The court reinforced the principle that evidence must establish intent and direct involvement for conviction under murder statutes.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.10.1999 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja in ST No. 289/98 convicting each of the accused / appellants under S.302/34 of IPC and sentencing them imprisonment for life.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.8.1998 at 6 pm FIR (Ext. P21) was lodged by Parsuram (since deceased) alleging therein that he is an agriculturist, on that day he was ploughing his field in the morning along with his son Sukhlal (PW 1), at that time accused / appellant No. 1 Narayan who was also ploughing his field came to him and asked as to why he is encroaching upon his field whereupon he (deceased) replied that he is not encroaching upon his field but is trying to level the field. On this, accused / appellant No. 1 Narayan went back to his house and after some time returned with his nephew accused / appellant No. 2 Leduram, both of them were carrying clubs in their hands, they started abusing and beating him with intention to cause his death. He has stated that after seeing the incident of marpeet, his son left the place. Based on this FIR, offences under S.294, S.506B and S.323 of IPC were registered against accused / appellant No. 1 Narayan and accused / appellant No. 2 Leduram. On 24.8.1998 Parsuram was sent for medical examination vide Ext. P10A by the police and after medical examination Dr. Sharad Grewal gave MLC (Ext. P10) and had advised for x - ray of the injuries. He had also examined the lathis seized by the police and vide Ext. P13 & P / 14 opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by said lathis and death may be possible due to such injuries. On 25.8.1998 Parsuram expired in hospital and thereafter, merg intimation (Ext. P2D) was recorded. Postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted on 25.8.1998 by Dr. Ghanshyam Singh (PW 13) vide Ext. P17 and he opined that the cause of death is the cumulative effect of extra - dural haemorrhage and other injuries resulting into shock and mode of death is syncope. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused / appellants under S.294, S.323, S.506B & S.302/34 of and thereafter, charge under S.302/34 of was framed against the accused / appellants.

3. In order to hold the accused / appellants guilty, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused / appellants were recorded under S.313 of CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence they examined Gajrup and Budhna as DW 1 and DW 2.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused / appellants as mentioned in para - 1 of this judgment.

5. Contention of learned counsel for the appellants is as under:
(i) that in the promptly lodged FIR (Ext. P20) by the deceased himself names of accused / appellants No. 1 & 2 (Narayan & Leduram) only have been mentioned and therefore, under no circumstances, accused / appellants No. 3 & 4 (Suranram & Dashru) can be convicted for commission of any offence;
(ii) as names of appellants No. 3 & 4 are missing from the FIR, it also affects the so - called oral dying declaration of the deceased made before PW 2 Sulkaram, PW 3 Jhurmatia, PW 8 Motilal and PW 9 Basantlal and further affects the statement of so - called eyewitness PW 1 Sukhlal;
(iii) that statement of PW 10 Birbal in relation to extra judicial confession made by appellant No. 2 Leduram is not