(PW-2) and Karan Singh (PW-3) and the site plan (Exhibit P-4), they would submit that none could have seen the incident from the place they were shown to be present at the time of incident and their testimony is not creditworthy. They further submit that as per the postmortem report (Exhibit P-50), the deceased-Shri Vikram has received three injuries; all with sharp edged weapon but, except the co-accused Dinesh, none has used any sharp edged weapon. They further submit that although, it is alleged that the applicant-Shibba @ Shiv Kumar inflicted a Farsa (a sharp edged weapon) blow on the hand of the deceased but, a stick has been recovered at his instance. They further submit that although, it is the prosecution case that all the accused-persons comprising of thirteen in number inflicted blows with sharp edged/blunt weapon on the person of deceased but, as is reflected from the postmortem report, he has received only three injuries making it a case of false and over-implication. They also submit that while, the co-accused Dinesh, against whom allegation is of inflicting the fatal blow, has been convicted under Section 302 IPC simplicitor, the applicants have been convicted under Section 302 IPC with the add of Section 149 IPC. Lastly, they submit that the applicants were on bail during the trial with absence of allegation of misusing their liberty, hearing of the appeals is likely to take time and pray for suspension of substantive sentence awarded to them.
