Mutur Ram and Another vs State of C.G.

T.P. Sharma, J.—Since all the aforesaid criminal appeals are arising out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14-5-2003 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, in Sessions Trial No. 315/2001, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14-5-2003 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, in Sessions Trial No. 315/2001, whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the Appellants guilty for commission of offence under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C., sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for three years and to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three years, respectively.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18-7-2001 at about 12 noon Rameshwar (since deceased) was sitting in his house with his wife Baso Bai (PW-2), daughter-in-law Kamla Bai (PW-1) and Raitlo Bai (PW-3), after taking meals. Accused Tulsai chased the mother of Baso Bai (PW-2) namely, Suari Bai for assaulting her, Suari Bai fled away from her house and went inside the house of the deceased. The deceased and his wife Baso Bai (PW-2) intervened and objected accused Tulsai. Other accused Ramsai, Kunwar, Jadu, Pater Sai, Mutur and Dinesh also came, they were holding axe and they dragged deceased Rameshwar from his house and assaulted with axe and stick. Accused Kunwar assaulted deceased Rameshwar with axe on his head. Other accused Tulsai, Mutur, Jadu, Ramsai, Pater and Dinesh assaulted the deceased with stick and caused injury over right leg, left leg, back and waist. Raghu Gond, Shahi Gond, Began Gond and Bhagu Seth had seen the incident. Wife of the deceased Baso Bai (PW-2) went to Police Station Darima, 18 kms. away from the place of incident, and lodged the report within 4 1/2 hours vide Ex. P-1. Injured Rameshwar was taken to the Police Station and to the hospital. He was examined by Dr. J.K. Jain (PW-11) and Dr. O.P. Shrivastava (PW-12) vide Ex. P-3A. The injured was unconscious, his blood pressure was 108/80 m.m.; pulse was 68 per minute; pupils were diluted and not reacting; blood was coming from the mouth and injuries were present over the body. There was a lacerated wound over left side of head and injured Rameshwar was admitted in hospital for treatment. During treatment, he died on 19-7-2001 at 6.30 a.m.. Death of Rameshwar was intimated by the doctor to the Police Station and on the basis of said intimation, merg was recorded. The Investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-22, inquest over the dead body of Rameshwar was prepared vide Ex. P-23. The dead body was sent for autopsy to District Hospital, Ambikapur vide Ex. P-2 and autopsy was conducted by Dr. B.P. Chandra (PW-4) vide Ex. P-2 who found following injuries:

(a) Stitched wound over left frontal region of scalp with swelling over fronto parietal region.

(b) Swelling over left cheek.

(c) Both eye lids were swollen and black.

(d) Dry blood clot over nostril and mouth.

(e) Multiple depressed fractures of both parietal and frontal bones.

(f) Membrane of brain was ruptured.

(g) Sub-dural haematoma was found.

Injuries found over the head were dangerous to life and cause of death was coma as a result of sub-dural haematoma and brain damage resulted from injury. Death was homicidal in nature. Spot map was prepared by the Investigating Officer vide Ex. P-34. Bed head ticket of the deceased was seized vide Ex. P-35. Patwari prepared the spot map vide Ex. P-38. The accused persons were taken into custody. Accused Tulsai made disclosure statement of stick vide Ex. P-3 and on the basis of the same, stick was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-4. Accused Pater Sai made disclosure statement of stick vide Ex. P-5 and on the basis of the same, stick was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-6. Accused Kunwar Sai made disclosure statement of axe vide Ex. P-7 and on the basis of the same, axe was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-8. Accused Jadu Ram made disclosure statement of stick vide Ex. P-9 and on.the basis of the same, stick was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-10. Accused Mutur Ram made disclosure statement of stick vide Ex. P-11 and on the basis of the same, stick was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-12. Accused Dinesh made disclosure statement of stick vide Ex. P-36 and on the basis of the same, stick was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-13. Accused Ramsai made disclosure statement of stick vide Ex. P-37 and on the basis of the same, stick was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-14. The accused persons were arrested vide arrest memos Exs. P-15 to P-21. Statements of the witnesses were recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Seized articles were sent to the doctor for examination vide Exs. P-26, P-27A to P-33A and the same were examined by the doctor vide Exs. P-26A, P-27 to P-33. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Ambikapur, from where the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur received the case on transfer for trial.

