JUDGMENT : Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J. Heard. 1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 31.07.2018 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Sessions Case No. 21/2015 convicting the appellants in both the cases for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 307 read with Section 149 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. sentencing them with R.I. for 01 year, 01 year, 01 month, 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- respectively. 2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are these that on 02.02.2015 at about 09:00 A.M., the complainant Santosh Jangde (P.W.-4) had quarreled with appellant Pradeep Kumar. The appellants Pradeep Kumar along with appellant Andeep Kumar Jangde, Kandeep Kumar Jangde and Maan Singh Jangde thrashed the complainant on the spot. The complainant Santosh Jangde (P.W.-4) informed about this incident to his uncle Uttara and brother Hemant Jangde, who then went to the house of appellant Sankar between 10:30 to 11:00 P.M., when the appellant Sankar and the other appellants formed an unlawful assembly, used abusive words, assaulted the complainant and others with clubs and tabbal. Uttara Jangde received fatal injuries on his body and the injured victim Hemant Kumar (P.W.-5) and others also suffered injuries on his head and limbs. Complainant-Santosh Jangde (P.W.-4) lodged F.I.R. in Police Station-Mungeli. The offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 294 of I.P.C. were registered. The deceased Uttara Jangde had died on the spot. One Dehati morgue intimation Ex. P/3 on 03.02.2015 was registered and inquest procedure was conducted. Dr. G.B. Singh (P.W.-8) examined the dead body of the deceased-Uttara Jangde and vide postmortem report Ex. P/20, he has opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was excessive bleeding from the various injuries found on his body. The other injured namely Hemant, Santosh Kumar, Rohit Jangde, Chetu @ Omprakash were also examined by Dr. Kamlesh Kumar (P.W.-11) which has been reported in the respective M.L.C. reports. Rest of the investigation procedure was conducted, completed and charge-sheet was filed. 3. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 294, 307 read with Section 149 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. The appellants/accused persons denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined in total 12 witnesses. Rest of the investigation procedure was conducted, completed and charge-sheet was filed. 3. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 294, 307 read with Section 149 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. The appellants/accused persons denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined in total 12 witnesses. The appellants/accused persons were examined by the Court under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The appellants denied all the incriminating evidence against them again pleaded not guilty and false implication. Opportunity was sought for producing witness in defence but no witness was examined in defence. The learned trial Court after giving the opportunity of hearing to the State and to the appellants has passed the impugned judgment, convicting and sentencing the appellants as mentioned here-in-above. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants in both the cases that the judgment of conviction against the appellants is erroneous. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. There are other contradictions and omissions present in the statement of prosecution witnesses, which make them unreliable and untrustworthy. But the same has been relied upon by the learned trial Court. 5. According to the facts of the case, the deceased and the victims had been to the place of appellant Sankar to quarrel with him and also to assault the appellants. The appellants had in fact acted in self-defense. Therefore, the case of the appellants is under exception. The incident occurred all of a sudden after the arrival of the complainant party and therefore, there was no premeditation and no formation of common objective. 6. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh v. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh & Others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 261 and Kattukulangara Madhavan v. Majeed & Others reported in (2017) 5 SCC 568 and it is submitted that specifically there is no overt act stated about by the witnesses with respect to the appellant Sankar, hence, the conviction against the appellants is not sustainable. Prayer has been made to allow the appeal and acquit all the appellants. 7. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Prayer has been made to allow the appeal and acquit all the appellants. 7. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Chetu @ Omprakash (P.W.-1), Rohit Kumar (P.W.-2), Dilip Kumar (P.W.-3), Santosh Kumar (P.W.-4), Hemant Kumar (P.W.-5), are eye witnesses of the case. The deceased Uttara Kumar had suffered nine injuries one of which was incised wound, which has resulted in his death. The evidence is very clear and categorical to show that all the appellants have participated in the commission of offences, which show that they intended to peruse the common object for committing the offence of murder and attempt to murder. Hence, there is no case present for acquittal of any of the appellants. Therefore, the appeals filed are fit to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 9. Considered on the submissions, Chetu @ Omprakash (P.W.-1) has stated that Santosh Kumar (P.W.-4) was assaulted and injured by the appellants Pradeep Kumar along with appellant Andeep Kumar Jangde, Kandeep Kumar Jangde and Maan Singh Jangde with clubs. He discussed about this incident with his uncle-Uttara Kumar, brothers-Rohit Kumar (P.W.-2), Dilip Kumar (P.W.-3) and Hemant Kumar (P.W.-5) and all of them went to the house of the Sankar to seek explanation about the incident that had occurred with Santosh Kumar (P.W.-4). He has stated that on arriving near the house of appellant-Sankar and all the appellants made exclamation that all of you have come again, they used abusive words, started throwing brickbats, then they armed themselves with club sticks and tabbal (axe) and assaulted Uttara Kumar, who fell down injured on the spot and died. Subsequent to that, all the appellants assaulted and injured Hemant Kumar (P.W.