- (1.) This is an appeal under S. 2(A) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act read with S. 379, Cr. P.C. The five appellants (original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) were tried along with four others for offences punishable under Ss. 148, 302 149, 324 and 323 read with S.149, I.P.C. for the alleged murder of one Vinod Sagar, the deceased in the case and for causing injuries to P.Ws. 1 and 4 during the same occurrence. The trial Court acquitted all of them. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court allowed the same in respect of these appellants and convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and other lesser terms of imprisonment for other offences and confirmed the acquittal of the remaining four accused. The prosecution case is as follows: The deceased, Vinod Sagar, was an Excise Contractor, For the year 1978-79 the deceased along with P.W.4 and two others had obtained the licence in respect of Ramanathapur arrack shop. In connection with that business, he and P.W.4 used to visit the shop every evening and remain there till the shop was closed looking into the accounts and then take away the cash. P.Ws. 1 to 3 and two other persons were the employees in the arrack shop. The father of A-8 was a licencee in respect of an adjoining arrack shop at Uppal at a distance of four kilometers. A-1 and A-7 are the cousins of A-8 having an interest in that arrack shop at Uppal. A-2 to A-6 and A-9 are said to be the associates of A-1, A-7 and A-8. According to the prosecution there were some ill-feelings between the accused and the deceased. On the day of occurrence namely 29-10-1978 at about 6.30 p.m. the deceased was going to his shop in a car and A-1 was going on a motor-cycle from Uppal. When the deceased was taking a turn to reach his shop, his car struck the motor-cycle upon which A-1 was travelling and knocked down the motor-cycle and A-1 and this led to quarrel and deceased and A-1 abused each other. A-1, however, picked up his motor-cycle and went away towards Hyderabad hurling threats. Later in the night at about 10 O'clock while the deceased, P.W.4 and their employees P.Ws.1 to 3 and other were at their shop, A-1 to A-9 came there in an auto-rikshaw and on two motor-cycles armed with knives and other weapons and attacked the deceased. A-2 first caused a bleeding injury on the right cheek of the deceased with a barber's razor whereupon the deceased ran into the shop and entered the hall. Then all the accused chased him and A-4 stabbed the deceased in the back with a knife. The deceased on receipt of the injury ran into the adjoining room but before he could bolt the door of the room, he was dragged out by the accused and A-4 again stabbed him and the other accused are alleged to have caused various injuries with the weapons in their hands. When P.Ws. 1 and 4 and another employee intervened, they were also beaten up. The accused then left the place. Thereafter P.Ws. 1 and 4 and another person took the deceased, who was still alive, to Osmania General Hospital in the car. The Doctor, who examined him, declared him to be dead. P.W.4 then asked P.W.1 to go to Uppal Police Station and report the matter. P.W.1 accordingly went in an auto-rikshaw to Uppal Police Station and gave the report Ex. P.1 which was reduced into writing by P.W. 10, S.I. who sent P.W. 1 to the Hospital for examination and treatment of his injuries. P.W. 10 went to the scene of occurrence, prepared an observation report, held the inquest over the dead body and examined the material witnesses. The Doctor, P.W. 7, who conducted the post-mortem, found as many as 9 injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Most of them were incised wounds and on internal examination he found that injury No. 9, a spindle shaped one, passed through the inter-coastal space and the upper lobe of the lungs and communicated with the left bronchus. He opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem and injury No.9 by itself was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. P.W. 1 was examined by another Doctor, P.W.6 who found on him a fresh incised wound and a swelling over the left knee and a contusion on the scalp. The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4, the eye-witnesses and the plea of the accused was one of denial.
(2.) The learned Session Judge examined the case with reference to A-1 to A-5 and A-6 to A-9 separately. A-6 to A-9 were acquitted mainly on the ground that their names were not mentioned in Ex.P. 1 or in the statements recorded during the inquest. So far as A-1 to A-5 were concerned, the learned Sessions Judge referred to certain corrections in Ex.P.3, the wound certificate regarding injuries on P.W.1 issued by P.W. 6 and also doubted the possibility of P.W.1 having given Ex.P.1. He disbelieved the evidence of the eye-witnesses as against A-1 to A-5 mainly on the ground that the names of these accused were not mentioned to the Doctor before whom the deceased was brought and that in Ex.P.3 the word "unknown" in the sentence "alleged to have been beaten with sticks and knives by unknown people at 11.15 p.m." was corrected to "known." The learned Sessions Judge also observed that earlier statements recorded under S.161, Cr. P.C. were suppressed. He also pointed certain improvements in the testimonies of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and ultimately gave the benefit of doubt to A-1 to A-5 also. The High Court after a detailed discussion on the evidence of the eye-witnesses observed that the so-called improvements pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge are not at all material and they do not affect the veracity of these witnesses. Regarding the correction of the word "unknown" to "known" in Ex. P.3 the High Court pointed out that it is not at all significant and on that basis the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 particularly the evidence of the injured witness cannot be discarded. The High Court also observed that Ex. P.I. was promptly given and it contains the names of the five appellants. Ultimately the High Court held that the prosecution has established its case against these five appellants.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before us that the view taken by the trial Court is not at all unreasonable and the infirmities pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge are of vital importance and that the High Court erred in coming to a different conclusion .;