Appellants Shalik and Ravindra also came to the spot of incident and started quarrelling with the husband of the companyplainant Dewanand PW3 .
The appellant Ravindra was also companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
Appellants Ravindra and Naresh inflicted injuries on the hand of husband of companyplainant Dewanand PW3 with those weapons with intention to cause his death.
All the three appellants inflicted injuries on the head and abdomen of deceased Kisan by means of those weapons.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Appellant Shalik is father of appellants Ravindra and Naresh.
Placing reliance on the evidence of companyplainant Vandana PW 1 and Dewanand PW 3 the trial Court held the accused persons guilty as aforenoted.
After companypletion of investigation charge sheet was filed and since the accused persons pleaded innocence trial was held.
The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yuvatmal had found the appellants guilty as aforenoted.
The appellants were found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
Appellants Ravindra, Naresh and Shalikrao are hereinafter referred to as A 1, A 2 and A 3.
The father in law of the companyplainant, Kisan Gedam hereinafter referred to as deceased intervened to pacify the quarrel between appellants and his son Dewanand.
On 13.11.1999, at about 7 p.m. appellant Naresh was going to his house and was carrying bundle of companyton grass.
Quarrel ensued between appellant Naresh and Dewanand PW 3 and there was exchange of words between them.
Appellants Shalik, Ravindra and Naresh went inside their house, which was close to the spot of incident and all of them returned to the spot armed with axe, knife and gupti.
On the way, the companyton bundle hit the roof of the companyplainants house and, therefore, husband of the companyplainant, Dewanand PW 3 accosted appellant Naresh and told him that he should have been more careful while carrying the bundle of companyton and ought to have seen that numberdamage was done to the roof of the house of companyplainant.
The road to his house was adjacent to the house of companyplainant Vandana PW1 .
Challenge in these appeals is to the companymon judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dismissing the appeals filed by the present appellants.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
