i.e. Bharat, Dhruv, Sanjay and Rupesh accompanied by accused Ranu, Gopi and Jitender came to the place armed with different kinds of dangerous weapons.
Similarly, PW 4 had number implicated accused Jitender his evidence in companyrt though in the FIR filed he had specifically mentioned that accused Jitender was armed with a Nan Chaku.
The motive for the same, as evident from the cross examination of PW 13, is some relationship between the two i.e. PW 13 and accused Bharat.
Due to the assault companymitted on Vinod, he had sustained injuries for which reason he had to be taken to the hospital.
However, accused Gopi and Ranu gave knife blows to the deceased Vinod on his chest and stomach whereas accused Dhruv and Bharat had assaulted Amit Kashyap PW 13 with the belt and iron rod that they had carried.
Specifically, PW 6 has deposed that on the basis of the statement of accused Jitender a Nan Chaku Ex.
Specifically, PW 13 had stated that accused Ranu had stabbed the deceased with a dagger on the stomach and the accused Jitender had also inflicted a Gupti blow though he companyld number see the particular part of the body of the deceased on which the Gupti blow was inflicted by the accused Jitender.
At the instance of accused Gopi and Ranu a Nepali Khukri and a Gupti Ex.
According to the first informant, accused Rupesh and Sanjay had instigated the other accused to kill the deceased Vinod.
In so far as the accused Gopi and Ranu is companycerned PW 4 has, however, been companysistent in the alleged involvement of the said two accused both in the FIR as well as in the deposition tendered in Court.
In so far as accused Bharat and Dhruv are companycerned, it was claimed by the first informant that while the former was armed with an iron rod, accused Dhruv had carried a leather belt in his hand.
In the FIR it was further alleged that accused Ranu had assaulted the first informant Sanjay PW 4 with a knife but he had escaped without any serious injuries.
PW 13 has also given a different sequence of the arrival of the seven accused persons at the place of occurrence.
However, when he PW 13 along with others had rushed towards Vinod to save him, the accused persons took out the Guptis that they were carrying and started assaulting the deceased with the said weapons.
Dr. S.K. Sinha PW 7 M.O. District Hospital, Ambikapur who had companyducted the post mortem of the deceased Vinod had proved the report of post mortem Ex.
In so far as accused Rupesh is companycerned PW 4 had number implicated the said accused in any manner at all while deposing in companyrt.
P 8 and Ex.
The separate appeals filed by the seven accused before the High Court having been dismissed by the impugned order dated 30.11.2009, the accused Bharat, Dhruv, Sanjay and Rupesh have challenged the aforesaid order of the High Court in the appeals filed by them before this Court.
Similarly in his deposition, PW 4 had stated that accused Dhruv was also holding a Gupti whereas in the FIR it had been mentioned that the said accused was armed with a leather belt.
However as the injured Vinod died at about 9.15 p.m. on the same night, the offence under Section 302 was added in the FIR.
Thereafter, the case was companymitted for trial to the companyrt of sessions and charges under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC were framed against the accused persons.
They were accordingly sentenced.
On the other hand, Amit Kashyap PW 13 , had deposed that the accused persons, including the present appellants, were assaulting beating Vinod with hands and fists and were also kicking him.
The crime alleged was duly investigated and on companypletion thereof all the seven accused were charge sheeted under Section 147, 148, 302/149 of IPC.
Similarly, on the basis of the statement of accused Dhruv and Bharat a leather belt and an iron rod Ex.
P 26 .
Specifically, PW 13 had stated that he had number seen Bharat companymitting any assault on the deceased and that he was also number sure as to whether Bharat had accompanied the other accused persons and also whether he was holding any weapon at all.
This witness had deposed that companyresponding to one of the external injuries found i.e. an incised wound over the abdominal wall below the umbilicus, internal injuries cutting the diaphragm and lower lobe of the right and left lung were found by him on the person of the deceased.
P 15 were recovered.
P 14 and Ex.
P 11 respectively was recovered.
As the accused claimed innocence a regular trial was held, at the companyclusion of which all the seven accused were found guilty of the charge under Section 147, 148, 302/149 IPC.
P 7 was recovered.
In a similar manner, though in the FIR accused Sanjay and Rupesh had been alleged to be the persons who were instigating the others to kill Vinod, in his deposition in companyrt PW 4 had stated that he had seen the accused Sanjay assaulting the deceased in the thigh with a Gupti.
However, in the FIR filed by him, he had stated that accused Bharat was armed with an iron rod.
PW 4 who was examined as an eye witness had deposed that all the seven accused persons, including the four appellants, had companye together to the place of occurrence at about 8.40 pm on 05.12.2000.
This witness had specifically deposed that accused Bharat, who was armed with a Gupti, had assaulted the deceased in the stomach with the said weapon.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Four of the seven accused persons whose companyviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment has been affirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh have filed the instant appeals challenging Judgment and Order dated 30th November, 2009 of the High Court.
Specifically it was mentioned that accused Gopi had companye armed with a Nepali Khukhri accused Ranu had a knife with him whereas accused Jitender was armed with a Nan Chaku.
