JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

2. These two appeals would arise out of the same judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.2.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (CG) in ST No.34/2010, whereby, the Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants (accused) under Sections 302/34 and 328/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for life and RI for 3 years respectively with default sentences.

3. Aadhar Singh, father-in-law of deceased Lok Singh had purchased the land belonging to one Janmati Gond, who happens to be the Aunt (Bua) of appellant Navishchandra. Deceased Lok Singh was cultivating the land, therefore, appellant Navinschandra had raised a dispute with Lok Singh and their relations were not normal. It is stated that because of this enmity, appellant Navishchandra conspired with appellant Patram Yadav to eliminate deceased Lok Singh and in execution of the conspiracy, he handed over Prasad (Propitiatory) containing poisonous substance to Patram with instructions to distribute the said Prasad to Lok Singh. On 2.4.2010, at about 7 p.m., appellant Patram distributed the Prasad to Lok Singh as also to PW-1 Janmati Gond, sister of the deceased and PW-2 Kamla Bai, wife of the deceased. Some part of the Prasad received by Lok Singh himself was also given to PW-9 Devkumari, Niece (Bhanji) of the deceased, who used to reside in the same house. Immediately, after consuming the Prasad, Lok Singh started vomiting and his condition soon deteriorated, therefore, he was taken to Community Health Centre, Pendra Road, where he was given First Aid by PW-7 Dr. Devendra Singh Paikra. Lok Singh died in the course of treatment, where-after, his postmortem was conducted by Dr. H.K. Tanwar, who submitted his report-Ex.-P/23. The Autopsy Report contained a finding of suggestive toxication after ingestion of some poisonous thing, but it could not be identified. The viscera were preserved and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory to find out the cause of death after chemical analysis.

4. Soon after the death, a merg was registered vide Ex.P/9 and thereafter, FIR Ex.-P/6 was registered on 2.5.2010 on the basis of the Postmortem report. In the course of investigation, case diary statements of the witnesses were recorded and the samples of vomitus, remaining part of the Prasad consumed by the deceased and the Prasad distributed to PW-1 Janmati and PW-2 Kamla Bai were recovered vide Ex.P/5. On 3.4.2010 i.e. on the very next day of the incident, these samples were sent for chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Ex.P/16, which was received by the said Laboratory vide Ex.P/17, however, the FSL report was not filed either with the charge sheet or in the course of trial.

5. The prosecution, thus, proceeded to conduct trial and establish the guilt on the basis of the MLC Report, postmortem report and the case diary statements of the witnesses mainly PW-1 Janmati Gond, PW-2 Kamla Bai and PW-9 Devkumari.

6. The trial Court has convicted the appellants on the finding that appellant Patram Yadav had distributed the Prasad in execution of a conspiracy hatched by him and appellant Navishchandra and the postmortem report has found the presence of poisonous substance in the body of the deceased, therefore, the charges have been proved.

7. Assailing the conviction, Mr. Ashok Soni, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that in the absence of FSL report, there is absence of conclusive evidence to prove death by poisoning or offering of any poisonous substance by appellant Patram to the deceased, therefore, the conviction is wholly unjustifiable. He would also submit that the appellants should not be convicted merely on the basis of suspicion that they had handed over some poisonous substance to deceased Lok Singh causing his death.

8. Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel for the State would refer to the evidence available on record to argue that there is strong evidence against the appellants includ