nur ud din ahmed and b. p. singh for the appellants.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated july 19 1968 of the patna high companyrt in criminal appeal number 72 of 1966.
companysequently it companyvicted the assailants of p.w.
thereafter w. 9 came to knumber that there was a marpit going on at the scene and therefore he went to that place to see what the matter was.
4 imteyaz was one of the companypetitors.
both the trial companyrt as well as the high companyrt have companycur rently believed the testimony of p.w.
as soon as he went there he was attacked by chamo appellant number 1 with an instrument like bhalla and by bano with a gandasa as a result of which he sustained serious injuries.
four out of those nine accused were acquitted by the trial companyrt.
9 the high companyrt has companye to the companyclusion that as there is numberproof of previous companycert on the part of the assailants numberaid can be taken from s. 34 i.p.c.
the remaining accused were companyvicted under several provisions of the indian penal companye.
9 from one under s. 307 read with s. 34 p.c.
9 was shifted to the hospital where his dying declaration was recorded on december 5 1964.
this led to a friction between imteyaz and his friends on one side and nizam and his friends on the other.
ambika prasad who examined p.w.
and for that offence sen tenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
1 naso his father ghulam rasool went to the scene.
5 babu oasab and p.w.
after some persuasion imteyaz returned rs.
as a result of the stomach injury his intestines had companye out.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 265 of 1968.
but it is said that on the next evening at about 7 p.m. when .w.
the prosecution case in brief is that there was a qawali competition about a month prior to the occurrence.
further it converted the companyviction of appellant number 1 for causing injuries to p.w.
9 mohd.
to one under s. 326 i.p.c.
3 to him on that occasion.
the high companyrt has disbelieved the witnesses speaking to the attack on ghulam rasool.
on december 3 1964 some of the accused persons including the appellants started a quarrel with imteyaz and w. 5 babu qasab in companynection with the return of the aforementioned rs.
as against that decision this appeal has been brought by special leave.
companying to knumber of that incident from p.w.
9 only for the injuries caused by them.
but in appeal the high companyrt acquitted all the appellants before it in respect of the incident relating to the murder of ghulam rasool.
6 shamsuddin came near the scene of occurrence the accused persons stopped them and assaulted them.
there he was severely attacked as a result of which he died.
13 numberhing serious happened on that day.
because of the intervention of p.w.
the evidence of p.w.
immediately p.w.
p. singh for the respondent.
to one under s. 324 i.p.c.
the companyviction of appellant number 2 banumberalias ibrahim was converted from s. 307 i.p.c.
islam.
even in the matter of attack on p.w.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hegde nine persons including the two appellants were tried for the murder of ghulam rasool as well as for attempting to m urder p.w.
read with s. 34 i.p.c.
and for that offence he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.
2 but he failed to return the balance of rs.
but on the very next day he demanded back that amount.
