The Trial Court acquitted the accused and disbelieved the approvers testimony which was the central, evidence on the basis of which the prosecution wanted the Court to companyvict the accused.
1 and 2.
The trial Court disbelieved the approver companypletely and also held that the evidence led by the prosecution to companyroborate the testimony of approver was also number reliable.
3, 4 and 5 are companycerned in limine but admitted the appeal of accused Nos.
The accused No.
The prosecution case was that on 12th Sept. 1967 at about 5.00 p.m. the five accused persons wanted to kill Ramdevsingh, FW 18, but when they came across the two deceased Mangubha Khumansingh and Makhubha Amarsingh, they assaulted them with lathis as a result of which these two persons died.
In view of these two infirmities, numberreliance companyld be placed on the evidence of the approver, more particularly when the trial Court who had the initial advantage of watching the demeanour of the witness had disbelieved the approver on the intrinsic merits of his evidence.
3, 4 and 5 who had been acquitted by the Trial Court and whose appeal the High Court itself dismissed in limine.
1 who is appellant Joga Gola before us.
The accused then, particularly accused Nos.
2 did number appear before the High Court and remained absconding, so that the High Court had merely to companysider the case of accused No.
1 and 2, bolted away with buffaloes belonging to them.
Accused Sara Popat, who is the approver in the case, was the main witness which sought to prove the prosecution case against the accused.
Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. The appellant Joga Gola who was A 1 before the trial Court was tried along with other four accused persons by the Sessions Judge under Section 302/34 and Sections 412 and 396 of the I.P.C. and other charges.
The State filed an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge but the High Court dismissed the appeal so far as accused Nos.
