HI6H COLNtT OF CHHATriSSARH AT BILASPUR Crimlnal ApBeal Ne.t028oft 19% Corams HON'BLE WRT.P.SHARMA& * HON'BLE AR.N.K.AfiARWAl^ JJ. ( {^ APPaj-ANTS RESPON&ENT 1. ;,^n<^^riias-.'^ndap....-iSm^'K:a>ni.;'^ WV..,^.:,,.!/^ X 'I- 2. Chintu alus Si-tepam »nef Jaitukmgd a^ed 30yeaps—:js»,..-,.:.^;' ,! . ...•.1,'.;,:, ^ '. 3. Rainnoth alias Fotka Son of Oonda agpd' <Aout35years > . . ; i; 4. Jahram son of ViRat Ttsnalgn agad Aout 22 years. j 5. Maitram sen of Vikat Telanga^ed (Aout yeeers. - - - :.- ..: , , - ; 6. Konda son of LokhmuTsknTga ooedebaut 18years.: ..:-! -.;: '- • ; -. 7. Patiram son of Ramdhar aqed about 30 years. ; 8. Dashmu son of Ramnalh KBJCU' t^ •d® feiofs •: : :- ..- * -.. .. - , "i . 9. C)ariBru son of tennalh 10. Chemdu son of years j Tskmgn a<W 4& Alt residents of vithgers f'hcdnya'/Mwtenor, Police s Staiton D<mtewara, &isfi>ictB<is*ar. I Versus « State of Madhya Pra<tesh ^lowr Oih<rlti^arh) 4hrou^ P.*& (>an*ew«n», Bdstar. ,::'.,.,''./;"'"^'''''1 "' ,:'~ ' ' ^RAUENAL APPEAL UNOEft SECTEON 374 (2) OF THECQ6E Op CRIWENAk '.;: :FnOCEeUB®..1973SSr-l':*:'^ZSS'"'^rTE :>1 • Present:- • • .: - - . : ' ; - ' 's Mr.8J>.Sharma,cQi.msetfor'the<!ppelkints. ; Mr.Ashidi Shukla, &vemmerifcAchi'o«atefcr •rt»;S*ate> < B:ili- (JUOft EN7» ff^ssed on 26th Febffuaiy^ '.P.Sharma. J.> Ths judgmentof 1+is Court- was eteln 1. Ghallenge in Ihis appenl isto ddted 29.9.% pa^ed by Ihe TTiird Aeklitioneri Se^o»)s;,iud|^9as*ar<rf Jagdalpur, in Sessions Trial No.^2/89, wherriby &whassund^ tsarr^ Third Additional Sessions Jud^ ofter holcKng the gi^Hturte guBhy-for constituting unlawfljl a^mbty wMh de<^ly^we(^<ms^r^i^®>»o'fr^gBdhti ond cciusjn9 injury to Laxmtnoth and in furAercncsiyft (aianton^ttbjsc't'of unlaurful assembly, eausing homieidal drtrth of deeeased ••'••^;;s-^"-:":^;<:tE'f^?ll;B;3^7:''^' °;• • ^wi& ^.':^ murder and simple injupy t& lMXimrw^,cwiim^^''#^y{^^a s»€t^ Chintu, &c'sni and beshmu tBicter Ssction -323 of the IndSn Pi^int-Cede, appellonts <3iin1w,R<annath, Sundar, Konda, l^ram, jBil'i^nri ^ft^ under Section l^ of -ftie Indkin Pena) Cede, u^^llants €Wntug;Iimrt»ath, Sundar @ Stdidar Singh undeT-Sect^3Q^of^'§ [/Ind^:9«^'€9dts^^ appeltants Konda Piatiram, Jaitrom and jttai^f^'uirier ^cti^ 302j^ with Section t49 of the Indian Penat Co<te;oitd aentenaed "to tindergo rjgorous imprisonment for six r!wm^sw«^.Sectwni3Z3«f'# ^iiSsKf'esMd Code, cigorous inyrisonment for two yearsunder ^ection lW^f^'the_ dian Penal Code, impr-ismmenf for life-td ta pflya fne of fts.1MO^-^mdeft«jtaof p<iyn»ntof fine to further yneter^ ^iyroi^ hnprisoi'mient^^^W-flum^ under Sections 302 and 302 r'ead wrth Section 149 of 'N'ife^Bndlan Pawl- Code, re^ieetiyely. - u .4 2. The conyictwn is imbugned on -the <»rou»K!•fr.atwitlwut -ri^re beinq fflay'iott -•. •.1--1*:;»:% ii---::,-,:,.-,^:;:i..l ~ ,;:i;::".;%-^^^^ of clniching and cdsdible ewdenc®, -to egnsWta'titN »f unkwrful assemfaly and committing nuirder i >'fti^et'N<Ge <if^^mwg»|i<ot^^ ( of unlawfut assembiy. •the Cot^teJcwh<KS<xmwctedi^j«e»rta"iB^<l'w oppellontsoefffowmentionedsmdthert^comiritterfilfegafrtY^ 1 "-N&. ^' -•s 3- Caa of the prosecution, in brief, is -fcat on -riie fataful day sf 3.2.88 at &onteunda weekly incn'ket, •the appetlwits were hwirg previoys anmity wi'rti de<aased Budhu and injured L^minath eonsti-hi-ted untawfubaasemUy *<>1ull Budhu cOTdcaused mjury -to Laxminath and in furthepcnee <^:<om!iwn"wbpel- of untawful assembly, Rumnath teok Laxmimith-fe^ eonsami^ »^ (intoxioint liquid):atong^ with -Oc^mu/ a» 1he^time*of-cOTSunng;.sa^ oppellant Chtmdu slopped Laxmhialii <^ €hmtudso sk^Bdj ««^^ deceased Budhu cama to hrt'eryene. he u^ holding^ <iNs,s-then? e^ipell<mts attacked upon Budhu, he was annng hiroselffcy axe. Aj^eBnn* Chinta snatched a^s from decaeosed gudhu and asaauh'sd hfcn nwer'Ws fcmk, appetlant RiMnrKrth snatchsd a?