The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions and case laws to determine the nature of the offence and the intention of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. The aforesaid Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, as they arise out of the same incident.

2. The appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, each of the appellant was directed to undergo SI for one year, vide judgment dated 3rd December, 2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in ST No.25/2019.

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Mohd. Sharif has lodged an FIR with the PS Azad Chowk on 21.9.2018 stating that on 20.9.2018 at about 10 pm after taking dinner he went to his room for sleeping and his son Mohd. Siraj went outside the home with his friends for taking stroll. Next day morning, one Sheikh Alam came to his house and informed him that accused Manav Pandey and his two friends have assaulted his son Mohd. Siraj with knife and sticks and he is lying unconscious at Jai Kali Chowk, Bhoipara. After receiving the information, the complainant went to the spot where he came to know that on account of old enmity, accused Manav Pandey and his two friends have assaulted his son. It is stated that accused Manav Pandey has caused grievous injuries by giving knife blow on his abdomen. His friends Prashant Patel and Aman Bhargav took him to Yashwant Hospital for treatment from where on the advise of the doctors, he was taken to Ramkrishna Care Hospital for treatment where he was declared brought dead. On receiving information, Dehati Merg intimation (Ex.-P/1) and Dehati First Information Report (Ex.-P/2) were recorded and subsequently, FIR (Ex.-P/21) was registered.

4. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded. Pursuant to memorandum statement of accused Manav Pandey, one knife was recovered vide Ex.-P/12 and in pursuance of the memorandum statement of accused Ritesh, one club was recovered vide Ex.-P/13. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.-P/4. Postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. M. Nirala (PW-6), who submitted his report vide Ex.-P/17, wherein he opined that the cause of death is haemorrhage and shock, and the death is homicidal in nature.

5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants for offence under Sections 302/34 of the IPC. On the date of the incident, since one juvenile conflict with law ‘A’ was involved, his trial was conducted at the Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur. The charges were read over and explained to the appellants, however, the appellants denied the same and claimed to be tried. The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC wherein the accused pleaded innocence and false implication.

7. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. Sheikh Alam (PW2), Aman Bhargav (PW-4), Prashant Patel (PW-10) and Mohammad Aarif (PW-12) are related to the deceased, therefore, they are interested witnesses. There are various contradictions and omissions in their evidence and therefore their evidence is not credible. Though the incident happened in a crowded place, but the prosecution has failed to examine any witness. They would further submit that the offence under Section 302 of the IPC would not be attracted and the case would squarely fall under Section 304 part-I of the IPC. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Manav Pandey has placed reliance on the judgments in the matters of Arjun and Anoth