Shanti, wife of A 1 and to cause the death of the deceased Amrit Lal.
A 3 shot into the air.
During the companyrse of the same transaction A 4 is alleged to have caused an injury to one Harcharan, a prosecution witness.
A 1 and A 3 are sons of A 2.
The five appellants figured as A 1 to A 4 and A 11 in the trial Court.
The plea of the accused was one of denial.
Among them A 1 and A 3 were armed with guns.
A 2 and A 4 are real brothers.
It is alleged that A 1 shot at the deceased as a result of which he died on the spot.
The State preferred an appeal.
Before the trial Court the prosecution case was that, these five appellants along with nine others formed an unlawful assembly, on 22 11 71 with the companymon object of abducting Smt.
In the appeal a Division Bench of the High Court accepted the prosecution case that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the companymon object A 1 shot at the deceased and A 4 caused an injury to Harcharan A 3 shot twice but did number cause any injury to anybody.
They, however, pleaded that they had gone to fetch Smt.
Jayachandra Reddy, J. This is an appeal filed under Section 379 of the CrPC, 1973, read with Section 2 a of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970.
