HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.344 OF 2001 APPELLA NT Ramchar-cm. Vs RESPONDENT The Sfafe of Chhm'fmgar‘h. CRIMINAL MPEAL NO.382 OF 2001 APPELLA NTS Ram pyare (5x m‘hers RESPONDENT The Sfafe of Chha‘h‘isgarh JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION T‘ sm— RAMISHRM \ g ; munEND Judge \ _L.7,2oo7 Sd/- L.C. BHADOO Judge .07. 2007 HON'BLE MR. L.C.BHADOO, J‘ POST FOR JUDGMENT ON dgwJULY 2007 Sdl— i T Dhirendra Mishra' Judge E 2: .07.2007 i Page 1 of31 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP ‘ DIVISION BENCH: HON. MR. L.C. BHADOO & HON. MR. DHIRENDRA MISHRA JJ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.344 OF 2001 APPEANT LL Ramchamn, son of Chimamm, aged abouf 55 year's, R/o Vinage Pendri, P-.5. Janjgir'. Dis‘rric'f Janjgir-Champa (C.6.) RESPONDENT ‘ The Stafe of Chha‘h’isgarh, fhrough fhe S‘fa‘l'ion House Officer, Janjgir, Disfr'icf Janjgir Champa (C.G.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.382 OF 2001 APPELLANTS Vs 1. Rampyare, son af Maniram, agad 60 year's. residen‘t of ViHage Pendri, Janjgir. 2. Ramav‘rar, son of Rompyare, aged 30 years, Occupo‘rion Labour, reside"? of Vinage Pendri. 3. Mohi‘l'r'arn, son of Rompyare aged 30 year's, Occupo'rion Labour, residenf of Village Pendri‘ RESPONDENT The Sfate of Chho'H’isgorh, ‘rhrough fhe Sfafion House Officer, Jonjgir, Disfric‘t Jonjgir Champo (6.6.) 'v‘ Vs iv ‘ Present Mr’ V.C. OT‘I‘olwar, Advocm‘e for appellant in Cr. A. No.344/01. Mr. sunfos Bhom‘r, Advoca‘re for appellan‘l's in Cr. A. No.382/01. Mr. U.N.5. Deo, Addi‘l‘ional Public Prosecufor wifh Mr. Akhii Mishra, Panel Lawyer for ‘rhe Sfa‘re. o}, J U D G M E N T (Deiivered on a? .1200?) Per Dhirendra Mishro J‘ 1. Criminal Appeal No.344/2001 & Criminal Appeal No.382/01 are being decided by 1'his common judgmen‘l‘, as bo‘lh fhese appeals are arising ou‘r of fhe judgmenf dafed 30.3.2001 passed by learned Addi‘l'ional Sessions Judge, Janjgir in sessions Trial No.32/97 l whereby learned h k é? Page 2 of 31 §P Addifional Sessions Judge affer' hoiding The appelhnfs guiHy for causing decrfhs of deceaseé Tulsirum, BuHu Kashyap & Kachra Bai, convicfed Them under Sec’rion 3Q2/34 of The Endian Penal Code and semenced each of “them To undergo RI. far life and “to pay a "fine of Rs.200/— for" each murder. 1+ has been furfher‘ irec’red Thaw“ aH The sen‘l’ences shaH run concurrenfiy. Case cf The prosecufion, as unfoided from fhe charge sheet F.I.R. and sfafemerlf of wifnesses, is fha‘i deceased Tulsiram, Chinfraram, fafher af uppeHanf Ramchur‘an, Maniram, fa’rher of appeiianf Rampyare & Dasrm‘h were brofhers. Appeiicmf Mohifram d: Ramawmr are sons of Rampyare. Before The doTe of incidenT DoshraTh had died lecwing behind Two doughTersl parTiTion had Token place in The fomiiy and each share hoider goT 2.5 acre of agricuiTurai land in porTiTion, dwelling house was also parTiTioned and There was a dispuTe regarding share of DashraTh, From The evidence avaiiabie on record iT also appears ThaT share of Radhabai, widow of DashraTh, was in possession of deceased Tulsiram. A PanchayaT was convened by Rampyare To resolve The family dispuTe. Tulsiram had sTocked 8— 10 Gada of soil before The door of accused Rampyare, InvesTigaTion of The offence was commenced offer reporT (Ex.P—1) was lodged by Nanki Noni, wife of deceased Bullu Rom Kashyap aT abouT 3.35 pm on 13.10.1996 in The Police STaTion Janjgir menTioning Therein ThaT she resides aT Pendri wiTh her faTher-in‘law, Rampyare, son