In order to prove the guilt of the Appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as fourteen witnesses. The accused persons were examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, claimed innocence and false implication. The accused persons have examined Son Kunwar (D.W. 1) and Bhaguram (D.W. 2) in their defence.

Son Kunwar (D.W. 1) has deposed that deceased Rameshwar was assaulting accused Tulsai on which they quarrelled with each other. Bhaguram (D.W. 2) has deposed that Baso Bai came to him and informed that except accused Ramsai remaining six accused persons have assaulted her husband Rameshwar. He went to the place of incident where Rameshwar was present in injured condition, but no accused was present on the spot.

After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellants as aforementioned.

We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.

Mr. M.K. Baeg, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mutur Ram, Dinesh Kumar, Tul Sai, Jadu Ram and Pater Sai, vehemently argued that even according to the first information report these accused/Appellants were not holding any weapon, they have not caused any injury and fatal injury was caused only by Kunwar Sai over the head of the deceased resulting into multiple fracture of head, therefore, these accused/Appellants are not liable for commission of the homicidal death of Rameshwar amounting to murder. Bald and omnibus statements of Kamla Bai (PW-1), Baso Bai (PW-2) and Raitlo Bai (PW-3), who are close relatives of the deceased viz., daughter-in-law, wife and mother-in-law, respectively, are not safe to rely upon in absence of corroboration from independent sources. Statement of Raghu Gond (PW-8) is also not safe to rely upon. Mr. M.K. Baeg further argued that it appears that intention of the Appellants was to cause grievous hurt and if some body has exceeded the same, only the person who has exceeded the same is liable for commission of murder and the remaining persons are not liable for commission of murder with the aid of Section 149 of the I.P.C. He placed reliance in the matter of Jamna and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, . in which the Apex Court has held that common intention of unlawful assembly was to cause grievous hurt and if anybody exceeds the same, he or they would be liable for their individual acts.

Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Ramsai, supported the arguments advanced by Mr. M.K. Baeg and argued that Ramsai has not caused any injury to the deceased. Bhaguram (D.W. 2) has specifically deposed that Ramsai was not present on the spot.

Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Kunwar Sai, vehemently argued that accused/Appellant Kunwar Sai has not caused any injury to the deceased. According to the case of the prosecution, accused Kunwar Sai was holding axe, but no incised wound was found over the body of Rameshwar. This shows that accused Kunwar Sai has not inflicted any injury with axe and he was not holding the stick, therefore, he is not liable for causing any injury to Rameshwar or for causing the death of Rameshwar. Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha further argued that accused Kunwar Sai has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He also argued that Kunwar Sai is in custody since 26-7-2001, thereby he is in custody for more than eight years.

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the appeals and argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Case of the prosecution rests on the direct evidence of relative eyewitnesses Kamla Bai (PW-1), Baso Bai (PW-2) and Raitlo Bai (PW-3) whose presence at the time of incident was natural. The statement of independent eyewitness Raghu Gond (PW-8) is sufficient for drawing inference that the Appellants are the persons who have caused the homicidal death of Rameshwar amounting to murder.

In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties.

In the present case, homicidal death of Rameshwar is not substantially disputed by the Appellants, otherwise also it is established by the evidence of Dr. B.P. Chandra (PW-4), Dr. J.K. Jain (PW-11), Dr. O.P. Shrivastava (PW-12), report Ex. P-26A, bed head ticket Ex. P-3A and autopsy report Ex. P-2. Dr. O.P. Shrivastava (PW-12) has deposed that he has examined unconscious injured Rameshwar on 18-7-2001 at 4.20 p.m. and found the injuries as mentioned above. Dr. J.K. Jain (PW-11) has deposed that injured Rameshwar was admitted in his hospital on 18-7-2001 at 6 p.m. and on the next day morning he died. Dr. B.P. Chandra (PW-4) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rameshwar and found the injuries mentioned in para 3 of this judgment. He has stated that the head injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient for causing his death and the death was homicidal in nature. These facts are sufficient to establish that the deceased died as a result of fatal injuries sustained by him and the death was homicidal in nature.

