HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminai Appeal No.600 of 2001 APPELLANTS: Sadhe Rawm‘ & o’rhers ’ (In Jail) -Ver'sus— RESPONDENT: STm‘e of Chhm‘fisgar‘h Criminal Appeal No.681 of 2001 i 4 Crimina! Appeal No.1031 of 2002 & Criminol Appeal No.1097 of 2002 APPELLANT: . ’Romcharan (In Jail) RESPONDENT: STaTe of Chha'r'l'isgor'h -Versus- JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATIOI‘. “ l Sdl- DmENDRA MISHRAJ Judge 12—2—2008 V Sdl- * \ 1 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P. SHARMA T. P. Sharma 1‘ Judge 1 l7-2—2008 ‘ C3 POST FOR JUDGMENT ON W.“ FEBRUARY, 2008 T Sd/— ‘ DHmENDRA MIsHRA Judge h r APPELLANTS: 2 Dhaniram Dewangan & oTher's (In Jail) —Versus- REsPONDEN‘T? _ r STaTe of Chha‘rfisgarh APPELLANTS: No’rhumm .& others (In Jail) . -Versus— RESPONDENT: Sfo’re of Chho’rfisgor‘h Page 1 of 18 @ HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'IISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON. MR. DHIRENDRA MISHRA & HON. MR. T.P. SHARMA, JJ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.6OO of 2001 _A_ppéllan1’s 1. Sadhe Rawaf, S/o Jailal Rawaf, aged abou‘r (In Jail) 38 year's, 2. San‘rram SaTnami, S/o Ramnafh Sa‘mami, aged abou’r 72 years, ‘ 3. Bishur', S/o Runu Udia, aged abou’r 25 1 year's, n E k 4. Dhur'ua Nai, S/o Kshun Nai, aged abauf 42 year-s, 5: Dhanau Chandrakar, S/o Kishun Chandrakar, aged abou’r 50 year's, 6. J'e‘ru, S/o Bishal Dewangan aged abouT 36 year's, 7. Buddhu Rawaf, S/o Baisakhu Rawaf, aged abou’r 55 year's, 8. Khorbahara Dewangan, S/o Jhadur‘am Dewangan, aged abouT 37 years, J 9. shivprasad Dewangan, Phool Singh Dewangan, aged abou'r 65 years, 10. Dukalu Rawa‘r, S/o Ramsingh Rawa'r, aged abou’r 22 years, 11. Parasram Sahu, S/o Jagafr'am Sahu, aged abouf 36 year‘s, 12. Khedu Dewangan, S/o Bishal Dewangan, aged abouT 3O years, 13. Chhanulal, S/o Manglu Nai, aged about 22 years, 14. Chamra Sahu, S/o Dheerpal Sahu, aged abouf 42 years, 15. Sunderlal, 5/0 Gopi Sahu, aged abou‘r 5O years, 16. >Bagus Dewangan, S/o Chai’rram Dewangan, aged abouf 4O years, 17. Parghania Dewangan, S/o Subhan Dewangan, aged about 55 years, 18. Geeyan Kos’ra, S/o Shiv Charan Kos1'a, aged about 42 years, Shankarlal Sharma, S/o Harakhram Sharma, aged about 35 years, Guhar'm Dewangan S/o Sukhr‘a Dewangan 20. aged abou‘r 4O year's 21. 22. Laxmmamyan Dewangan, S/o Dhema Dewangan, aged abou’r 25 years, Ramcharan Chandrakar‘ (Kurmi), 5/0 Dhanau Kurmi, aged 32 year's, 23. aged about 25 year's, 24. 25. Page 2 of 18 Radhe Rawa’r, 5/6 Jailal Alias Peesa Rawa’r, Ramadheen Dewangan, 5/0 Chai’rram Dewangan, aged abouf 42 years, Hiyaram Dewangan, 5/0 Shiv Charan Dewangan‘ aged abouf 47 year's, Baisakhu éoud, S/o Mayaram Goud, aged about 32 year's, Safr‘ughan Marar S/o Dudru Marar, aged abou? 28 year's Samaru Kewa’r S/o Ashwa Kewa’r aged abou’r 4O years 29. 45 years 30. 26. 28. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. LaTeI Kewa’r S/o Ashwa KewaT aged abou’r Mohan Kewa’r S/o Thukel KewaT aged abouf 22 years Sa’rruhan Gada, S/o Khorbahra Gada, aged abou’r 22 years, Brij Singh, S/o Nahur Singh Goud, aged abou’r 4O years, Dhanwar Sahu, S/o Keju Sah‘u, aged abouT 39 years, Tahal Sahu, S/o about 46 years, Bhara’r Sahu, S/o Tahalram Sahu, abouf 28 years, Chamru Sahu, S/o Dheerpal Sahu, abou‘r 35 years, 37. about 4O years, 38. 39. 40. 