of Maniram, resides nearby her house, The quarrei had ensued beTween Tulsiram 61 Rampyare some five years back in connecTion wiTh encroachmenT of governmenT land and Today, Tulsiram and her husband were affixing pegs over The above encroached land and because of This Mohifram, RamawTar, Rampyare di Ramcharan TogeTher picked up The quarrel wiTh Kachra Boi in The afTernoon aT abouT 2.00 p.m. on The backyard of The house. Hearing This, her faTher—in-law wenT There, whereupon all The four sTarTed assaulTing him. MohiTram assaulTed him wiTh rod and RamawTar, Ramcharan d; / C)s d Page 3 of 31 Rampyur‘e asvsnuFred him by lqfhi as a resuh' of which her- fafher—in- iaw “fell down There. Her mo’rher-in—law fried +0 intervene, whereupon she was u§so assauHed by fhem and she alsa feH down fhere. Thereafter, a” of Them wen‘l‘ fo The hause of Bhuwnn Kashyap where her husband was sifting and assauhed him wifh la‘l'hi and rod. They dragged him Towards her house. MohiTram broughT heavy hammer from his house and hssuuhed her husband over his head in her houset as a resulT of which he died. Thereafrer, MohiTram we‘nT behind The house in The kiTchen garden and aesaui‘ied her TaTher-in- kiw and moTher-in-iuw over Their head by heavy hammer as a resuiT of which ‘boTh of Them died. Ali The Tour accused persons sTarTed searching her son Raju, who had fied ouT of fear. Dead body of her husband is lying in The courTyard of her house. Dead body of her moTher—in—law is aiso lying in The courfyard, whereas, dead body of her faTher~in-Iaw is lying in The kiTchen garden. MaarpeeT was wiTnessed by Manharan Gond, her daughTer Vimla, Promila, Raju, Jankibai and Suresh. On The basis of informaTion of campiainanT Nanki Noni, merg ihTimaTion of Ex.P-5O of Tulsiram, EXP—51 of Kachra Bai d Ex.P-52 of Bullu Kashyap were recorded. InquesT reporT (Ex.P-16, P-18 di P-20) over dead bodies of deceased Kachra Bai, Tuisiram and BuHu Kashyap were prepared in presence of The wiTnesses and Thereafi'er dead bodies were sehT for pasTmorTem examinaTion To The Primary HeaiTh CenTre, Janjgir, where Dr. HR, Tharwani (PW—8) conducTed posTmorTem over The body of deceased Builuram and gave his reporT Ex.P-16. Dr. U.C. Sharma (PW~9) conducTed posTmorTem over The dead body of deceased Kachra Bai and prepared The posTmorTem reporT EXP-28. Dr. AK. Dwivedi (PW-10) performed auTopsy over The body of deceased Tuisirom and his reporT is Ex.P-31. He had also examined injured Raju @ Rajkumar on 13.10.1996 around 11.00 p.m. and his MLC reporT is Ex.P-34. H r Page 4 of 31 K< .y On The memorandums of Ramamar (EXP—1), blood sfained club, crowbar, shirt fuH pam‘ were recovered under EXP-12, on memorandum of Mohh‘rom (EXP—2) blood s‘roined iron rod, ponf & whi're shirf were recovered under Ex.P-11: on The memorandum of #Qomcharan (Ex.P—3) blood s‘rained iron chm-war fixed in c1 wooden iofhi and whife dho‘ri were recovered under Ex.P-1O and on fhe memorandum of Rampyare (EXP-4) blood shined iafhi (ii lungi were recovered from vide Ex.P-9. Blood s’rained soil and plain soil was Taken info possession from fhe place where dead bodies of deceased Tulsiram, Kuchro Bai (Si Bullu Kashyap under E><.P-5, Ex.P-? & EXP-8 were lying. Af‘rer cuffing The nails of accused persons, The some were Taken inTo possession under Ex.P—35, P—36, P-37 (Si P-38 respecTively. Blood sTained seized arTicles were senT for chemical examinaTion To Forensic Science LaboraTory, Sugar vide EXP—41. Seized weapons i.e. laThi, ChaTwar, iron