In order to establish complicity of the accused/Appellants in the crime in question, we have examined the evidence of the witnesses.

Baso Bai (PW-2), wife of deceased Rameshwar, who has lodged the report Ex. P-1, has deposed in her evidence that on the fateful day, her husband deceased Rameshwar, her daughter-in-law Kamla Bai (PW-1) and herself were sitting in the verandah, accused Tulsai was chasing and assaulting her mother, her mother came to her house and her husband deceased Rameshwar asked Tulsai as to why he is assaulting the old woman, then accused Dinesh was also present and he called the remaining accused persons. Accused Kunwar Sai was holding axe and the remaining accused persons were holding sticks. Accused Ramsai told other accused persons to drag out Rameshwar and kill him. Accused Tulsai dragged Rameshwar with the help of a gamcha (a kind of towel). Accused Ramsai assaulted Rameshwar with stick on which Rameshwar fell down, thereafter, accused Kunwar Sai assaulted Rameshwar with axe and the remaining accused assaulted him with stick and caused injury over head, chest and different other parts of the body. She (PW-2) and her daughter-in-law Kamla Bai (PW-1) tried to intervene on which the accused persons dashed them. When her husband asked for water, she came with water which was thrown out by accused Dinesh. She shouted for help but nobody came to her rescue. Thereafter, Ramsai told other accused persons that Rameshwar has expired whereupon they fled away from the spot and went inside the house of Ramsai. She called the villagers and took her husband to Police Station Garima where she lodged the report vide Ex. P-1. Thereafter, she took her husband to the hospital and during the course of treatment, he died.

Kamla Bai (PW-1), daughter-in-law of the deceased, has corroborated the version of Baso Bai (PW-2) and Raitlo Bai (PW-3) has corroborated the versions of Kamla Bai (PW-1) and Baso Bai (PW-2).

Raghu Gond (PW-8) has deposed in his evidence that on the fateful day he was sleeping in his house and after hearing the sound of quarrel, he came out from the house, at that time, the accused persons were assaulting Rameshwar with stick and axe, he did not intercept the incident and quarrel on the fear that they may assault him also. Rameshwar became unconscious, they took him to the Police Station by auto and from there they took him to Ambikapur hospital where he died.

The accused persons have also examined the evidence of Son Kunwar (D.W. 1) and Bhaguram (D.W. 2). Son Kunwar (D.W. 1) has deposed that on the fateful day deceased Rameshwar was dragging accused Tulsai with the help of a towel, Kuha Bai and Kamla were also present there. Tulsai pushed and threw the deceased and both the persons quarrelled with each other. Being a old woman she had not intercepted the quarrel. Accused Pater, Jadu, Kunwar, Dinesh and Mutur also came there, Kunwar was holding stick and he assaulted the deceased with stick. Ramsai was not present at the time of incident and he came later on. Baso Bai and Raitlo Bai abused accused Ramsai. This witness (D.W. 1) has specifically deposed that except Kunwar Sai nobody has assaulted the deceased. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that after hearing the sound of quarrel she reached to the spot. She has also admitted that when Ramsai came he was present on the spot. She has further deposed that Ramsai came after the incident. She has admitted in para 10 of her evidence that whenshe reached to the spot, accused persons Tulsai, Jadu, Mutur, Pater, Kunwar and Dinesh were assaulting deceased Rameshwar, but she has deposed that nobody has assaulted Rameshwar with axe. Rameshwar became unconscious as a result of the injuries sustained by him. In para 14 of her cross-examination, she has again deposed that accused Jadu, Mutur, Pater and Dinesh were watching the incident like her and they have not assaulted the deceased.

