Shivcharan Chandra vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) questioning the impugned judgment dated 20.02.2023 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, in Sessions Case No. 55/2019, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Under Section

Sentence

Fine

In default of payment of fine

148 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC)

2 years rigorous imprisonment

Rs. 1000/-

3 months rigorous imprisonment

450 of the IPC

5 years rigorous imprisonment

Rs. 2000/-

6 months rigorous imprisonment.

307/149 of the IPC (three counts)

10 years rigorous imprisonment

Rs. 2000/-

6 months rigorous imprisonment

302/149 of the IPC

Life imprisonment

Rs. 3000/-

6 months rigorous imprisonment.

All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 25.07.2019, the villagers of village Kataud informed the Police Station, Dabhra on mobile that in the intervening night of 24/25.07.2019, some unknown persons entered the house of Kshitibhushan Chandra (PW-2) and caused grievous injuries to Kshitibhushan Chandra and his family members. On the said information, the Assistant Sub Inspector S.N.Mishra (PW-17) of Police Station Dabhra sent the Head Constable No. 159 to the spot. On the place of incident, Gamleshwari Chandra (PW-1) got the Dehati Nalishi registered to the effect that she resides in village Kataud alongwith her family. Her matrimonial house is also situated in the same village where the family of his brother reside in a separate house. In the said house, his brother Kshitibhushan Chandra, Bhabhi Rameshwari (PW-3) nephew Vanshu @ Varun Chandra and niece Ku. Vanshika Chandra reside. On 24.07.2019 at about 6 p.m., everything was normal. At about 11 p.m. of 25.07.2019, her husband Naresh Chandra went to the house of Kshitibhushan Chandra (PW-2) for getting some milk when he found that the door was closed from inside. When he knocked the door, nobody responded. When he came back and informed, she made a call on the mobile phone of his brother and Bhabhi which was not received by anyone. When her children came back from school, she asked them whether Vanshu and Vanshika had gone to school on that day, they told that they did not come to school. Getting suspicious, she asked her husband Naresh Chandra (PW-5) and Chudamani Verma (PW-4) who reached and started knocking the door and calling the names of the residents of that house. When they did not receive any answer, the door was broke open and they found that the back side door of the house was open. They found Kshitibhushan (PW-2) lying injured on the floor, he had sustained injuries on his head, face and many other parts of the body with a sharp weapon and the blood was oozing out, Rameshwari Chandra (PW-3) was lying injured on a bed and she had also sustained injuries on her body, the nephew Vashu Chandra and Vanshika Chandra had also sustained injuries and were not in a position to say anything. They were taken to Hospital on an Ambulance. Some unknown persons had entered the house and caused injuries and thinking that they were dead, left them and thereafter absconded. The incident is said to have taken place on 24.07.2019 at 6:30 p.m to 25.07.2019 at 1:00 p.m.

On the basis of aforesaid Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P/1), the FIR (Exhibit P/40) bearing Crime No. 255/2019 for the offences under Section 457, 323 and 307 of the IPC was registered at Police Station Dabhra, DistrictJanjgir-Champa on 25.07.2019 at 19:45 hours and the matter was investigated. During the course of investigation, the MLC of the injured persons were conducted at Community Health Centre, Dabhra and dying declaration (Exhibit P/4) of the injured Kshitibhushan Chandra (PW-2) was also recorded on the basis of which the offences under Section 147, 148, 149 and 120B of the IPC were added. The memorandum of the accused (Exhibit P/6 to P/10 and P/19) were taken and on the basis of said memorandum, the wood, bamboo stick, iron rod, motorcycle and other articles used in commission of the crime were seized. During the course of treatment, the injured minor Vanshu Chandra, aged about 7 years, expired.

After investigating the matter, the police submitted the police report alongwith charge-sheet against the appellant/convict under section 450, 323, 307, 147, 148, 149, 120B and 302 of the IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate first Class, Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 452/2019. However, the said case was committed to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa vide order dated 30.10.2019 and the matter was registered as Sessions Trial No. 55/2019.

The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, framed charges on 28.12.2019 charging the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 450, 307/149 (three times), 302/149 and Section 120-B of the IPC. The appellants/convicts denied the charges and prayed for trial.

