Important Point
In appreciating the evidence of a witness a sen­tence in cross examination cannot be taken in isolation, it has to be understood in the context in which it was spoken.

Judgment

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. -The six appellants in this appeal challenged the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 1504 of 1980, on 23.12.97 and confirming their conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII, Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh.

2. The gravamen of the charge against the appellants is that in the intervening night of 25th and 26th June, 1979, one Sayeed, his father, Waheed Bux (P.W. 4), his servants Lalla Ram (P.W. 2) and Shri Krishna (not examined) were sleeping in the mango grove of Rameshwar Dayal in village Barua Bagat, P.S. Kamal Gunj, District Farrukhabad. The appel­lants A-1, A-4 and A-6 were armed with lathi, A-2 and A-3 were armed with kanta and A-4 was armed with knife attacked and killed Sayeed by causing injuries with the weapons they were carrying. When his father Waheed Bux (P.W. 4) tried to save him, he was also given blows causing as many as a dozen injuries to him. When his servant Lalla Ram (P.W. 2), tried to intervene he was also beaten up causing simple injuries to him. Dr. Arjun Kumar (P.W. 3) who examined P.Ws. 2 and 4 on the next day of the incident, found that two injuries inflicted on P.W. 2 were simple and were caused by blunt object, he opined that three of the eleven injuries inflicted on P.W. 4 were caused by blunt object.

3. Dr. A.C. Goyal (P.W. 5) conducted autopsy of the dead body of the deceased (Sayeed). He found as many as twelve injuries in the body of the deceased. He opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem and that he died due to shock and haemorrhage.

4. The appellants were tried for various offences by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, who by his judg­ment dated June 12, 1980 convicted all of them under Sections 302 and 149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each; further he convicted A-1, A-4 and A-6 under Sections 147 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and six months under Sections 323/149 IPC; and he also convicted A-2, A-3 and A-5 under Sections 148 IPC and Section 324/149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 IPC and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/149 IPC. All the sen­tences were directed to run concurrently.

5. Against the said judgment of the trial Court, the appellants had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1504 of 1980 before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court having considered the depositions of the injured eye witnesses, P.Ws. 2 and 4 and the statement of the com­plainant, P.W. 1, recorded the findings that P.Ws. 4 and 2 were fully corroborated by medical evidence and by no stretch of imagination presence of those witnesses could be doubted. The High Court also held that the statement of Dulhey Miyan (P.W. 1), who was the brother of the deceased and had come running from the grove of Brij Bahadur, which was at a distance of 300 yards from the scene of occurrence, was quite natural and probable and was rightly believed by the trial Court. The High Court also noted that P.W. 1 had taken the injured witnesses, P.Ws. 2 and 4 in a tonga to the Police Station which was about two miles from the scene of occurrence and that on their way they got the complaint drafted by Ramesh and lodged the FIR promptly. In that view of the matter the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants by the trial Court for the offences noted above.

6. Mr. Salman Khurshid, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, laid stress on the question of the identity of the appellants. He argued that it was a dark night and according to the prosecution the appellants were identified with help of torch light but the story of the witnesses having torches is highly doubtful. He submitted that no torch was carried by P.W. 1 to the Poli