1 OF 2001 J U D G M E N T ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. While I respectfully agree with Brother B.N. Agrawal that the appeal deserves dismissal, few aspects are indicated by me to supplement his companyclusions and views.
So far as accused appellant No.2 Dharmendra Singh Dharu Singh is companycerned, PW21s evidence is the only material against him, while in case of the other two accused appellants other witnesses have also companyroborated the version of this witness.
So PW 21 also pointed out accusing fingers at appellant No.3 Nanhe Lal Mochi accused No.13 and appellant No.4 Bir Kuer Paswan accused No.5 .
To bring home accusation against appellant No.2 A 9 Dharmendra Singh Dharu Singh, prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of Brajesh Kumar PW11 , Dhananjay Singh PW19 and Sumiran Sharma PW 21 .
WITHDEATH REFERENCE NO.
Accused appellants have placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Masalti and Ors.
v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 202 to companytend that since large number of accused persons were involved, evidence of one or two three witnesses would number suffice.
Evidence of PWs 11 and 19 has number been companysidered credible.
