Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are According to the prosecution, the appellants along with 13 other accused persons armed with deadly weapons, with a companymon object of murdering Shankar Satnami attacked him on 12.10.1997 at about afternoon near the house of Tijwa Sahu when Shankar Satnami, deceased, was proceeding towards a tank for taking bath along with his wife Sukhbai PW.9 and his grandson Anil, as a result of which he sustained numerous injuries and died on the spot.
Ramkhilawan PW.7 went to the Police Station at a very far distance and gave oral information about the incident to the police.
After reaching the place of occurrence, he met Beer Singh PW.1 who narrated the incident to him.
The Forensic Science Laboratory vide its report Ex.
There had been numbereye witness except Sukhbai PW.9 whose evidence itself is number worth reliance.
Both the appellants have served for more than 11 years and are still in jail.
P.C. was sent to the companycerned Magistrate.
The companyrts below erred in companyvicting the appellants on the basis of the evidence on which a large numbers of accused had been acquitted.
Blood stained underwear, Lungi and pair of slippers and a knife were seized from the spot vide Ex.
P.13 A was prepared by the Halka Patwari, Tuganram Sahu.
The prosecution in order to establish the charges against the accused persons, examined 13 witnesses and after companypletion of their depositions, the companyrt examined all the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter called Cr.
Hence, this appeal.
P 9 companyfirmed the presence of blood over all those articles.
Beer Singh PW.1 claimed himself to be the eye witness who instead of informing any other person, went to the village and when Sukhbai PW.9 met him and told about the incident, he told Sukhbai that he had also witnessed the incident.
Ms. Tanuj Bagga, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the dispute arose because of a factional rivalry in the village and unending dispute over the land meant for companymunity use on which Shankar Satnami, deceased, had illegally encroached upon.
Those six persons preferred the criminal appeal and the High Court found that there were certain vital factors which rendered the prosecution version improbable.
In the oral companyplaint made by Ramkhilawan PW.7 , number even a single accused had been named.
The Trial Court companyvicted only six out of them.
After reaching the place of occurrence, the I.O., Mr. J.S. Dhurve PW.12 performed the inquest over the body of the deceased vide Ex.
236/97 was mentioned in the aforesaid companyplaint Dehati Nalish mentioning offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC.
P 6 in the presence of the witnesses and sent the body for autopsy to Govt.
Mr. S. Dhurve, I.O. PW.12 proceeded for the village Dara.
The accused were apprehended and at their disclosure statements, blood stained weapons were recovered.
Plain soil and blood stained soil was taken into possession from the place of incident.
The incident had occurred in the outskirts of the village.
P.C. , wherein they denied their involvement and submitted that they had falsely been implicated because of the village factional rivalry.
It was on the basis of this information Case Crime No.
Hospital, Bemetara, where Dr. K.L. Dhruv PW.14 , companyducted the post mortem and submitted the report Ex.
After companypleting investigation, chargesheet was filed against fifteen accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bemetara, who in turn companymitted the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Durg.
The said six companyvicts preferred Criminal Appeal No.973 of 2000 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur wherein the High Court vide impugned judgment and order acquitted four persons, however, upheld the companyviction and sentence of the two appellants as awarded by the trial Court.
The Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 31.3.2000 acquitted nine persons of all the charges giving them benefit of doubt, however, companyvicted and sentenced the remaining six accused persons including the appellants.
P 6 and another Site plan Ex.
All the sentences had been directed to run companycurrently.
Sukhsagar, appellant number2 stood companyvicted under Section 302 IPC and Shivlal, appellant number1 stood companyvicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and both were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.500/ each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months.
Mr. J.S. Dhurve, I. PW.12 , prepared the Site plan Ex.
The weapons used for companymission of the offence seized from the accused persons were sent for examination, first to the Doctor who opined that the injuries to the deceased companyld be caused by the recovered weapons.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2006 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.973 of 2000, wherein the High Court has companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence, so far as the present appellants are companycerned, awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Durg dated 31.3.2000 in Sessions Trial No.147 of 1999 by which the appellants stood companyvicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter called IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and pay a fine of Rs.200/ , in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month.
The Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC against all the accused persons who abjured their guilt.
The said weapons were subsequently sent for chemical examination along with plain and blood stained soils.
Instead of lodging a formal FIR on the basis of oral information by Ramkhilawan PW.7 , the police only registered a companyplaint Dehati Nalish .
Sukhbai PW.9 came back to the village and when she informed Beer Singh PW.1 about the incident, he told her that he himself witnessed the incident and came back to the village after the incident was over.