41. aged Dasraf Goad, S/o Budhuram Goud, aged Makhan Dewangan, S/o Kema Dewangan, aged abouf 4O years, Mangeldas SaTnami S/o Balu Sa‘rnami, aged abouf 5O years, Pawan Sa‘rnami, 5/0 Mangeldas Sa‘rnami, aged abouf 20 years, Jaldhar Udia, S/o Kubhu Udia, aged about 5O years, Bharoshi ahu, aged S aged , h Page 3 of 18 42. Birij Sa’mami, S/o Bhondu Sa’mami, aged abou‘r 35 year's, 43. San’r Kumar, 5/0 Ramna'rh Safnami, aged abouf 24 year‘s, 44. Bhuwan Sahu, S/o Keju Sahu, aged abou‘r 24 years. 45. Harakh, S/o Jagmohan Sharma, aged qbou’r 55 years. The appellants named above are R/o Karmandi, P.$. Palari, DisT’r. Raipur (6.6.) VERSUS S’ra’re of Chhaf’risgarh CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.681 OF 2001 Non-Appellant CRIMINAI; APPEAL NO.1031 OF. 2002 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1097 OF 2002 & APPELLANT (In Jail) 1. Nafhuram, s/o Kalana’rh Sahu aged 25 yrs. [Accused No.10] 2. Kheeram s/o Ram Tahal Sahu, aged 24 yrs. [Accused No.55] 3. Mahe’raroo, s/o Kejaoo Lohar, aged 29 yrs. [Accused No.60] 4. Bisaha‘r s/o Pafanga Gond, aged 28 yrs. [Accused No.63] 5. Krashna Kumar, s/o Radheshyam, aged 22 yrs. [Accused No.64] Vs RESPONDENT - State of Chhaffisgarh. APPELLANTS (In Jail) 4 ‘ ‘ 1. Dhaniram Dewangan, 5/0 Khemram Dewangan, aged abouT 4O year‘s. 2. Ramnafh Safnami, 570 Phool Chand Sm‘nami, aged abouf 42 years. 3. Lakhanlal Dewangan. S/o Khemrarn Dewangan, aged abou’r 46 years. 4. Bhuwan Sharma, S/o Harakhram Sharma, Aged 30 year‘s. 5. Bhuwan Sahu, S/o Keju Sahu, aged abouf 24 years. The appellan’rs named above are R/o Karmandi, P.s. Palari, Dish‘. Raipur (C.G.) Vs RESPONDENT Sfafe of Chha’r'risgarh. APPELLANT (In Jail) Ramcharan, age 20 years, son of Mangel Das, residen‘r of Karmandi, P.S. Palari, Dish‘. Raipur (C.G.) Vs ’ RESPONDENT S’ra’re of Chhaffisgarh. Page 4 of 18 Present: Mr. CR. Sahu, Advocate for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.600/01. Mr. Abhay Tiwari, Advocate for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.681/01 & 1031/02. Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1097/02. Mr. D.K. Gwalr'e, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. i JUDGMENT (Denvered on‘gpzzooe) Per Dhirendra Mishr'a J; 1. ckirimiai Appeal Nos.600/2001 a 631/2001 arising om of judgment of convicfion and order of senfence da’red 30.6.2001 passed in Sessions Tnial No.116/87 & Criminal Appeal Nos.1031/02 & 1097/02 arising ouT of: judgmenf of conviction and order of sen’rence dafed 27.8.2002 pa‘ssed in Sessions Trial No.116/87 ore being disposed of by ihis common judgment as the appellam‘s of above'appeals have been convici’ed in connec’rion with same sessions Trial number for The offence punishable under Sec‘rions 148, 323/149, 325/149 & 302/149 of fhe Indian Penal Code (for brevify ‘IPC') and each of fhem has been sentenced as under-:- Section 148 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of paymen’r of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 2 months. Section 323/149 of IPC RI. for lyear and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- , in default of payment of fine to undergo additional RI. for 1 month. Section 325/149 of IPC - . RI. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional RI. for 2 months. Section 302/149 of IPC RI. for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/—, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 6 months. Page 5 of 18 @ . From perusal of The record of The Trial courT iT appears ThaT during frial accused namely Manharan, Na‘rhumm, Bisha’r, Mahe’rar‘oo, Krishna Kumar, Ramcharcm, Kheer‘am were on bail and because of Their nori— appearance Their bail bonds were forfeited and perpe‘rual warram‘ of arresf was directed ’ro be