Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
PETITIONER:
GOLLA JALLA REDDY & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/04/1996
BENCH:
MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)
BENCH:
MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)
KURDUKAR S.P. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 587 1996 SCALE (3)791
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
M.K. MUKHERJEE,J.
In Sessions case No. 96 of 1983 on the file of the
Sessions Judge, Anantpur 10 persons (hereinafter referred to
as A1 to A10 respectively) were tried for criminal
conspiracy, rioting with deadly weapons and murders of
Kalapuram Paramasani Narasimhudu, Golla Jalla Malli Reddy
and Golla Jalla Narayana Reddy (hereinafter referred to as
D1, D2 and D3 respectively). The learned Judge convicted and
sentenced A1 under Section 302 IPC and Section 3 of the
Explosive Substances Act for committing the murder of D1
with bombs and A2 under Section 302 IPC (simpliciter) for
committing the murder of D2 and under Section 302 read with
Section 34 for the murder of D1. A1 and A2 were acquitted of
the Other charges and A3 to A10 of all the charges. Against
their convictions and sentences A1 and A2 filed two separate
appeals in the High Court and the State, in its turn, filed
an appeal against the acquittal of the other eight. During
the pendency of the appeal A1 died and consequently his
appeal abated. By a common judgment the High Court dismissed
the appeal preferred by A2 and allowed the other appeal in
part by setting aside the acquittal of A3 to A6 and
convicting and sentencing them under Section 302 read with
Section 34 IPC and affirming the acquittal of A7 to A10.
However, considering the tender ages of A4 and A5 the High
Court recommended their commitment to Borstal School. The
above judgement of the High Court is under challenge in this
appeal preferred by A2 to A6 under Section 2 of the Supreme
Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act,
1970 and Section 379 read with section 380 Cr.P.C.
2. Bereft of details, the prosecution case is as under:
(a) Gola Jalla Chinnappa Reddy (P.W.1) and A1 to A10, who
are inter-related, are residents of Brahmanapalli, which is
at a distance of 14 kms. from Gooty in the district of
Anantapur. D2 and D3, who were two brothers, also hailed
from the same place. Golla Paramasani Pullaiah (P.W.2) is a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
resident of Kalapuram, which is 8 kms. away from
Brahmanapalli, who was the maternal uncle of P.Ws. 1 and 2
and D2 and D3, was also a resident of Kalapuram. At the
material time A1 was working as Branch Postmaster of
Brahmanpalli and A2 was Munsif of that village.
(b) In 1981 P.W.1 was elected Sarpanch of his village
defeating T. Narayana who was set up by A2 and in that
election A1 supported the candidature of P.W.1. However,
three months before the incident with which we are concerned
in this appeal, ill-feelings developed between PW 1 and A1
over a dispute regarding the house of Golla Chandrasekhara
Reddy (PW 7. P.W.7 took the house of one B. Hanumanthu on an
annual rent of Rs.60/- out of which he paid him Rs.10/- in
advance. Later on he came to knew that the house actually
belonged to one Yarikala Gampamma and so he purchased the
house from her for Rs.100/-. Thereafter when Hanumanthu
demanded rent and P.W.7 refused to pay an altercation took
place between them and over that issue a Panchayat was held
in which A1 and A2 figured as elders on behalf of Hanumanthu
and P.W.1 and 93 on behalf of P.W.7. The dispute, however,
could not be settled by the Panchayat. A few days later A1,
A2 and Hanumanthu assaulted P.W.7 and threw his belongings
out of the house. P.W.7 then informed P.W.1 about the
incident who advised him to make a complaint , however, did
not file any complaint and left the village and started
living at Illuru.
(c) A week after that incident D3 was assaulted by A1 and
A2 and their men in Gooty and an amount of Rs. 400/-
forcibly taken away from him. D3 informed P.W.1 about the
incident but did not lodge any formal complaint about the
same. This was followed by another incident on September 22,
1982 in which Suryanarayana Reddy, brother of P.W.1, was
assaulted near a cinema hall of Gooty and P.W.1 was told
about the same. On the same day the three daughters of A1
were assaulted in Brahmanapalli in their house for which one
of them, namely, Bhagyalakshmamma lodged a complaint against
P.W.1, D3 and his another brother. On that complaint a case
was registered and a week later P.W.1, his brother
Suryanarayana and D3 were arrested and subsequently released
on bail. After assault on his daughters, A1 along with A2
left Brahmanapalli and started living in Gooty.
