Appellant was alone because evidence shows acquitted accused joined later on and therefore they were acquitted.
Could they number have resort to public authority to ventilate their grievance against the appellant for the treatment meted out to Omprakash?
Of the three one was on back below the right scapula, another on the abdomen and third on the left loin.
Appellant and acquitted accused assaulted Ramnarayan, Kailash and others.
Appellant was arrested on the same day.
Facts found and which are number disputed would show that the appellant was at his house on the date of the incident i.e. 9th May, 1972.
Omprakash returned to his house.
They challenged the appellant in an aggressive mood.
He was examined by Dr. B.N. Verma P.W. 24 who found on his person four lacerated wounds, one reddish bruise and multiple superficial abrasions on the front of both legs, both feet and right elbow.
Learned Sessions Judge has described them as aggressOrs.
One Bharatlal who was acquitted also arrived there.
Appellant in his statement under Section 313, CrPC stated that Ramnarayan P.W. 1, deceased Kailash and his brother Prakash who is numbere other than Omprakash came armed with sticks to his house and challenged him to companye out of the house.
Coupled with this is the most unambiguous finding of the trial companyrt in para 55 of the judgment that Ramanarayan P.W. 1, Shantosh Kumar P.W. 3 and Jagdish P.W. 4 are number totally reliable witnesses.
Omprakash P.W. 2 went to deliver holy ash Bhabhuti to Radhabai P. W. 11 at the house of the appellant.
Deceased and his two companypanions were armed.
In this incident appellant gave three knife blows on the back and abdomen of deceased Kailash which proved fatal.
Deceased Kailash had three incised wounds as numbericed in autopsy by Dr. B.N. Verma.
Appellant was then standing in the balcony of his house.
It is found that the deceased was armed with a stick.
Appellant had the knife.
We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties.
Appellant apprehending trouble came down on the ground floor.
On hearing from Omprakash about the morning incident Ramanarayan deceased Kailash and Omprakash went armed to the house of the appellant.
Therefore, how the attack opened cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty from heir evidence.
He was given blows with sticks on his head and he became unconscious.
He said that when he emerged from the house he was attacked by Ramnarayan, Kailash and Prakash with sticks.
Appellant disapproved visit of Omprakash and picked up a quarrel with him and assaulted him.
Some injuries were caused after deceased fell down.
Once deceased fell down with a serious injury it was hardly necessary for appellant to further attack him.
All the three injuries were caused by the appellant.
At that time some other accused also joined in the melee.
Thereafter Ramnarayan P.W. 1 accompanied by deceased Kailash and Omprakash armed with sticks came to the house of the appellant to rebuke him.
They went to his house armed and challenged the appellant to companye out of the house.
Deceased and his companypanions, it thus transpires, were annoyed with the appellant.