It appears from the evidence of Son Kunwar (D.W. 1) that she has tried to support Ramsai, but she has admitted the presence of all accused though according to her evidence, Ramsai came later on and in para 10 she has deposed that accused Tulsai, Jadu, Mutur, Pater, Kunwar and Dinesh assaulted Rameshwar, however, in para 14 she has deposed that they have not assaulted Rameshwar. Her evidence is full of contradictions. At one place she states that the accused persons had assaulted Rameshwar and at another place she denies the same. Her evidence shows that no reliance can be placed upon the same.

Bhaguram (D.W. 2) has also deposed that he was informed by Baso Bai that except Ramsai other six accused persons have assaulted her husband and after ten minutes, Kamla Bai also came and told him that the quarrel has completed on which he went to the spot, Rameshwar was present in injured condition, but no accused was present there. He has further deposed that Baso Bai told him that six accused persons have assaulted her husband, but Ramsai has not assaulted her husband. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not seen the incident. He has admitted in para 8 of his evidence that he had informed the Police at the time of recording his statement that accused Kunwar, Mutur, Tulsai, Jadu, Pater and Dinesh have assaulted Rameshwar. He has denied the suggestion that Rameshwar was present and he has not assaulted the deceased. This witness (D.W. 2) has not seen the incident, but he has deposed on the basis of the information given by Baso Bai (PW-2) who told him that except Ramsai, remaining six accused persons have assaulted her husband.

According to the evidence of Bhaguram (D.W. 2), Baso Bai (PW-2) has informed that except Ramsai, remaining six accused persons have assaulted her husband which itself is unnatural. In case of any incident, the witness may narrate the incident that somebody has assaulted or somebody has taken part in the incident, but without any cause it is difficult to hold that anybody will say that ''X'' has not assaulted and other persons except ''X'' had assaulted. However, this part of the statement of Bhaguram (D.W. 2) has not been supported by Baso Bai (PW-2). This negative statement shows that accused Ramsai has also participated in the incident, but this witness (D.W. 2) has tried to help and save Ramsai.

Kamla Bai (PW-1), Baso Bai (PW-2 ) and Raitlo Bai (PW-3) are close relatives of deceased Rameshwar. Kamla Bai (PW-1) is daughter-in-law, Baso Bai (PW-2) is wife and Raitlo Bai (PW-3) is mother-in-law of the deceased. They are close relatives of the deceased, but their evidence cannot be discarded on the ground that they are relative witnesses.

Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. While dealing with the question of evidentiary value of the relative witnesses, the Apex Court in the matter of Dalip Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, has held that a witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted. Para 26 of the said judgment reads as under:

A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.

While dealing with the same question, the Apex Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 2008 SCW 3739 has held thus,

...it will be erroneous to lay down as a rule of universal application that non-examination of a public witness by itself gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution or that the testimony of a relative of the victim, which is otherwise credit-worthy, cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by public witnesses. Insofar as the question of credit-worthiness of the evidence of relatives of the victim is concerned, it is well settled though the Court has to scrutinize such evidence with greater care and caution but such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground of their interest in the prosecution. The relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness. Merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterized as an "interested" witness. It is trite that the term "interested" postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive.

While dealing with the same question, the Apex Court in the matter of Hari v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 SCW 2250 has held that relationship by itself cannot be ground to discredit the evidence of eyewitnesses relatives of deceased, more so, when deceased was murdered by his cousin (relative). Paras 21, 22 and 23 of the said judgment read thus,

It may be true that all the vital witnesses, namely, P.W. 1, 2 and 8 are relations of the deceased but that by itself cannot discredit their evidence. It is a fight between the relations it has come on record that the Appellant is the cousin of the deceased. In such a case, the relations are likely to be the most appropriate witnesses.