(d) A month later - on October 21,1982 to be precise
P.W.1, P.W.2 and the three deceased went to Gooty to
meet their Advocate. On their way back they were arrested
under Section 151 Cr.P.C. and Crime No. 102 of 1982 was
registered against them. They were produced in Court on the
following day, that is, October 22, 1982 and released on
bail with a direction to appear on November 2, 1982. To
enable them to go to Court on that day together with PW 1,
D2 and D3, D1 and PW 2 went to Brahamanpali on November 1,
1982 and stayed for the night there.
(e) On the following morning, that is, November 2, 1982 PW
1, PW 2 and the three deceased left for Gooty by bus and got
down at the bus station there at 9 A.M. They first went to
Durga Vilas, a nearby hotel for tea and then, at or about 10
A.M., left for Court on foot along the National Highway with
D1 and D3 little ahead of the other three. When they reached
a place near the house of one Subbaratnam, A1 and A2
suddenly emerged from the nearby thorny bushes. While A1 was
having a hand bag with him, A2 was armed with a hunting
sickle. A1 then took out a country made bomb from the bag
and hurled it at D1 which hit him on the back and exploded.
A1 hurled two more bombs towards D1 which exploded on his
face and he fell down crying. When the first bomb was hurled
D3 went running towards them and D2 and P.W.2 started
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
running towards the north. As soon as they reached the flour
mill of one Venkata Reddy A3 to A6 came from the side of a
Kottam, situated near the mill, armed with billhooks. Seeing
them P.W.2 and D2 turned their back and began to run. A3 to
A6 chased them along with A1 to A2 who had Joined them in
the meantime. P.W.2 and D2 then entered into a lane on the
western side of the road where D2 was overtaken by them and
dragged towards a log which was lying there, He was then
made to lie on his back with his neck resting on the log. A1
and A3 to A6 caught hold of D2 and D2 dealt a blow on his
throat with a billhooks. A3 to A6 also gave blows on D2 with
their billhooks. Seeing this P.W.1 and D3 started running
towards the police station. When P.W.1 and D3 were running
A7 to A10 appeared there and started chasing P.W.1 and D3.
They ultimately succeeded in apprehending D3 and hacked him
to death near a pond. A7 to A10 also tried to attach P.W.1
but he succeeded in escaping and reaching Gooty police
station at 10.40 A.M.
(f) At the police station P.W.1 narrated the incident to
Lakshman Dass (P.W.16), the Head Constable, who made an
entry (Ex.P.29) thereof in the general diary book (Ext.
P.28). P.W.16, in his turn, conveyed the information to
M.G.V. Ramna (P.W.17) S.I. of Police, Gooty who was at
Yadiki to attend a Magisterial enquiry along with R.
Ekambaram (P.W.19), the Circle Inspector of Police. P.W.17
and 19 then rushed to Gooty and on the way P.W. 19 got down
at the scene of occurrence and asked P.W.17 to go to the
police station. in the meantime, P.w.1 had started preparing
a written report of the incident and before he could
complete it PW2 had also reached the police station. P.W.1
handed over the report (Ex.P.1) to P.W.17 which was attested
by P.W.2 and on that complaint a case was registered against
the ten accused. After registering the case and forwarding a
copy thereof to the local Magistrate, P.W.17 went to the
scene of occurrence along with P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W.19 held
inquest over the three dead bodies in presence of P.W.1,
P.W.1,P.W.2 and Boya Peddaiah (P.W.3). Thereafter the
deadbodies were sent for post-mortem examination. On receipt
of reports of post-mortem examination and completion of
investigation police submitted chargesheet and in due course
the case was committed to the Court of Session.
3. To prove its case the prosecution examined 19
witnesses of whom Golla Jalla Chinnappa Reddy (P.W.1),
Golla Paramasani Pullaiah (P.W.2), Boya Peddaiah (P.W.3) and
Desari Venkataramudu (P.W.4) figured as eyewitnesses. P.W.4,
however, turned hostile.
