SATBIR @ LAKHAversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                    [2012] 9 S.C.R. 675


                    SATBIR @ LAKHA                            A
                             v.
                  STATE OF HARYANA
           (Criminal Appeal No. 1718 of 2009)

                   OCTOBER 18, 2012
                                                               B
    [SWATANTER KUMAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
            IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 307 and 324 rlw 34 - Attempt to
murder - Voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapon or C
means - Common intention - A-2 was responsible for
collection and spending of the donation amount for
celebration of the temple festival - Members of the
complainant party who were also involved in the said
celebration felt that entirety of the donation amount collected D
should be spent out and it should not go to the personal
benefit of any one individual with whom the collection was
entrusted - Quarrel ensued between the complainant party and
the accused party led by A-2 which allegedly led to an armed
assault by the accused party - Knife injuries caused to PW5- E
complainant and two others PWs 6 and 7 - Courts below
acquitted A-3 but convicted A-1 u/s.307 and 324 and A-2 and
A-4 u/ss. 307 and 324 rlw s.34 - Conviction of A-2 under
challenge before Supreme Court - Held: Apparently appellant!
A-2 was enraged by the questioning of his authority about the F
collection made and the balance amount available with him,
and feeling insulted he threw a challenge to the complainant
party which ended in the fateful occurrence - No fault in the
action of injured witnesses in throwing brickbats which caused
some minor injuries on the appellant!A-2 and the other G
accused - It is quite natural that when the injured witnesses
were attacked and A-1 had come there with a knife by which
he caused the injuries and the remaining accused other than
A-3 aided him to cause such injuries which intention was
                             675                               H
    676     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A gathered at the moment of the occurrence, the injured
  witnesses made every attempt to save themselves by throwing
  brickbats available on the road - On overall consideration of
  the evidence available on record- ocular as well as
  documentary, it is clear that the conviction of appel/ant/A-2
B under ss. 307, 324 rlw 34 was justified.
       The appellant/A-2 and A-3 were in charge of the
  collection of donations for celebration of the religious/
  temple festival 'Ravi Dass Jayanti'. After the celebration
  was over, members of the complainant party questioned
C about the donation collected by the appellant/A-2 and A-
  3, the amounts spent for the celebration and demanded
  for spending the balance amount for the benefit of the
  temple.

D         It is the case of the prosecution that the accused
  · party was enraged by the same and subsequently, one
    evening, when PW-5(complainant), PWs 6 and 7 along
    with others were assembled in a tailor shop, the accused
    party led by the appellant/A-2 questioned the authority of
E the complainant party in having raised an issue about the
    balance amount collected by way of donation; that
    thereafter quarrel er:isued between the complainant party
   and the accused party and in the course thereof, A-1
    inflicted knife injuries first on PW-5 and thereafter on PW-
F 6 and PW-7 after their mobility was restricted by the other
   accused.

       The trial Court acquitted A-3, however, as far as the
  other three accused, it held that on their part there was a
  pre-meditated intention in common to injure the members
G of the complainant party with a weapon, and therefore
  convicted them - A-1 under Sections 307 and 324 IPC;
  and the appellant/A-2 and A-4 under Sections 307 and 324
  r/w 34 IPC. In appeal, the conviction of A-1, appellant/A-2
  and A-4 was confirmed by the High Court. The appellant/
H
     SATBIR @ LAKHA v. STATE OF HARYANA               677


A-2 challenged his conviction before this Court by filing    A
the instant appeal.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1. The trial Court rightly ventured to examine
which party was the real aggressor in order to find out      B
whether the fault lay on the appellant party or the
complainants. While examining the said issue, the trial
Court made an honest attempt and noted certain
important features. No contra evidence or material was
placed before the Court to take a different view than what   C
was held by the trial Court. [Paras 12, 13 and 14] [685-8-
C; 687-E-F]

