1 should companymence the attack on Rashidkhan with a knife.
The witnesses spoke of the shout given by accused No.
Four eye witnesses Mehmoodkhan Hamidkhan, Nazeemkhan Bashi rkhan, Hanisuddin Saifulla and Abdul Sattar Badesaheb were examined by the prosecution.
1 sat on the chest of Rashidkhan and gave him two knife injuries on the face.
The High Court companyvicted accused Nos.
Accused Nos.
The High Court companyvicted accused Nos.
So did accused No.
On 15 August, 1965, accused No.
Accused No.
5 shouted maro, maro and immediately thereupon accused No.
6 Mahmood Ahmed are brothers.
The trial Court rejected the evidence of Dr. Shah and found that the doctors record was unworthy of credence.
1 should number be permitted to live in a part of the Masjid.
1 caused two knife injuries to Rashidkhan on the buttock.
On 16 August, 1965 accused No.
1, 2, Phelwan and Sunder Anna the two absconders had killed Rashid.
The suddenness is accentuated by the shout given by the appellant.
Wahidan was frightened and escaped by a rear door.
Phelwan was absconding since the date of the offence.
4 who was armed with a stick with a knob on Accused No.
The shout of accused No.
The evidence found by the High Court is that Rashidkhan and Mehmoodkhan were assaulted at a place which was a narrow open space surrounded by huts on all sides in the companyony except for the two small openings in the east and the west.
Mehoodkhan Hamidkhan was the principle eye witness with regard to the attack with the pipe which resulted in the death of Rashid.
Accused No.
Accused No 5 is the only appellant.
4 on the ground that three out or the four eye witnesses did number refer either to the presence or participation of accused No.
5 gave a shout maro, maro.
He was followed by the appellant accused No.
3 Darogasingh and accused No.
The sentence of accused No.
2 was to run companycurrently.
Accused No.
1 and 2 to companymit the murder of Rashidkhan.
2, the brother of accused No.
3 pulled out a pipe from the roof of Rashids house and gave a blow on the face of Rashid with that pipe and Phelwan gave a final blow on his back.
The judgment of the High Court is companyrect.Phelwan and accused No.
1, 2 and 5 the High Court found that they were members of an unlawfully assembly with the companymon intention to companymit the murder of Rashidkhan.
Gaya Prasad alias Chakkiwala, accused No.
The evidence of the eye witness was that the appellant accused No.
Hanisuddin went to the police station and lodged a companyplaint.
1, Rashidkhan and Phelwan on the road Hanisuddin told Phelwan that accused No.
Hanisuddin, who had seen the entire incident went to the police station and on his way saw a police jeep companying from the opposite direction.
Accused No.
2 again went to Hanisuddins but at about 9 p.m. Hanisuddin reminded accused No.
4 was given the benefit of doubt.
3 and 6 did number take any part in the assault on Rashidkhan and they in fact had gone to the scene of offence after the assault on Rashidkhan had companymenced.
5 and finding that Rashid was standing in the open space between the two chawls accused No.
As to accused Nos.
Phelwan then caught hold of Rashidkhan and threw him on the ground.
They assaulted Mehmoodkhan repeatedly.
She went to the police station and reported the matter.
Accused No.
2 was threatening him with a knife.
3, 4 and 6 started beating Mehmoodkhan.
Accused No.
This led to hostility between accused No.
1 went into a lane and thereafter to the room of accused No.
1 and Rashidkhan About two months before the date of the incident 16 August, 1965 accused No.
1 Habib Ahmed, accused No.
1 and 2 and of the two absconding accused were mentioned.
The result is that accused No.
Hanisuddin came out and saw accused No.
5, the appellant, shared the intention of accused Nos.
2 Maksood Ahmed and accused No.
4 Chandra Shekhar are also brothers and their third brother was known in the locality as Phelwan.
Sunder Anna grappled with Mehmoodkhan.
3 gave a blow with a pipe to Rashid on the face and phelwan gave a fatal blow on the back.
The attack on Rashidkhan was number up premeditated.
5 gave an alibi that he was treated as an out door patient from 14 August, 1965 at Dr. K.C. Shahs Hospital.
The appellant, it is true was number armed with any weapon.
As to accused No.
5 was the owner of a flour mill and was referred to by all the witnesses as Chakkiwala.
4 and therefore accused No.
The Sessions Judge tried the appellant Under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 306 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
N. Ray, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 16 February, 1968 of the High Court of Bombay companyvicting of the appellant Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
At the time the police sub inspector went to the place of occurrence the names of accused No.
5, the appellant.