rod, heavy hummer eTc were senT To The docTor for his opinion vide EXP-44, P-45 d: P-46 whereupon The docTor vide Ex.P-32, P-33 d P-29 opined ThaT all The injuries described in The posTmorTem reporT could be caused by The weapons of offence. SpoT map (Ex.P~23) was goT prepared by Haiku PoTawri. Accused Romcharan was also senT for medical exominoTion To ?rimary HealTh CenTre, Jonjgir vide EXP-55 where Dr. U.C. Sharmo (PW-9) examined him and gave his reporT EXP—56. ReporT of FSL is EXP—5?. Seized arTicles were also senT To SerologisT for furTher confirmaTion of The origin of blood presenT over The seized arTicles, from where reporT was received. Afl‘er compleTing invesTigofion, charge sheeT was filed againsT fhe accusedx’appellanTs in The CourT of Judicial MagisTraTe FirsT Class, Janjgir who in Turn commiTTed The case To The CourT of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and The same was received on Transfer for Trial by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir who framed charges separaTely under SecTion 302/34 of The IPC againsT The accused i Page 5 of 31 persons for causing dam-h of Kachm 3m, Tusiir'am & Bum Kashyap. The accused perscns abjured ’rheir guih‘. The prosecufion in order To esTablish The charges againsf ’rhe accused persons examined 22 wi’messes in aH‘ Sfa’remenfs of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of +he Cr.P.C. in which ’rhey‘ denied fhe circumstances appearing ogainsi- Them in fhe prosecufion case. Accused Rampyare faok a defence fhci‘i' on The dafe of inciden? he was si’r‘ring before his house a? The? fime Tuisiram s'rur‘red fencing The governmenT land siTuaTed befcre Builu’s house. When They sTopped, he abused him and ThreaTened him of beaTing. AT ThaT Time, he was alone in his home, as baTh his sons had gone To work. He goT frighTened and cried for heip, whereupon his neighbourers assembied and sTopped Tuisi di Builu from abusing and involving in quarrel. When They did noT sTop, They confined him in The house. Deceased Tulsiram di Bullu conTinued abusing and ThereafTer whaT happened he does noT know. UlTimaTely, he pleaded innocence and false implicaTion. AppellanT MohiTram also denied The incriminaTing circumsTances and sTaTed ThaT on The daTe of incidenT he had gone To The house of Verma Saheb of IrrigaTion DeparTmenT To do The work from 8.00 am. He does noT know anyThing abouT The incidenT, he is innocenT and has been falsely implicaTed in The crime. AppellanT Ramcharan has also faken a defence ThaT he is The Panch of Ward No.4 of The village, aT abouT 2.0 p.m. a child came To call him To persuade Them, on which he wenT wiTh ThaT child and asked Tulsiram t3; Buliu noT To fighT, as The land in quesTion is an encroached land and advised Them To geT The maTTer resolved Through Sarpanch by mediaTion, whereupon Tulsiram abused him and assaulTed him by laThi as a resulT of which he fainTed down and ThereafTer whaT had happened he does noT know. AppellanT RamawTar also denied The allegaTion of prosecuTion case and sTaTed ThaT he had gone To Laxmi Rice Mill in connecTion wiTh Page 6 of 31 1n 2 some work. He does nof knaw any‘rhing abou‘r +he incident he is innocem' and has been falsely impiicai-ed in The crime. 