Pritinker Diwaker, J.

This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.2.2013 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in S.T.No.43/2012 convicting the accused/appellants under Sections 147, 148/149, 450/149, 302/149 of IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam and sentencing them to undergo RI for 6 months, fine of Rs.100/-, RI for 1 year, fine of Rs.100/-; RI for 2 years, fine of Rs.200/-; life imprisonment, fine of Rs.100/-, RI for 1 year, fine of Rs.200/- & RI for 2 years, fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulations respectively.

2. As per prosecution case, the accused/appellants used to suspect deceased Samdu Kawasi as Tonhi and on 9.3.2012 at about 7 pm they entered the house of the deceased and committed his murder by causing several injuries by knife as well as by pestle. On 10.3.2012 at 11.30 am FIR (Ex.P/21) was lodged by PW-1 Jugo Kawasi, eyewitness to the incident and daughter-in-law of the deceased against the appellants under Sections 302, 450, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of Tonhi Pratadna Adhiniyam. Immediately thereafter merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P/22. Inquest over the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P/3 on 10.3.2012 and the body was thereafter sent for postmortem which was conducted on the same day by PW-6 Dr. Pradeep Baghel vide Ex.P/12, who noticed incised wounds on ear, chest, abdomen, thigh and neck and opined that the cause of death was circulatory failure and coma due to excessive hemorrhage and that the death was homicidal in nature. On 10.3.2012 memorandum of accused/appellant Aytu Kawasi was recorded vide Ex.P/8, pursuant to which one pestle was seized vide Ex.P/9. Likewise, memorandum of accused/appellant Meta @ Somaru (Ex.P/6) recorded on 10.3.2012 led to recovery of one knife vide Ex.P/7. Further, case of the prosecution is that the incident has been witnessed by PW-9 Kawasi Adme. After completion of investigation, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148/149, 450/149, 302/149 of IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of the Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that PW-1 Jugo Kawasi is not the eyewitness to the incident has falsely implicated the appellants. It is further argued that statement of other eyewitness Kawasi Adme (PW-9) is also not very reliable and considering the fact that the incident took place in the dark night, the question of witnessing the incident by this witness also does not arise.

6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that conviction of the appellants is strictly in accordance with law and as such, there is no scope for any interference in the judgment impugned by this Court.

7. Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.

8. PW-1 Jugo Kawasi, daughter-in-law of the deceased and lodger of FIR, in examination-in-chief has stated that she saw the appellants committing murder of the deceased as they were suspecting him as Tonhi. However, in cross-examination she states that as it was dark in the night she could not identify anyone. She has further stated that as the deceased did not return till late night, all the family members after taking meals slept and in the morning when they woke up they saw dead body of the deceased near the tamarind tree. When they went near him, they found him dead. She has further stated that she is not aware as to how the deceased