     2. Though it was claimed that the knife injury
sustained by the appellant/A-2 was at the hands of PW6, 0
it was for the appellant/A-2 to have led necessary
evidence in support of the said claim. Except the ipse dixit
of the appellant/A-2 throwing the blame on PW-6, there
was nothing on record to support the said stand. On the
other hand it has come out in evidence that the E
responsibility of collecting the donations was entrusted
to the appellant/A-2 and the said stand of the prosecution
was not in dispute. The happening of occurrence in
question over the issue relating to collection of donation,
the available balance of such collection and the
suggestion of one of the members of the complaining F
party to use the said available balance amount for the
benefit of the temple were never disputed. If that be so,
when indisputably the appellant/A-2 was responsible for
the collection and the spending of the donation amount
for the temple celebrations, it was quite natural that the G
complainant and the accused party who were
youngsters and who were stated to be fully involved in
the celebrations of the Temple festival felt that entirety of
the donation amount collected should be spent out and
it should not go to the personal benefit of any one H
    678     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A individual with whom the collection was entrusted.
   Apparently the appellant/A-2 who was enraged by the
  questioning of his authority about the collection made
  and the balance amount available with him, felt insulted
  who apparently threw a challenge to the complaining
B party which unfortunately ended in the fateful occurrence
  of causing injuries on PWs-5,6 and 7 who had to
  ultimately face the wrath of the appellant/A-2 and his
  supporters. Apart from the simple knife injuries sustained
  by appellant/A-2 and A-4, the other injuries were
C admittedly by a blunt weapon which could have been
  caused by the throwing of the brickbats at the instance
  of injured witnesses which was also admitted. It is quite
  natural that when the injured witnesses were attacked
  and A-1 had come there with a knife by which he caused
  the injuries and the other accused other than A-3 aided
0
  him to cause such injuries which intention was gathered
  at the moment of the occurrence, the injured witnesses
  could have made every attempt to save themselves by
  throwing brickbats which would have been available on
  the road against the accused in order to save themselves
E from any further attack. Therefore, no fault can be found
  with the said action of the injured witnesses which would
  have caused some minor injuries on the appellant/A-2
  and the other accused. [Para 15] [687-G-H; 688-A-H; 689-
    A]
F
       3. Taking an overall consideration of the evidence
  available on record both ocular as well as documentary,
  the reasoning of the trial Court as well as that of the High
  Court, it is clear that the conviction and sentence
G imposed on the appellant/A-2 for the offences under
  Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 IPC was fully
  made out and there are no good grounds to interfere with
  the same. [Para 16] [689-B-C]

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
H No. 1718 of 2009.
     SATBIR@ LAKHA v. STATE OF HARYANA                     679


    From the Judgment & Order dated 30.04.2009 of the High        A
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chadigarh in Crl. Appeal No.
488-SB of 1995.

    Rishi Malhotra for the Appellant.

    Abhishek Kr. Singh, Anubha Agarwal, Kamal Mohan               B
Gupta for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. The C
second accused is the appellant before us. The challenge is
to the common judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos.488-SB/1995 and 580-
SB/1995 dated 30.04.2009. By the impugned judgment,
learned Single Judge of the High Court confirmed the conviction D
and sentence imposed on all the accused: The facts relating
to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that on 18.02.1992,
Ravi Dass Jayanti was being celebrated in the village Saniana
from donations collected from public. One Joginder Singh
asked the appellant and Dalbir to spend the excess amount for
the upkeep of the temple. At about 8 p.m. on that day, one E
Subhash s/o Nafe Singh (complainant), Jasbir Singh (PW-7),
Kashmir Singh (PW-6), Joginder Singh and Surender Singh
were present in the shop of one Kitab Singh, a tailor master.
At that point of time, accused came to the spot and the
appellant stated to have questioned Subhash (complainant) and F
others as to on what authority they were demanding for the
accounts of the donation collections. When exchange of words
took place between the complainant party and the accused
party, the tailor Kitab Singh asked them not to indulge in such
quarrel inside his shop and to get out of the shop. Thereafter G
all of them went out and came down to the public street and in
the course of their continued quarrel, the first accused also by
name Subhash s/o Ram Kumar stated to have inflicted a knife
blow on the back of the complainant Subhash s/o Nafe Singh
 (PW-5) while Ram Das (A-4) caught hold of Kashmir Singh and H
    680      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A   Dalbir Singh (A-3) caught hold of one Joginder Singh. Accused
    No.1, Subhash s/o Ram Kumar stated to have inflicted knife
    injuries to Jasbir Singh and Kashmir Singh. The tailor master
    Kitab Singh, Surender Singh and Joginder Singh tried to pacify
    both the groups and in that process Surender Singh also stated
B   to have suffered knife injuries.