Certain decisions have been cited at the Bar which need to be considered and explained. About appreciation of evidence of witnesses who are related to the deceased, Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on a decision of this Court in Dasari Peda Gondiyya Vs. Station House Officer, Jangreddygudem, . In that case the facts were totally different and it was opined by the learned Judges, in the peculiar facts of that case, that enmity and bad blood between the rival groups was established beyond doubt. In that case no report was lodged with the police regarding the occurrence and this Court looked into the evidence and opined that the story about making an effort to lodge a report earlier was not true. In that case the nambardar and the chowkidar who were alleged to have accompanied P.W. 1 to the police station were not examined and there was a categoric denial by P.W. 6 Station House Officer about anyone reporting the incident to him before 4.12.1989. This Court found that the High Court has not at all noticed the facts. In the background of those facts, this Court held that proper caution was not exercised by the High Court in appreciating the highly partisan evidence adduced by the prosecution.

But in the instant case, the factual scenario is totally different. Here the occurrence took place within the house at the instance of the close relatives and in such a situation only relatives would be the witnesses. Of course, in the present case also there was some enmity in view of the land dispute but that by itself is not a ground to discard the evidence of the witnesses, who are relatives when their evidence is cogent and credible. Factually, the decision of this Court in Avtar Singh (supra) stands on a completely different footing.

In the matter of Mohabbat and Ors. v. State of M.P.AIR 2009 SCW 1486 the Apex Court has held that relationship is not ground to affect credibility of witness, foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is raised. Para 7 of the said judgment reads thus,

Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyze evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.

Statements of the relative witnesses cannot be discarded only on the ground of their relationship. The Courts are required to scrutinize their evidence with great care and caution. Defence has cross-examined Kamla Bai (PW-1), daughter-in-law of the deceased, in detail and in her detailed cross-examination she has specifically deposed that all the accused persons were present at the time of commission of the offence. She has also deposed that she has stated the same fact in her statement recorded before the Police. She has admitted in para 12 of her evidence that deceased Rameshwar was her father-in-law. She has further admitted in paras 15 and 16 of her cross-examination relating to dispute about property.

Defence has also cross-examined Baso Bai (PW-2), wife of the deceased, in detail, but she has specifically deposed that all the accused persons have assaulted her husband with axe and sticks. She has further deposed that firstly accused Dinesh called the other accused persons, though she has not stated this fact in the F.I.R. Ex. P-1, but she has stated in the F.I.R. that other accused persons accompanied accused Tulsai.

Defence has also cross-examined Raitlo Bai (PW-3) in detail and she has also substantially corroborated the evidence of Baso Bai (PW-2), wife of the deceased. In para 6 of her cross-examination she has deposed that accused Dinesh has called all the remaining accused persons on the spot. She has admitted in para 9 relating to some property dispute.

Defence has cross-examined these witnesses in detail, but in their detail cross examination they have specifically deposed that all the accused persons have assaulted the deceased and accused Kunwar Sai assaulted the deceased with axe. Kunwar Sai was holding axe and remaining accused persons were holding sticks, when they came to the place of incident in front of the house ofthe deceased. Raghu Gond (PW-8) has also substantially corroborated the evidence of Baso Bai (PW-2).

Learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the Appellants with the aid of Section 149 of the I.P.C. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused persons caused homicidal death of Rameshwar amounting to murder, in furtherance of the common object of the assembly and they have constituted the assembly. Evidence of Kamla Bai (PW-1), Baso Bai (PW-2), Raitlo Bai (PW-3) and Raghu Gond (PW-8) reveal that firstly accused Tulsai chased Suari Bai, thereafter, the remaining accused persons came to the spot, they were holding axe and sticks, they assaulted the deceased and caused fatal injuries sufficient for causing death and as a result of the fatal injuries over head, the deceased died. Injuries found over face, head and cheek of the deceased show that more than one injury has been caused by the assailant.

As regards the question of forming unlawful assembly, pre-meeting and pre-concert of mind to constitute the assembly and its object are necessary, but common object of the assembly may develop even on the spot and same can be gathered on the basis of the evidence, nature of injuries and the weapon which the accused persons were holding. In the present case, accused Tulsai chased Suari Bai up to the house of deceased Rameshwar and when he reached to the spot, accused Dinesh called other accused persons on which all the accused persons came to the spot. Accused Kunwar Sai was holding axe and remaining accused were holding sticks.