Amongst others, the prosecution has exhibited as many as 88 exhibits in support of their case and further, to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses namely, Gamleshwari Chandra (PW-1), Kshitibhushan (PW-2), Rameshwari Chandra (PW-3), Chudamani Verma (PW-4), Naresh Kumar Chandra (PW-5), Vijendra Kumar Chandra (PW-6), Sita Chandra (PW-7), Gend Das (PW-8), Hemant Chandra (PW-9), Krishna Mahant (PW-10), Raju Kumar Sahu (PW-11), Jitendra Banjare (PW-12), R.P.Kushwaha (PW-13), S.L.Sahu (PW-14), Dr. Shiv Kumar Padi (PW-15), Dr. Sanjiv Pulkayast (PW-16), S.N.Mishra (PW-17), Eitan Prasad Chandra (PW-18), Vivek Kumar Pandey (PW-19), Jay Singh (PW-20), Pravin Kathe (PW-21), Raju Singh Yadav (PW-22), Tarachand Sahu (PW-23), Dr. Shalini Kurre (PW-24), Javahar Lal Maravi (PW-25) and Dr. Rajesh Ban Goswami (PW-26).

The statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC were recorded on 09.12.2022. They stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. The appellants Shivcharan and Bhopal @ Gopal have stated that they were not at the place of incident. In support of their case, the appellants have got the statements of Gamleshwari Chandra (PW-1), Kshitibhushan @ Shashi Bhushan (PW-2) and Sita Chandra (PW-7) exhibited as Exhibits D/1, D/2 and D/3, and D/4 respectively. The accused-Bhopal Prasad Chandra got himself examined as DW-2 and her daughter Dipika Chandra, as DW-1.

The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict.

The present appeals were filed on 01.04.2023 and 26.04.2023 respectively. Their application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail was rejected by this Court on 09.11.2023 and the matters were directed to be listed for hearing on 04.01.2024. Accordingly, the matter was heard finally on 04.01.2024.

Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sisodiya, learned counsel for the appellants {in Cr.A. 969/2023} submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on erroneous appreciation of the facts and evidence available on record. The offences were registered against unknown persons and even as per the prosecution, the victim were not in a position to give statement but the police has registered the offence against the accused persons without any admissible material. Kamleshwar Chandra (PW-1) who is neither the eye witness nor was present in the place of incident, on her statement, the offence has been registered against the appellant. The independent witnesses with regard to the memorandum and seizure have also not supported the case of the prosecution. The statement of the witnesses were also recorded after lapse of long time. There are number of contradictions and omissions in the statement made by the witnesses before the Court below which have not been considered by the learned Court below. Even from the seized from the possession of the appellant, no blood stains have been found and as such, conviction cannot be sustained.

Mr. Sisodiya submits that the father and brother of the appellant-Gopal, namely Kanshi Prasad Chandra and Gaurishankar Chandra, and wife of appellant-Shivcharan Chandra, namely Chandrika Chandra were already in jail in Sessions Trial No. 20/2018 wherein they were alleged to have committed murder of one Keshav Chandra and caused injuries to the Kshitibhushan Chandra on 17.05.2018, who is also the injured in the present case also. These accused except Guddi Chandra @ Chandrakumari Chandra, were in jail during the trial but all of them were acquitted of the charges on 28.02.2023 by the learned trial Court. Hence, there was animosity between the appellants and the complainant party for the last so many years and in order to falsely implicate them, the entire prosecution story was falsely created. All the appellants are related to each other in one way or the other except the appellant-Mahendra Kumar Baghel. The FIR was lodged by Gamleshwari Chandra (PW-1) who is the sister of Kshitibhushan Chandra (PW-2).

