( 1 ) JASO, Ratto and Moti were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each one of them was sentenced to undergo regorous imprisonment for three years. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence they filed this apeal. However, Jasso and Moti are. already dead.

( 2 ) BALRAJ (Public Witness 2) is the injured. PW1 Ram Prashad is his father while Sita Devi (PW4) is his mother. This is how the prosecution version unfolds itself from the evidence given by the said three persons.

( 3 ) WHILE Ram Prashad was in his house, the appellants came there and made a demand for Rs. 500. 00 and threatened to stab him in case their demand was not met. They were all armed. When Ram Prashad expressed his inability to meet the demand the appellants grappled with him and fell him on the ground. Soon thereupon Balraj and Sita Devi also came there and when Balraj and Sita Devi tried to intervene Jaso who was armed with a chhuri stabbed Balraj in the stomach while Moti, who was armed with a sua also struck him and caused injury on his leg and Rato caused injury on the person of Sita Devi with a Sua. Soon thereafter the appellants took to their heels. Later Balraj was removed to the hospital where he was admitted and lateron operated upon. As per Dr. S. Mehra (Public Witness 7 ). injuries on his person were grievous in nature.

( 4 ) BESIDES Ram Prashad, Balraj and Sita Devi we have also on the record the statements of two other alleged eye witnesses namely, Bhane Ram (Public Witness 3) and Ashok Kumar (Public Witness II ). While Ashok Kumar has not lent any support to the prosecution version despite his having been cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, PW3 Bhane Ram has lent some support. He says that on May 16, 1973 at about 1. 30 P. M. he found Jasso, armed with a sua and the other two appellants armed with knives and that after they had over-powered Ram Prashad, Balraj had intervened on which he was caught hold by Moti, and was stabbed twice by Jasso.

( 5 ) THE appellants, had taken the plea that they had been falsely implicated on account of inimical relations between their father and Ram Prashad. They also led evidence to show that Balraj was facing trial in two criminal matters.

( 6 ) DURING arguments it was Contended by Mr. R. P. Luthra on behalf of Rato that all the eye witnesses happened to be closely related to each other and thus being interred witnesses, were unworthy of reliance. It was also argued that Balraj was also unworthy of reliance for the reason. that be was an accused in a case of decoity. Of course, my attention was also drawn to certain discrepancies in the prosecution version. If was argued that the prosecution evidence deserved to be thrown out on that score as well.

( 7 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, and as already noticed by me above, while Ram Prashad happens to be the father of Balraj, Sita Devi happens to be his mother. There is no denial of the fact that Public Witness Bhane Ram is also closely related to the family. Should I throw out their evidence only on account of their. being so closely related to each other? - We must not lose sight of the fact that the occurence took place in the house of Ram Prashad. Therefore, his wife was expected to be there. True, Balraj was not in the house when the appellants had threatened Ram Prashad but, then, it is in his statement that he was attracted by the noise while he was having tea at a shop near to his house. Bhane Ram also explains his presence at the scene of occurence by telling us that he too was attracted to the house of Ram Prashad by the noise emanating from that house. It may not be out of place to mention here that he lives very near to the place where the entire incident had taken place. The presence of Sita Devi finds further support and corroboration from the fact that she too was stabbed while trying to save her husband and this finds supp