Accused Tulsai, Kunwar Sai and Mutur are brothers; accused Jadu and Pater are sons of accused Kunwar Sai; accused Dinesh is son of accused Mutur and accused Ramsai is son of Late Sheetal. It appears that all the accused persons are relatives.

This is not the case where the Appellants were going to some place and all of a sudden they caused injury to Rameshwar. But in the present case, according to the case of the prosecution, accused Tulsai chased Suari Bai and other accused followed Tulsai. When the deceased intervened and intercepted, Tulsai and all accused persons who were holding axe and sticks, assaulted the deceased and caused fatal injuries on his person.

In the matter of Dani Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 2004 S.C. 4570 the Apex Court held thus,

The plea that some of the accused persons did not commit any overt act would really of no consequence. They were not mere sightseers as claimed. There is nothing to show that they had dissuaded the persons from committing the criminal act or withdrew at any point of time during the course of the incident constituting by itself or as a step in furtherance of the ultimate offence.

In the matter of Ram Dular Rai and Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 2004 S.C. 1043 the Apex Court while dealing with the question ofunlawful assembly held as follows:

A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation but that is by no means necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed, it need not continue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage.

In the present case, all the accused persons reached to the spot, they were holding deadly weapons and caused fatal injuries to the deceased. According to the evidence of Kamla Bai (PW-1), Baso Bai (PW-2), Raitlo Bai (PW-3) and Raghu Gond (PW-8), accused Kunwar Sai caused fatal injuries on the deceased with axe, though the injuries were not incised and were lacerated, there is some discrepancy in medical and ocular evidence, however, the evidence of eyewitnesses find support from the F.I.R. lodged on the same day of the incident. In case of multiple injuries caused over head there may be occasion that incised wound originally caused by sharp edged weapon may turn into lacerated wound by repeated assaults made with stick. Evidence of Kamla Bai (PW-1), Baso Bai (PW-2), Raitlo Bai (PW-3) and Raghu Gond (PW-8) inspire confidence, it is trustworthy and safe to rely upon. Their statements are sufficient for drawing inference that the Appellants are the persons who have constituted unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object of unlawful assembly they caused fatal injuries to Rameshwar resulted into his death.

As regards motive/object of unlawful assembly, motive can be gathered on the basis of weapons which the accused were holding, gathering of the accused, participation of the accused in the commission of the offence and other relevant factors. In the present case, six accused/Appellants followed accused Tulsai, they were holding deadly weapons and caused injury to Rameshwar on which Rameshwar became unconscious and thinking that Rameshwar has died, they fled away from the spot which shows their grave intention of causing homicidal death of Rameshwar amounting to murder.

In the matter of Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka 2008 AIR SCW 3746 the Apex Court has held that accused came to place of incident fully armed, object was to sort things out with deceased as he was creating problems for them and causing serious injury by accused shows the motive of causing murder punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. Para 12 of the said judgment reads thus,

It has also been contended that no case u/s 302 of the IPC had been made out and if at all the accused were liable to be convicted u/s 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. We find no merit in this plea. It is clear from the record that the accused had come to the place of incident fully armed with the object to sort things out with the deceased as he was creating problems for them and their father over the land in question and to remove him from the scene once and for all. Furthermore, in the light of the serious injuries caused to the deceased and to P.W. 3 Devendrappa the matter does not fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the Appellants for constitution of the unlawful assembly holding deadly weapons and causing homicidal death of Rameshwar amounting to murder by the unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of the assembly. Conviction and sentences of the Appellants are based on credible and clinching evidence sustainable under the law.

On close scrutiny of the evidence, we are of the considered view that the Court below has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the Appellants in the aforesaid manner. We do not find any substances in the appeals, the appeals (Cr.A. Nos. 708/2003, 770/2003, 896/2004, 1062/ 2004 and 1066/2004) are, therefore, liable to be dismissed and they are hereby dismissed.

As Appellants Mutur Ram, Dinesh Kumar, Ramsai, Tulsai, Jadu Ram and Pater Sai are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, immediately to serve out the remaining sentence.