The court clarified that to establish liability for murder under joint criminal enterprise, a common object must be proved, which was not present in this case.

1. The appellants stand convicted under S.302/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/-. In the event of failure to pay fine, they were required to undergo one year further rigorous imprisonment. They have also been convicted under S.326 / 149 and sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/-. In the event of failure to pay fine, each of them was required to undergo one year further rigorous imprisonment. The appellants have further been convicted under S.324/149 and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment as ordered by the 7th Additional Sessions Jude, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.344/98 dated 4th August, 1999.

2. One of the accused Jagdish Yadav has been deceased during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal stood abated against him by order dated 11.7.2014.

3. Deceased Chhotelal is stated to have been assaulted on 15.5.1998 at about 11:00 p.m. The MLC of the deceased, Exhibit P - 2 was carried out by Dr. V. K. Soni, P.W.1 who found two injuries on his person. Death occurred during treatment on 16.5.1998 at about 3:35 a.m. Dehati merg, Exhibit P - 52 was lodged by the Ward Boy of the hospital on the same date at 3:45 a.m. The FIR, Exhibit P - 21 was lodged on 16.5.1998 itself by Tiharu, PW 5, who was also injured in the same incident. The postmortem of the deceased Chhotelal marked Exhibit P - 19 was conducted by Dr. R.K. Pandey, PW 3, on 16.5.1998 at 10:15 a.m. opining that death was caused due to injury to the brain and that death had occurred within 12 hrs. of the postmortem examination.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both sides are residents of the same village Nigarband. The prosecution side was the aggressor. The appellants had acted in self defence. The deceased Chhotelal had only one injury on his head. The second injury near the eye was opined by Dr. V. K. Soni, PW 1 as a resultant of the first injury.

5. PW 5, Tiharu was the son of PW 6 Balak Ram. PW 7 Umend Ram was the cousin of PW 6. PW 8 Amarnath is the son of PW 7. The latter is the brother of deceased Chhotelal. PW 9 Rajendra is the son of PW 6. These prosecution witnesses are all related to each other. The only independent witness is PW 10 Ramkhilawan who is also a resident of Nigarband. He has deposed that earlier in the evening there had been an altercation between the two sides. The appellants had gone to the police station at Takhatpur to lodge report. The house of the appellants is after that of the prosecution witnesses PWs. 5 to 9. The appellants were returning home after lodging the police report when they were assaulted by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses evident from the evidence of the independent witness PW 10 Ram Khilawan. DW 1 Jeevan Das has also deposed that there was a fight between the appellants and the prosecution witnesses 5 to 9 at Takhatpur and that the appellants had gone to police to lodge report at about 10:00 p.m. They were returning at about 10:30 p.m. The house of PW 7 Umend and deceased Chhotelal came first after which came the house of PW 6 Balak Ram and at the end of village was the house of the appellants. The prosecution witnesses had indulged in the assault as aggressors. DW 2 - Rishi Kashyap @ Munna from whose shop the prosecution witnesses alleged the presence of light for identification had deposed that he had closed the shop at 8:00 p.m. and switched off the lights. There was thus no light for identification.

6. The appellants had also suffered injuries as revealed from the MLC report of appellant No.4 marked Exhibit D - 7, appellant No.5 marked Exhibit D - 8, appellant No.7 marked Exhibit D - 9, appel