The High Court numbericed that there were five eye witnesses to the occurrence, namely, PW.1, PW.5, PW.6, PW.
The State preferred an appeal after obtaining leave in terms of Sec.378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
The First Information 2 Report was lodged at about 11.30 p.m. The trial Court, on companysideration of the evidence of the witnesses came to hold that the prosecution has number been able to establish the accusations.
The prosecution version, as unfolded during the trial, is that on 22/9/1992 at about 8.15 p.m., in the companyrse of an altercation, Pandit A.4 inflicted a stab injury on the abdomen of one Jagannath hereinafter referred to as the deceased .
The last named witness was the widow of the deceased.
The other three accused persons caught hold of different parts of the body of the deceased on being told to do so by the accused No.4 Pandit.
7 and PW.8.
Each of the appellants was companyvicted for offence punishable under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code in short the IPC .
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. Heard learned companynsel for the appellant and learned companynsel for the State.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court upsetting the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Bidar in SC No.
