The evidence of eye-witnesses, who have sustained injuries themselves and were present at the place of occurrence, is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.

G.C.Bharuka, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd May, 1988, passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas in S.T. No. 1470/79. There are two appellants in this appeal. Appellant No. 1 (Kashinath Lal Sinha) has been convicted for the offence under Secs. 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for the life and three years, respectively. Appellant No. 2 (Lalbalu alias Surendral Lal Sinha alias Surendra Kr. Srivastava) has been convicted for the offence under Secs. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and three years, respectively. However, the sentences in case of both the appellants have been directed to run concurrently.

2. In this case the F.I.R. (Ext. 6) was drawn up on the basis of the Ward Beyan (Ext. 4) which was lodged by Manika Devi (P.W. 11-A). According to the Fard Beyan (Ext. 4) on 23-10-1978 at about 12 noon both the appellants came to the miscellaneous shop of the brothers of the informant. Appellant No. 1 was having a Bhala in his hand whereas appellant No. 2 was having a country made pistol. Appellant No. 1 entered into the shop and assaulted the uncle of the informant, namely, Rameshwar Lal with bhala on chist, stomach and on the wrist of right hand. He also assaulted the two brothers of the informant, namely, Ram Chandra Lal (P.W. 3) and Bharat Lal (P.W. 9) on their Panjra and stomach, respectively. Further case of the prosecution is that during the course of the occurrence, appellant No. 2 remained standing at the entrance of the shop with a pistol in his hand. On hull a being raised many villagers assembled there and carried all the three injured persons to Natwar hospital. But Rameshwar Lal succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. Since, at Natwar hospital the doctor was not available, therefore, after first aid by the compounder both Ram Chandra Lal (P.W. 3) and Bharat Lal (P.W. 9) were taken to Patna for treatment.

3. According to the informant, as disclosed by her in the Ford Beyan, since her uncle Rameshwar Lal (deceased) had no issue, therefore, ho was residing with her two brothers, P.Ws. 3 and 9 who used to look after him. As a consequence, Rameshwar Lal (deceased) executed a registered Deed of gift in favour of P.Ws. 3 and 9 in respect of his 21/2 Bighas of agricultural land as well as a residential house. This caused annoyance to the appellants, who are sons of late Muneshwar Lal, elder brother of the deceased Rameswar Lal. As per the Fard Beyan of the informant 15-20 days prior to the date of occurrence there was some altercation between the appellants and the deceased with respect to the execution of the aforesaid Deed of gift.

4. During the course of trial, prosecution has examined altogether 14 witnesses. Out of them Ramchandta Lal (P.W. 3), Bharat Lal (P.W. 9) and Manika Devi (P.W. 11-A) are the eye-witnesses. P.W. 5 Jwala, Prasad P.W. 6, Budhu Lal, and P.W. 7 Hari Shankar Kahar have pleaded ignorance about the occurrence P.W. 8 Lorik Ram, though not a witness to the assault, but had reached the place of the occurrence immediately thereafter and had witnessed all the subsequent happenings. P.W. 1 Chandradeo Pd. Sinha and P.W. 4 Lal Saheb are seizure list witnesses P.W. 2 Hari Shanker Lal is a witness to the inquest report P.W. 19 Jagdish Ram is a compounder of Natwar Government hospital. P.W. 11 Sheo Balak Lal and P.W. 13 Satyendra Kumar Srivastava are formal witnesses. P.W. 12 is Dr. Sharda Pd. Singh, who had held post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, Rameshwar Lal. However, the defence has not chosen to examine any witness on its behalf.

5. P.W. 3 Ram Chandra Lal, in his deposition, has stated that his father Gorakh Lal had two brothers, namely, Rameshwar Lal (the deceased) and late Muneshwar Lal. According to this witness (P.W. 3) family properties were partitioned amongst his father and uncles. In Para 8 of his deposition,