Appellant Karan Singh was armed with a Pharsa whereas the other appellants were armed with Lathis.
PWs 2, 3 and 4 were examined as eye witnesses.
The other appellants stated that they were falsely implicated in the case.
In order to substantiate this companytention, the companynsel drew our attention to Exh.
He suffered three other incised injuries and three lacerated wounds.
Though PW 2 and PW 3 fully supported the prosecution version, PW 4 did number support the prosecution case.
Shri Sushil Kumar, the learned senior companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellants companytended that the place of incident is very near to the house of the appellants and PW 1 to PW 3 had companye to the place of incident fully armed and attacked Karan Singh and Banab Singh and that the other appellants were falsely implicated in the case.
Altogether, Hari Singh had 12 injuries on his body when he was examined by PW 12 and PW 13.
The High Court brushed aside that plea by stating that Exh.
Relying on the above statement, the learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the incident happened inside the house of the appellants when PW 1 and others came there to attack the appellants.
The Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case against the appellants and his findings were affirmed by the High Court.
Appellant Karan Singh was companyvicted for the offences punishable under Section 148 and 307 IPC without the aid of Section 149 whereas the other appellants were companyvicted for the offences punishable under Section 148 and Section 307 read with Section The prosecution case was that these appellants were on inimical terms with PW 1 Hari Singh, and that on 29.11.1981 at about 10 A.M., when Hari Singh was returning from his well to his house, the appellants attacked him and caused injuries.
Appellants Karan Singh and Banab Singh on being questioned under Section 313 Code of the Criminal Procedure, stated that they were attacked by PW 2 and PW 3 and companytended that whatever they had done was done by way of self defence.
D 4 statement, injured had stated only about Girdhari Singh and his sons and did number name all the appellants and this indicated that the two sons of Girdhari Singh were being falsely implicated.
PW 1 Hari Singh suffered serious injuries and his left hand was cut off from the body just above the wrist joint.
On the way by catching me Girdhari Singh and his sons, by dragging me took to the room.
This observation by the Division Bench regarding Exh.
D 4 statement was number put to PW 1 when he was examined as a witness.
D 4 statement of PW 1.
The companynsel for the appellants also companytended that in Exh.
The Exh.
The sessions companyrt as well as the High Court found that the plea of alibi raised by these appellants was number true and held that there was numberattack initiated from the side of PW 1 to PW 3.
It is true that PW 12 while giving evidence admitted that he had recorded the aforesaid Exh.
There beat me with Farsi, Luhogi, brought me outside by dragging.
Was companying back.
A similar plea was raised by the appellants before the sessions companyrt as well as the High Court.
D 4, which is the statement of PW 1 Hari Singh, recorded by the Dr. Jain, who had first examined him.
D 4 is to the following effect How this incident happened I had gone to the Well.
G. BALAKRISHNAN Appellants challenge their companyviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 307 of Indian Penal Code.
