JUDGMENT

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. - By the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in ST No.397/2005 for committing offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') for committing murder of Narhar Netam (since deceased) and under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for committing murder of Jageshwar (father of deceased Narhar Netam) (since deceased) and, thus, the appellant has been convicted for committing two murders and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life (twice) and to pay a fine of pay of Rs.2,000/- for each of the offence, in default of payment to fine to further undergo additional RI for two months (twice). The substantive jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-1 Fagani Bai, wife of deceased Narhar Netam and daughter-in-law of deceased Jageshwar, lodged merg intimation (Ex.P/1) on 11.05 am on 9-8-2005 informing the police that at about 10.00 am she had gone to the agricultural fields along with her husband and father-in-law for sowing of crop. Accused Jagdish (father of the appellant herein) (since deceased) and deceased have adjoining agricultural field. The complainant party had removed the weeds for sowing the crop and the weeds have been placed over the common embankment separating both the agricultural fields. Appellant asked them not to place the weeds over the embankment on which the deceased Narhar stated that let the lands be measured by Patwari on which the appellant assaulted Narhar over his head by means of spade causing his spontaneous death on the spot. Thereafter, appellant Devnath and his father Jagdish assaulted the deceased Jageshwar by club & spade causing serious injuries over his head.

3. On similar allegation, Dehati First Information Letter was lodged vide Ex.P/2 whereas numbered First Information Report (FIR) was registered vide Ex.P/26. Deceased Jageshwar was taken to hospital, however, he succumbed to injuries. Spot panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/5 and the naksha panchanama was prepared vide Ex.P/6 & Ex.P/8. From accused Devnath his blue coloured T-Shirt & Lungi were recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P/9 whereas from accused Jagdish his white vest and lungi were recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P/10. Iron Spade, tendu wood stick, plain soil & bloodstained soil were recovered from the place of occurrence vide seizure memo Ex.P/11.

4. Postmortem report in respect of deceased Narhar was submitted by PW-8 Dr. (Smt.) Tara Agrawal vide Ex.P/20 whereas postmortem report in respect of deceased Jageshwar was submitted by PW-12 Dr. Vikash Kumar Dhurv vide Ex.P/25. Deceased Narhar was found to have died on account of syncope due to excessive haemorrhage as a result of head injury with cerebral laceration and injury to dangerous area of neck. Nature of death is homicidal; and time since death more than 6 hours and within 24 hours whereas deceased Jageshwar was found to have died on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries to the body; nature is death is homicidal; and duration of death was within 24 hours since portmortem.

5. In the FSL Report available at page 49 of the paperbook, the T-Shirt & Lungi recovered from the appellant Devnath marked as 'G1' & 'G2' were found positive for presence of blood.

6. After recording the case diary statement of the witnesses, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and his father Jagdish. However, due to death of Jagdish the trial proceeded only against the present appellant Devnath.

7. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses to bring home the charges. The accused abjured the guilt; pleaded innocence and false implication. However, he has not examined any defence witness.

8. On the basis of evidence on record, the trial Judge has convicted the accused/appellant as stated supra.

9. Ms Ush