8. Learned Triai cour‘T afier' hearing fhe counsei for fhe pariies, convicted and senTenced fhe appellam‘s, as men'rionecl above. Learned counsel for ‘i'he appellnn‘rs have no? dispui’ed The homicidal den-His of Tulsiram, Bullu Kashyap & Kachm Bai. Even ofherwise from The s‘iafemen‘r of Dr‘. HR. Tharwani (PW-8), who has proved The posimor‘lem repor’r of Bullu Kashyap and found The injuries on his person described herein below, homicidal deafh of Bullu Kashyap is esiablished. o Visible brain maierial had come oui “from parieial occipiful and Temporal purieTal region and blood was cloTTed. On exTernal exominnTion; a LaceraTed wound of size 3"x x bone deep was presenT on occipiTal porieTol region Transverse in direcTion. Slood was cloTTed. e LaceroTed wound of size 8"x4" brain deep over Temporal parieTol region and fronTal region on righT side blood was cloTTed. it LoceraTed wound of size 5"x1" bone deep siTuaTed middle of chin. CloTTed blood was presenT. On infernal examina‘i‘ion; v Fracfure over occipiTol parieTal region of size 3"><2"><bone deep. Biood was cloTTed. Dura maTTer was also found. LaoeraTion over brain maTerial. FrocTure of Temporal parieTal region and fronTal bone. Brain maTerial had come ouT. Blood was cloTTed. e Mandible bone was frocTure on Two parTs and blood was cloTTed. Opinion Cause of deaTh was shock as a resulT of exTernal and inTernal bleeding due To head injury and iniuryg over l Page 7 of 31 cgz mandibie bom. Injuries preserrr over person of deceased were sufficienf in The ardinary course of nm‘ur‘e To cause deu‘rh, 10. Simiiarly, from “fhe sfcrremanf of Dru U.C. Sharma (PW~9), who has conducfed The posi'mor'rem examinmion over fhe persan cf deceased Kachra Bai and proved fhe pos‘l'mor‘fem repom‘ of EXP—28 and has found The injurie$ described herein beiow, hamicidai dem‘h of Kachm Bai is esfabiished. Gag oxiermai examinnfion: I Lacemi'ed wound of size 13 cm x 5 am. on ief‘l’ femporai region of scaip, brain ma‘rerial was lacera‘ied, Blood cioi'reci was present Bone chip of The above was removed E Face was fim‘ and crushed and if was iooking poie‘ Tongue was also pole. a Lacera‘red wound of size 4cm x 2cm x 2cm on The leff side of face in zygoma‘iic area. = Incised wound of size 6cm x 6cm bone deep over pariefai skuii and inside bone was fracfured. Lacerafed wound of size of 5cm x 2cm x 2cm over occipifai pariefai skuii, a Lacerafed wound of size 3cm x 5cm x 1cm over left parie’rai skuH jus’r above Injury No.5. I Ail The injuries were deeply s’rand and were no? washable. On infernal examination; E Brain membrane was found congested, brain maferial was lacerafed and blood clof‘red was present. E Confusion of size 20 x 10 x1 5 cm was presem‘ over lef‘l ches‘r buf 5+”, 6+“, 7H“ leff ribs and W‘, 8+h di 9% righ'f ribs were fracfured. All chambers of hearf were empfy. Lacera’rion was visible over left venfricle of “(he injuries. All injuries were anif—mor‘rem in nafure and the same were caused wifhin 24 hours of examina'l‘ion by some hard and blunf 2 Page 8 ofSl ./ cb‘jem‘, excep‘r injury No.4 which was caused by same sharp gdged weapon. Oginion; Cause of deafh is due To excessive biaeding and shock as a resuif of injuries described above and The same appear-s To be homicidal in nafur-e. 11. From fhe evidence of Dr. AR. Dwivedi (PW—10), who has proved fhe posfmom‘em repori' (Ex.P-31) of deceased Tuisimm and found fhe injuries described herein below over The person of deceased, homicidal deofh of Tulsiram is esiablished, 9 Lacera'i'ed wound of size 5x4cm x 4cm on fhe middle of forehead. Bone of The area had come ouT in The form of chips and ihe brain mm‘eriai below The injury was lacero‘l‘ed and fhick blood clof was present w Lacerm‘ed wound of size 4x1x1 cm on The righT side of