Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th of April, 1997 passed in Sessions Trial No. 62/92 by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, appellant No. 1 has been convicted u/S 302 IPC and appellant No. 2 has been convicted u/Ss 302/34 IPC and both have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under :-

2.1 The accused persons (A-1 to A-3) are real brothers. They were tried for the offences punishable u/Ss 302 & 302/34 IPC. Mohan Thakur (A-3) absconded during the pendency of the trial, therefore, the trial continued against the two appellants (A-1 & A-2) who have been convicted as above.

2.2 There was a land dispute between the accused persons and deceased-Makhanlal. On 1.9.91 at about 1.30 p.m. Makhanlal and his son, Vishnu (PW-5), were taking bath on a well situated in the badi of their house. Ramla Bai (PW-4), daughter-in-law of Makhanlal, was present in the house. The allegations are that the accused persons came there with sword and lathi and assaulted the deceased who sustained multiple serious injuries. Seeing the assault, Vishnu (PW-5) ran away from that place and saw from a distance that after the first part of the assault was over, Bedusingh (A-1) again came to the well and he again assaulted the deceased by the sword. Bedusingh was holding the sword and other two accused (A-2 & A-3) were holding lathi(s). The incident was witnessed by Vishnu (PW-5) and Ramla Bai (PW-4). Gautarhin Bai (PW-9) had also seen some part of the incident. Many villagers gathered there after the assault was over.

2.3 The deceased was taken to the hospital and was examined by Dr. Rajnikant Verma (PW-8). He noticed multiple incised injuries and abrasions on the person of the deceased. X-ray Examination of various injuries was advised. However, the deceased could not survive.

2.4 Report was sent to the police station. The Investigating Officer came to the hospital, gave notice (Ex.-P/13) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/14) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. R. Bhatacharya (PW-11). He noticed following injuries on the dead body of the deceased:-

(i) Incised wound of 4 x 1 1/3 inch on the front portion of skull; muscles were deeply cut and there was fracture over the corresponding bone;

(ii) Incised wound of 5 x 1½ x 1 inch on the front portion of left forearm; the muscles and blood vessels were completely cut;

(iii) Incised wound of 3 x ½ x ½ inch on the left thumb, blood clot was present;

(iv) Incised wound of 5 x ½ x ½ inch on the front portion of left leg; blood clots were present;

(v) Incised wound of 7 x 1/3 x 1/3 inch on the left portion of back;

(vi) Incised wound of 2½ x 1/3 x 1/3 on the axillary line on left portion of chest;

(vii) Incised wound of 1½ x ½ x ½ inch on the left elbow; &

(viii) Multiple abrasions of the size in between ¼ inch to 1/3 cm over the chest and back.

On internal examination, he found that there was fracture over left parietal bone and blood clots were present in the area of 10 x 6 x 4 cm in the scalp corresponding to the above injury. Left portion of brain was pressed on account of said injury. Blood clots were also present on spleen in the area of 10 x 8 cm, this was on account of rupture of spleen. Cut injuries were present on both the bones of left forearm. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem and the cause of death was shock as a result of extensive haemorrhage from the above injuries and the death was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report is Ex.-P/27.

2.5 Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P/1) was lodged by Shankarlal (another son of the deceased - PW -1) who met them on the way when the deceased was being taken to the hospital. It contains the names of the accused persons as also details of weapons used and the manner of assault. Based on this information, First Information Repo