JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. Since common question of fact and law is involved in both of these appeals, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 1183/2014 has been preferred by appellant Khirod Seth (A-1) and Criminal Appeal No. 937/2021 has been preferred by appellant Bhagirathi Seth (A-2) against the impugned judgment dated 25/09/2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Trial No. 57/2013 whereby they have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04/03/2013 at about 8 PM, the appellants herein, in furtherance of their common intention assaulted Dinesh with stone and hands and fists due to which he suffered grievous injuries and died and they, thereby, committed the aforesaid offence.

4. Further case of the prosecution is that on 04/03/2013 at about 09:50 PM, Dasrathi Seth (PW-1) lodged a report at the Police Station that appellant Khirod Seth (A-1) had seen his wife Basanti in a compromising and objectionable condition with Dinesh and therefore, in furtherance of their common intention, both the appellants caused the death of Dinesh by assaulting him with stone and hands and fists. On the said report, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P/2 and first information report was registered against the appellants vide Ex.P/3. Thereafter, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P/7 and dead body of Dinesh was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Mahavir Prasad Agrawal (PW-13) and as per the postmortem report (Ex.P/17), cause of death is said to be cardiorespiratory failure as a result of head injury and hemorrhage and its complications and nature of death is said to be homicidal. From the spot, plain soil, blood stained soil and one blood stained stone was seized vide Ex.P/8. After due investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence.

5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and brought on record 17 documents. The statements of the appellants was taken under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied guilt, however, they examined none in their defence and neither brought any document on record.

6. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, finding the death of deceased Dinesh to be homicidal in nature and further finding the appellants to be the authors of crime in question, proceeded to convict them for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid.

7. Mr. A.K. Yadav and Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that since appellant Khirod Seth had seen his wife Basanti in a compromising and objectionable condition with Dinesh, on that account, in sudden anger and in heat of passion, the appellants assaulted Dinesh and caused his death which would be covered with Exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC and at the most, they can be convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC and moreover, since the appellants are in jail since 05/03/2013 i.e. for more than 10 years, they be sentenced to the period already undergone.

8. Per contra, Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned State counsel, would submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC, therefore, this criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went th