upper lips. m RighT maxilla Toge’rher wiTh righT side of inciser and canine Tee‘l‘h were fracTured. MulTiplefracTures were presenT over righT mandibie. ”I Incised looking laceraTed wound of size 4x1x1 cm on The occipiTal region of skuil (11' middle line and verTical siTuaTion siTuaTed. - LaceraTed wound of size 2x1x0.5 om on The rear side of lefi parieTal region, Injury was obliquely placed. '1 Mul‘iiple frac‘iures over righT humorous and righT forearm. ' Com pound mul‘ripie fracTure over lefT humorous, one loceraTed wound of size 3x1x2 cm upper 1X3“! porTion of lefT arm of fronT side. I LaceraTed wound of size 4x1x1 cm over middle 1/3” on lefT forearm in The fronT‘side. Compound mulTi’ple fracTures over righT leg bone. Bone ends were badly crushedvand lower laceraTed wound was visible. One iaceraTed wound of size Jo Page 9 of 31 Q36 10x5cm exposing bcnes and muscles was presem over righ’r leg a'r middle V3” of from‘al side. One iacer‘a‘red wound of size 5x3crn x exposmg bones and muscles, jusf above The righ‘r ankle. Fractured and badbf crushed bone ends were \risible. 'I Compound muH‘iple frncfur'es over ief? leg bones caup!ed wi‘i‘h iacercn‘ed wound was presenf. Broken bones were visible from crushed ends > Lacera’red wound of size 10cm x 5 cm over middie 1x3“! part of ief‘f ‘eg of from- side. Bones and muscles were visible. > Locerofed wound of size 6cm x 4 om Jusf above The ief‘i onkie on fronfoi side, bones and muscles were visibie. W AH ‘ihe above injuries were mused by hard and biunf objeci' and ‘rhe some were on‘ri—mor‘iem in na‘rure. Opinion: Cause of den-H1 has been opined as neurogenic shock and hoemorrhage (bleeding) due 'ro numerous injuries wifhin 24 hrs from ’rhe posTmorfem exomincn‘ion. 12. Learned counsel "For The oppeilonTs submii’red Thai convici‘ion is based on The sTaTemenTs of alleged eyewiTnesses namely Nanki Noni (PW-2), Kum. Vimla (PW-5), Janki Bai (PW-11) and RaJu @ Rajkumar {PW-19). Nanki Noni (PW—2) is The wife of deceased Bullu Kashyap, Vimla (PW—5} di Raju (PW-19) are The daughTer 5i son of deceased Bullu Kashyap, whereas, Jonki Bai (PW-11) is The sisTer of deceased Kachra Bai and as such They are highly inTeresTed wiTnesses. The independenT wiTnesses Though available have eiTher noT been examined or have noT been SupporTed .The prosecuTion case. IndependenT wiTnesses namely Manharan 60nd dl Suresh, who have named as eyewiTnesses in The FIR, have noT been examined and There is no explanaTion for Their non—examinaTion. On close scruTiny of sTaTemenTs of These wiTnesses/ iT would be evidenT ThaTLihey w v Page 10 of 31 have fried To suppress ’rhe ‘Hme and origm of incideni There are mafer‘itd conTmdicfions and omissions in Their sfafemer1+$ and They also confradicfed The version given by each ofher- on mufer‘iai pam‘iculars. However, learned, 'ir-ial courf has based fhe convicfion of appeilan’rs by ignoring The maferiai discrepancies presen‘i in “the sfo’remen’rs of These wifnesses. They fur‘rher submif ’rhm“ +he prosecu’rion has suppressed The earlier repor‘i and FIR (Ex.P-1) is a fobricai‘ed document as The some has been subsequenTIy recorded affer' reaching The spéT and affer due deIiberaTions possibly on The nexT day of occurrence Le. on 14.10.2003. FabricaTion of F.I.R. is aiso esTablished from The facT ThaT no evidence was adduced by The prosecuTion To The effecT ThaT afTer regisTering The offence The special reporT, as conTempiaTed under SecTion 157 of The Cr.P.C,, was immediaTely senT To The MagisTraTe