IMPORTANT POINT.
Unless therefore a witness particularises when there are a number of accused it is ordinarily unsafe to accept omnibus inclusions by stating that all the 10 accused fired shots.

JUDGMENT

K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.- The Sessions Court convicted all the ten accused under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to two years R.I. and life imprisonment under two counts respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court of Allahabad. One of the accused Har Sewak who figured as Accused No. I died during the pendency of the appeal. The convictions and sentences of all the other nine accused were confinned. Hence they have prefered this appeal by way of special leave granted by this Court. During the Pendency of the appeal in this Court Accused No.3 and Accused No.9 died.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the case arose out of an acute faction and the witnesses relied upon by both the courts below being partisans are highway interested and there was any number of circumstances indicating that the whole prosecution story is fabricated and at any rate the evidence can not be relied upon at all. Learned Counsel for the respondent State on the other hand submitted that the two courts below have accepted the eyidence and therefore this court while exercisirtg jurisdiction under Article 136 can not interfere. It is true that this Court generally will not, interfere in the concurrent judgment of criminal courts but it has also been held that where the interest of justice requires the Court can interfere ,even in such cases. In Jagta v. State of Haryana1 it is held that were there is some glaring infinnity in the prosecution evidence and as a result there is any mistarriage of justice, this Court can interfere. In Jagir Singh v. The State (Delhi)2, this Court, having noticed that the evidence relied upon by the court below is not worthy of credit and unreliable, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 136 of the Constitution of India, interfered and set aside the convictions and sentences. In Balak Ram v. State of UP. etc.3 this Court while examining the scope of Article 136 observed that "The powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 are wide but in criminal appeals Supreme Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances. In Nachhettar Singh & ors. v. State of Punjab4 this Court again examined the scope of Article 136 and observed "When there are various infirmities on the prosecution case, the Supreme Court can interfere."

3. Bearing these principles in mind, we shall now examine the prosecution case and the evidence relied upon and the respective submissions in respect of the same. The material witnesses and the accused and two deceased persons belong to Singhulapur village. The deceased Pratap Narain was the brother of Jagat Narain P.W.1, complainant in the case. The other deceased Sushil Chandra was the grandson of Ram Dularey maternal uncle of P.W.1. Ram Gopal, another maternal uncle of P.W.l executed a sale deed in respect of the property of his share in favour of Ram Dularey, his own brother. In respect of the same a number of disputes including civil litigations had taken place between Ram Autar and Ram Dularey. And the complainant Jagat Narain helped Ram Dularey. Consequently there was enmity between him and some of the accused who are the sons of Ram Autar the brother of Ram Dularey. There was also old enmity between the complainant and the accused Har Sewak. A number of disputes of civil and criminal nature where there between these two families. During the elections in 1972 there was a incident of 'marpit' between the two parties and a case was registered. It may not be neces" sary to refer to other disputes since it is an admitted fact that there was acute enmity and bitter faction between the two families.

4. On 6-9-1973 at about 4.30 p.m. complainant Jagat Narain, P.W.1 and his brother Deo Narain who was not examined, were sitting on a cot in the verandah and on another cot deceased Sushil Cha