On the other hand, the learned companynsel for the State made submissions in support of the impugned judgment and order companytending that the view taken by the trial companyrt to acquit the appellants was number a reasonable view having regard to the evidence placed on record.
The trial companyrt found fault with the prosecution for number examining one Jagdish stating that although Vidyaram had stated that 15 to 20 minutes before the incident, he had seen Kalicharan and jagdish.
6 Ramjilal assaulted the deceased with the lathi on his head.
It is the testimony of PW 8 that Ramjilal appellant No.
When they found that the deceased had died, the appellants dragged his body from the spot to place near Tiwaria of appellant No.
PW 8 Vidyaram has testified that he witnessed the whole incident.
On 12.4.1983 at about 7.00 P.M. the deceased accompanied by Ramhet, had gone to Vidyaram PW 8 to engage some labourers for cutting crop in his field and while returning from the house of Vidyaram, when the deceased came near the Chabutra of appellant No.
PW 13, Kalicharan also supported the prosecution case by saying that he saw the incident from the house of Kunji and that PW 8 Vidyaram and Ramhet also saw the incident.
Bachchulal PW 10 , brother of the deceased lodged first information report.
When he fell down on the ground, all the appellants assaulted him.
Both the sentences were to run companycurrently.
Dr. H.S. Sharma, PW 1 who companyducted the post mortem found 10 injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that cause of death was head injury which might have been caused by lathi.
The testimony of PW 11 and PW 12 support the testimony of PW 8 and PW 10 that they also went to the spot.
The incident was witnessed by Vidyaram PW 8 and Kalicharan PW 13 .
1 Bharosi.
He has also stated that at the time of incident, there was slight darkness but the faces of the people companyld be seen in that light.
6 hit the deceased on his head.
Bachulal PW 10 brother of the deceased has stated that Vidyaram PW 8 informed him that his brother was killed by the accused persons.
He has further stated that PWs 11 and 12 sons of the deceased also came to the spot.
The trial companyrt did number believe the evidence of eye witnesses Vidyaram PW 8 and Kalicharan PW 13 found certain discrepancies in the statements of witnesses doubted the evidence of eye witnesses to have identified the accused in darkness companysequently, the appellants were acquitted by the trial companyrt giving benefit of doubt.
4, he shouted to the remaining accused who were there that the deceased was their enemy and he should number be allowed to go and kill him.
Thereafter, they ran away.
Hence, this appeal to this Court.
We have carefully companysidered the submissions made by the learned companynsel for the parties.
It found that the companyduct of Vidyaram PW 8 was unnatural as he made numberefforts to save the deceased.
In spite of Ramhet intervening, the appellants did number stop assaulting.
Out of the eye witnesses, Ramhet died before he companyld be examined in the trial companyrt.
J U D G M E N T Shivaraj V. Patil J. The appellants were tried for offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC on the allegations that about four months prior to the incident, some quarrel had taken place between the deceased Baburam and the appellant No.
The appellant No.
4 Dataram in relation to raising of boundary wall.
Weapons were also recovered at the disclosure of the accused and the accused were absconding after the incident.
The trial companyrt did number place reliance on the evidence of eye witnesses PW 8 and PW 11 on the ground that Pw 8 is the brother of the deceased and PW 13 is the servant of another brother of the deceased and as such they were interested witnesses and that their companyduct was unnatural.
