The sentences have been directed to run companycurrently.
P.W. 6 also does also refer to the presence of P.W. 7 at the place of occurrence.
The police report was lodged by P.W. 8 at the hospital.
False implication of the appellants companyld number be ruled out in view of previous enmity having been admitted by the prosecution witnesses.
Both the witnesses deposed that they were then taken to the hospital along with the deceased where their injuries were examined.
Reliance in support of the submissions was placed on Masalti vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202, Ranvir Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2009 6 SCC 595 and Samsul Haque vs. State of Assam, 2019 SCC Online 1093 2019 11 SCALE 458.
The allegations of assault by the appellants on the deceased with a lathi are omnibus, since only one bruise has been found on the upper arm.
The statement of the two witnesses is also stated to have been recorded at the hospital.
6 and 8 was sought to be discredited on account of their being related to the deceased.
P.W. 7 and 8 are stated to be injured eye witnesses.
It was next submitted that P.W. 6 was number an eye witness to the assault.
The evidence of P.Ws.
P.W. 8 during the companyrse of his deposition also showed the scars caused to him by his injuries, numbericed by the trial judge.
P.W. 8 deposed that the deceased was assaulted on his head from behind and fell on his face, but numberfacial injury has been found on the deceased.
Only thereafter was the charge sheet was submitted by him.
The occurrence is said to have taken place on 01.11.1983 at about 06.30 PM.
He had arrived upon hearing the companymotion after the appellants had left and the deceased was lying on the ground.
Appellant Sainul assaulted the deceased on the head.
The claim of P.Ws.
7 and 8 to be injured eye witnesses was also challenged in absence of any injury report with regard to them.
The witness was assaulted on his face, head and hand with the lathi.
The accused were variously armed with spears and lathis.
The deceased was assaulted with a spear by accused Siddiq and Zabbar.
NAVIN SINHA, J. The appellants are aggrieved by their companyviction under Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code IPC sentencing SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.10.04 121840 IST Reason them to rigorous imprisonment for life, along with companyviction under Sections 323/149 and 147 IPC, sentencing them to varied terms of imprisonment under the same.
P.W 6 also claimed to be an eye witness.
P.W. 7 was assaulted on the head by appellant Fainul.