issued against Them on 17.8.2001 and afTer ’rhe arresf of fhe . .appellanfs in Criminal Appeal No.1031/02 & 10971/02 Their sTaTemenT under SecTion 313 of Cr’P.C. was recorded and ThereafTer They were also convicTed & senTenced, as menTioned above, by a separaTe judgmenT daTed 27.8.2002 . . In compliance of The order dafed 4.2.2008 learned Addifional Public Pro§e‘cuTor for.The SfaTe has submiTTed deaTh cerTificaTes of appellanTs namely Kheduram, Sundarlal Sah'u, Jaldhar Udiya 6i rHarakt‘am Sharma dafed 17.9.2005, 17.7.2004, 13.11.2005, 27.2.2003 & 6.12.2003 respecTively, who were on bail and died during pendency of The appeal. Since Their legal represenTaTives have noT made any applicafion for prosecuTing The appeal on Their behalf, Therefore, Criminal Appeal No.681/01, so far if relaTes To The above appellanTs, sTand abeTTed and accordingly, The same is disposed of as abeTTed. . ase of The prosecuTion, as reflecTed from The FIR (EXP—57), is ThaT on 3.7.1986 aT abouT 4.30 a.m. complainanT Makhan gave DehaTi Nalishi (EXP—56) in The S.A.F. OuTposT, Village Karmandi To The effecT ThaT on 2.7.1986 aT abouT 3.00 p.111. he had gone wiTh Bhubneshwar, Kriparam, Daulal, Kamlesh, Hridaylal, Pawan Kumar, Ravi, Bisna, PaTwari, Nayandas and Two womenfolk namely Premin Bai 6i BasanTa Bai To plow and sow The field of Bahra—Khar. While They were engaged in sowing and plowing operaTion, aT abouT 5.00 p.m. persons belonging To big parTy armed wiTh .Danda, STone & LaThi all of sudden encircled Them leaving no room for escape. All persons who had encircled The P field were shouTing ‘affack-affack’and afTer The sound of whisTle They sTarTed pelTing sTones from all sides and They also sTarTed closing The circle. Shankar Sharma, Harakhram Sharma, Dhaniram Devangan, Lakhan Devangan, RamnaTh SaTnami assaulTed him, his wife »a x C Page 6 of 18 Basanfa Bai, Premin Bai, Kaka, Bhai and labourer wi‘rh la‘rhi. Ofher' persons who were accompanying “them alSo sfar’red assaulfing Them wifh lafhi as a resuh‘ of which he has sus’rained numerous injuries. His wife has also sustained injuries and she is IyingM unconscious in The fjield. Even affer her fall on The ground, she was assauh‘ed by Harakhram SharmarDhaniram Devangan, Jefhu Devangan, Lakhan Devangan, Khema Devangan. AT ThaT Time a consTable of ouTposT who was on guard duTy came There and afTer seeing him all The accused persons fled from There. His‘wife had susTained injuries over her Temporal region 6i lefT Thigh and she was already dead... All The above persons came There wiTh a common objecT of beaTing on accounT of old land‘ relaTed quarrel, which was purchased by his uncle Bhubneshwar Through regisTered sale deed. However leader of big parTy namely Har‘akram Sharma sTarTed quarrel In The above inCidenT Rawshankar Doulal Kamlesh Kriparam Pawankumar Premmbai had also susTained Injuries. CondiTion of his uncle Bhuvneshwar is also criTical. Merg inTimaTion was given on 3.7.1987 aT 14.35 hrs. 5. AfTer regisTering The offence vide FIR. of EXP—57, The police parTy proceeded for The scene of occurrence, prepared inquesT of Ex.P-1 over The dead body of deceased BasanTa Bai and. senT The dead body for auTopsy To GovernmenT HospiTal, Baloda Bazar vide EXP-62A where Dr. R.P. Pandey conducTed posTmorTem and gave his reporT of EXP-62. Injured Makhan (PW—6), Bhuvneshwar (PW-7), Ravishankar (PW-9) were referred for X-ray examinaTion To Dr. S.C. Bishnoi (PW— 20), who afTer examinaTion vide his reporT of EXP-64, 65, 66 & 67 reporTed ThaT They had noT susTained any bony