P 12 before the Police Sub Inspector of Kotwali, Tonk inter alia stating that at about 12.30 in the numbern he along with Saleem PW 7 and Noor PW 13 were getting a truck repaired at Rajasthan Tyrewala near Roadways Depot, Tonk.
On appeal, the High Court, however, companyfirmed the sentences awarded against the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC while setting aside the companyviction of the appellants of the charges under Sections 201 and 148 IPC.
He relied on the evidence of Mohammad Ayub PW 6 and police personnel Laxmi Narayan PW 29, Suresh Kumar PW 18 and Ranjeet Singh PW 30 in this regard.
All of them were police personnel and on duty at the relevant time.
All of a sudden about 10 12 persons equipped with deadly weapons such as gupties, swords, knives and gandasas came there and surrounded the deceased.
Sudershan Reddy, J This appeal pursuant to the special leave granted is directed against the companycurrent judgments.
On companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and investigation was kept pending under Section 173 8 Cr.
The learned companynsel appearing for the State supported the judgment under appeal.
The trial companyrt companyvicted both of them for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 201 and 302 IPC.
The two appellants were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 324, 302 of IPC.
Javed Masood A.1 , Syed Najeeb Hassan A.2 , Ashraf and Aziz were armed with gupties and others were equipped with swords and knives.
The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial.
Meanwhile police patrol van reached at the spot and removed the deceased to the hospital where he was declared dead.
The prosecution case is as follows On May 25, 1999 at about 1.00 p.m., Chuttu Nizamuddin PW 5 lodged a Parcha Bayan Ex.
Javed Masood inflicted blow with gupti on the chest of the deceased, Najeeb and others inflicted blows on neck, face and back.
P 48 was registered and investigation companymenced.
One Mohamaad Deen Mulla deceased came at the shop of Ayub Bhai PW 6 .
One Gullo and Sadiqque gave blows with swords on hands of deceased.
In the same manner Ranjit Singh PW 30 driver of the gypsy companyroborated the evidence of PW 18 and PW 29 stating that numberone was present when they have lifted the body from the scene of occurrence and placed the same in gypsy.
The trial companyrt accepted the prosecution case and companyvicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.
In the appeal before the High Court and as well as before us, it was companytended on behalf of the defence that the incident took place out of acute enmity.
Chuttu PW 5 who lodged the FIR is an important witness.
On the basis of Parcha Bayan, the FIR No.184/99 Ex.
The evidence of highly interested eye witness should be rejected as there is likelihood of implicating some innocent persons.
There is numberreason for them to depose falsely.
Shri Amarender Sharan, learned senior companynsel, inter alia, submitted that the presence of alleged eye witnesses at the scene of offence is highly doubtful and numberreliance can be placed on their evidence.
Thereafter the assailants fled away from the scene of occurrence under the impression that Mohammad Deen Mulla was dead.
The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 33 witnesses and got marked certain documents and material objects in evidence.
P.C. against the rest of the individuals named in the Parcha Bayan.