4. The appellants who had earlier pleaded not guilty to
the charges, contended, in their examination under Section
313 Cr.P.C. that they had been falsely implicated due to
enmity. Though they did not examine any witness in their
defence they produced some documents to show that P.W.3 was
an interested witness.
5. In his judgment the learned trial Judge first recorded
that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the
accused persons had a motive to commit the crime alleged
against them. As regards the incident the learned Judge
relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 to the extent they
named A1 and A2 as perpetrators of the murders of D1 and D2
and held that P.W.3 was not an interested witness as alleged
by the defence. He, however, declined to accept the
prosecution case so far as it related to the attack on D3 by
A7 to A10 as PW. 1 was the sole eye witness and his evidence
was not consistent with the medical evidence.
6. In disposing of the appeals in the manner indicated
earlier, the High Court held that so far as the involvement
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
of A1 and A2 in the offences in question was concerned the
findings of the trial Court were fully justified. As regards
the acquittal of A3 to A6 the High Court observed that the
finding of the trial Judge that there was no evidence
regarding the participation of A1 to A6 in the incident and,
therefore, it was not safe to convict them was patently
wrong for P.W.1 to P.W.3 had consistently deposed that A3 to
A6 alongwith A1 chased D2 and made D2 to lie on the log in
such a way that his neck rested on the log and A2 then cut
the throat of D2 with billhook. The High Court pointed out
that the trial Judge was not justified in acquitting A3 to
A6 on the specious ground that the eye - witnesses were not
able to speak as to on which part of the body of D2,D3
to A6 inflicted injuries and, therefore, there was a
reasonable doubt about their participation in the offences.
The High Court also took exception to the observation of the
trial Court that the medical evidence contradicted the oral
evidence as, according to it, there was no contradiction at
all. According to the High Court the overwhelming evidence
of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence clearly
established that some persons must have caught hold of D2 in
the manner alleged by the prosecution. The High Court lastly
held that A3 to A6 played active roles in causing the death
of D2 and, therefore, they could not escape their liability.
In dealing with the prosecution case relating to the attack
on D3 the High Court however observed that the trial Court’s
finding that it would not be safe to convict the accused
persons for the above murder relying solely on the evidence
of P.W.1 could not be said to be a perverse one.
7. This being a statutory appeal we have carefully gone
through the entire evidence adduced during trial and
assessed the same keeping in view the judgments of the
learned Courts below. That there was no love lost between
P.W.1, P.W.2 and the three deceased on the one hand and the
accused on the other stands established not only by the
evidence adduced by the prosecution but also by the plea of
the appellants that they had been falsely implicated due to
enmity. In view of this admitted enmity between the parties
Mr.Madhava Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants contended that no reliance should be placed on
the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. We are, however, unable to
reject their testimonies on that score as unimpeachable
evidence on record clearly shows that they were the most
probable and natural witnesses.
8. Undisputedly, at the material time, cases were pending
against PW 1, P.W. 2 and the three deceased and again on
October 21,1982 they were arrested under Section 151
Cr.P.C. and Crime No. 102 of 1982 was registered against all
of them. The order (Ext. P.12), that was passed by the
learned Magistrate on the following day on their production
indicates that they were released on bail with a direction
to appear before him on November 2 1982 at 10.30 A.M.
Considered in the above context the claim of P.Ws. 1 and 2
that they alongwith the three deceased were going to the
Court at Gooty, when the murders took place cannot be
doubted.
