JUDGMENT

M. H. Beg, J. - The appellants Ramphal, Budhi, Bhole son of Durjan, Ram Singh, Bholey son of Rupi Jadav and Shamsher have been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to one years R. I. and also under Section 458 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R. I. In addition, they have been convicted under Section 323/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months R. I., and also under Section 366/511 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R. I.

2. According to the prosecution case, as related by Khushali (P.W. 2), the appellant Ramphal wanted to marry Km. Omwati, the daughter of Khushaii (P.W. 2), but Khushali had made other arrangements for the marriage of Km. Omwati. Ramphal went to Khushali and asked him for the hand of Km. Omwati, but Khushali refused and said that she will be married where he had decided to marry her and not with Ramnhal appellant. Thereupon, Ramphal is alleged to have threatened to marry Km. Omwati by force and to take her away. This threat had scared Khushali who used to send his daughter Km. Omwati to sleep at night at the house of Udal (P.W. 3), the brother-in-law of Khushali. Two days after this threat, during the night between May 30 and 31, 1963, at about midnight, Khushali (P.H. 2), who was asleep in the open courtyard of his house, was awakened by the sound of somebody jumping into his courtyard. He then saw some persons who are alleged to have opened the door of the house from inside so as to let in the whole company of 8 to 10 persons. At that time, a lantern was said to be lit in the courtyard. Ramphal was one of the persons who came inside and asked Khushali where his daughter was. When Khushali told him that she was not in the house, Ramphal and others started beating Khushali. Khushali and his wife raised an alarm. This attracted Dina Nath (P.W. 4) and Gajraj (P.W. 5) and Ahbaran (P.W. 6) and others to the house. Some of these persons had torches. In addition, Gajraj (P.W. 5) fit some bundles of "bhara" wrncfi were lying outside the wall of Khushalis house. This gave out a good deal of light. In this light, the witnesses, who came to the rescue of Khushali, namely, Udal (P.W. 3) Dina Nath (P.W. 4), Gajraj (P.W. 5) and Ahbaran (P.W. 6) saw the persons who had invaded the house of Khushali as the invaders were going away. They had also heard these persons trying to extract from Khushali the information about the whereabouts of his daughter Km. Omwati. After the arrival of the witnesses, the members of the invading party, who are well known to the witnesses, tried to run away. But, they were chased and three of them, namely, Ram Singh, Shamsher, and Bholey son of Rupi Jatav were arrested, and the rest ran away. A first information report was lodged on May 31, 1962 at 6-50 a.m. at P. S. Faridpur in the district of Bareilly, at a distance of four miles from village Tatarpur, where the occurrence had taken place.

3. The trial court considered the evidence carefully and has, in my op:nion, very properly, relied upon a number of circumstances to arrive at the conclusion that the prosecution version is correct. Firstly, Khushali (P.W. 2) who was examined by Dr. Mukherji (P.W. 1) on May 31, 1963 at 8 a.m. had three simple injuries on his body including a swollen and bleeding gum and a loose front tooth. There was no suggestion by the defence that these injuries were not genuine. Secondly, the fact that the three accused persons were apprehended in the chase was borne out from the evidence of the Station Officer Chandrapal Singh (P. W. 8) who went there next morning and found the three appellants who were unarmed and in the custody of the villagers. It is difficult to believe that they could be arrested and kept in custody without any objection by any body if they had not participated in the attacks. Thirdly, the cross-examination of Khushali (P.W. 2) itself indicates that the case of Ramphal was that Km. Omwati wanted to marry Ramphal. This suggestion in cross-examination, supports the prosecution version