Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentences dated 23.07.2011 passed in S.T. No. 34 of 2011 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, by which the appellants have been held guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional R.I., for 3 months.

2. According to the prosecution story, on the date of incident at about 5.00 p.m., in the evening, P.W.1 Ganesha Bai, wife of deceased, was being maltreated and abused by the deceased and at that time all of a sudden, the elder brother of deceased, namely Ramratan Suryavanshi (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 712 of 2011) and his wife Laxmin Bai (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 720/2011) arrived at the spot and assaulted the deceased. It is stated that because of the assault made by hands & fists and bamboo club, deceased Laxmi Prasad sustained injuries on his chest as also head which proved to be fatal due to which he succumbed to death.

3. On the report of Ganesha Bai (P.W.1), wife of deceased, FIR (Ex.P.2) was registered by the police on 27.12.2010 at about 19.15 hours against the appellants for the alleged commission of offence punishable under sections 302, 324, 294 read with section 34 IPC. After usual investigation and on recording statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 obtaining postmortem report and collecting blood stained soil from the spot as also clothes of the deceased and the appellants which were sent for FSL examination, charge sheet was filed against the appellants for the alleged commission of offence under sections 302, 324, 294 read with section 34 IPC. Upon committal, the appellants were charged for commission of offence and they having abjured their guilt were tried for commission of offence as alleged.

In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses which included the investigating officer, the Doctor who conducted the postmortem and the witnesses, said to be eye-witnesses of the incident. The appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against them. The appellants denied to have committed any offence. No defence witnesses was examined.

Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution particularly the eyewitness account of the incident namely Ganesha Bai (P.W.1) Mangat Ram (P.W.2) and Shiv Prasad (P.W.5) and taking into consideration the homicidal nature of death and the injuries caused, the learned trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

4. Assailing the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the evidence of eye-witnesses is liable to be disbelieved because either they have made improvements in their statements or they are concocted in nature. As far as P.W.1 Ganesha Bai wife of deceased is concerned, it is submitted that her conduct was most unusual that instead of saving her husband from the alleged assault, she left the spot. It is submitted that even according to this witness, she left the spot of incident soon after the quarrel had begun and she has exaggerated in her court statements of having seen the entire incident. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that according to this witness there were number of neighbours residing in the same vicinity but the prosecution has not examined them which raises doubt with regard to the entire case of prosecution. Further submission is that though Ganesha Bai (P.W.1) has stated that the incident was seen by the villagers and children, those children have not been examined and the neighbouring witnesses also having not been examined, non-examination of these witnesses leads to drawing adverse inference again