9. Mr. Madhava Reddy next contended that no reliance
should have been placed on the evidence of P.W.3 by the
learned Courts below as he was a chance witness. From the
evidence of P.W.3 we get that he hails from Anaganidoddi of
Gooty Taluk, which is about three miles away from
Brahamanpalli. He knew P.Ws. 1 and 2, the three deceased and
all the accused from before. On the fateful day he travelled
in the bus in which P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the three deceased
were also travelling and he got down at the old bus stand of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
Gooty. he claimed to have seen the occurrence while going
along the main road from the Gandhi chowk. Desari
Venkataramudu (P.W.4), who turned hostile, supported P.W.3
in this regard when he stated that he was also travelling in
the same bus and seen P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the three deceased
travelling up to Gooty. In fact this part of the evidence of
P.W.4 was not at all challenged by the defence. Another
piece of evidence which probabalises P.W.3’s claim to have
seen the occurrence is that he was examined during the
inquest held by P.W.19 on the dead bodies shortly after the
incident. If really he was not present in Gooty at or about
the time the incident took place certainly his services
could not have been requisitioned by PW 19 from his village
within such a short span for the inquest. While on this
point Mr. Madhava Reddy further contended that in the first
statement that made at the police station which was recorded
in the general diary book (Ext.P/29) by P.W.16, the Head
Constable, P.W.1 named P.W.2 but not P.W.3 which clearly
indicated that he (P.W.3) was not present at the time of
occurrence. We are not impressed by this contention of Mr.
Madhava Reddy, for the name of P.W.2 was given in the report
in the context of the fact that he was going to attend the
Court alongwith them in connection with their case and not
for identifying him as a witness who had seen the
occurrence. This part, disclosure of all details of the
incident including names of witnesses in the oral complaint
made to the police was not expected from P.W.1 at a point of
time when he had just rushed in to the Police Station for
fear of life after having seen three murders being committed
in a ghastly manner. For the foregoing discussion the claim
of P.W.3 that he had seen the occurrence cannot also be
questioned.
10. The next contention of Mr. Madhava Reddy was that even
if it was assumed that P.W.3 was a natural and probable
witness his evidence so far as it sought to connect A3 to A6
with the murder of D2 could not be relied upon for he did
not implicate them in his statement recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. Similarly, he contended, P.W.3 did not mention
in that statement that A2 had hacked the throat of the
deceased with a billhook. To appreciate these contentions of
Mr. Madhava Reddy it will be necessary to refer to the
evidence of P.W.3 so far as it relates to the murder of D2.
P.W.3 testified that after D1 fell down on being attacked by
bomb thrown by A1, D3 who was accompanying D1 went hurriedly
towards P.W.1, P.W.2 and D2. P.W.2 and D2 then went to the
left of the road and began running towards north. When they
reached a point near the flour mill of Venkata Reddy, A3 to
A6 came from the side of flour mill armed with billhooks.
P.W.2 and D2 then came back and entered into a lane towards
west. In the meantime, A1 and A2 joined A3 to A6. When D2
had run a distance of 4 or 5 yards from the road, A1 to A6
caught hold of him and he was forced to lie down and was
dragged on to a log of wood. There the neck of D2 was made
to rest on the log and A2 hacked the throat of D2 with a
billhook while A1,A3 and A6 were holding his hands. A3 to A6
also struck D2 with billhooks. P.W.1 and D3 then ran towards
the north. In cross-examination P.W.3 was confronted with
his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as
appearing in its copy furnished to the accused in compliance
with Section 207 Cr.P.C.,to bring on record that therein he
(P.W.3) omitted to mention that D2 was felled down and
dragged towards the log, that his neck was kept on the log
before A2 struck him and that A2 cut the deceased with the
billhook. P.W. 3, however, asserted that he mentioned those
facts to the police during investigation. It appears from
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
the record that while the above questions were being put to
P.W.3 the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out to the trial
Judge that the witness (P.W.3) did not omit to make the
statements pointed by the defence, as would be evident from
the original statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.R.C.
but, admitted, that those were not in the copy that was
supplied to the accused.