concerned. From The prosecuTion evidence iT wouid be evidenT ThaT The incidenT occurred in The morning when pegs were being fixed by Tuisirarn, The informaTion of incidenT was avaiiable wiTh The poiice even before 12.00 noon, The police personnel were already presenT in The village jusT afTer The incidenT and They accompanied complainanT Nanki Noni (PW-2) To police sTaTion. However, The prosecuTion has suppressed The origin and genesis of The offence and F.I.R. is shown To be recorded aT 3.35 p.m., wherein iT is menTioned ThaT incidenT occurred aT 2.00 pm, which on The face of The evidence available on record is false and fabricaTed. They furTher submiT ThaT The InvesTigaTing Officer has noT prepared The siTe plan immediaTely afTer reaching The spoT which creaTes serious doubT abauT TheTruThful invesTigaTion. The manipulaTion in Timing of The incidenT from 8—9 am. in The morning To 2.00 pm. is deliberaTe because Nanki Noni (PW—2) had reTurned home aT 12.00 noon, whereas’Janki Bai (PW-11) had gone To Khokhra for TreaTmenT and reTurned from There only aT 11—12 p.m. Raju (‘9 Page 11 ofSl Rqjkumar (PW-19) was also no1‘ presen‘r in he home, as he had gone 1'0 graze his buffaloes in fhe morning from where he r'e'iur'ned only of abouT 11 am. The prosecufion witnesses have admiT’red This foc‘r Thai 'ihe appellanf Rumpyar'e is unable To walk wi’rhou’r supporf and he has been falsely implica'ied in i'he ins'ran'r case because of land r'elm'ed dispufe. The r‘ela‘rions of deceased Tulsiram wifh The villagers were s’rr'ained and fhe villagers had excommunica’red him from sacie'iy. He had enmi‘i‘y wifh cer'iain villagers, as The villagers alleged ThaT he indiscriminaTely used To beaT villagers. 50 far as The recovery of weapons of offence on disclosure sTaTemenTs of oppellanTs is concerned, The wiTnesses of memorandums and recoveries have noT supporTed The prosecuTion case and They have been declared hosTile and furTher ThaT weapons of offence allegedly seized from The appellanTs were noT produced during Trial and nor The some were shown To The docTor To ascerTain wheTher The injuries presenT over The bodies of deceased persons could be caused by said weapons. In These circumsTances/ F.5.L. reporT regarding presence of blood over The seized weapons is of no consequence. On The oTher hand, learned AddiTional Public ProsecuTor for The STaTe has supporTed The judgmenT of Triol‘courf and placing reliance upon The judgmenT in The maTTer of Bikuu Pandey Vs. 5TaTe of Bihar reporTed in AIR 2004 SC 997 conTended ThaT There are four eyewifnesses To The incidenT and one of Them namely Raju @ Rajkumar (PW-19) is an injured eyewiTness. Their evidence cannoT be discarded simply because They happened To be relaTed To The deceased persons. Their version is duly corroboraTed from The reporT of chemical analysis and The reporT of SerologisT, who have confirmed The presence of human blood on The weapons and blood sTained cloThing seized fromwThe accused persons as also in The nails of The accused persons. ThelnvesTigaTing Officer has proved The H Page 12 0f31 memorandums and recoveries which find cur‘roborm‘ion from fha sfa‘l'emenf of af+es+ing wifness namely Kar‘fik Ram (PW-15) and a!so fmm The sfafemem of Rafa! Lal (PW-12). He fur-Thar submifs fha‘r infirmifies, irreguiar‘ifies or iikgalifies in The conducf or inves‘rigm‘ion are of no consequence where accounf of incident as narrafed by fhe wifnegses, inspire confidence of The Coum‘. Version of the prosecu‘i‘ion aiso finds supporf from The sfafemem‘ of accused recorded under Secfion 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein oppeilan’r Romcharan & Rampyore hove admiffed Thaf some quarrel Took place be'l'ween The deceased and Them in fhe uffernoon. 