IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitnesses and the common object of the accused in a fatal assault.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. Since both the appeals are arising out of the common impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment.

2. The appeals are against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 137/2019 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 341 & 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for life Imprisonment, R.I. for 5 years, R.I. for 01 month and R.I. for 1 year, respectively and to pay fine amount of Rs. 500/- in respect of each of the offence with default stipulations.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.04.2019 at 05:30 O’clock the complainant Bisahu Ram Chandrakar (PW-1) made a report that while he was coming back from his agriculture field, when he reached near the pond Parsahi of his village, he saw his brother Chintamani Chandrakar (since deceased), nephew Manish Kumar Chandrakar (injured) and Naresh Chandrakar were being assaulted by namely; Sevaram Jangde (A-1), Kamlesh Jangde (A-2), Dharamdas @ Motu Jangde (A-3), Permanand @ Pappu Banjare (A-4), Narad Jangde (A-5), Ramanand Jangde (A-6) and Mukesh Kumar Banjare @ Muswa (A-7) were assaulting his brother and nephews. Subsequently, when the passerby reached them they fled away. By such assault Chintamani sustained injury on his head and he was unconscious. Nephew Manish was also injured. Chintamani Chandrakar was taken to the hospital wherein he was declared dead. Subsequently, his nephew Naresh Kumar Chandrakar (PW-3) disclosed that some dispute took place over monetary matter in factory of injured Manish Kumar Chandrakar (PW-2) and while they were returning to their home, all the accused/appellants armed with deadly weapons assaulted them. On the basis of the report and the happening of the incident case was registered under Sections 302, 307, 147 & 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The inquest report was prepared and Manish was also subjected to MLC. After recording the statements and evidence, on the basis of the memorandum, the arms were recovered, thereafter the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 307, 341, 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

4. During the course of trial, the appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 48 documents, apart from that the FSL reports were also put on record. The learned Sessions Judge, after evaluating all the material evidence & statements acquitted the accused Sevaram Jangde (A-1) and Ramanand Jangde (A-6) from the offence under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, however, all the accused have been convicted as mentioned in para 2 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. In order to facilitate and to avoid the confusion all the appellants have been named as; Sevaram Jangde (A-1), Kamlesh Jangde (A-2), Dharamdas @ Motu Jangde (A-3), Permanand @ Pappu Banjare (A-4), Narad Jangde (A-5), Ramanand Jangde (A-6) and Mukesh Kumar Banjare @ Muswa (A-7).

6. (a) Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate and Ms. Archi Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of A-1 to A-4 and A-6, would submit that the instant case is an outcome of a false accusations. It is stated all the so called eye-witnesses namely Bisahu Ram Chandrakar (PW-1), Manish Kumar Chandrakar (PW-2), Naresh Kumar Chandrakar (PW-3), Saurabh Kumar Chandrakar (PW-4) & Umang Kumar Vaishnav (PW-5), are relatives of the deceased Chintamani and Umang Kumar Vaishnav (PW-5) is also a friend of Saurabh Kumar Chandrakar (PW-4), who is the relative of the deceased. Learned counsel would submit that the scooty of A/1, was recovered at the factory site and according to the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the defence would disclose that A/1 while went to the factory of Na