Mr. Sisodiya further submits that as per the prosecution, there are total four injured namely Kshitibhushan (PW-2), Rameshwari Chandra (PW-3) who are the husband and wife and their children namely Vanshu aged 8 years and Vanshika aged 4 years. During the course of treatment, the injured Vanshu @ Varun expired. The injured witnesses Kshitibhushan (PW-2) and Rameshwari Chandra (PW-3) were examined and their statements are contrary to each other. In oral dying declaration (Exhibit P/4) of Kshitibhushan (PW-2), this witness had stated that while he was sleeping in his house at night Gopal, Kargihan (Shivcharan) and sons of Shukla and 4-5 other persons came. On the basis of the said statement, only the appellant-Shivcharan ought to have been arrested by the police as Gopal was absconding, however, the police had arrested all the other appellants also holding them to be the accused in this case. The injured Kshitibhushan had stated that he was assaulted by Gopal Chandra with a knife whereas in the MLC, it has been opined that the injuries were caused to him with a blunt object. Though Kshitibhushan (PW-2) has stated that Yadram, Chedu Chandra, Ganesh Chandra, Dauram Sahu had tried to convince him for settling the dispute with regard to murder of his father by taking some land/fields for which he did not agree, and as such, the appellants being enraged tried to kill them. Despite this, the police has not taken statement of any of those persons named to ascertain the motive of the crime. In examination in chief, there is no mention as on which date this witness came to his consciousness and when he had given the dying declaration. Though memorandum statement of the appellants namely Shivcharan, Naveen Sidar and Chandan Manhar were taken by the police and seizure has also been made from these appellants, but the trial Court has disbelieved the seizure and memorandum. Shivcharan gave his memorandum statement at 9 a.m. and at 10 a.m., seizure was made from him which is quite impracticable.

It is further argued by Mr. Sisodiya that when the injured/victim were taken out of their house after breaking the door as it was locked from inside, it has not been explained as to how the accused/appellants entered the house and when the left the house, how the door could have been bolted from inside. There is only an assumption that the accused would have entered the house using a ladder but there is no definite proof with regard to the same.

At paragraph 10 of his statement, PW-2, Kshitibhushan Chandra states that while giving his statement to the police (Exhibit D-2) he had informed the police that when he saw that his wife, son Varun and daughter Vanshika were admitted in the hospital, his belief became more firm that the appellants had tried to kill his entire family. The said statement itself suggests that when he had given his dying declaration, he was not sure as to who were the assailants.

It is further argued that only because of earlier animosity between the parties, the appellants were falsely implicated in this case as some of his relatives were already in jail in connection with the murder of the father of PW-2, Kshitibhushan Chandra. Even the appellants were not present at the place of incident. This witness had admitted in his Court statement that he had not named the accused Mahendra and Chandan. Similarly, the wife of Kshitibhushan Chandra, namely Rameshwari Chandra (PW-3) stated before the Court below that on the date of incident, they were awake and at about 1:00 a.m. when she heard screaming voice, she saw that the accused/appellants were assaulting Kshitibhushan Chandra (PW-2), whereas PW-2, in his statement had stated that they all were sleeping and he only woke when his bed sheet was pulled by the appellants/accused.

Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant {in Cr.A. No. 1003/2023} that when the victim/injured were not in a position to give any statement and the offence was registered against the unknown persons however, just because of previous animosity, the appellant-Mahendra Kumar Baghel has been implicated in this case. The FIR was registered at the instance of Gamleshwari Chandra who is neither the eye witness nor was present even around the place of incident. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and even the statement of the witnesses were recorded by the police after a long lapse of time. Further, there are omissions and contradictions in the statement of the witnesses which ought to have been considered by the learned trial Court. It is next submitted that in the weapon seized from the appellant, no blood stains were found, therefore, it cannot be held that the injury sustained by the victim were caused by the said seized weapon.

In support of their cases, learned counsel have relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Arun v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu {AIR 2009 SC 1256}, Jitu alias Jitender v. State of M.P. {AIR 2009 SC 1337}, Arun v. State of Maharashtra {(2009) AIR SCW 2318}, S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu {(2010) AIR SCW 5923}, Lahu Kamalkar Patil & Another v. State of Maharashtra {(2013) AIR SCW 26} and a judgment of the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh in Karan Singh v. State of M.P. {2008 (III) MPWN 3}.

On the other hand, Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned Government Advocate would submit that the prosecution has fully established that it was the appellants alone who had committed the crime in question. Minor variations in the deposition of the witnesses cannot shake the credibility of the statement of the witnesses. The medical evidence clearly supports the case of the prosecution. The judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court being just and proper, needs no interference.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

The FIR was lodged by Gamleshwari Chandra (PW-1) on 25.07.2019 at 19:45 hours which was based on Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P-1) recorded on the same day at 16:30 hours. It was stated by Gamleshwari Chandra that when they entered the house after breaking the door, Kshitibhushan Chandra, Rameshwari Chandra, Vanshika and Vanshu Chandra were lying in an injured condition. They had sent these injured for treatment to Jindal Hospital, Raigarh and during the course of treatment, Vanshu Chandra succumbed to the injuries. Later, Kshitibhushan, Rameshwari and Vanshika Chandra were sent to Raipur at Balaji Hospital for better treatment. This witness, in her deposition had stated that the accused persons used to pressurize the injured for settlement of the earlier criminal case.

