All of them rushed to his Gaddi on their attention being attacked by the sound of firing of shots and explosion of bombs and also by the alarm raised by Ramashish.
It, however, held that companyviction of appellant Tarak Nath Singh under section 25 and 27 of Arms Act was bad because the sanction granted by the District Magistrate was bad in law.
Aggrieved by the companyviction and the order of sentence the appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.
What has been found against the appellants is that on April 23, 1979 at about 10.30 p.m. when Ramashish Singh was examining his account books and companynting money in this Gaddi place of business the appellants with four or five unknown persons entered the Gaddi with revolvers, knives and bombs, Tarak Nath Singh fired six rounds from his revolver and caused injuries to Ramashish Singh and Chhabi Nath appellant No.2 stabbed him with a knife on his abdomen.
After attacking Ramashish Singh in this manner the assailants had escaped after hurling bombs.
Shewnarayan PW 2 was the owner of a nearby tea stall, Lalan Tewari PW 3 was a passer bye, Ganga Prasad PW 10 was an employee of Ramashish and Birendera PW 11 is the son of Ramashish.
All these witnesses had stated that soon after reaching there they were informed by Ramashish that he was attacked by Tarak nath Singh appellant No.1 , Chhabi Nath appellant No.2 and four to five unknown persons.
The High Court agreed with appreciation of the prosecution evidence by the trial companyrt and companyfirmed the findings recorded by it that the appellants along with four of five other persons had attempted to cause the death of Ramashish Singh as alleged against them.
Both the companyrts below have believed the evidence of Ramashish PW 1 and also of PWs 2,3 10 and 11.
with him for the appellants.
Appellant Tarak Nath Singh was also companyvicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and three years respectively.
for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Nanavati, J The appellants were companyvicted by the Sessions Court for companymitting the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
R.P. Gupta, Adv.
Conviction of Tarak Nath Singh under sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act was set aside.
S. Chatterjee, Raja Chatterjee, J.R.Das, Adv for M s. Sinha Das, Advs.
