He had categorically stated that when he was returning after taking medicine for this mother and was near Sri Ram Mandir, he was attacked by the appellant.
Learned companynsel for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of PW 7 Hari Singh and PW 6 Devi Lal.
The Allegations against the appellant were that on 25.6.86 at about 8.30 p.m. he assaulted Devi Lal with a knife and gave repeated stab blows to him, in view of the previous enmity between him and the appellant.
The defence was able to extract only 2 or 3 omissions which are on minor points and do number affect the veracity of this witness.
This suggestion was denied by the witness and there is numberother material on the basis of which it can be said that this witness was under influence of liquor and had misbehaved with anyone.
Nothing was brought in the cross examination on the basis of which it can be said that he was number telling the truth.
Aggrieved by the order of companyviction and sentence imposed upon him, the appellant has filed this appeal.
From the cross examination of PW 6 Devi Lal, it appears that the attempt of the defence was to point out that he was in an intoxicated companydition on the date of the incident and was beaten by the villagers as he was found teasing women.
In order to prove its case the prosecution mainly had heard the cries of Devi Lal himself and his father Hari Singh, who according to the prosecution had heard the cries of Devi Lal and seen the assault on him.
NANAVATI.J. The appellant was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities prevention Act, 1985 in the Designated Court, Bhiwani at Hissar.