       2. According to the complainant party, by way of private
  defence, they threw brickbats on the accused and that the
  accused stated to have fled away from the scene of
  occurrence. It was specifically alleged that two of the accused,
C namely, the appellant and Ram Das (A-4) also received injuries
  at the hands of Subhash s/o Ram Kumar (A-1) while he was
  giving knife blows to Jasbir Singh and Kashmir Singh PWs-6
  and 7 respectively. The injured complainants stated to have
  gone to CHC Uklana in the vehicle belonging to one Baldev
D Singh where Subhash s/o Nate Singh was admitted and given
  treatment while PWs-6 and 7, namely, Kashmir Singh and
  Jasbir Singh were referred to civil hospital, Hisar as the injuries
  sustained by them were serious injuries. Surender Singh stated
  to have gone to CHC Uklana, Saniana on the next day where
E he was also given treatment.

       3. On receipt of the memo from the hospital, the sub-
  Inspector L.R. Sharma, PW-9 recorded the statement of
  Subhash s/o Nafe Singh pursuant to which the case was
F registered under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
  Subsequently, after the receipt of report from the G.H., Hisar
  of the injuries sustained by Kashmir Singh PW-6, which were
  noted as serious injuries and were dangerous to life, the offence
  under Section 307 IPC was also added. PW-9 stated to have
G recovered a knife from the possession of Subhash s/o Ram
  Kumar (A-1) based on his disclosure statement. Since the said
  knife was a spring actuated knife, a separate case under the
  Arms Act was also registered against him.

          4. Based on the investigation and after its conclusion the
H   final report was lodged and a specific charge under section
      SATBIR@ LAKHA v. STATE OF HARYANA                   681
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
307, IPC was framed against the first accused Subhash s/o         A
Ram Kumar and a charge under Section 307 read with Section
34 IPC was framed against the appellant Dalbir (A-3) and Ram
Das (A-4). A charge under Section 323 IPC read with Section
34 IPC was made against all the accused persons. PW-1 was
the doctor J.S. Bhatia who was examined to prove the X-ray        B
report Exhibits PD and PE relating to PWs-6 and 7 Kashmir
Singh and Jasbir Singh respectively. As per the said Exhibit,
it was stated that air was found under the diaphragm of both
the injured. PW-2 Dr. Sukhdev proved the MLRs Ex.PF and
Exhibit PG of Subhash s/o Nate Singh and Surender Singh           c
respectively. He found one incised wound on the back of
Subhash s/o Nate Singh and two incised wounds near the chest
and two simple injuries of blunt weapon on the person of
Surender Singh. He also proved in cross-examination the MLRs
Exhibit DA, of Satbir, Exhibit DE of Dalbir and also deposed      D
about the injuries of Ram Das. He found one incised wound
on the back of Satbir sfngh and one incised wound on the back
of Ram Das. Two injuries on the person of Satbir, two injuries
on 1he person of Dalbir and one injury on the person of Ram
Das were found to be simple injuries caused with blunt            E
weapons. PW.3 Dr. C.R. Garg proved the MLRs Exhibit PL and
Exhibit P.M. according to which five injuries caused with sharp
edged weapon, one of which consisted of two incised wounds,
were found on the person of Kashmir Singh and two incised
wounds were found on the person of Jasbir Singh. Injury No.5
on the person of Kashmir Singh which consisted of two incised     F
wound in the left axillary midline was declared to be dangerous
to life.

     5. PW-8 Ram Niwas was a Panch witness who.confirmed
Exhibit PS, the disclosure statement made by Subhash (A-1)        G
about the concealment of knife and the recovery memo Exhibit
PS/2 at his instance pursuant to which the knife was taken into
possession. The recovery of knife Exhibit PS/2 based on the
disclosure statement Of Subhash was produced to support the
case of the prosecution that A-1 caused the knife injuries on     H
    682      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A PW6 Jasbir. Exhibit PY and PY/1 were the reports of FSL and
  Serologist marked in the trial Court. In the 313 questioning,
  while the first accused denied his involvement in the offence,
  the other accused took up the defence that it was Kashmir
  Singh who gave knife blows to the appellant and Ram Das (A-
B 4) while complainant-Subhash, Joginder Singh and Surender
  threw brickbats at the accused while Jasbir Singh (PW-7)
  alleged to have caught hold of Ram Das A-4. The trial Court
  recorded that no evidence was led on the defence side.

