Kulshrestha J. -- 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction for offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life as also under section 323 and 323/34, IPC and sentence of R.I. for six months under each count to each of the appellants by the judgment dated 7.9.1994 of the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, passed in Sessions Trial No. 302/93:

2. The appellants were indicted for the said offences for intentionally causing death of Kejuram son of Nanku Rawat on 7.3.1993 at about 9.00 a.m. in village Alesur and for voluntarily causing hurt to Kashiram, Radheshyam, Mathurabai, Kalabai and Saraswatibai in furtherance of their common intention.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, was that there was dispute between the two parties concerning property. On the date of the incident, the appellants armed with lat-his came to the place where Kejuram had gone to ease himself and assaulted him. When the members of the family of Kejuram intervened to save Kejuram, the accused persons also belaboured them. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, and offence was registered. Inquest was held and the body was forwarded for post mortem examination as also the other victims were sent for examination of the injuries on their person and treatment. Blood stained and plain earth samples were seized and weapons were seized on the basis of information furnished by the accused. Clothes of accused Mantram and Mantri suspected to be having blood stains were also seized and the seized articles were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. Report of Laboratory confirms presence of blood on the Lathi, Baniyan and trousers seized from the accused Mantram and shirt and Lungi seized from the accused Mantri. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants.

4. Accused denied the charges. Mantram and Mantri raised a plea that they have been assaulted by deceased Kejuram and the prosecution witnesses while accused Mahesh pleaded alibi and Mantram, false implication. All the accused thus pleaded that they were innocent. The learned trial Court, however, found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them, as stated above.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has not disputed that the deceased Kejuram died a homicidal death. There is even otherwise ample evidence to prove that the deceased Kejuram had received injuries, which fact finds confirmation from the testimony of PW 11 Dr. D.N. Bijve, who had performed autopsy -on the dead body and had found injuries as recorded by him in the post mortem report Ex. P-12. According to the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to coma and depression of respiratory center as a result of injuries to the chest and brain of the deceased. The ocular testimony also confirms the deceased having been assaulted and having died as a result of the injuries. The contention of the learned counsel, however is that the FIR Ex. P-19 was a fabricated document and the entire investigation was tainted, thus, demolishing the very foundation of the prosecution case and, further, the prosecution having failed to explain the injuries of the accused, it had suppressed the genesis of the incident and it was patent in any case that the appellants had acted in exercise of right of private defence. The learned counsel for the State has, however, supported the judgment of the trial Court and has submitted that the witnesses having themselves been injured in the very incident, greater value deserves to be attached to their testimony and the conviction was well founded.

6. Eye-witness account has been rendered by PW-1 Radheshyam, PW-2 Saraswatibai and PW 7 Kashiram, while PW 3 Jhagdu and PW 4 Kanhai have not supported the prosecution. PW 1 Radheshyam is the son of the deceased, PW 2 Saraswatibai is the daughter of the deceased and PW 7 Kashiram i