V.G.PALSHIKAR, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in sessions case No. 63/85 on 26-8-87 convicting the accused appellants under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default further R.I. for three months. The accused appellants were also convicted under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to four years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200.00 in default one month R.I.
(2.) The prosecution story stated in brief is that at about 1.15 p.m. on 27/03/1985, Shanker Lal with his father Prithvi Raj went to the house of Balwant Singh to request him to pacify the quarrel between Sheeshpal and Krishna Lal (accused). When they were returning and were about 15 steps away from the house of Balwant Singh near the house of Bhagirath, accused Ram Chandra, Lalu Ram, Saheb Ram, Krishan Lal and Dara Ram came and attacked them. Saheb Ram had 'Saila', Dara Ram had 'Saila', Krishan Lal had 'Gandasi' Ram Chandra had 'Kasia' and Lalu Ram had stick, Dara Ram hit Prithvi Raj in the stomach by the 'Salia', as a result of which Prithvi Raj fell to the ground, on this, elder brother of Prithvi Raj, Mohan Lal, Bansilal, Bhagirath and Bakhtavar Singh came on the scene and Mohan Lal was attacked by the accused persons at the instance of Lalu Ram. Saheb Ram attacked Mohan Lal with 'Saila', then the accused ran away. F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 1 Shanker Lal who is an eye-witness to the whole incidence. The prosecution has examined 5 witnesses in support of its case and except the Doctor and Investigating Officer, three others are the eye-witnesses involving in the incidence.
(3.) Shri Doongar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants challenges the order of the learned Sessions Judge on the following grounds; (i) That all the three witnesses are deeply interested against the accused, their deposition shows that other independent witnesses to the occurrence were present and could have been examined. (ii) All the eye-witnesses speak of injuries caused by 'Saila'. The medical evidence is to the contrary. No injury which could have been caused by 'Saila'. (iii) Even the injured witness is not truthful qua his own injuries and therefore, cannot be believed. If that testimony is ignored, there is evidence duly corroborated to warrant conviction. (iv) Form the statement of the Investigating Officer, it is evident that the accused persons were available to the police on 27-3-85 itself and yet they have not been arrested. The delay caused in arresting creates strong suspicions that the accused persons have been framed up. ;