injury. Injured Kamlesh (PW-10) &_ Daulal (PW-16) were also senT for examinaTion and as per reporT of Kamlesh of EXP-70, The docTor has found fracTure of righT ulna bone and as per reporT of EXP-74, Daulal has susTained fracTure on IefT humorous bone and 4*“ & 5*“ meTacarpal bone of lefT bone of righT hand. ‘However, X-ray reporT [EXP-72] of injured Kriparam menTions no bony injury. G Page 7 of 18 6. Affer‘ complefing invesfiga’rion, charge sheaf was filed against The accused/appellam‘s in fhe Courf of Judicial Magistra’re First Class, Baloda Bazar‘ who in Turn commi’r’red ’rhe case To fhe CourT of Sessioris Judge, Raipur‘ and ’rhe same was received on ’rransfer for Trial by Iehr'ned AddiTional Sessions Judge, Boioda Bazar‘. During frioi The priosecuTion exomined..31 wiTnesses in oil and ThereafTer' sTaTemenT of adcused persons was recorded in which They denied The circumsTances aopearing againsT Them in The prosecuTion case and pleaded innocence &;false impiicaTion. However, learned Trial courT afTer hearing The counsel for The parTies, convicTed and senTenced The 'appeIIanTs, as meniioned above. 7. Homicidal deaTh of BasanTa Bai is noT in dispuTef‘ Even oTherwise from The eVidence of injured eyewiTnesses namely Makhan (PW‘6), Ravishankar (PW—9), Kamlesh (PW-10), Kamalnarayan (PW-12), Kriparam (PW-14), Daulal (PW—16), Hridayram (PW-24) as also from The evidence of Dr. RP. Pandey (PW-18) who conducTed posTmorTem over The person of deceased BasanTa Bai and gave his reporT of Ex.P- 62 in which he noTiced swelling on The lefT cheek of size 2x2", swelling of differenT sizes on her back, abrasion over lower cosTal region of size 6", conTusion over upper parT of forearm of size 2g 1n x 2, II confusion over IaTeraI aspecT of lefT Thigh of size 1” x1", on inTernal examinaTion also noTiced blood sTored in The abdomen, 4” long laceraTed wound over The spleen and opined ThaT all The injuries were anTe-morTem in naTure Though The same were caused by hard (Si blunT objecT and cause of deaTh was shock due To excessive bleeding because of above injuries and The deaTh was homicidal in naTure, iT is esTablished ThaT deaTh of The deceased was homicidal. 8. Findings recorded by The Trial courT for convicTing The appellanTs ar J as under:- ':’ From The reporTs of EXP-67 a EXP-74 proved by Dr. Bishnoi (PW-20), Kamlesh (PW—10) susTained fracTure of ulna bone of * lower half parT and Daulal (PW—16) susTained fracTure of lefT \ e 0‘0 ‘ o o y¢ Page 8 of 18 humorous bone and 4*“ & 5* me’rqcar‘pd bone of lef’r fhigh. Thus, it is es’rablished Thu? injured Kamlesh & Daulal have susfained grievous injuries. Ofher' injured wi‘inesses namely Premin Bai, Ravishankar‘, Bhuvneshwar, Makhan & Krishan Kumar were also sen‘r for medicai examina‘rion and ’rheir medico-legal injury repori is no’red in The back of memorandum Through which fhey were sen’r for medical examina‘rion. However, Dr. Agarwal, who examined Them and gave injury report, has no’r been examined during frial and Sub Inspecfor Shri Tiwari ((PW—25) has sfa’red fha‘r affer fexaminafion, repor’r was given by The docTor and on The basis of documen’rs available on record iT is esTabli’shed ThaT in The same mcidem‘ Premin Bai, Ravishankar, Bhuvneshwar, Makhan & Krishan Kumar had susTained simple hurfs. Ramkishun (PW-1) & Horilal (PW-5) have sTaTed ThaT accused persons did noT give any memorandum sTaTemenT in his presence nor any recovery was made before Them, However, he has admiTTed his signaTures in The documenTs of Ex.P—2 To EXP-55. Whereas, Shri RK. Tiwari (PW-25), Sub InspecTor, has sTaTed ThaT on The basis of memorandum of The accused persons recoveries of weapon of offence was made from The accused persons. Shri 6.5. Ojha (PW-26) has also sTaTed ThaT he recorded memorandum sTaTemenT of The accused persons and on The basis of Their disclosure sTaTemenT IaThi, loudspeaker eTc. were seized. Gulab Das (PW-8) has also admiTTed his signaTure in The documenTs of EXP-62 To Ex.P-77 Though he has denied ThaT -The accused persons were inTerrogaTed by The police in his presence, whereas, Sub-InspecTor R.K. Tiwari (PW‘ 25) & 6.5. Ojha (PW-26) have proved The above documenTs and Thus from The evidence of R.K. Tiwari (PW-25) (Si 6.5. Ojha (PW-26) recoveries of The weapon of offence on The basis of memorandum of The accused persons are esTablished. ‘a Page 9 of 18 oz. From ’rhe evidence of Makhan (PW—6), Bhuvneshwar (PW—7), Ravishankar‘ (PW-9), Kriparam (PW-14), Daulal (PW-16) if has been held Thm‘ all fhe accused persons armed wi’rh lafhi wem‘ To The place of incidem‘ with a common objecf of beo’ring injured wifnesses and causing Their dea’rh and in fur‘rherance of Their common objecT.They gave assaulTs by IaThi To BasanTa Bai and i caused her injuries as a resuIT of which she died. They also volunTarily caused grievous hurT To Kamlesh & Daulal and simple hurTs To Bhuvneshwar, Ravishankar, Bishna and Kriparam. . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of The appellanTs submiTs ThaT ’Thé‘ Ease of The prosecuTion is ThaT The village is divided inTo Two facTions and The accused persons are The memEers of bigger facTion, whereas, complainanT parTy belongs To oTher facTion and because of facTional animus‘all The prominenT members of opposiTion camp have been falsely implicaTed in The above" offence. From perusal of The evidence of complainanT Makhan and oTher injured wiTnesses iT would be evidenT ThaT wiTnesses have Taken Their names simply because They belong To opposiTe facTion. From The posTmorTem reporT of deceased BasanTa Bai iT is clear ThaT she susTained five swelling injuries over differenT parTs of her body and only one of The injury was presenT on The viTaI organ of The body i.e. lower porfion of her chesT and cause of deaTh has been described as shock due To excessive bleeding, as The docTor found blood sTored in her abdomen and rupTure of spleen. One bony injury each caused To Kamlesh & Daulal is on non-viTal parT of The body and oThers have susTained only simple hurTs. Therefore, finding of The Trial courT ThaT The appellanTs armed wiTh laThi eTc. formed an unlawful assembly wiTh a common objecT of causing injuries To The complainanT parTy is conTrary To The evidence available on record. All The appellanTs have noT been named by any of The wiTnesses. ExaminaTion of Premin Bai (PW-4) is noT compleTe, as she has noT been subjecTed To cross—examinaTion. ba ; Page 10 of 18, {'Zé Ravishankar' (PW-9) has categoricaHy sTaTed 1‘ha1' excep‘f four persons he does no? recognize anyone amongsf ’rhe accused persons and if is correc‘r fo say fha’r only on The basis of suspicion he named all the members of big pam‘y. Similar is fhe sfafemen’r of Kamlesh (PW- 109, who has also sfa’red ’rha’r he named oTher' accused persons only on fh‘e basis of suspicion. The frial courf has no’r relied upon The sTaTemenT of Bisana (PW—11). Kamalnaryan has also nof named The actused persons excepfing fwo. Pawan Kumar (PW—13) is nof fhe eyewifness of The incidenf as he had ran away from The place of incidenT before arrival of oTher parTy. Kriparam (PW—14) has also sTaT‘ed ThaT he cannoT Tell The name of all fhe accused persons and he has named The accused persons only on The basis-"of suspicion. baulal (PW=16), who is also an injured eyewiTness, has also made omnibus allegafion againsf all The accused persons ThaT They assaulTed Them wiTh laThi. Hridayram (PW-24)"has noT named all The accused persons excepTing Three and he has caTegorically sTaTed ThaT he could recognize only four persons aT The Time of incidenT and This wifness has also admiTTed ThaT he has noT wiTnessed The beaTing and he laTer' on came To know ThaT BasnTa Bai had died and he named all The persons of big parTy only on suspicion. ProsecuTion wiTnesses cannoT be relied as They have admiTTed ThaT They are deliberaTely noT naming The accused persons, as They have enTered inTo compromise wiTh some of The accused persons and They have selecTively named The appellanTs Dhaniram, Lakhan, Bhuvan and RamnaTh ThaT They assaulTed deceased BasanTa Bai wiTh laThi. Ramkishun (PW-1) has caTegorically sTaTed ThaT accused persons were noT inTerrogaTed in his presence nor any arTicle was seized form Them. Similarly, Gulabdas (PW-8) has also sTaTed ThaT The appellanT did noT make any sTaTemenT To The police in his presence and They were made To sign in The memorandums and seizures. Kejuram (PW—23) has‘salso denied in his examinaTion-in-chief ThaT accused persons namely Dhaniram, Bhondal, SanTarm, Chhannu, «ck \, Page 11 of 18 Sam‘kumar, Keju, Bisun, Ghuruwa, Ramchamn & Sadhe were no? inferragafed in his presence. He has categorically sfafed Tha’r the accuSed persons were no’r in The village and nothing was seized from their possession. He has been declared hosfile. In fhe cross— examina'lion alsovhe has denied The suggesfion given by ’rhe pr‘osecufion fha’r memorandums & seizures were effecfed in his presence, however, The frial courf on ’rhe basis of sfa’remen‘r of Sub— Inspecfor R.l<. Tiwari, who has conduc‘red invesfigafion and has s’rafed Th‘a‘l he recorded memorandums of The accu3ed persons and recovered weapon of offence on The basis of Their disclosures sTaTemenT has reaghed To The conclusion ThaT The recovery of weapon of offence on The basis of Their memorandums is esTablished=: Recoveries of laThi have been made from The accused perSons, which is household arTicle in The villages. i 10. Orl The oTher hand, learned counsel ‘for The STaTe supporTing The impugned judgmenT conTended Thaf names of all The accused persons are menTioned in Roznamcha-sanha of EXP—56. AllegaTion againsT all The accused persons is ThaT They came To The place of incidenT armed wiTh laThi, They encircled The field of Bihari where The complainanT parTy was plowing & Sowing The field. They 'sTarTed closing The circle and ensure ThaT no-one is able To flee from There and ThereafTer as soon as The whisTle was blown; They all sTarTed pelTing sTones aT The complainanT parTy. Considering The Tension prevailing in The village, The police parTy was posTed To mainTain law & order, however, loud speaker was blown so ThaT The police parTy presenT in The camp did noT hear The shouTs and commoTion. There is specific allegaTion in The DehaTi Nalishi (Ex.P-56) againsT Shankar Lal Sharma, Harakram Sharma, Dhaniram Devangan, Laxman Devangan, Ramnarayan sharma, ,JeThu Dewangan and Khema Devangan ThaT They assaulTed The complainanT and his wife BasanTa Bai and his wife was assaulTed even afTer she fell on The ground. ComplainanT Makhan has also made specific allegaTion in his courT sTaTemenT ThaT Dhaniram, Lakhan, Bhuwan & Ramna’rh assaul’red Basam‘a Bai wi‘rh Iafhi and Basan’ra died on The spof because of ’rhe above ossaul’rs. His version is corrobora’red by fhe evidence of Bhuvneshwar', Ravishankar', Kamlesh, Kamalnarayan, Kriparam & Bisna as also from The medical evidence and pos’rmorTem report, as all 1'he injuries presen’r over The person of The deceased were caused by hard and blun’r objec’r and injured wi’rnesses namely Krishan Kumar & Daulal susfained grievous hur’rs, whereas, ofher wifnesses have susfained simple hurfs. 