       6. The trial Court, on a detailed analysis of the entire
C evidence and after making a thorough discussion of the
  respective contentions made on behalf of the accused
  including that of the appellant found that no offence was made
  out as against Dalbir Singh (A-3) inasmuch as he did not
  effectively participate in the occurrence and the knife blows
D were inflicted by A-1 Subhash s/o Ram Kumar to the members
  of the complainant party. The trial Court also found that the
  allegation that Dalbir Singh (A-3) caught hold of Joginder to
  whom A-1 alleged to have inflicted the knife injuries was not
  proved inasmuch as no injury was found on the person of
E Joginder Singh. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted Dalbir
  Singh (A-3).

        7. As far as others were concerned, the trial Court reached
  the conclusion that the accused party were the aggressors, that
F it was the appellant who was responsible for the aggression
  and that there was a pre-meditated intention in common to
  injure the complainant party with the weapon, such common
  intention was deliberately displayed in the course of committing
  the crime and, therefore, the accused No.1- Subhash s/o Ram
G Kumar, A-2, Satbir @ Lakha and Ram Das (A-4) were found
  guilty of the offence alleged against them.

       8. The trial Court, therefor::i, imposed the sentence of three
  years' rigorous imprisonment on the appellant and Ram Das
  (A-4) for the offence under Sectioo 307 read with Section 34
H IPC along with fine of Rs. 1000/- and also rigorous
      SATBIR @ LAKHA v. STATE OF HARYANA                     683
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
imprisonment of 1 ~ years each for the offence under Section        A
324 read with Section 34 IPC. The sentences awarded to the
accused under different sections were directed to run
concurrently and in default of payment of fine each of the
accused were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three months each. As far as A-1 was concerned, he        B
was imposed with a rigorous imprisonment for a period of four
years along with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 307 IPC and
rigorous imprisonment of two years for the offence under
Section 324 IPC, in default of payment of fine he was to under
go default sentence of three months.                                c
     9. The appellant along with Ram Das preferred Criminal
Appeal No.488-SB/1995 while A-1 Subhash s/o Ram Kumar
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 580-SB/1995 and by the
common order impugned in this appeal, the learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh           D
confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellant as well as the other convicted accused persons. The
appellant has come forward with this appeal against that order
of the High Court.
                                                                    E
      10. We heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel for the State. We also perused
the judgment of the trial Court as well as the High Court and all
other material papers placed before us. In the course of his
submissions, counsel for the appellant contended that the           F
injuries sustained by the appellant on his back which were three
in number as proved by examination of the concerned doctor,
and having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by him the
theory of such injuries sustained by him at the hands of A-4
ought not have been accepted. It was contended that there was       G
nothing in evidence to show that the appellant was aware of
the possession of knife by A-1, that the role attributed to the
appellant was holding of Jasbir Singh (PW-7) and that there
was no clinching evidence to show that he shared the common
intention with A-1 or other accused in the infliction of injuries
                                                                    H
    684     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A   on the complainant party. The learned counsel lastly contended
    that the appellant has suffered six months behind the bars and
    the imposition of three years sentence was on the higher side.

