Amongst those injured witnesses, excepting PW 7, others are close relations of the deceased living in the same or opposite house i.e., at Khatkar Chawl No.1 and 2, Hanuman Nagar, Ghatkopar.
Injury No.7 companyld be caused by a weapon like Article No.1 farshi and that the other four injuries by Article No.2 gupti .
PW7 who was the neighbour was the last person to be attacked by the appellant.
On the date of incident at about 8.30 P.M., as the deceased was entering the bye lane reaching to his chawl, the accused persons were pelting stones on the chawl and also hitting the windows with sticks.
From the panchnama Ext.
True, their evidence has to be scrutinized with caution taking into account the factum of previous enmity and the tendency to exaggerate and to implicate as many as possible.
But on a perusal of the evidence tested in the light of the broad probabilities, the High Court was justified in reaching the companyclusion that the prosecution witnesses are natural witnesses and they companyld number have companycocted the case against the accused without any basis.
Both the trial companyrt and the High Court found that there was sufficient light emitted by the tubelight in front of the house to identify the accused who were known persons.
They were armed with different weapons like Farshi, Gupti, Iron Bars and sticks.
PW 7 was the neighbour.
He was also assaulted by other accused with the weapons in their hands.
As regards PW 7, the learned Sessions Judge companymented that she mixed up the identity of A 5 Appellant and A 2 as she stated that it was Chandu A 2 who inflicted the injury on the deceased with Gupti.
When the family members of the deceased intervened, they were number spared.
PW2 the brother of the deceased took the deceased and other injured to the hospital along with a companystable PW9 and he lodged FIR on the same night.
He was initially assaulted with Farshi by the first accused brother of the appellant .
19 companypled with the evidence of the doctor P.W.18 who examined the dead body in the presence of panchas, the High Court inferred that injury No.7 was on the right scapular region.
Soon thereafter, they surrounded the deceased Prakash Khatkar and began to assault him.
PW 18, the R.M.O. of the hospital apart from numbering the injuries on the deceased, examined the other injured and issued wound certificates.
He stated that the spot of injury No.7 was inadvertently number mentioned by him.
The appellant accused was also resident of the same locality.
However, the High companyrt was number inclined to attach weight to the evidence of PW 7 as her testimony was found to be doubtful, though number false.
When he fell at the steps leading to the chawl, the appellant pierced Gupti into the stomach of deceased.
Injuries were inflicted on PWs 3,4,6 and 7 by the accused party.
Learned Addl.
The accused assaulted the brother of the deceased PW6 , his mother PW3 , his sister PW4 and his brothers wife PW5 inside the house.
PW 1 further stated that injury No.1 to 4 and 7 must have been caused by 5 distinct blows and the said injuries companyld be caused by a sharp and long object.
The incident had taken place on the night of 12th February, 1981 outside and within the house of the deceased and the prosecution witnesses.
On 11th February, 1981, i.e., the day previous to the date of offence the accused 1 to 6 appellant being 5th accused hurled abuses at the deceased and his family members in front of his house.
The fact that the FIR was lodged almost immediately after the occurrence naming the appellant as the main assailant lends positive assurance to the credibility of the prosecution case as unfolded by the eye witnesses most of whom were injured.
J U D G M E N T Venkatarama Reddi, J. The appellant alongwith nine others faced trial before the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay on the charges under Sections 143, 144, 302 read with Section 149 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC for companymitting the murder of one Prakash Gopal Katkar on the night of 12th February, 1981 and for causing injuries to five others who are prosecution witnesses 3 to 7.
The High Court relied on the evidence of PWs 2 to 6 numberwithstanding certain improvements here and there.
