(2) The prosecution story reveals that the deceased Amru along with the complainant Babu Adiwasi (PW-1), Ramesh (PW-3) and Paatiram (PW-2) on 26.09.2007 while coming back from the village market met the appellants near the agricultural field where soyabeen was sown.That appellant Balveer was 2 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08 carrying lathi whereas Harnam alias Harinarayan Sahu was carrying "sariya" (iron rod).That Amru asked for the wages on behalf of his wife, who had worked in Balveer's field, whereon Balveer got infuriated and inflicted blows with lathi.That when Babu (PW-1), Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) interfered, they were also given beating with lathi and saria by both the appellants.As a result whereof, Amru succumbed to the injuries whereas Babu (PW-1), Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) who sustained injuries.While running away from the place fell on their way.The complaint lodged by Babu (PW-1) was registered as Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/24) on the basis whereof FIR (Ex. P/25) was registered.Police party was deployed.Investigation was set in motion.Spot maps and inquest were prepared (Ex. P/12, P- 13, P/14).(23.09.2017) Per Justice Sanjay Yadav:These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31.07.2008 passed in Special Case No. 14/2008, whereby the appellants having been found guilty of the offences under Sections 302, 326/34 of IPC were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for causing murder of Amru and five years sentence for causing grievous injuries to Ramesh (PW-3) and Paatiram (PW-2).The body of Amru was sent for postmortem.The postmortem was conducted by Dr. S.K. Shainde (PW-9), who gave the report Ex. P/11, wherein following injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased:-2 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08External Injury - Lacerated wound 4x2x1 cm left temporal region.Lacerated wound 2x2x1 cm above upper lib with and compound fracture of upper jaw with loose of incise and canine tooth.Lacerated wound above left eyebrow with compound fracture of left orbite and laceration of left eye wall.(2x2x1 cm size)."(3) As per doctor's opinion, the cause of death was coma due to head injury.(4) The injuries on Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) were examined by Dr. S.K. Shainde (PW-9).As per Ex. P/8 following injuries were found on the body of Paatiram (PW-2):-"1. incise wound 4x2x1 cm right side chin.2. incise wound 2x1x1 cm right side 3 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08 mouth3 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/083. incise wound 2x1x1 cm lateral to right eye.4. incise wound 3x2x1 cm right side vertexincise wound 2x1x1 cm let side chin6. incise wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm lateral to left eye."And vide Ex. P/9, Ramesh (PW-3) was found having sustained following injuries:-"1. incise wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm above right eyebrow.2. incise wound 2x1x1/2 cm above left eyebrow.3. incise wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm upper lib.4. incise wound 2x1x1/2 cm back of head.swelling and contusion on doram of left hand."(5) The accused were arrested.After necessary investigation charge-sheet was filed.The case was committed for trial.Appellants abjured their guilt and stated that they are falsely implicated.(6) Prosecution examined 12 witnesses, out of these Babu (PW-1), Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) were examined as the eyewitnesses, the doctor who conducted the postmortem and examined the injured victims was examined as Dr. S.K. Shainde (PW-9).(7) The defence that as the incident is of night and the police has not seized the articles said to have been purchased by the victims from the market, therefore, there was the possibility that victims were looted by unknown persons and the accused are falsely implicated was discarded by the trial Court on the findings that the assailants, i.e., accused persons and the victims were the residents of same village and were known to each other.And the eyewitness's count corroborated with the 4 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08 medical evidence cannot be discarded merely because the police had not seized the articles said to have been purchased by the victims from the market.4 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08(8) The trial Court also discarded the contention of sudden fight and that the incident could be brought within exception four of Section 300 of IPC by taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased.The trial Court found that both the accused were sharing common object, therefore, the accused Harinarayan does not get any benefit of having not inflicted any injury to the deceased Amru.(10) Consequently, the trial Court held both the accused persons guilty of causing murder of Amru and grievous and simple injuries to Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) and convicted and sentenced them for life and 5 years' and one year's respectively with fine of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,500/- and Rs.500/- each.(11) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.(12) It is first contended on behalf of the appellants that non-seizure of any article of food or vegetable said to be purchased by the victims by the police from the spot from where they collected the blood stained earth creates a doubt to the entire story by the police.Babu (PW-1) who is the complainant in his cross-examination in paragraph 5 stated that the "Potli" in which they were carrying the vegetable and grocery fell at the place of occurrence of crime.He stated that:-^^5- ------eSa vkSj ve: nksuksa gh viuk [kjhnk x;k lkeku vius&vius lkFk iksVyh esa cka/kdj yk jgs FksA ve:5 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08But with the demand raised, the appellants got infuriated and inflicted multiple blows on the deceased and the persons accompanying him, viz Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3).

Cited provisions: Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code