11. In his examination-in-chief the Investigating Officer
(P.W.19 ) brought to the notice of the Court the original
statement of P.W.3 as recorded by him (Ex.P.47) wherein
there was no such omissions to which the attention of the
witness was brought in course of his cross-examination
(referred to earlier). In cross-examination, however, he
admitted that in the copy that was forwarded to the accused
there were Those omissions. If the above evidence of P.W 19
to be believed then it must be said that there is no basis
for the contention of Mr, Madhava Reddy that P.W.3’s
evidence in Court should not be believed regarding the
actual roles played by A2 to A6 in the murder of D2 in view
of his failure to mention about it in his earlier version,
but if the copy of the statement of P.W.3 as furnished to
the accused is the correct one then the defence was
legitimately entitled to bring those material omissions on
record and rely upon the same. Mr. Madhava Reddy, however
strongly urged that Ex.P.47 was subsequently created to fill
in the lacuna of the prosecution case. Even we proceed on
the assumption that owing to P.W.3’s omission to mention the
facts to which his attention was drawn (referred to earlier)
- in his Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. his testimony
as to the manner in which D2 was assaulted by the appellants
should not be believed still, as our discussion to follow
will show, the prosecution case as against the appellants is
not affected in any way thereby.
12. It has already been found by us that the claim of the
three eye-witnesses (P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3) that they had
seen the incident cannot be distrusted. We therefore now
proceed to consider the worth of their evidence keeping in
view that P.Ws. 1 and 2 being partisan witnesses their
evidence needs to be examined with utmost care and caution
and confining our attention to the murders of D1 and D2, as
both the learned Courts below have exonerated all the
accused persons of the charges relating to the murder of D3.
After detailing the background of the incident and the
circumstances necessitating their attendance in the Court at
Gooty on the fateful day, which have been noticed earlier,
P.W.1 testified that at or about 10 A.M. when they were
proceeding along the Anantapur Kurnool Road, A1 and A2
suddenly emerged from the adjacent bushes. While A1 had a
handbag with him A2 was armed with a hunting sickle. A1
brought out three bombs from the bag, one after another, and
hurled at D1. The bombs exploded on his body and he fell
down dead. In narrating the incident further he stated that
D2 & P.W.2 then started running towards the north. When they
had reached the rice mill of Venkata Reddy, A3 to A6 came
there from the side of a Kottam armed with billhooks and
started chasing them. A1 and A2 a so joined them. For fear
of their lives D2 and P.W.2 entered into a lane but A1 to
A6 caught hold of D2 there. He was felled down and dragged
towards a log which was lying there. D2 was made to lie on
his back with his neck resting on the log and then, A1 and
A3 to A6 caught hold of him firmly and A2 struck on his
throat with a billhook and then A3 to A6 gave blows to the
deceased with billhooks regulating in his instantaneous
death. According to P.W.1, D3 had joined him in the
meantime. P.W.1 next testified about D3’s murder, (which
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
need not be reproduced for reasons mentioned earlier) and
has rushing to the police station for fear of life. P.W.1
was cross-examined at length but the defence could not
elicit anything to discredit him except that he had enmity
with the appellants. On the contrary, the report (Ext.29)
that he gave to the Head Constable within half-an-hour of
the incident, corroborates his evidence for, therein he
mentioned, that when he alongwith P.W.2 and D1 to D3 were
going to attend the Court the ten accused persons (whom he
named) came from the thorny bushes near the flour mill and
followed them, that A1 hurled bombs on D1 and that they
hacked D2 and D3 with hunting sickles and killed them.
Though all the details regarding the manner of assault were
not given the sub-stratum of the prosecution case finds
place therein. both the trial Court and the High Court
found, that besides the above report (Ext.29) the written
report that P.W.1 gave immediately thereafter to P.W.17
(P/1) - which was treated as the F.I.R.. - also corroborated
his statement. In our opinion Ex.P/1 could not be treated as
the F.I.R.. as Ex.P.29 clearly disclosed a cognizable
offence and in fact police had started investigation on its
basis. Consequently Ex. P./1 which has to be treated as a
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. could not be
used for the purpose of corroboration of the evidence of
P.W.1. However this finding of ours is of no consequence in
the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
13. The evidence of P.W.1 as to the manner in which D1 and
D2 were done to death is also corroborated by the evidence
of P.W.1 in all material particulars, including the
individual roles that were played by A2 to A6 in the murder
of D2. In cross-examination, however, it was elicited from
him that he did not mention in his statement made under
Section 161 Cr.P.C that D2 was made to lie down on the log
of wood and also did not state that A3 to A6 caught hold of
him when A2 struck him with billhook If in view of the
omissions - which, obviously are material and therefore
amount to contradictions - we proceed on the basis that the
evidence of P.W.1 as also P W 3 - about whose similar
omissions we have discussed earlier - regarding individual
roles of the appellants in the murder of D2 cannot be relied
upon still the fact remains that there is no such
contradictions so far as their testimonies seek to prove
that A3 to A6 chased D2 and P W 2 when they were rushing for
their lives, with billhooks, that A1 and A2 joined them and
that thereafter A1 to A6 caught hold of D2 and A2 assaulted
him The consistent evidence of the three eye-witnesses in
this regard, coupled with the uncontroverted fact that D2
met with his death there with a number of injuries
unmistakably proves, independent of the actual role of the
six appellants in the assaults itself, that all of them
shared the common intention to commit the murder. To put it
differently, even it is assumed that the prosecution has
failed to conclusively prove as to the actual manner in
which the appellants brought about the death of D2 still the
circumstances as appearing in the evidence of the three eye-
witnesses establishes that all of them shared the common
intention to commit the murder.