-5), the witness himself and Rohit Kumar (P.W.-2). In cross-examination, his statement regarding the incident has remained unrebutted. He has admitted the suggestion that he has married the ex-wife of appellant Sankar. He has denied the suggestion regarding enmity with the appellant Sankar and others on this account, he has not made any other admission as such on the basis of which, his statement in examination-in-chief can be regarded as rebutted. 10. He has admitted the suggestion that he has married the ex-wife of appellant Sankar. He has denied the suggestion regarding enmity with the appellant Sankar and others on this account, he has not made any other admission as such on the basis of which, his statement in examination-in-chief can be regarded as rebutted. 10. Rohit Kumar (P.W.-2) is the eye witness and victim of the incident has supported the version of Chetu @ Omprakash (P.W.-1) in his examination in chief. In cross-examination, there is no such admission made by him, on the basis of which, his statement in examination-in-chief can be regarded as rebutted and also that all the appellants had acted in unison in assaulting the deceased and the other victims. 11. Same is the statement of Dilip Kumar (P.W.-3), who has remained firm on such statement in cross-examination and also Santosh Kumar (P.W.-4) as the complainant, who has confirmed the statement made by Chetu @ Omprakash (P.W.-1) stating that all the appellants equally participated in assaulting, causing death of deceased Uttara Kumar and injuring the other victims. In cross-examination, he has remained firm on the statement given by him in examination-in-chief and there are no other circumstances established on the basis of which, it can be held that he is making a false statement. 12. Hemant Kumar (P.W.-5) is another eye witness and victim of the case, he has stated about the previous incident in which Santosh Kumar (P.W.-4) was assaulted by the Pradeep Kumar Jangde regarding which, he was informed and subsequent to which, he and others went to the house of the appellants, where the incident occurred, in which Uttara Kumar was done to death and other witnesses were assaulted and injured by the appellants. He has remained firm on this statement in his cross-examination and there is no admission made by him to show which may be regarding self-contradiction to his statement in his examination-in-chief and no other circumstance is established, on the basis of which, it can be held that this witness may be making an untruthful statement. 13. The statement of the witnesses has been corroborated by Dr. Kamlesh Kumar who has found various injuries on the body of Santosh Kumar (P.W.-4) vide Ex. P/22. He also examined Chetu Ram @ Omprakash and found injuries on his body vide report Ex. P/25. Similar injuries were reported with respect to Hemant Jangde vide EX. 13. The statement of the witnesses has been corroborated by Dr. Kamlesh Kumar who has found various injuries on the body of Santosh Kumar (P.W.-4) vide Ex. P/22. He also examined Chetu Ram @ Omprakash and found injuries on his body vide report Ex. P/25. Similar injuries were reported with respect to Hemant Jangde vide EX. P/23 and Rohit Ex. P/24. There is no explanation in his cross-examination that the witness could have been injured otherwise than the injuries being inflicted upon them. 14. Dr. G.B. Singh (P.W.-8) conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased Uttara Kumar and stated about finding injuries as follows:- 1. One lacerated wound was found on the left side of the mouth of size 0.5x0.5 cm. 2. One lacerated wound was found below the lower lip of size 6 x 1 x 1 cm. 3. The mandible bone was fractured. 4. The nasal bone was fractured. 5. Both the zygomatic bones were fractured. 6. One incised wound was found on the chin of size 4 x 1 x 1 cm. 7. One lacerated wound was present on the left side of the head of temporoparietal region measuring 8 x 2 x 1 cm. along with clotted blood. 8. One incised wound was present on the left side occipital region of size 5 x 2 x 1 cm. having blood clots. 9. One lacerated wound was present on the left elbow of size 1 x 0.5 x 0.2 cm he has opined that one incised injury was caused by sharp object and rest of the bones were caused by the hard and blunt object who were antenatal in nature. After making internal examination vide report Ex. P/20, he has opined that death of the deceased was caused due to excessive bleeding resulting from the various injuries and shock. In cross-examination, his statement has not been rebutted in any manner. There is no such explanation as to who else may have caused such injuries to the deceased, however, the eye witness account of the witnesses discussed here-in-above clearly mentions that it was the appellants in both the cases, who had inflicted various injuries upon the body of the deceased-Uttara Kumar, which had resulted in his death. 15. After considering on this evidence of the witnesses, there appears to be no need to take into consideration the evidence of other witnesses of investigation procedure. 15. After considering on this evidence of the witnesses, there appears to be no need to take into consideration the evidence of other witnesses of investigation procedure. In the reliance of the appellants on the judgment of Supreme Court in the Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh v. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh (Supra) and on Kattukulangara Madhavan v. Majeed (Supra), the Supreme Court has made observations on the basis of the facts and evidence present in these case. The facts and circumstances present in this case are totally different, therefore, these citations do not give any guidance in the present cases. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no case present for acquitting the appellants in both the cases. Ground of self-defense has been neither pleaded nor proved. Only for the reason that the incident has occurred in front of the house of the appellants, it cannot be held that it is a case of self-defense. Apart from that, there is no evidence regarding the appellant party having suffered any injury in that incident. Hence, both the appeals filed are without any substance, therefore, both the appeals are dismissed. 16. With these observations, both these Criminal Appeal stand disposed off.