11. We ihave heard learned counsel forr’rhe par'ries. We have perused The record of fhe Trial courT as also The impugned judgmenTs. .Since$;he appellam‘s have been convicfed under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149 & 302/149, we propose To examine The case in hand wheTheraThe prose‘cuTion has been able To esTabIish The formaTion of unlaWful assembly by reliable and cogenT evidence. 13. From The case of prosecuTion iTself iT is evidenT ThaT There were Two facTions in The village and There is a hisTory of long drawn enmiTy beTween Two facTions. In The above admiTTed premises The evidence of prosecuTion wiTnesses, who have admiTTed Themselves To The member of one facTion needs minuTe scruTiny. 14. ComplainanT Makhan (PW-6) gave informaTion in The SAF OuTposT vide EXP—56 and on The basis of which offence was regisTered vide FIR of EXP-57. This wiTness has sTaTed ThaT on The daTe of incidenT aT abouT 5.00 p.m. when he along wiTh his wife (Si Bhubneshwar, Kriparam, Daulal, Kamleshwar, PaTwari, Puranlal and Premin were sowing The paddy in The field, aT ThaT Time persons belonging To big parTy armed wiTh laThi & spear reached There and encircled The field and jusT afTer The whisTle was blown, They sTarTed pelTing sTones. They did noT geT opporTuniTy To flee and Therefore, They assembled in The field in one corner. In Para-2 he has named Dhaniram Devangan, Lakhan Devangan, Niya Devangan, Ramadheen Devangan, Pardhaniya Devangan, Guha Devangan, Chamru: Chamra Sahu, Awadhram Sharma, Bodhi 60nd, Bhajanha Gond, Ramcharan Chandrakar, Dhanau Chandrakar, .\‘ \\ f Page 12 of 18 i i Page 13 of 18 @ La‘rel Kewa’r, Buddhu Rawaf, Ramcharan Sm‘nami, Pawan Safnami, Sanfr'am Sa’mami, Ramnafh Sa’rnami, Adhurwa, Jefhu and sTa‘red ThaT they were peHing sfones. He has fur’rher s’rm‘ed Tha’r sTones s’ruck Qaulal on his hand, Kriparam on his forehead, Bhuvneshwar on his head. Ofhers also received 1-2 la‘rhi blows and affer' pel‘ring s’rones 1hey star‘Ted assaulting wifh Ia’rhi. In Para—4 he has deposed ’rhaf Dhanir'am, Lakhan, Bhuvneshwar, Ramnafh assauh‘ed Basanfa Bai wifh laThi, whereas, Chamru and Niya both gave one la‘rhi blow each To him. Basanfa Bai died on ’rhe sporj. He has admif’red in The cross- examinafion ’rhaf fhe dispuTe arose some 4-5 yearsxback on ‘I’he account of purchase of Buddhu Rawa‘r's land and he has also admif’red i ThaT earlier ’rhe accused persons were proseeufed for se‘r‘fing ’rhe house9f his uncLe Bhokhlu & Chandu on fire. However accused persons have been acquif'red. In para 9 omission in The reporT of EXP—56 regarding injury To Bhuwaneshwar & Krishna Kuma'r by sTone and resT by laThi, Bhuwan assaulTed BasanTa wiTh laThi has been poinTed ouT. 15. Bhuwaneshwar (P.W.7), who is uncle of The complainanT, has sTaTed ThaT on The daTe of incidenT he and oTher prosecuTion wiTnesses were sowing and plowing Their filed, aT fhaT Time all The accused persons reached There and sTarTed pelTing sTones' which sfruck him on his head, hand. BasanTabai was also