Being aggrieved of the acquittal of the said accused, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal number332 of 2009.
Based on the evidence of the eye witnesses, the recovery of weapons and the medical evidence, the trial companyrt companyvicted the appellants under Sections 302 r w 149 and 307 r w 149 I.P.C. The trial companyrt also companyvicted other accused Narender A 3 , Pawan Kumar A 4 and Vijay A 7 by invoking Section 149 P.C. On appeal, the High Court companyfirmed the companyviction of the appellants herein but acquitted the accused, namely, Narender A 3 , Pawan Kumar A 4 and Vijay A 7 .
To bring home the guilt of the accused before the trial companyrt, the prosecution has examined three witnesses, namely, Harpal PW 9 , Manphool PW 10 and Mahendra PW 11 who have all stated that the accused have formed unlawful assemble on the fateful day and that Surender Singh A 5 , Zile Singh A 6 and Rattan Singh A 2 attacked Gopi Chand D 1 with lathis and Manphool A 1 fired at Mahabir D 2 .
During the pendency of the appeal, it is stated at the Bar that appellants number1 Manphool Singh A 1 , No.2 Rattan Singh Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2018.08.25 A 2 121025 IST Reason and No.4 Zile Singh A 6 have died and the only companytesting appellant i.e. appellant number3 Surender Singh A 5 is alive.
Case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, on 14 th March, 1994 when deceased number1, Gopi Chand, and deceased number2, Mahabir, were sitting at the house of Harpal, appellants and other companyaccused since acquitted are alleged to have attacked the companyplainant party.
Their evidence to some extent is also companyroborated by the medical evidence.
Due to the said attack Gopi Chand D 1 and Mahabir D 2 died.
Accused, Surender Singh, Zile Singh and Rattan Singh are said to have attacked Gopi Chand D 1 with lathis and accused Manphool Singh fired at Mahabir D 2 with a gun.
BANUMATHI, J. Criminal Appeal NO.1817 of 2009 Being aggrieved by the companyviction under Sections 302 r w 149 I.P.C. and the sentence of life imprisonment, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
Summary of the case and details are briefly stated.
