Seeing this, according to the informant, his mother Prema Bai PW 2 , his wife Sheela PW 3 and grandfather Jagannath PW 6 went to rescue him, whereupon informant Pohap Singh was assaulted by lathi by one of the accused.
Meanwhile, appellant number 2, Hari Singh inflicted an injury on the neck of the deceased with farsa upon which he fell down.
Thus, the injury attributed to Vijay Singh is companyroborated.
Hence, the two appellants were companyvicted and sentenced as above.
The learned Judge found the allegations as to the infliction of injuries, on the head and neck of the deceased by specific weapon such as ballam by appellant number1 and farsa by appellant number2 respectively, to have been companyroborated by the medical evidence.
So far as the other accused are companycerned the Doctor has specifically stated that except the injury No.1 which is attributed to Vijay Singh, all other injuries were caused by the same weapon.
Police after usual investigation submitted the charge sheet against all 11 accused persons and ultimately they were companymitted to the Court of Sessions to face the trial.
On the basis of the report given by Pohap Singh, a case under Section 147, 148 and 302/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as the IPC was registered.
Thus, the other injuries are attributed to Hari Singh.
Thereafter, all the accused assaulted the deceased with the weapons with which they were armed.
It is the case of the prosecution that appellant number 1, Vijay Singh caused an injury with a ballam near the eye of the deceased and he died on the spot.
Kapil Dev Singh, who has performed the postmortem of the deceased on 16.6.1992 and found as many as six injuries on the body of the deceased, out of which injury No.1 is caused by some pointed object near the face of the deceased.
The other injury was incised wound on the body of the deceased.
1 was sufficient to cause death of the deceased After perusal of the statements of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3, we find that the Sessions Court rightly companyvicted the present appellants.
But so far as the present appellants are companycerned, there are specific allegation against them for causing injuries to the deceased.
As per opinion of Doctor injury No.
On appeal, the High Court companyfirmed their companyviction and sentence and while doing so, observed as follows 5Dr.
All the injuries were caused by sharp and edged weapons.
Underling ours Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us.
Moreso, the witness companyld number point out which of the injuries were caused by other accused, hence, acquitted the other accused.
CHANDRAMAULI KR.
According to the prosecution, on 16th of June, 1992 at about 6.30 M., a report was lodged by the informant, Pohap Singh PW 1 , alleging that while he was at his house, his father Bhagirath deceased was returning home after answering the natures call and at that time, 11 accused persons including appellant number 2 Hari Singh armed with farsa and appellant number 1 Vijay Singh armed with a ballam and other accused armed with axes surrounded him.
PRASAD,J. In the present appeal by way of special leave, we are companycerned with appellants Vijay Singh and Hari Singh.