<e from accused ChirrhKmA'hsalsooesautled &jdhu, then Sundar snatched axs from accused ^Rnmnath and he alsa asaiMlted Budhu over his head, Bydku fd! down and died. Axe was thryst in --w-?: li:" -.1- : •? ihe head «fIhe decea%d. Other <igpel)ants w«re clso-tt^atrftBd 1+a deceased and •riierecfter, iheyw^T towaris Ihetrhcwas. Pard^^ who twspcesent on 1+iespothas ledgsd ^wctf^wSd'iitJiMs^'WSw^inarQ mtimation vide ExP/6. Ths police was presa* in1be^weefe^^n^4flet;'j^lfter- summoning the wstnesses, inquest oyer Ihe d«idbody ef deeKK^jBudhu WMS oreecr'ed victe ExJVl. Boodstained & ofcunseil-wereFflecovei'ed "fnom "•.:::^"':^'.^-'\^:-".l-":'..':;-."^:'^:y": '.:'::.'• ••^y''i;''-'-'^"-;:l,;-^":l^'"'':w;:^^^^ :':.? •the spotyide &<P^- Piece of;!pe^r^AAi|^rgQ<te^ te»f-^]A"ir^ salfi were ^zed vide Cx.P/3^ ttead < e|f ^ Jhtjteaea^ was-StirN- fu' outopsy to^rimary Heffth Centre, t^mteimda. Autopsy^wtS'-con^ieted byi Dr-Vinoy |<uw<»' Jhn PW-10) vide 6x.P/12;nnd fomd fotlowmy it^t.u'M^CTgey the bBdyof'lhedeceased, ••-.; . • : - •- . - . „ ,, .,,.„,:,,, A,,,,,,,^.a-.^ ,; :: i) One inciad wound sv®-leftsideof head, size 3cms- x 1 sn!. < ii) One incised wound oyer right porietal t^wn,-size 3" ^- 2*^ ftsght parietal bone!lwaspealed<p.~: .^-<.:-—.:' 1 :«.;;3.:::^fc:.:;:,%-»: '.fe : iii) Ihcised wourid pver righ* ptn'wtul r»gio%size 3 <ans..>cl..cin.^ f w) Incised wound ever irrfra^ni^s i^wn;si2»3.<!Bs;?x4»cmi1';^' v) Incised woimd over rij^it scapula, sne 3 aBmSe^X'l'sin.^il- 1 '• vi) 3>ic!sedwoundoverteftshoakier,si2e4>cg!is:9(lAm.-T : ^^; '•sw. vii) Multiple echymosis ovw^left side bacttrt^ng4-cms.^4 !ema> < Injuries were ante-mort'em dnd sufficien* foi* cousng cteath. jAodejcf dealh was rilock as a resultof uTft^mortBin'fertal <ryuries.*"The4»ct ed<»ws aubjected to identify and Pai^eshi yW-2) was identified in test identification poyade yide B^P/10. Sealed clo-rtieStof ^e ^ceased cfttr tiutopsy were seized "ide Ex-P/lt. Regislered NE-R. WB^^idgied vjde -ExP/16. , - - -: 1.». -.- ; ::.^..-- , .*.^ ^ 4. Statementsof -Nie wtnesses wer«rscorded under Sscticn 161 of-Hie Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in Aort ^e 6>de^ a^ aftar caoyNtton cf investigatKin, dhai^e dt^t wus filed In rtie <3our* of^^u^ ^Wlg^ First Class, Dantewada, who in lum contgdtted 'the casei'^toi£-lto:'G<»t»'t'of Ssssions, Jogdalpur, •from where 1+)e TUrd Additimwl^ Ses^ Bastar at Jcgcki^ur receiyed "rtie ease on trcnsferfor'lrial- •^^.^•^•^e^ S. In order to prove the guilt of th8aceu;%d/q}peB«mts,1tieproaiecv1iwihos e?<unined as mnny as 12^witnesses. St^meirht of^eflffic^^ werealso recoi-ded uncter Section 313 ofth®G<»(teNhere'th^!dBnietlE"tha circumstances ooo«sring aflainst them and pleaded innocenee iind fcte '"^"^^" •"^7:'-.':\.:-^;si^;-^?^1''^.:^^' ^'.••^- : .-• (mpficationin thecrimein questisn. - s ^ « ; » 6. After affording epportunity^f hearing ts ^e parttes,the Tlimi AdAtioninl Sessions Judge has conyietad ond -serrt^cad "tfie flppellcwts^ ts afoi'ementioRed. • • •^ •' -;:;.';'.:.''