In cases involving a large number of assailants, it may be difficult for witnesses to attribute specific roles to each assailant, and minor discrepancies in the statements of rustic villagers may not be material in such complex cases.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J. - This judgment shall govern the disposal of both the Criminal Appeals.

2. Both the Criminal Appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 14.9.2000 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge Ashoknagar, Distt. Guna, in S.T.No.99/1990 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/149, 147, 148 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/149 of IPC and one year's RI under Section 148 of IPC with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that on 24.7.1989 at about 7 am Vrindawan and Lakhan along with their brother Ramgopal residents of village Janoda were going towards Ashoknagar for attending the Court. As soon as they reached near pond of Bamuriya, accused persons, who were hiding themselves in the heap of soil nearby, came out and tried to surround them.

Thereafter they tried to run away towards village Bijauli, but after some distance accused persons caught hold of them and asked Vrindawan and Lakhan to run away if they want to save themselves. Vrindawan requested the accused persons to leave Ramgopal, then accused Rajkumar slapped him. Thereafter Vrindawan and Lakhan stood up after some distance and accused persons started beating Ramgopal by means of Ballam, Luhangi and Lathi. The accused persons caused various injuries to Ramgopal and also broke his hands and legs, as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter they threw him on the road and ran away.

Then Vrindawan and Lakhan went near to his brother Ramgopal and found that he was breathing, but unable to speak. At that juncture, they saw that accused persons are returning and accused Adhar Singh asked others to check whether he is still alive and thereafter they ran away towards village Bamuriya. Vrindawan thereafter by leaving Lakhan near Ramgopal, went to village Bijauli and brought some bedding, but in between Ramgopal died.

4. Vrindawan then went to village Janoda and informed Raghuvir Kalar and then after bringing the tractor of Sangram Singh took the dead-body of deceased Ramgopal to police Station, Ashoknagar and lodged the report, on which case was registered at crime No.211/1989. It is the case of the prosecution that his brother deceased Ramgopal had contested Panchayat election against accused Rajkumar, and therefore, there was enmity and on account of this enmity, the accused persons have killed the deceased. Thereafter, Lash Panchayatnama was prepared and dead-body was sent for postmortem. Spot map was prepared, plain and blood stained soil were seized, statements of the witnesses were recorded, accused were arrested and weapons used in the commission of offence were seized. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.

5. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the trial Court for trial.

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined twelve witnesses and appellants in their defence examined five witnesses. The trial Court after marshalling the evidence came on record, convicted the appellants as aforesaid and acquitted accused Gaya and Puran.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that learned trial Court has based its findings on conjectures and surmises. Both the eye-witnesses Vrindawan and Lakhan have stated that accused Shayam Kumar by means of axe inflicted several blows to the deceased, but as per the postmortem report, deceased Ramgopal did not receive even a single incised wound on his body. It is further submitted that as per the statements of the eye-witnesses all the accused caused injuries to the deceased by means of Ballam, Luhangi and Lathi, but as per the postmortem report only four injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. In such circumstances, it is submitted that presence of aforesaid eye-witnesses at the place of incident is doubtful. It is further submitted that as per the statement of Sangram Singh