Kshitibhushan Chandra (PW-2) who is the injured eye-witness is well acquainted with all the apellants. He stated that on 24.07.2019 at about 1:00 in the night, he was sleeping in the veranda and besides him, his wife Rameshwari and daughter Vanshika were sleeping. When the bed sheet was pulled by Gopal Chandra and Naveen Sidar, he woke up and saw that Gopal Chandra had in his hand a knife and Mahendra had an iron rod. Naveen, Tuleshwar, Chandan and Shivcharan Chandra were holding Lathi in their hand. When he asked as to why they had came there, Naveen Sidar stated that they had come to kill him and his family. This witness had described how Gopal Chandra assaulted on his left side of the face with a knife and Mahendra assaulted on his head with iron rod and the other appellants assaulted him with Lathi. He asked his family to run away and thereafter he became unconscious. This witness also stated that Yadram, Chedu Chandra, Ganesh Chandra and Dauram Sahu had contacted him to settle the case which was being tried against the appellants for causing death of his father by taking land/field, however, he denied to make any compromise. Therefore, the appellants tried to finish his entire family. In the cross examination, this witness has stated that the accused had entered his house using a ladder and he specifically stated that the place where he was sleeping, the light was on.

Rameshwari Chandra (PW-3) is the another injured witness and wife of Kshitibhushan Chandra. She has also stated that at about 1:00 in the night, when she heard the screaming sound, she saw that all the appellants were assaulting her husband Kshitibhushan Chandra. She was assaulted with a knife by Gopal chandra and Shivcharan Chandra on her stomach. Shivcharan was holding her legs. She also became unconscious. She further stated that the appellants had assaulted her son and daughter and later, her son expired at Hospital. She has also stated about the motive of the crime that her father-in-law was murdered and Gopal Chandra, Shivcharan Chandra, Yadram Chandra and other accused had offered them Rs. 5 Lacs, 15 Lacs or land and get the matter compromised and when they did not agree, they were assaulted.

Chudamani Verma (PW-4) knew all the appellants and the injured persons also. On the date of incident, he had called the police and the Ambulance and had taken them to hospital. Naresh Kumar Chandra (PW-5) also knew all the accused and the injured. Though he had not seen the occurrence of the incident, however, he stated that when they entered the house of the injured, they found them all lying in injured condition. He stated that on the place of incident, a knife was lying. Similar statement has been made by Vijendra Kumar Chandra (PW-6), however, he states that he had not seen anyone assaulting the injured.

Sita Chandra (PW-7) also knew all the appellants and the injured persons. She stated that when she went to the house of the injured, she saw them all lying in injured condition. There she also saw that the back side of the door of the house was open and in the house, a knife and Lathi was lying. She further stated that she had not seen the occurrence of the incident and she came to know about the appellants when they were being caught by the police.

Genddas (PW-8) is the Kotwar of the village. He knew all the appellants and the injured. When he went to the place of incident, he saw all of them lying in an injured condition and the children Vanshu and Vanshika were in almost dead condition.

Etan Prasad Chandra (PW-18) stated that on the date of incident, he was in his village Arsiya. He was informed over phone by Basant Chandra of vilage Dabhra that on 25.07.2019, the entire family of Kshitibhushan Chandra were taken to Dabhra Government Hospital. He also stated that as the appellants had requested for compromising the matter with regard to death of the father of Kshitibhushan Chandra which was refused, the said incident had taken place.

Assistant Sub Inspector, S.N.Mishra (PW-17) had stated that on the date of incident, he had seized various articles from the place of incident in which blood stains were present. He had seized a handle of a knife, a bamboo stick which had blood like stains. Plain soil, blood stained soil, pieces of Mangalsutra, bedsheet, rod etc. were also seized.

