The reasoning of the Trial Court, in our view, cannot be said to be perverse but we are of the view that the view taken by it was a reasonable one.
The accused persons were number known to this witness.
O R D E R CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.64 OF 2006 With Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2007 Appellant Nazir was companyvicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
One dying declaration is an oral one which is said to have been made before Surendra Prasad Singh P.W.12 and the another one is said to have been recorded by Madan Prasad Singh P.W.13 , which has been marked as Exhibit 5.
He has disclosed their names for the first time in the Sessions Court.
They were further companyvicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
On appeals being preferred, the High Court companyfirmed the companyvictions and sentences.
In support of its case, the prosecution has relied upon two dying declarations one is said to have been made before Surendra Prasad Singh P.W.12 and another before Madan Prasad Singh P.W.13 .
He was further companyvicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
So far as dying declarations are companycerned, the Trial Court has refused to place reliance thereupon after giving companyent reasons for the same.
The other evidence is the statement of Sushil Kumar Pathak P.W.6 .
The sentences, however, were ordered to run companycurrently.
Appellant Anil Kumar Pintu along with Niraj Kumar, Dhiraj Kumar and Anand Kumar was companyvicted under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Against the order of the High Court, accused Niraj Kumar, Dhiraj Kumar and Anand Kumar did number move this 2/ 2 Court by filing any special leave petition whereas the present appeals have been filed by appellants, Anil Kumar Pintu and Nazir.