-::•>•'•:.'>s.-.';'*.;: <•- 7. We haye heard leamed eounserf for the parties impugned and record ofthe Coupt below;wy the .ludqmerrt- -Ma:..? ,;<':•-••'s""-1!) 8. Leamed counsel for the e is suhstantially bdised on •the evidence-of L^»ina1lT0W^%^e3!ld#yunKl witness whose eyidence docs not inq?ire ewnfiiiJWf^'a^^'Viwsyioil'^^^l'^K has deposed jn hiseyidan<% that Itie^appelterte ht^as^l|^Atot^y tiie deceased nnd ot -the fw^ mstcs^'wilt^'WHf^t^yweP^e^bi^^ deceased Wde pFeparsd,'he.wttS^his;j'witoBa^^«ul(^^toM \ •: witneases haye SDecrficalhf sftart^ thart- sonne 1TEto^*IMa'sons|hwB ^ ^.-.. --,,...,..-. ^..^...-^^^^^^^ asscutted the deceased, whidi he has not named the accas«lBei«i|nsin Ex.P/1 inquest cost serious doubt in the evklen<a of LaxmimaHi pW4). I'te Iws ^ecifically admitted grw^ enmi^betwieen Budhut^ tu^asd |)CB^RS and the appeltosnts haw been false^jinyliefft^ on^e.'grom^of^f^ enmrty. Learmd eounael lurther argued-that in •thepreaent>^se;-'the prosecution has not pvoved fbrmotiwt of unlawftil !aa«t^t><Y;t»i1t!"«ontnion ob^ct to Hilt deceasediBudhu c^ ciused injiMy to Lap<i(Mnath»-lBtei<ni*tdense of Laxminath (PW-l) clearh? rsveals thatatthe tiirc^f !neiden*,fc.cuwirwrti •s^v'.Slt^'VK'yK.l'/SSS-S.., - ' was conaiming satfialongwithacaisedperscms^amadisgtrtea^s^W time of con^min^ satfi and some quarr^lxwk pia^.<rf^<8iAu^^^<^ nescue Laxminorth with axe and i^ihs4ie wes^fl^h^ '^ipw^j'lto accused has snatehed axe and assaulted hin»ond second ond 'fhirtf atiffliaed1 have also asaiulted -ttis dsceased. If • )is evideaice is udinjtted as a qo:g}el truth, then even it is difficult to presums •thnt tai acaited'^rsens-hawE'" formed untewftit flssembly with common objact tp Wll BuAu.*^^ counss! coRtendsc! th<st '(fi& Of^ssc^tion has tlt^^hf fcEilsd totipovi8?thlfii cosat a?::":";:sr3""rist'':" beyond all shadow of doubt. therefore,a!l •the <q3pdlaintsare imtft-ted for benesflt of doubt. , .. . » . i';.^ ^.. . • 9. Leaamed counsel placed reliance m 'rtNB matterof Pt^un^ ^andi'gNa Mhafre v. State of Aahari^ttrtf in iAi4l 1he Afiie^ Cot^ only presenceof Ihe persons<m Ihe^ot ot •Ihe^ii^^m^ mnke them liable under Section M^of+hefff'rtie&idiowl^nnlCo^e.; Thc prosecution is r'equii'ed to estaMi^! the conduct of ^eh i^igfeercfuntoffful^ assembly before caid at the tim®of atltaek. ; nv .^. ••••;•-•m-^^.i^ " >.0n the other hand, teamed St«rte.«wr^lsuRpor(BA'tl'wJyd3!|ignt;inipSi and arguedi •fhat the prosecutioi^h®pnnwdhtts WMB JM^ doubt. The preas^ ifpeHsmts^w^ eon^^f^^^uinteMf^^css^^ common objectto cmnmit murdeir ef Budhu a^to eeuaeiRy.By*!»^l..a>gBW^ and in furttierwice of c^mon ob^sct ofunlaaiffu^^^t^^ committed murder of Biwlhu ond c<u^rf ir^ury te l^minaA.a ^^ of Ltixmino'th (PW-l) is suffifflent^foiF<iwa»h»3inj|effea^^>^ 1(20@9) tO SCC 773 have constituted unlawful asgembly snd in furtherance of coms'on sbjeet nf unhswftit assembly, thay hove caused injury to t..oxminarth ond'coinmitted • murder of dsceased Budhu. • 11. Leamed counsel placed reliance in the nwtt'er of Chendra Bihsri ®autamIs Ors. v. State af Bihar2 in which the Apex Cour* has held thatsys unfcwM object cwi dewlop after the acaised cssembfed. The existense of tha common object of the untenvfulassewbly has ts be asserhained in thesfscts and