Judgment

P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. :- Of the 26 accused charged with offences under Sections 307/149, 304/34, 147, 148 and 379, the Trial Court acquitted 24 accused but convicted Nanhku Singh, A-1 and Lalita Singh, A-2 under Section 307 and sentenced the former to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and the latter to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. In appeal the High Court confirmed the conviction of both the accused but under Section 307 read with Section 34 and reduced the sentences to be under gone by each of them to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. This Court granted Special Leave only to Nanhku Singh and rejected the petitioner of Lalita Singh for default of surrender.

2. According to the prosecution case, on November 17, 1964 at about one pahar after sun-rise, about 7 or 8 A. M. Nanhku Singh, Lalita Singh, Mohan Singh, A-3 who had each a gun, along with accused Nos. 4 to 26 who were armed with ballams, Garashas and lathis came to the field of Indradeo Singh, P. W. 12 and were alleged to be engaged in cutting the paddy crop in that field. On seeing this, Indradeo Singh along with Chait Ahir, P. W. 8 and others went there and when Indradeo Singh protested at the highhandedness of the accused there was an altercation between him and the party of the accused whereupon Nanhku Singh shot Indradeo Singh. This was followed by Mohan Singh also firing at the Indradeo Singh. Indradeo Singh was injured after which he fell down in the field of Sumer Singh situated in the north of his own field separated by a small plot of Jamuna Singh and a water nala. After Indradeo Singh fell down Chait Ahir went to his rescue and wanted to lift him but Lalita Singh fired and caused him injuries. On hearing these gun shots some nearby persons came there when the accused ran away after taking the harvested paddy. Dina Nath, P. W. 11 who was cutting his paddy crop in the field situate near Indradeo Singh s field, on hearing the gun shots came to the scene and witnessed the shooting of Chait Ahir. He placed Indradeo Singh on a cot and he along with others took him to the Police Station, about 8 miles away. There about 2 P. M., Dina Nath lodged a First Information Report because Indradeo Singh was not fully conscious and was unable to speak. The injured persons were then sent to the Durgawati Hospital for their medical examination where they were attended by Doctor Aggarwal.

3. It appears from the evidence that there was enmity between the father of the appellant Ambika Singh and Indradeo Singh P. W. 12, Chait Ahir, P. W. 8, Dina Nath, P. W. 11, Mushan Pandey, P. W. 7, Ambika Singh initiated proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P. C. against Bilar Ahir P. W. 3, Mushan Pandey P. W. 7, Chait Ahir P. W. 8, Dina Nath P. W. 11 and Indradeo Singh P. W. 12. It also appears that in a case brought against P. W. 3 by Ghureher Gareri, accused Mohan Singh and Ambika Singh had given evidence and though he was convicted by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court acquitted him. In view of the admitted ill-feelings between Ambika Singh and Mohan Singh and some of the witnesses including Indradeo Singh and Chait Ahir, the evidence of the eye-witnesses has to be scrutinised carefully. Both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were aware of the need to exercise caution and after weighing the evidence carefully and giving the utmost benefit to the accused nonetheless came to the conclusion that the offence against both the appellant and the other accused had been established. This Court does not ordinarily interfere with the findings arrived at on an appreciation of evidence by the High Court particularly when it affirms the finding of the Trial Court unless the conclusions arrived at cannot be supported by the evidence or that it is perverse. We do not think this is a case of that kind where out interference is called for.

4. Of the witnesses who spoke about the incident, the most important are Indradeo Singh and Chait Ahir both of whom were injured by gun shot. Bilar Ahir, P