JUDGMENT :

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J.) :

1. The instant Criminal Appeal is preferred under Section 374 of CrPC, challenging the conviction and sentence dated 3.6.2011 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar (MP) in Sessions Trial No. 181/2009, whereby appellant No.1-Hameer Singh and appellant No.2-Brijendra Singh have been convicted under Section 302 /34 and Section 302 of IPC, respectively, and each of them has been sentenced to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs.1000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one year.

2. The facts necessary to be stated for disposal of the instant appeal are that as per prosecution version, on 8.3.2009 at about 12.00 pm (noon) deceased Lallu had objected to thrashing of the crop by the accused persons which had been sown by the deceased on the land taken on lease by the deceased from the appellants. As per prosecution, the deceased had demanded to refund the amount of Rs.21600/-taken by the appellant as well as the crop of chana from the appellants. The appellants refused to do so and on protest, appellant Hameer caught hold both the hands of the deceased and appellant Brijendra poured petrol on the deceased and set the deceased at fire. Bhagwat and Gangaram rushed for rescue and extinguished the fire. In the meantime, deceased's son Ratibhan came and took the deceased to District Hospital where the doctor informed the police and Police registered a case at Crime No. 166/2009 under Section 307 of IPC. During treatment, injured Lallu died, thereupon charge sheet was filed under Sections 307 , 302/34 of IPC.

3. Appellants Hameer Singh and Brijendra Singh were tried for the offences under Sections 302 /34 and 302 IPC, respectively, and have been convicted and sentenced as under :

4. The grounds raised are that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. There is no motive on the part of the appellants. There are serious contradictions, omissions and inconsistency in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution story is concocted, fabricated and afterthought. The impugned judgment of the trial Court is solely based on dying declaration made to the different witnesses ignoring the fact of compromise taken place between the parties in a Panchayat prior to commission of occurrence, which was admitted by witnesses Udaybhan Singh Yadav (PW-1), Ratibhan Singh (PW-3) and Nathan Singh (PW-6). The trial Court has committed mistake in not considering the fact that the deceased died after 16 days of the incident due to serious complication such as, toxemia septicemia. The all