circumstEinces of each cass. 2 i » 12.1" order to appreciatethear^umentsadvcnced<wibehoilf of +he partias we have examined the eyidence oyaiksbls on recorA In •th®pwsent ca^, homic'dol denth as a result of onts-nRortem forhal injuries of deceased ftidhu has not been substmtially d'sputed on behalf of the oppetlants sn llie other hand. sfso established by •t+ie eyidence of Dr.V'nay IKumar Jha O'W-10) and sutopsy reptsft ExP/!2 which reyeals that fatal inju-ies wwe found over +he body of deceased Budhu including fractuw af sciqsula bone f«^ death was homic'dal in nature. 13.In the presentcnse, tbe conviction is substantialt)' bcsad on the eyidence of Loxminath ff'W-1) and Sundar Lal (PW-3). Laxn'.mnth (PW-1) has deposed in his eyidence that on the date of Inc'dent, he wos pressnt in Itie weekly market, Dantewcdh. accused Ramnath called Wm for cQnsummg 'Mlft, while he wus consuming salfi along wtth accused Ramnuth, Dasru and Dashmu, a-f that time, cppellant Chsndu end Chintu assonjlted hi'nmct thred-'that they wil! kHI, then deceased Budhu came to wscue him. .Appellant Chin-lu assaulted Buidhu by nxe oyer his back, then nppells"T<- Rapnath snatched ws from cppetlant Chin-hj and asssiulted over hia baA, Budhu wns runrAig from the spot towards 'peirket, he fel! down, thenappellcint Sundar snatdhed axe and ossauh'ed four times over- tha headof the de<xased. Oltiec cppeltants have also assaulted Ihe deceased by sticks. They were shouting ind slansing and then they went Towards their houses. Healong wi+h Rarde^ii flLnd Heems'ngh went1t> the police station and lodgedthe rq)orta"dj"<juestwaa SJT 2002 (4) SC 62 (*^-^'i.. preparsd before him. Pcrdesht (PW-2) who> has lodlged dehati naljshi wd recorded merg intimation yide Exs.P/BandP.Mhasnotsi^pcrtedthecase of the prosecution and the prosecution declared him hostile. but m his cross-examination he has not stated anything in foyour of theprosecutioR or in fayour of the defence. Another witness Sundir Lal yW*3) hcs <»rroborntedthe eyid»i<aof LaxnRinath (PW-1). In his cr-sss-examination, he has admittBd •thct at the time of incident, the cppeltents Ihreatened'him; •fhen he ruAed from •the spot lecving Buddhu, 30-40 perSBnsMttre pfeseat necr Budhu ond he has not seen thot who was holdfrig.ffiw.eindwho wias holding stick- The defence hcs cross-e3<a!?ined this witness jn;de*ai!- !-te has admitted thot four injuries were fcund ovw haoid of BuAlu. In his cross-examinntian, he has adB'itl-sd •that when he was thpeataied by the cppell&nts, -then he rushed feoymg Budhu and 30-40 psa-sons were pre^nt near Budhu, but nothing has sisked to -rtiis vritness Ihat eppeltants Sunda-, Chmtu ond Ramnath haye not irsfiicted injunes by flKe to Buehu- S-IEs statement giyen in exainination orsd cross-examtnati<m nevealfi thnt lie hos seen first part of +he mcident and three persons i.e. Chintu, Sundar fnd Ramnath were assoulted Budhu by cxe, then under threat hs ruA«dfrom the spot and has not seen bter part of Itie incident. The'proaiecution has cross-exammed La.xminalf' GPW-t) in detail- He has Glearly'aimitted gniye enm'ty bstween the parties ond has categoriaatly deposed •that thfee persons have assaulted by axe to Budhu and fina!!y Budlhu diad. la his cross-exQ'cination, the prosectst'wn h.os not beRn able to elicit anyth'n^ to discred't his testimony, especialty rsiatfr^ to ctwang of injury