JUDGMENT

 This is an appeal under Section 2-A of the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. Mangoo, original accused No.1 and Hanumant Singh, original accused No.3 are the appellants. They along with 2 others - Baldeo Singh (A-2) and Sardar Singh alias Daulatawala (A-4) were tried for offence under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The case mainly rested on the evidence of Dev Dutta (PW.2), a boy aged about 16 years and son of the deceased Pooranlal. The trial Court acquitted all the four accused holding that the evidence of the sole witness namely PW.2 was not wholly reliable. The learned trial Judge discarded his evidence on the ground that the medical evidence is in conflict and that there is possibility of the witness having been tutored and that there are certain discrepancies in material particulars in his evidence.

2. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court having examined PW.2s evidence in the light of surrounding circumstances carefully considered all the reasons given by the trial Court and held that the reasoning given by the trial Court is wholly unsound and allowed the appeal convicting all the four accused. It is stated that A.4 did not prefer any appeal. Hence, the present appeal by A-1 and A-3.

3. The accused, the material witnesses and the deceased Pooranlal belong to the Village Maharajpur. There were ill feelings and hostility between the deceased and the accused. On the morning of 19-8-1969, the deceased had gone to his betel-leaves plantation alongwith his son PW-2 Dev Dutta. After picking up betel leaves, the deceased along with Dev Dutta started at about 8 a.m. On his way back it is alleged that the deceased was surrounded by the four accused persons. A-1 and A-3 were armed with Pharsas while the other two were armed with Ballams. A-4 caught hold of the deceased while A-1 Mangal Singh pulled his legs from the back as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground with face downwards. Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 caught hold of the deceased and A-4 ordered that the hands of the deceased should be chopped off. Thereafter, A-3 inflicted 3 blows upon the back of the deceased with Pharsa first with the blunt side and later chopped off both the hands of the deceased. PW-2 after having witnessed the occurrence, left the place crying aloud. On the way, he came across PW-1 to whom he narrated the incident. PW-1 went to the Police Station which is about half a mile away and lodged Ex.P-1 at about 8.30 a.m. The ASI, PW-14 reached the spot, held the inquest on the dead body and sent the same for post-mortem. The doctor, PW-13, who conducted the post-mortem found 6 injuries. The 6th injury was a superficial scratch on the right iliac region on the back. Other injuries were all incised injuries. Injuries No. 2 & 3 were described as amputation of the left and right upper arms. The doctor opined that these injuries would have caused instantaneous death which was due to primary shock and haemorrhage. The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation the charge sheet was laid. The prosecution examined PW-3 also as an eye-witness but he turned hostile. Therefore, the case rested entirely on the evidence of PW-2.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that if PW-2 has really seen the occurrence, he would not have given such a discrepant version with regard to the blows given by A-3 and as regards which portion of the weapon was used in inflicting such blows. PW-2 no doubt in his deposition stated that A-3 first inflicted blows with Pharsa on the back of the deceased with its blunt side and then inflicted a blow with the sharp side on his fathers arm. Having seen this, he entered into Bareja and hid himself and heard the cries. Commenting on this, it is said that the medical evidence does not show any injury having been caused by the blunt side of the Pharsa and at any rate PW-2 on his own admission would not have seen entire occurrence and in such a sit