14. We next find that the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and
3 gets ample support from the medical evidence adduced
during trial. Dr. V. Chandrasekhara Reddy (P.W.13) who held
post-mortem examination upon the dead body of D2 found the
following injuries on his person:
(i). An incised injury of 3" x 1" x bone deep over the left
parietal region;
(ii). Throat cut at the level of adams apple extending to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8
the back of neck cutting larynx, oesophagus, carotid blood-
vessel and spinal column through the body of 3rd cervical
vertebra, spinal cord and muscles of neck on the back upto
the skin Head attached to the body through 3" of skin on the
back of neck with edges of the skin clean cut. Clotted blood
present in and around the injury;
(iii). Horizontal incised injury cf 4" X 3" x bone deep over
front of left should with underlying head of humerus bone
fractured;
(iv). Incised injury of 2" x 1" x skin deep over middle of
back of left thigh;
(v). Oblique incised injury 4" x 2" x bone deep over outer
side of left knee joint with lateral condyle of femur bone
fractured;
(vi). Abrasion of 6" x 2mm over back of chest on left side;
(vii). Abrasion of 1" x 1.2" over front of right leg 6"
below knee joint;
(viii). Incised injury of 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep over inner
side of left thumb;
(ix). Incised injury of 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep over palmer
side of middle phalange of right middle finger; and
(x). Incised injury of i/2" x 1/4" x skin deep over upper
inter phalangial crease of the left ring finger with clotted
blood present in and around;
He opined that injury No.2 (which according to the
prosecution was caused by A2) could have been caused by by a
sharp edged weapon like billhook and injury Nos. 6 and 7
sharp edged weapon like hunting sickle.
16. Dr. T. Parhathamma (P.W.14), who held post-mortem
examination on the dead body of D1 testified that he found
the following injuries:
(i) Lacerated injury on right eye-brow 1" x 1/2" x bone
deep transverse;
(ii). Laceration on the left eye brow in the middle verticle
1" x i" bone deep;
(iii). Laceration on left side of lower lip 1.1/4" x 1" x
1/4;
(iv). Laceration on the left ulna 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep;
(v). Laceration on the chin 1.1/2" x 1/2’ x bone deep;
(vi). Laceration on the middle of back at the level of T-8
to L.2 on the vertebra 6" x 3.1/2" x bone deep with clotted
blood in tissues; and
(vii). Laceration 1/2" lateral to the above injury on left
side 2" x 1" skin deep. P.W.14 found the surrounding skin of
all the above injuries blackened.
On dissection of the above injuries he found fractures
of orbital plate of frontal bone, mandible maxillae on
either side of nose, T.9 and T.10 vertebral rami on both
sides, 9th and 10th on the right side, 9th, 10th and 11th
ribs on the left side and skull bone. He opined that the
injuries could have been caused by the explosion of country
made bombs.
15. On a conspectus of the evidence of the eye-witnesses,
particularly that of P.W.3 who is an independent witness,
the evidence of the above two doctors and other surrounding
circumstances we fully agree with the conclusions arrived at
by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The appeal is,
therefore, dismissed. The appellants, who are on bail, will
now surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the sentence.