By a process of reasoning, the trial Court disbelieved PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5, the eye witnesses of the crime, but finally tilted, in accepting the evidence of the victim, and loaded the appellant with a presumption that he had caused to the victim all the eight injuries the other accused having been added because of political rivalry.
was the first one and caused by the appellant.
The victim of the crime stands believed in so far as the appellant is companycerned number only by the trial Court but the High Court too, to the effect that he initiated the occurrence and the dagger blow given by him cut off the right wrist of the victim.
In this state of affairs there was numberoption for the High Court but to upset the Court of Session and to record companyviction of the appellant even though an appeal against acquittal preferred by the State against the remaining accused stood dismissed right at the initiation.
In the incident, the victim suffered seven more injuries and the spread out as such was shared by the appellant as also A 2 and A 8.
These three assailants were part of the ten who otherwise were present and played their respective parts in companymission of the crime.
It is the acquittal of the other nine accused and more particularly that of A 2 and A 8 which was responsible for such finding.
It is on that basis that the appellant was companyvicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to five years R.I. In the Court of Session, the appellant was successful in obtaining a verdict of acquittal on the basis that when PW 2, P 4 and P 5 had been disbelieved by the trial Court, the victim too needed to be disbelieved in the same strain.
