JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 980/2011 has been preferred by the two appellants/accused persons namely Rasida Begam (A-1) and Nurtaj (A-2) against judgment dated 26/08/2011 passed by learned Special Judge, Ambikapur in Special Session Atrocities Case No. 93/2008 whereby they have been convicted for offences punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 6 months.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 1954/2017 has been preferred by sole appellant/accused namely Madu Miya against judgment dated 21/11/2017 passed by learned Special Judge, Sarguja (Ambikapur) in Special Session (Atrocities) Case No. 93/2008 (as he remained absconded during the course of the trial when Rasida Begam (A-1) and Nurtaj (A-2) were being tried and final judgment of conviction was passed against them) whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one year; and for offence punishable under Section 201/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 6 months.

3. Since both of these appeals involve common question of fact and law, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. It is also pertinent to mention here that since trial of Rasida Begam (A1) alongwith Nurtaj (A-2) and that of Madu Miya (A-3) was conducted separately, therefore, some of the same documents have been exhibited differently. In the instant judgment, we would be referring the exhibits as per the paper-book relating to Criminal Appeal No. 980/2011 which has been preferred by Rasida Begam (A-1) and Nurtaj (A-2), unless stated otherwise, particularly, while adjudication of Criminal Appeal No. 1954/2017.

Case of the prosecution :-

4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the three appellants/accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, administered poison to Sanjeevan Uraon due to which he succumbed to death, knowing fully well the he was a member of Scheduled Tribes and they, thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

5. It is admitted position on record that Rasida Begam (A-1) is the wife of Madu Miya (A-3) and Nurtaj (A-2) is their grandson. Further case of the prosecution is that deceased Sanjeevan Uraon was a resident of Village Ginjaipara, Chando, however, he stayed at the house of Madu Miya (A-3) at Village Idrikala P.S. Chando and used to work as domestic help. Upon investigation of Crime No. 11/08 registered at P.S. Chando, it was revealed that Madu Miya (A-3) along with his son Murtaza Ansari, grandson Nurtaj (A-2) and two other co-accused persons namely Mubarak Ansari and Ayub Khan robbed Rs. 2,00,000/- from the shop of one Bankim Mandal and thereafter, murdered him, which was also within the knowledge of deceased Sanjeevan Uraon and during investigation, Police had also summoned the deceased for inquiry. Out of the fear that deceased Sanjeevan Uraon would reveal the incident to the Police, in the evening of 23/08/2008, appellant/accused Madu Miya (A-3) escorted Sanjeevan Uraon to his home. When deceased Sanjeevan Uraon reached his home, he was feeling dizzy and he informed his mother Sushila Tirkey (P.W.-1) and brother Arun Tirkey (P.W.-2) that Madu Miya (A-3) had administered poison to him by mixing it in his meal due to which he was feeling dizzy. Thereafter, Sanjeevan Uraon died and information was given to the Police Station on the basis of which merg intimation was registered vide Ex. P/2 and after summoning the witnesses under Section 175 of CrPC vide Ex. P/3, inquest was conducted vide Ex. P/23 and the dead body of deceased Sanjeevan Uraon was subjected to postm