134 We have heard learned counsel for The porTies. 14. Findings recorded by The Trial courT in The impugned judgmenT for convicTing The oppellanTs are as under:- ¢:~ Nanki Noni, Vimlo, Janki oi Roju @ Rajkumor are eyewiTnesses of The incidenT. d° Nonki Noni in her sToTemenT on oaTh has given a deTail occounT of incidenT and has norraTecl The role played by each of The accused persons in assaulTing her husband, faTheruin- law di moTher—in-law. a? Version of Nanki Noni finds eorroboraTion from The sTaTen'ienT of Vimla, who is also an eyewiTness of assaulT of Tulsi, Kachra Bai :Sg Bullu Kashyap. Janki Bai is also an eyewiTness of incidenT and version of above Three wiTnesses is furTher confirmed by The sTaTemenT of PW—19 Raju. ‘2‘ The eyewiTnesses accounT is furTher corroboraTed by prompTly lodged FIR (EXP-1) as The incidenT is of 1400 hrs and The reporT was lodged on The same day aT 1335 hrs by Nanhi Noni (PW-2) in which The names of all The four appellanTs are menTioneH as assailanTs. Their version is furTher corroboraTed by.The posTmorTem reporT of all Three i Page 13 0f31 deceased persons cmd The injuries described by fhe eyewifnesses correspond To The injuries menfioned in 'l'he posfmor‘rem repor’rs. i. Aparf from above evidence; weapons of offence and biocd siained ciofhing have been recovered on fhe memcrandums 0'? accused persons. Nails of accused persons were also goi' cui and were seized. Seized arficies were sen’r for chemical examinafion io FSL and as per FSL repor‘l The seized orTicles were sToined wiTh blood and Thus, The seilure of arTicle on Their memorandums and presence of blood in The seized arTicles is an addiTionol evidence agoinsT The oppellanTs. «3 In The insTunT case There is evidence ThoT The accused persons assaulTed} Therefore, in The facTs and circums’rancesf iT is presumed ThoT The offence was commiTTed by common inTenTion by all four accused person. ev Non-explanaTion of The injuries presenT over The person of appellan'l' Ramcharan will noT make The case of The prosecuTion doubTful, as There is no evidence ThoT The deceased persons were holding any weapon aT The Time of incidenT. v The defence of appellanT Rampyare has been negoTed wiTh on observaTion ThaT The appellanT appeared before The CourT and iT was observed ThaT he was noT lame and wiTh This findings convicTed The appellanTs. 15. Since The ToTal case of The prosecuTion is based on The sTaTemenTs of Nanki Noni Bai (PW-2), Kumari Vimla (PWm5), Janki Bai (PW—11) d Raju @ Rajkumar (PW—19}, who are sTaTed To be The eyewiTnesses of The incidenT and convicTion is also primarily based on The sTaTemenT of These wiTnesses, we propose To scruTinize The sTaTemenT of These wiTnesses in The lighT of 'argumenTs advanced by The respecTive parTies. NANKI NQNI BAI (PW—2): 16. This wH-ness has sfa’red fha‘f The inciden’r is of 13% Oc?ober‘. Accused persons had objec’red and abused her mofhernin—hw (deceased Kaohra Bai) and faTher-in—law (deceased Tulsiram) for "Fixing peg on abadi land. House of accused persons is adjaceni 1‘0 her house. When her mo’rher—in-Iow wen? i'here, accused asked her To send her husband & son, fhey shail hem“ Them and sfom‘ed mon— handiing her. Hearing Thie, her- fai’her-in—iaw came om“ of