which injuries 2 to 7 were incised wounds injuries 1 and 9 companytusions and injuries 8 and 10 abrasions.
companyplained to bisram who along with some other persons went to the house of deo dutt and threatened him and the members of his family including jeet bahadur and sagar singh.
k. garg s.c.
it was alleged that on june 14 1964 bisrams cattle strayed into the field and damaged the crop of deo dutt who is the nephew of sagar singh and jeer bahadur.
who are the residents of bhitwa gadan khera are friends belonging to the same party.
in respect of this damage deo dutt and his partner ram bharose.
