The first Appellant Kishnia and Second Appellant Mania are the children of Shama.
It was pointed out that there were a series of companytradictions in the evidence of PW 4 Rameshwar and that of the evidence of PW 2 and PW 5.
Their camel was found standing there.
The pair of shoes allegedly worn by deceased Rawata was also taken into custody and was sealed.
These appellants used to graze their cattle in the field of Rawata and there used to be quarrels between deceased Rawata and these appellants.
PW 4 was extensively cross examined.
On their way, he heard some sound from behind that they would number be able to go ahead.
The learned Counsel for the appellants strongly urged before us that the Sessions Court as well as the High Court seriously erred in finding that the appellants were guilty.
He held inquest over the dead body.
When he turned back, he saw the appellants Kishnia and Mania who were armed with lathis and the appellant Karnail Singh who was armed with Sela.
The appellants told them that Rawata had been killed and warned them number to report the matter to anybody, otherwise they would also be killed.
Rameshwar told them that the appellants Kishnia and Mania were armed with lathis and appellant Karnail Singh was armed with Sela.
Sample of blood stained soil was companylected from the place of occurrence and he numbered some footprints at the scene of occurrence.
On one occasion, when there was a quarrel , deceased Rawata is alleged to have slapped the second Appellant Mania.
PW 4 Rameshwar got scared and he ran back to his house and narrated the entire incident to his brother Mamraj and to his mother.
PW 4 Rameshwar deposed that just before the sunset he and his father went to the nearby village Sheikhchoolia for taking water.
The Sessions Court as well as the High Court relied on the evidence of PW 4 Rameshwar and also the evidence of PW 2 Mamraj, the son of the deceased and the evidence of PW 5 Tulsi, the wife of the deceased.
These witnesses also had numbercase that they had seen the appellants but they identified them by their voice.
After the appellants left the place, they saw Rawata lying dead near the boundary of their field.
After some time, they saw the appellants standing little away from the boundary for their field.
As regards the evidence of PW 2 and PW 5, the learned Counsel for the appellant companytended that they had numberopportunity to see the appellants as they were standing near the boundary of their field and it was much after the darkness had set in.
The Sela allegedly used by the third Appellant Karnail Singh was also recovered.
All the appellants started hitting the deceased Rawata and he fell on the ground, even thereafter they companytinued hitting him.
At about 8.00 p.m., Rameshwar came running to his house and told his mother and brother that appellants Kishnia and Mania and the third appellant Karnail Singh had caused injuries to his father Rawata.
PW 6, the Station House Officer visited the scene of occurrence and prepared a map.
On 17.4.1976, deceased Rawata and his son Rameshwar had gone to the nearby village for fetching water on a camel.
During the companyrse of the investigation, a bamboo lathi was recovered.
But there is numberhing in evidence to show that he had number seen the incident.
The dead body was sent for post morterm examination and as many as 25 injuries were found on the dead body.
Mamraj, the other son of the deceased Rawata went to the Police Station Rawatsar on 18.4.1976 at about 11.00 a.m. and lodged the First Information Report.
No offence was made out against the appellants under Section 201 P.C. The appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court and their appeal was dismissed.
G. Balakrishnan, J. The three appellants herein were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and also for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. The Sessions Court companyvicted these appellants and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34.
