JUDGMENT

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava , J. - The present Criminal appeal u/S 374 of CrPC has been preferred by appellants Ramswaroop, Ramesh and Hemant, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28-09-2011 passed by additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, Distt.Guna (MP) in Sessions Trial No.256/2008 whereby the appellants have been convicted u/S 302/34 of IPC (two counts) and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- for commission of murder of Kallu and Shivlal and u/S 323/34 of IPC (four counts) and sentenced to undergo six months RI with default stipulations for causing injuries to four injured persons. Both the sentenced were directed to be run concurrently.

(2) In a nutshell, the case of prosecution is that around 4- 6 months ago from the date of incident 10.06.2008, the Dynamo of appellant No.1 Ramswaroop was stolen and on 10.06.2008, the accused persons were arguing with Kallu (since deceased) and others suspecting them for theft of Dynamo and for resolving the dispute, Nathu Patel and Dheeraj Meena were called by accused persons. During the incident, at around 12.00 noon, when Kallu and Dheeraj were leaving the place then, all of a sudden, the appellants, who were filling their trolley of manure, asked for dynamo or Rs.40,000/- from the complainant party and thereafter, appellant No.1 Ramswaroop inflicted axe blow upon the head of Kallu with intention to kill him and appellant No.2 Ramesh inflicted lathi blow on the head of Kallu and when Shivlal came to rescue him, then appellant No.3 Hemant inflicted spade blow as a result whereof, blood started oozing and Karibai (PW1) as well as complainant Mahendra Singh Meena (PW8) along with Dheeraj (PW2) and Ishwar (PW4) were beaten when they intervened the matter. On receiving information of the said incident, the police reached spot and thereafter, injured along with Shivlal & Kallu were brought to the hospital. Shivlal died on the spot while Kallu died on the way while bringing him to Kumbhraj Hospital. The dead body of both deceased thereafter were sent for postmortem. Complainant Mahendra Singh Meena (PW8) lodged a complaint Exhibit P8, on the basis of which FIR at Crime No.160/2008 for offence under Sections 302 , 307, 324, 323/34 of IPC was registered against accused persons. The matter was investigated and after completion of investigation and other formalities, the police filed a charge-sheet u/S 302/34 of IPC (two counts) and u/S 323/34 of IPC (four counts) against accused appellants.

(3) The accused persons were charged with aforesaid offence which was abjured by them and claimed for trial. In their defence, they pleaded that they have been falsely implicated and on the alleged date of incident, they were not present at the place of occurrence. appellants have got examined Rambharose (DW-1), Ramhet (DW-2) and Badrilal (DW-3) in their defence.

(4) Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as thirteen witnesses viz. PW1 Karibai, PW2 Dheeraj Singh, PW3 Kalyan, PW4 Ishwar, PW5 anitabai, PW6 Govind Singh, PW7 Vijay Singh, PW8 Mahendra, PW9 Dr.Sudip arora, PW10 K.S. Bhadauriya, PW11 Dr. a.D. Vinchurkar, PW12 Harnam Singh and PW13 Dr. Yogesh Shakya.

(5) The Trial Court, after evaluating the prosecution evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants for offences, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

(6) It is contended on behalf of appellants that the impugned judgment is bad in law and against the settled principles of law. The Trial Court has committed an error in convicting appellants by holding that appellants No.1 and 3 Ramswaroop and Hemant were armed with sharp edged weapons, but there is no injury caused from sharp edged weapon either on the body of deceased or any of the injured persons and the aforesaid fact is duly corroborated by medical evidence, which reflects that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object, not sharp edged weapon. It is further contended that the Trial Court did not conside