Wanchoo, C J.—This is an appeal by Ganpat, Mukhram, Manphool, and Nandram against their conviction under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge of Ganganagar.

2. The prosecution story was briefly this. There was enmity from before between the appellants and Isar deceased. It is said that on the morning of the nth of June, 1950, Isar had gone to ease himself at about 6 oclock. While he was returning from there, and had reached the place near the house of Jetha, brother of Ganpat and Mukhram appellants, he was attacked by the four appellants with lathis. He fell down injured, and died soon afterwards. The report of the incident was made at 2.30 P.M. at Thana Tibi by his son Ram Chandra. The incident is said to have been witnessed by Chetram, whose house is just near where the deceased was attacked, and Sanwat, who also came up on hearing the alarm from his house which is not very far away. It is also said that Ram Chandra, son of the deceased had also come and witnessed the incident.

3 The accused all denied their guilt, and said that they had not taken part in this marpit. A counter story was put forward on their behalf, namely, that the deceased was a man of bad character, and had that morning annoyed the wife of Jetha, and consequently Jetha and his brother, Tiku, beat up the deceased] and the appellants had been named falsely by Ram Chandra.

4. There is no doubt in this case that the deceased was beaten near the house of Jetha, and in front of the house of Chetram witness shortly after sunrise that day. The prosecution produced two witnesses, namely, Sanwat and Chetram, who had seen the incident. These witnesses have no reason to implicate the appellants falsely; nor have they any reason to give false evidence on account of friendship or relationship with the deceased. So far as Sanwat is concerned, he was not even questioned on the point of relationship with the deceased, though later defence was produced to the effect that he was in some way related to the deceased. We are, however, not prepared to believe that Sanwat was any relation of the deceased. As for Chetram, he was asked whether he was a nephew of the deceased, and he said that he was not. In defence, evidence was given to the effect that the deceased was an uncle of Chetram. There is no reason why Chetram should have denied his relationship with the deceased, if it is true that he was related to him. He is a most natural witness, because the incident took place right in front of his house. He would be believed even though he might be related to the deceased, and there was no reason for him, therefore, to hide the relationship. We are not satisfied that Chetram was, in any way, related to the deceased. Both these witnesses are thus entirely independent witnesses, and there is, in our opinion, no reason whatsoever to disbelieve their evidence.

5. So far as Sanwat is concerned, it has been urged that he admits that he did not see the faces of the appellants, and only recognized them from their backs. That is so. But the incident took place when it was daylight, and his evidence shows that he saw them from a distance of about 30 paces. We see nothing strange in San-wats recognizing these persons, whom he probably knew from his childhood, from their backs. The matter would have been different, if it had been dark. As for the other witness Chetram, it is urged that he has not been named in the first report, and should not, therefore, be believed. It is true that this man s name does not find place in the first report. But as we have already pointed out, he is a most natural witness, as the incident took place right in front of his house. He must have come out, as he says, on hearing the alarm, purely out of curiosity, and we have no hesitation in believing his statement. He saw the faces of two of the appellants, namely, Ganpat and Manphool, while he recognized the other two, namely, Mukhram and Nandram, by their backs. In this case also, these two pers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document