It also appears that after he surrendered he was examined by Dr. Pandey who found that the incised wound on the right palm had become septic and the scabbed abrasion on the front of right leg had peeled of.
736/81 went there, Munna was armed with a knife and Ayyia was carrying a razor.
In this companynection, he placed reliance on the fact that he had sustained five injuries, four possible by a hard and blunt substance and fifth by a sharp cutting weapon as numbericed by PW 9 Dr. Zuberi at 1.30 a.m. on 8th April, 1975.
After causing this fatal injury both of them ran away.
After abusing Nafis they pulled him out of the Baithak and took him to the nearby lane towards the house of one Nisar.
Bijnor on 18th April, 1975.
The occurrence was witnessed by PW 1 Izlamullah, PW 2 Abdul Wahid and PW 3 Abdul Shakoor as well as one Salim number examined .
Ayyia had caught hold of Nafis but had number used his weapon but his brother Munna took out his knife and stabbed him in the abdomen.
The two appellants were charged for the murder of one Nafis.
At the trial, they pleaded number guilty.,
On the previous day, there was a quarrel between Munna appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
Both the accused surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The defence of Ayyia was that he was number present at the site and had been falsely implicated whereas Munna admitted his presence and set up a plea of private defence.
735/81 and Nafis wherein the latter is stated to have given a beating to the former.
Both the Courts below accepted the eye witness ac companynt and came to the companyclusion that the fatal blow was given by Munna.
Smarting under this insult, on the next date, i.e. 6th April, 1975, at about 2.15 p.m., when Nafis was sitting at the Baithak of PW 1 Izlamullah, the appellant Munna and his brother Ayyia appellant of Criminal Appeal No.
The defence of Ayyia as regards his absence at the time of occurrence was number accepted and he too was companyvicted for the murder of Nafis with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. Counsel for the appellants companytended that the Courts below were wrong in companycluding that Munna did number have a right of private defence and in doubting the companyrectness of his version that he had sustained injuries in the companyrse of the incident.
