It is number necessary for us to deal with evidence in details inasmuch as there are four eye witnesses to the incident whose testimony has been examined in very many details by the Sessions Judge as also by the High Court and both the Courts have found proved beyond any reasonable doubt the participation of all the accused persons in the incident and the two accused appellants before us having caused the two injuries attributed to them.
The injury on left side of the chest of the deceased is attributed to accused 6 while the injury on left upper part of the abdomen of the deceased is attributed to accused 4.
The medical evidence is that the death of the victim was caused on account of injury to vital organs, i.e., heart and lung which injuries were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
As the post mortem report reveals there were six lacerated wounds, one companytusion and 10 incised wounds spread over different parts of the body of the deceased.
Though the learned companynsel for the two appellants have read the evidence of the eye witnesses and offered some criticism thereof, however, in spite of giving our anxious companysideration to the submissions made by the learned companynsel for the two appellants we are satisfied that numberfault can be found with the finding arrived at by the Sessions Court and upheld by the High Court.
Out of these injuries an incised wound 3 x 2 x 1 was situated over left side of the chest and an incised wound 11/2 x 1/4 x 1/4 was situated over left upper part of the abdomen.
The two accused appellants had aimed at vital organs of the body of the deceased while inflicting injuries and the injuries caused by them have proved to be fatal.
During the trial accused number.2 and 5 died and the trial proceeded against six accused persons only.
There were eight accused persons before the Sessions Court tried on charges under Sections 302, 147 and 148 IPC.
When they came out, accused number1 dealt a blow on the forehead of the deceased with an iron rod.
Accused number.2 to 8 who were lying in wait chased the deceased and attacked him.
All the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly, the members whereof were armed with deadly weapons.
While inflicting injuries they chased the deceased and did number allow him to escape and they companytinued to assault him even after he had fallen on the ground.This led to relations between the deceased and the accused number1 becoming strained.
Ghouse, the accused No.1 both had illicit intimacy with a lady Home Guard whose brother is PW1.
The two accused have preferred two appeals by special leave.
On 14.10.1993 shortly after the mid day PW1, PW2, PW4 and two others including the deceased had gone to theatre to see a matinee show.
Each of the two accused appellants before us was armed with a knife which was used by him.
The deceased started running for his life towards police club.
The attack by the accused persons was indiscriminate and they were determined to kill the deceased.
Four accused other than the two before us, have number challenged the judgment of the High Court.
Both the injuries were caused by sharp objects.
The accused persons were differently armed.
The participation of all the accused persons, including the two appellants before us, in the incident is amply proved.
The deceased sustained several injuries.
The deceased and the accused persons were friends.
The deceased and Mohd.