by ^ipettants Chintu, Sundar and Rnmnsth by axe. The prp^ajtion hcs ajbstcnttally adduced eyidence of Loxminath (PW-1) and Pnrderiii (PW-2). Presenee of ali the appetlants at the time of incident is no+ subalantiell^ d'sputed; Laxminath (PW-1) and Sundar Lal (PW-3) haye deposed •»•rtiea" evictence thst all the appeltants were presenton the ^sot. 14.The cruciat question in the presBnt case hs wheth«r ths cfonsscid ten accused persons have consti-hrt-ed unfawfu! assembly -with object to ki!l Budhu nnd in furtharance of common object, thcy haye eaused injBry to . .lu^:.; \»> i l •.:HgS^-^ ^ Budhu. As held by the Apex Court in the matter of Chcndra (supra), on unlawful object con deyetop after -the accused assembled. The existence t?f the commo" object of -ths unlawfu! assembly has to be ascer'tained m the facts wid circumstances of ench case. Para 6 of the scnd judgmeRt reads ns under: s "6. It has been ar'gued attematiyely thest eyen if the oc<ajrrence 's ; held to haye tdken place in the manner aUegetd by the prosacution and the accused persons were seen on spst, i'hey; cBnniot be convicted and sentenced os the proSBCUtien altegedfy fai!ed> t<? establish -the oucused persons. Section 149 is an exceptiai *o Ihe cr-iminal fenw whereunder a person ean be convicted flnct sgntenced , for his yictirious liebility onfy on proof of his beinya msnRber ef the unlowful cssembiy, sharing the commen object, notwjfhstanding as to whe-tiier he had actuaiiy participated in-tiae cemniissionof •riie crime or not. Common object does not require prior concer)- ond a common meeting of minds before 1+ie att-ack. An unbwful object con de<«Iopafter the sccused ossembied. TTie existence of the common object of the unlawfu! nssembty has to be ascertained in •f+ie facts and circumstonces of each ease. It is true that Ihe mere presenca of the accused is not sufficient to hold them guilty for the sharing of common object as the prosecution has to fur-Hier eshiblished that tiiey were nof mere by-sstarulers but in fact wefe shering the common objeat. When a concsrted aftackis made by a targe number of persons, it is often difficul* to determine •the actuai part played 'oy euch of the accused but on , that account, for cm offence committed by a member of ths uniawfui assembly in -riie prosecution of the common objeet or for an offence whkh was known Ifl beiikely to be committeo in prosecution of •ttie common object, persons proytde to be members cannot escaoe the conseauences arifflno from tiie doino of that act which amounts to an offence. Tnere moy not be a commen object m a sudden fight but in a ptanned attack on the yictini, the presence of the common object- amongst •rtie persons formm9 the uniawfui cssembly can be mferred." 15.In the matter of Pandurang (supre), 1<ie Apex Court has held that conduct of each member of untawful osambly before ond ct the time of attaeh 's "sleyant considerution- Object of untawful assembty is a ques+ion of faet which hcs to be determined keeping in yisw na-ture of assembly arms carried by members, and behayior of wennbers at or near scene of incident. Mere presence on •the spot wi!l not make the person liable for commission of the offence with aid of Section 149 of the Indm Penal Code. \."'<;, -usry'"!.. 