JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J.:—The two appellants in this appeal filed under Section 2 of the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 were acquitted by the Sessions Judge of Hissar but have been convicted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for causing the murder of one Amar Singh and for attempting to murder Darya Singh, P.W. 5 and Balbir Singh, P.W. 6. Each of the appellants has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; in the case of appellant Chatar Singh with the aid of Section 34. Each has been given a concurrent sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment for the attempted murder under Section 307, in the case of Dayanand read with Section 34.

2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The Sessions Judge gave several reasons in support of his finding that the appellants guilt and complicity in the occurrence were not proved beyond doubt. Keeping in view the well-established principles of law to justify the High Courts interference with an order of acquittal the High Court has discussed and referred to almost all the reasons given by the Trial Court and finding its judgment unsustainable it has upset it by giving cogent and good reasons. We think the High Court was right in reversing the order of acquittal. Some of the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge were too flimsy and insignificant and the High Court has rightly brushed them aside. It has found the others not good enough for a reasonably possible view of acquittal. Only some on which great stress was laid by counsel for the appellants in this Court will be briefly referred to by us in this judgment.

3. The appellants are sons of one Darya Singh. At the time of the occurrence they were in their twenties. One Ramanand and one Bharat Singh are also their brothers. The prosecution case is that there were several disputes, quarrels and litigations between the family of Darya Singh, P.W. 5 and Darya Singh - father of the appellants. There were election disputes for the office of the Sarpanch which was held by P.W. Darya Singh. There was previously an assault case. There were proceedings and counter-proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10 or 12 days before the occurrence in question, an Alsatian dog of Chanderman was killed allegedly by appellant Chatar Singh and his brother Bharat Singh. Chanderman was a collateral of P.W. Darya Singh. A complaint was made to the police and the accused party thought that P.W. Darya Singh was at the back of this case. Regarding the bad blood and the enmity between the two families, there is no substantial difference or dispute between the findings recorded by the two courts below.

4. On the 15th of November, 1969 at about 11.00 A.M. Darya Singh, P.W. 5 with his son Balbir Singh, P.W. 6 and his nephew Bharat Singh, P.W. 7 was going to his field on a tractor-cum-trolley to bring fodder from there. The tractor was driven by Bhe Ram, P.W. 15 - a tendered witness. he is also a relation of Darya Singh, P.W. Amar Singh - since deceased was a servant of Darya Singh for doing his agricultural work. He also accompanied the party for bringing fodder. After having loaded the fodder on the trolley all the five persons left the field for their village Devawas which was at a distance of about a mile. Bhe Ram was driving the tractor back. Amar Singh and Balbir Singh sat on the right mudguard. Darya Singh and Bharat Singh were on the left mudguard of the tractor. When the tractor had moved about 250 paces from the field, appellant Chatar Singh who was standing to the left of the road with appellant Dayanand gave a signal to Bhe Ram to stop it. Bhe Ram stopped the tractor. Dayanand fired a shot from a pistol which hit the chest of Amar Singh, Darya Singh shouted to Bhe Ram to drive away the tractor else all of them might be killed. Bhe Ram started the tractor. Amar Singh fell down from the tractor on account of the gun shot wound sustained by him. W