         11. As against the above submissions, learned counsel for
  the State after referring to the evidence of PWs-5, 6 and 7 as
8
  well as that of the doctor (PW-3) who testified the medical
  report Exhibit PL of PW-6 Kashmir Singh which disclosed that
  the incised wound in the left axillary midline was declared to
  be a dangerous one to the life of PW-6 and the evidence which
C was elaborately led before the trial Court disclose that but for
  the overt act of the appellant in having held PW-6, there would
  have been no scope for A-1 Subhash s/o ~am Kumar to have
  inflicted the said serious injury. The learned counsel contended
  that the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant was
  well justified and the same does not call for interference.
D
        12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective
  parties and having perused the judgments of the courts below
  we are also convinced and find force in the submission of
  learned counsel for the State. At the very outset, it will have to
E be stated that the occurrence has happened on 18.02.1992/
  19.02.1992 was not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the
  appellant and Dalbir A-3 were in charge of the collection of
  donations for the celebrations of Ravi Dass Jayanti on
  18.02.1992. There was an uncontroverted version of the
F prosecution side that after the celebration was over, there was
  a suggestion to the appellant and other accused party to spend
  the balance amount for the benefit of the temple. It is the case
  of the prosecution that enraged by the questioning by the
  members of the complainant party about the donation collected
G by the appellant and A-3, the amounts spent for the celebration
  and demand for spending the balance amount for the benefit
  of the temple, on the evening of 19.02.1992 at 8 p.m. when
  PWs-5, 6 ar:id 7 along with others were assembled in the tailor
  shop of one Kitab Singh, the accused party led by the appellant
H questioned the authority of the complainant party in having
      SATBIR @ LAKHA v. STATE OF HARYANA                      685
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
raised an issue abput the availability of the balance amount          A
collected by way of donation. The said fact about the quarrel
relating to the said issue is also not in dispute. The further fact
relating to the injuries sustained in that occurrence both by the
complainant party as well as the accused is also not in dispute.
Therefore, the trial Court rightly ventured to examine to find out    8
which party was the real aggressor in order to find out whether
the fault lie on the appellant party or the complainants.

    13. While examining the said issue, the trial Court made
an honest attempt and noted certain important features namely:
                                                                      c
      a)    That PWs 5, 6 and 7 gave a detailed and
            convincing version of the prosecution story.

      b)    Their version amply proved their presence as well
            as the presence of accused at the place of
                                                                      D
            occurrence on 19.02.1992.

      c)    As per the direction of the tailor Kitab Singh when
            both the groups came out of his shop to the street,
            A-1 Subhash s/o Ram Kumar wielded a knife and
            started inflicting injuries first on Subhash s/o Nafe     E
            Singh (PW-5) and thereafter on Kashmir Singh
            (PW-6) and Jasbir Singh (PW-7) whose mobility
            was restricted at the instance of the appellant and
            Ram Das (A-4).
                                                                      F
      d)    Though Dalbir Singh (A-3) stated to have held
            Joginder Singh no injury was found on the body of
            Joginder Singh.

      e)    In the scuffle appellant and Ram Das (A-4) also
            received injuries at the hands of Subhash Singh s/        G
            o Ram Kumar (A-1).

      f)    Admittedly the injured witnesses threw brickbats by
            way of self-defence against the accused.
                                                                      H
    686        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A         g)    The medical evidence through Dr. C.R. Garg (PW-
                3) disclosed five incised wounds on the person of
                Kashmir Singh (PW-6) and two incised wounds on
                the person of Jasbir Singh (PW-7).

          h)    The injury No.5 on the person of Kashmir Singh
B               PW-6 consisted of two incised wounds in the left
                axillary midline which was deylared to be
                dangerous to life by PW-3, the doctor who
                examined him.

c         i)    The X-ray examination of the injury sustained by
                Jasbir Singh (PW-7) as well as Kashmir Singh
                (PW-6) disclosed that air was found in the-
                diaphragm of each of the injured as per the version
                of PW-1, Dr. J.S. Bhatia.
D
          j)    The causing of knife injuries on the person of PWs-
                5, 6 and 7 was at the instance of Subhash s/o Ram
                Kumar (A-1) and the appellant and that the injury in
                the body of Jasbir Singh was by virtue of the overt
                act of the appellant in having made him immobile
E               which facilitated Subhash Singh s/o Ram Kumar
                (A-1) to inflict the injuries on him.

          k)    Similar overt act was attributed to Ram Das (A-4)
                which caused severe injuries on Kashmir Singh
F               (PW-6).

          I)    The injury sustained by appellant and Ram Das was
                also at the instance of A-1 Subhash s/o of Ram
                Kumar only as stated by prosecution witnesses.
G         m)    While the injuries sustained by PW-5 Subhash s/o
                Nafe Singh, PW-6 Kashmir Singh and PW-7 Jasbir
                Singh were severe, some of the injuries sustained
                by PWs-6-7 were proved to be serious in nature.