16.Whsle dealing with the question of unlcwf"lcs%mfa)y, •the ApexCourt- jn the iTiatter of MasaH'j v. State sf U.P. hdd in para 17as under:- 17.....What hos to be proved c^oiinsta person who isalleged to be a member of cn unlawful assembly is that te was one ef'rtie persons constiluting the assembiy and he entertained qiongwifti-the jother members of the assembly the common object as defined-by Section 141 IPC. Section 142 provides •that wrfioever, being aware of facts which nsncfer any assembly an unlcBufui ^uSlBffiialy, intentionally joins thsri- assemb}y,or continues in it. 's said to bea member of on untawfut assembr/. Tn other words, on assembly of five or more persons actuated by, and entertaining epe <»• moi"e of the comnson objects specified by tha five ctau^s of Section 141, is cm unuwfut assembly. The crucial question t<»deterffline in-such a . case is whetiier the assembly consisted of fiye or marepeEahS a"d whether the said persons entertained one w vrmre. ef the common objects as specified by Section 141. While-determining •rhis questton, it becomes reievanf to consider whether the eKsembly consisted of some persons who were merely p'xssiye witnesses and had joined the ossembly as a matfer of idie curiosity without htending to entertain the commonobject of the as^mbly." 17. While dealing w'rth the sa'ne question. the Apex Court- in •rtie mo+ter of Shsrsy v. State ef U.P. has held in para 4 sss yndsr:- tl4...-But when •rtiere is a gerwral cltegation egainst a large number of oersons the court- naturally hesitcrtes to convictall of them on such vagi«evidence. Therefore we hav®no find some reasoncbie cir'cumstanca which lends assurance. From tha+po'ntof yiew it-'s safe onh/ to convict the abovementioned nine aecused whose presence is not oniy consistentiy mentiened fnom the stags of F1R but cslso to whom over acts are attribu'ted." 18.In the present case, the eyidence of Laxmincth (PW-1) ctear-ly reyeals •that he was drinking salfi wi-th accuasd Ramiwth and a.ccused: Chmtu ond Chandu slopped him.at •tt>attime, Budhu wns not present-there ond when hecaws to rescue Laxipinath, he wcss hold'ng axe, then axe was snatched by acGy%d Chintu cnd assaulted deceased Budhu by axe over his bcd<, then axe was snatched by accused Ramnath from accused Chintu who also cssaulted +he deceased and finally Sundar snatched axe from accused Rqmnath ond repeatedly assau!ted by oxe to Ihe deceased. It shows 1+iat at ths time of 3AIR 1965 SC 202 41991 Supp (2) SCC 437 ...^^:J1* -:-' \ // 10 commission of offence or causing injury to Laxminath, Budhu was not pr'esent. The prosecution has not cdduced any evidence to show that prior to the commission of such offence, there was some meeting between the appell'mts and they haye decided to kilt Budhu. Nobody has called Budhu, Budhu himseif reached to the spot to rescue Lax'ninath,then three cypetlants assuulted hin!. No "ther substaitw! 'njury reteting to sticks or" any other weapons was found oyer the bsdy of the eiecaised- In the abser'.ce of ony evtdence that prior +o the incident, o!! the appetlnnts ga+hered <snd dec'ded to kil! Budhu or eyen at ttie time of co.mmission <?f •fte offence, all i+'e c^pellants a"'rounded or chased or (issaulted Budhu, it is d'fficult to ho!d that the (®Dellantshwe consthuted untnNi'ful assenibh' with object to commit murder of Budhu and in furtherance of cn'nmon object of unbwful as^mbly, they commifted culpabte homicidal death of deceased Budhu amounting to murder-. 