Inspector Vivek Kumar Pandey (PW-19) stated that during the course of investigation on 28.07.2019, on the basis of memorandum statement (Exhibit P/6) of Shivcharan, which was taken in presence of witnesses, a Lathi was recovered (Exhibit P/12) at his instance from Kansa Nahar Puliya Road. Similarly, on the memorandum statement of accused Tuleshwar @ Dullu Chandra (Exhibit P/7), a bamboo stick was recovered from his house (Exhibit P/13). Memorandum statement of accused Navin Sidar (Exhibit P/8) was taken and at his instance, one bamboo stick was recovered from his house (Exhibit P/14). The memorandum statement (Exhibit P/9) of accused Mahendra Kumar Baghel was also recorded on 28.07.2019 wherein he had stated that he had hid the iron rod and his blood stained clothes near the Kansa Nahar Puliya in a thorny bush which was recovered (Exhibit P/15) at his instance. Similarly, the memorandum statement (Exhibit P/10) of accused Chandan Manhar was also recorded upon which at his instance, one bamboo stick which was hid by him was recovered (Exhibit P/16). On the same day, from the accused Mahendra Kumar Baghel, one mobile phone and a motor-cycle was also recovered from him.

The seizure and memorandum witness Chudamani Verma (PW-4) has stated that though the police had not interrogated the accused in his presence however, the police had seized rod and Lathi in his presence. He had signed the memorandum Exhibit P/6, P/7, P/8, P/9 and P/10 and the seizure memo Exhibit P/11, P/12, P/13, P/14,, P/15 and P/16. Similar statement has been made by Vijendra Kumar Chandra (PW-6).

The witness Raju Singh Yadav (PW-22) has stated that he had gone to Dabhra Hospital to see the injured/victims. He saw that Kshitibhushan and his wife alongwith his children were made about to sit in the Ambulance when a knife fell off from the clothes. The said knife was seized vide Exhibit P/64.

Even though the memorandum and seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, however, the injured witness Kshitibhushan (PW-2) in his statement has stated that he and his family members were assaulted with knife, rod, lathi etc. and Inspector Vivek Kumar Pandey (PW-19) has stated in his deposition that he had seized rod and Danda from the accused/appellants and from the place of incident, a handle of the knife was also seized and as such, the statement of the seizure and memorandum witnesses will not have any adverse effect on it.

Inspector Jitendra Banjare (PW-12) had deposed that on 02.09.2019, he had sent the seized articles i.e. white bed sheet, godri cover, cover of the matress, bamboo stick, one sharp steel knife, wooden stick, bamboo stick, blood stained soil, full sleeves T-Shirt, iron rod etc. for query to Community Health Centre, Dabhra vide memo (Exhibit P/22 to P/32). The same was replied to by Dr. Shalini Kurre (PW-24) and she had advised for chemical examination. Further, in response to the query whether the injuries sustained by the injured witnesses and the deceased could have been caused with the said stick, bamboo stick, iron rod etc., and whether those articles contained human blod or not, she had replied that the injuries could have been caused with those objects and for ascertaining presence of human blood, she had advised for chemical examination. Accordingly, Dr. Shalini Kurre (PW-24) had replied the query made by the police that the bamboo stick, steel knife, wooden stick and iron rod could have caused injuries as were sustained by the injured and could have even caused death.

Inspector Jitendra Banjare (PW-12) had also stated that he had sent 14 sealed packets for chemical examination to the FSL, Bilaspur, through the office of the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir. He further stated that the accused Bhopal @ Gopal was arrested by him on 15.10.2019 and Inspector Vivek Kumar Pandey (PW-19) had arrested the other accused-appellants Shivcharan Chandra, Tuleshwar Chandra, Navin Sidar, Mahendra Baghel and Chandan Manhar on 28.07.2019.

The FSL report (Exhibit P/39) states that the cover of the mattress, cover of godri, bed sheet, bamboo seized from the place of incident, the iron rod seized from accused Mahendra Kumar, contained human blood, however the blood group could not be ascertained. The pieces of floor of the place of incident, the bamboo stick seized from accused Chandan Mahnar, steel knife seized from Santosh Bareth at District Hospital Raigarh, which did not had the handle, contained blood on it however, as the stains were disintegrated, the result was negative with respect to presence of human blood. Similarly, from the plain soil seized from the spot, the handle of the knife seized from the place of incident, the stick recovered at the instance of accused Shivcharan, bamboo stick seized from accused Tuleshwar and accused Navin Sidar and T-Shirt seized from Mahendra Kumar, no blood was found on it.