H         n)    The injuries sustained by the accused party
       SATBIR@ LAKHA v. STATE.OF HARYANA                     687
     [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHiM KALIFULLA, J.)
            including that of the appellant were minor in           A
            character.

      o)    The very fact that immediately after the aggression
            started the appellant and other accused namely, A-
            3 and A-4 caught hold of PWs-6, 7 and Surender          8
            Singh while A-1 Subhash s/o Ram Kumar inflicted
            the injuries on the witnesses made it clear that the
            common intention was formulated then and there to
            indulge in the crime, though there would not have
            been a pre-meditation or any conspiracy on the part     C
            of the accused.

      p)    Having regard to the serious and dangerous injuries
            suffered by PW-6 Kashmir Singh, as well as the
            other injuries sustained by all the three of them
            namely, PWs-5 6 and 7, offence falling under            D
            Sections 307,323 and 324 IPC read with Section
            34 IPC was made out.

     14. When we consider the above conclusion of the trial
Court, which was also affirmed by the learned Judge of the High
                                                                    E
Court, we find that there was no contra evidence or material
placed before the Court to take a different view than what has
been held by the trial Court. Though in the 313 questioning on
behalf of the appellant and other accused other than A-1, it was
contended that Kashmir Singh (PW-6) only gave knife blows
                                                                    F
to the appellant and Ramdas (A-4) while Subhash s/o Nafe
Singh (PW-5) and Joginder along with Surender threw
brickbats and that Jasbir Singh (PW-7) caught hold of Ram Das
(A-4), as rightly noted by the trial Court no evidence was led in
support of the said stand.
                                                                    G
     15. Though it was claimed that the knife injury sustained
by the appellant was at the hands of Kashmir Singh, it was for
the appellant to have led necessary evidence in support of the
said claim. Except the ipse dixit of the appellant throwing the
blame on PW-6 Kashmir Singh, there was nothing on record            H
    688     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A to support the said stand. On the other hand it has come out in
  evidence· that the responsibility of colleting the donations was
  entrusted to the appellant and the said stand of the prosecution
  was not in dispute. As stated earlier the happening of
  occurrence on 19.02.1992 at 8 p.m. over the issue relating to
s collection of donation, the available balance of such collection
  and the suggestion of one of the members. of the complaining·
  party to use the said available balance amount for the benefit
  of the temple were never disputed. If that be so, when
  indisputably the appellant was responsible for the collection and
c the spending of the donation amount for the temple celebrations,
  it was quite natural that the complainant and the accused party
  who were youngsters and who were stated to be fully involved
  in the celebrations of the Temple festival felt that entirety of the
  donation amount collected should be spent out and it should
  not go to the personal benefit of any one individual with whom
0
  the collection was entrusted. Apparently the appellant who was
  enraged by the questioning of his authority about the collection
  made and the balance amount available with him, felt insulted
  who apparently threw a challenge to the complaining party on
E 19.02.1992 at 8 p.m. which unfortunately ended in the fateful
  occurrence of causing injuries on PWs-5,6 and 7 who had to
  ultimately face the wrath of the appellant and his supporters.
  Apart from the simple knife injuries sustained by appellant and
  A-4 Ram Das, the other injuries were admittedly by a blunt
  weapon which could have been caused by the throwing of the
F briQkbats at the instance of injured witnesses which was also
  admitted. It is quite natural that when the injured witnesses were
  attacked and A-1 had come there with a knife by which he
  caused the injuries and the other accused other than A-3 aided
  him to cause such injuries which intention was gathered at the
G moment of the occurrence, the injured witnesses could have
  made every attempt to save themselves by throwing brickbats
  which would have been available on the road against the
  accused in order to save themselves from any further attack.
  Therefore, no fault can be found with the said action of the
H
       SAT81R @ LAKHA v. STATE OF HARYANA                   689
     [FAKKIR MOHAMED 18RAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)

injured witnesses which would have caused some minor injuries       A
on the appellant and the other accused.

     16. Taking an overall consideration of the evidence
available on record both ocular as well as documentary the
reasoning of the trial Court as well as that of the High Court we   8
are also convinced that the conviction and sentence imposed
on the appellant for the offences under Sections 307, 324 read
with Section 34 IPC was fully made out and we do not find any
good grounds to interfere with the same. The appeal fails and
the same is dismissed.
                                                                    c
    17. The appellant is on bail. The bail bond stands cancelled
and he shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the
remaining part of sentence, if any.

8.8.8.                                      Appeal dismissed.       D