19- As held by the Apex Courl- in the mattw of Pandwwg (sipra), we do not find ony cor'stitut'on of unkiwful assembly of 1+>e ofowsa'd appellcints, but the act of appellants Chintu, Ramnath and Sundar clearly shcws that they haye cornrnitted murder of deceassd Budhu ond •their act sho*" 'ftot they haye cofnmitt'ed murder of Budhu in sharing common intention. Lcixminath (PW-1) has deposed in his evidence +hat Chandu ond Chjntu hcye assaulted him, -riiough he has not exammed -the doctor, but in cass of slap or simp'e injury, medical evidence is not necessary. In the absence of msdica! evidence, it may be inferred thot appelkints Chsndu ond Chintu hcve assoulted Larminath c"d coused simpte injury to him. Thers wns "<? propriety to couse sudi injury, therefore, !+ may be presumed that accused Chondu ond Chin.tu haye caused simple injury To LaKminath (PW-l). 20-After oppreciating the eyidence avaiteble on reeord, laarrad Third Additional Sess'ons Judge hasconyicted and gentenced the c^pellmts under Sections 302 read with Section 149, 302.148 amd 323 of -the Ijidicm Penal Code. but hds not considered the most material aspect of •fte case that the 11 :f-n y prosecution hos not proyed formotion of unlawful assembly of -rtts eypeltcnts and thereby committed illegality. 21. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we are of "the considered ytew thot OT ths prssent case, theprosecution has proyed the commission of fnurder in sharing of comn'on intention by appetkint No.l-Sunder ©Sundcr S'm^h. oppellant No.2-Chin1u @ Sitaram aid appellnnt No.S-Rammth of deceaad Budhu ond also proyed causing of simple injury by appell<mt No-2-Chin'hi ond qipellant No-10-Chcndu to Loxminath (PW-l) punishable under Sect'ons 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 22-For the foregoing rensons, the oppeol is partty dlowed. Conyiction & ^ntence of appslkmt No-2-Chintu @ Sitaram and a^etfant Nd;K)-Chandu under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code are hereby mninlnned, but conviction A sentencs of oppetlcint No.S-Dashmu nnd oppeltant No.9-Dashru under Section 323 of the India" Pena! Code we hereby set asi<fe. Conyiction & sentence of appeBants Chin'h!, Ramnuth, Sunda!*, KoRda, Patjrom, Jaitram and Maitram laider Section 148 of -the Indian Pentt! Code are hereby set <sside. Conyjction & sentence of appeiiants Sundar, Chintu ond ftaninath under Section 302 of the Inditsn Penat Code is citered to Section 302 read wi-rti Section 34 of the Indian Pena! Code and sentence to undergo imprisoniient for life and to pay a fine of fts.5(X)/-, in default of payment of fine to furthsr undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Conyiction & sentencs of appellants Konda, Patiram, Jaitram and Maitrem under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Pienal Code is hereby set aside. They are on bail, they need not surrender before #<e Court below. Appellant No.l-Sundar ®Sundar Singh, cppellant N®.2-Ch'ntu© Sitaram and appellant No-3-Rnmiwth shall airrender +hem3elves immediatsly before Third Additional Sesaons JiKlge, aaslur ct Jagdalpur/concemed Sessims Judgs/Additional Sessions Judge, Sub &iv.isio", &<intewada for seryin9 r-emaining pnrt of sentence in'poaed upon Ihsm under Section 302/34 of the Indifln Penal Code. S^~~T L Sd/. ^P.Sharma 1 |N-K-Agarwa< Judge | At! ^