they also saw Avtar Singh appellant No.
5 Swaran Kaur standing near the Kikar tree and Avtar Singh appellant No.
2 and Piara Singh appellant No.
The High Court accepting evidence of those eye witnesses companyfirmed the companyviction of all the appellants.
Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh had gone to the bara and seeing an assault on them Labh Singh and Pala Singh had rushed to that place.
Both Labh Singh and Pala Singh stand companytradicted by their police statements, wherein they had stated that they had number seen Avtar Singh cutting branches of the tree.
4 cutting branches of that tree.
4 cutting branches of that tree.
According to the prosecution case, seeing this assault on Bachittar singh and Bachan Singh, Labh Singh PW 17 and Pala Singh PW 18 went to their rescue but they were also assaulted by Avtar Singh, Ram Singh appellant No.
1, Didar singh appellant No.
Appellant Nos.1,4 and 5 have admitted their persence at the seen of the offence.
The High Court companyfirmed the companyviction of the appellants under Section 148 and Sections 324, 325 and 302 P.C. all read with Section 149 I.P.C. recorded by the Sessions Court.
There were nine injuries on the body of Bachittar singh but the eye witnesses have number explained how those nine injuries were caused to him.
He also submitted that the defence version that appellant No.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined three eye witnesses, Labh Singh pw 17, Pala Singh PW 18 and Kirpal Singh 19.
1, 4 and 5 had acted in self defence while causing injuries to Bachittar Singh, Bachan Singh, Labh singh and Pala singh, was more probable than the version given by the eye witnesses.
The trial companyrt believed their evidence and companyvicted all the five appellants.
That led to an exchange of hot words and abuses followed by an assault on Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh.
Though their evidence is companysistent, it is quite vague as regards the assault on Bachittar Singh and Bachan singh.
242 DB/88.
On the other hand, learned companynsel for the respondent State submitted that looking to the large number of injuries received by Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh, the plea of self defenceurged by the appellants cannot be believed and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the High Court.
They have only vaguely stated that Piara Singh and Ram Singh assaulted their father with sotis and therefore he had fallen down.
22/87.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
4 was falsely implicated.
As a result of that assault, Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh lost their lives and Labh Singh and Bachan Sing received some injuries.
3 who had also by that time reached that place armed with weapons.
On June 5, 1987, at about 6.00 p.m., appellant No.5 Swaran Kaur was seen by Bachittar singh and Bachan singh standing near that kikar tree.
So, Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh went to that bara and protested against Avtar Singh cutting the branches.
The appellants on the one hand and the two deceased Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh on the other hand were distant companylaterals and they had baras situated side by side on the outskirts of their village near the companymon boundary of two baras there was a kikar tree and a dispute was going on between them since long as regards ownership of that tree.