The defence witness Dipika Chandra (DW-1) in her statement had stated that Shivcharan Chandra is her father and on the date of incident i.e. 24.07.2019, her father was at home. As her mother Guddi Bai Chandra was also an accused in S.T. No. 20/2018, therefore, because of animosity, a false case had been made against them. However, this witness has not clarified as to whether at 1:00 in the night, she was awake and had seen her father in the house as she had stated that she slept at 8 p.m.

Accused-Bhopal @ Gopal Prasad Chandra has got himself examined as DW-2 and stated that on the date of incident, he was at Gacchuvali Ramnivas Hostel, Hyderabad. However, no evidence in this regard has been produced by him though he stated that the railway ticket was taken from him by the police. Neither any person from the Hostel at Hyderabad were got examined nor any document has been produced in this regard to establish that he was at Hyderabad on the date of incident. Hence, a false plea of alibi has been taken by the accused-appellant which goes against him.

Dr. Shiv Kumar Padi (PW-15), who was posted at Jindal Hospital, Raigarh as Medical Officer, had treated the injured Rameshwari Chandra (PW-3). On examination, he found lacerated wound over abdomen, lacerated wound on the chin and occipital region. She was discharged after conducting CT Scan. In the CT Scan, it was revaled that there was focal hemorrhagic contusion at left parieto temporal lobe, sulcal haemorrhagic hyperdensity at right parietal lobe, acute subarachnoid hemorrhagic, undisplaced left temporo parietal skull vault fracture noted, fracture bone also extending into opposite right parietal skull vault, anterior and postero lateral wall fracture of left maxillary sinus with bony fragment within sinus and minimal haemosinus, tripod fracture of left zygoma noted.

This witness had also examined baby Vanshika wherein he found lacerated wound over scalp, occipital region and in CT Scan, he found that there was large hemorrhagic contusion on right temporal lobe with surrounding edema, multiple small hemorrhagic contusions with perifocal edema noted on right fronto parietal lobem multi fragmented fracture of right parieto occipital skull vault, few fracture fragments depressed from fragment site, undisplaced fracture noted right fronto temporal skull vault with left coronal suture diastasis abutting to fracture site. He had also examined Varun Chandra. In the CT Scan, it was found that hemorrhagic contusion with surrounding edema on left temoral lobe, hypodensity noted at left cerebellar lobe with gray white mater differentiation and mass effect on 4th ventrical. Dilated bilateral lateral ventricle and 3rd ventricle noted. Undisplaced fracture left temporal skull vault, scalp edema noted along the left parietal skull vault, occipital bone fracture noted on left half with skull base involvement adjacent to foramen magnum.

Dr. Sanjiv Pulkayast (PW16) had examined the injured Kshitibhushan Chandra (PW-2) who had received grievous injuries on his left eyebrow, occipital region, crush injury on upper and lower lip, left elbow, forehead, scalp and occipital region. He was referred to higher center fro better treatment.

Dr. Rajesh Ban Goswami (PW-26) had conducted the postmortem of deceased Vanshu Chandra in which the doctor had found as many as 15 injuries on various parts of his body. It was opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by hard and sharp cutting object. Injury No. 15, which was sub dural hemorrhage present over parieto-temporal region of brain of both sides was lethal in nature and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was stated to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of cranio-cerebral injuries and its consequences and tha manner of death was opined to be homicidal.

In the case in hand, there is a strong motive for the appellants-accused for commission of the crime in question as Kanshi Prasad Chandra, Gaurishankar Chandra and Smt. Guddi Chandra, who are father, mother and wife of accused-Shivcharan Chandra were tried in S.T. No. 20/2018 for commission of murder of father of Kshitibhushan Chandra, namely Keshav Chandra, on 17.05.2018. They have been acquitted of the charges on 28.02.2023 but in the case in hand, the incident occurred on 24.07.2019 and the appellants who are all family members except the appellant-Mahendra Kumar Baghel, were trying to pressurize the injured/victims to compromise the matter by offering money/land which was denied by them.

There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law as referred to in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, however, in the facts of the present case, they are not applicable.

The seizure of weapon of assault from the accused/appellants, presence of blood in those weapon, injury report, the query report and the statement of the prosecution witnesses especially the injured witnesses Kshitibhushan Chandra (PW-2) and Rameshwari Chandra (PW-3) and presence of strong motive for commission of the offence, leads to only one conclusion that has been arrived at by the learned trial Court.

From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellants/convicts.

Accordingly, the appeals being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.

The appellants/convicts are stated to be in jail. They shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2023.

Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any.