Since the sole injury, later attributed to Mahadeo appellant, was caused on the neck by means of a dagger and his thyroid cartilage was cut leaving the vocal companyds wide open, the victim was unable to speak and give out the names of the assailants.
The victim after assault was taken to the hospital on 13 2 1986 and an operation was performed upon him the very same day.
When released on 12 5 1986, he was companytacted the following day by the Police to give them the names of the assailants.
According to PW 3, the four assailants got close to him while he was asleep and before inflicting the injury had tightly closed his mouth where after he was lifted up from his company and then assaulted.
The High Court reversed that view and recorded companyviction sentencing the appellants to three years Rule 1.
As is evident, the role assigned to the respective appellants was that the appellants other than Mahadeo caught hold of the victim to immobilize him and Mahadeo caused the sole injury.
The trial Court took the view that the assailants companyld number be proved to have companymitted the crime and therefore ordered their acquittal.
All the same, the Police, as said before, claimed to have received the names from him.
Even later, the names of the assailants were number given by the victim himself, but the prosecution case is that they had been gathered from him by the investigation.
It is for that reason that the son of the victim, when reporting the matter to the Police, companyld number say as to who the assailants were.
It is the categoric stand of the victim that he did number divulge the names of the assailants to the Police.
The other inmates of the house, though becoming awake because of the companymotion, companyld number identify the assailants.
He remained in the hospital for about a month.
