1 2025:CGHC:52154-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 538 of 2022 1 - Dhansay Lakda S/o Shri Logo Lakda, aged about 45 years R/o Village Chuhinkha, Jhariyapara Katkalo, Police Station Sitapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Milo Bai W/o Shri Logo Lakda, aged about 58 years R/o Village Chuhinkha, Jhariyapara Katkalo, Police Station Sitapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent _________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27 . 10 .202 5 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.2022 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 106/2017, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302/34 (three counts) of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for each counts. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Maheshwar Lakda (PW-1) appeared in the Sitapur police station on 08.07.2017 at 9.15 am and lodged an oral report that at around 7.00 am, he had gone to Dhodhi on his tricycle to brush his teeth and was brushing his teeth when Pradeep from the village came and told him that Dhansai people were fighting with his father Sobhran near the bridge. When he went to the spot on his tricycle to see, he saw that Dhansai people had beaten his father Sobhran, mother Kunibai and maternal grandfather Pandru and made them fall down. Seeing him coming, all three accused were coming towards him and at that time accused Dhansai was holding a Tangi, Ujit Dauli (child in conflict with law) and accused Milo Bai were holding sticks in their hand. Seeing this, he got scared and ran towards Harratikra Basti on his tricycle and told Balakram and Ghanaram that Dhansai people had beaten his mother, father and maternal grandfather near the culvert and made them fall down and asked them to bring his mobile phone. Then Balakram brought his mobile phone and gave it to him. Then he used his mobile phone to tell about the incident to his sister-in- law Sushila from village Karabel. Though Balakram went towards the bridge to look but due to frightened, he ran back towards basti. A 108 vehicle arrived and took his parents and maternal 3 grandfather, Pandru, to Sitapur hospital and after that he went to the hospital with his sister-in-law Antuniya and saw that his father Sobhran, mother Kunibai had been injured on the head and back and his maternal grandfather Pandru had been bleeding from the head. All three had died. His father Sobhran, mother Kunibai, and maternal grandfather Pandru were murdered by Dhansai, Ujit, Milo Bai with an axe, a dauli, and a stick. Based on the oral report of the informant, merg intimation Ex.P-1 was lodged and First Information Report was registered against the accused under Section 302/34 of IPC by the Sitapur Police Station. 3. Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence and Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-4 and Crime Details Form was filled vide Ex.P-3. After summoning the witnesses vide Exs. P-5 & 6, inquest over the dead body of deceased Pandru was prepared vide Ex. P-7, inquest over the dead body of deceased Sobharan was prepared vide Ex.P-8 and inquest over the dead body of deceased Kunibai was prepared vide Ex.P-31 and thereafter dead bodies of all the three deceased were sent to Community Health Centre, Sitapur vide Exs.P-24, P-25 and P-26 respectively, wherein Dr. Snehlata Tirkey (PW-13) conducted postmortem over the dead bodies of all the deceased persons and given its report vide Exs. P-27, P-28 and P-29 respectively opining that mode of death of all the three deceased persons are homicidal in nature. On production by the doctor, clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P-9. 4 4. During the course of investigation, plain and blood-soaked soil were seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P-12. Spot map was got prepared by the concerned Patwari vide Ex.P-14 by issuing memo for furnishing of spot map vide Ex.P-15. Accused Dhansai and Milo Bai were arrested vide Exs.P-32 and 33 respectively and information of their arrest was given to Smt. Shakuntala W/o accused Dhansai vide Ex.P-34. Memorandum statement of the accused Dhansai was recorded vide Ex.P-16 and at his instance, an axe containing bloodstains over it was seized vide Ex.P-18 and his clothes were recovered vide Ex.P-21. Memorandum statement of accused Milo Bai was recorded vide Ex.P-17 and at her instance, one bamboo stick was seized vide Ex.P-19. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambikapur through concerned Superintendent of Police vide Ex.P-35, wherefrom FSL report was obtained vide Ex.P-26. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, District – Sarguja under the aforementioned sections. After being surrendered by the said Court, the said case was received by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja for trial. 6. When charges were framed against the accused under sections 302/34, 302/34, 302/34 of IPC, read them out to the accused and on being explained the same, the accused denied having 5 committed the crime and requested for trial. The plea of the accused was recorded. Thereafter, on behalf of the prosecution, witnesses Maheshwar Lakra (PW-1), Antuniya (PW-2), Niranjan Lakra (PW-3), Pradeep (PW-4), Vishwanath Ekka (PW-5), Dhanaram (PW-6), Sub-Inspector A. Toppo (PW-7), Patwari Smt. Kiran Bharti (PW-8), Lalji Ekka (PW-9), Sarwan Kumar (PW-10), Ravi Shankar (PW-11), Kapil Dev Toppo (PW-12), Dr. Snehlata Tirkey (PW-13), Balak (PW-14), Sushila (PW-15), Umil Kumar (PW-16) and Vinay Singh (PW-17) were examined. 7. In the explanation given under Section 313 of the CrPC, the accused have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the complainant due to a land dispute prior to the incident and that they have no knowledge about the incident and no evidence has been presented by the accused in their defence. 8. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 28.02.2022, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused/accused. 9. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that there is no eye witness in the present case and the prosecution has failed to establish chain of circumstances against the appellant. He also submits that in so far as the Maheshwar Lakda (PW-1) is concerned, he has not stated anything in the FIR as 6 well as in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC that he has seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased, but has stated that he was informed by Pradeep (PW-4) about the incident and for the first time in his Court statement, he made an attempt to project himself to be an-eye witness and there are serious contradictions in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, FIR and his Court statement as such, he is not an eye witness. Even otherwise, Maheshwar Lakda (PW-1), in paragraph 16 of his Court statement, has made statement to the effect that he has seen the accused persons coming towards his own at distance of about 01 km, moreover, he was also declared hostile by the prosecution itself and as such, he is not a reliable witness and in so far as next witness i.e. Pradeep (PW-4) is concerned, in paragraph 02 of Court statement he has made statement to the effect that he has heard only noise and he was 500 Meters away from the place of incident and as such Pradeep (PW-4) is also not reliable. He contended that though bloodstains were found in the alleged axe and clothes of accused Dhansai, but the same is not sufficient to hold the accused/appellants guilty for commission of crime in question without any blood group matching with the blood of the deceased persons. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Naykar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2024) 3 SCC 481. He lastly submits that the memorandum and seizure are also doubtful and the case of the prosecution is 7 completely doubtful and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal of all the charges. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent / State, would submit that three persons have been killed by the accused/ appellants, who are son and mother, with the sharp edged weapon due to previous animosity with regard to land dispute. Further, the deceased have received multiple injuries of sharp edged weapon and bloodstained weapons were recovered from the possession of the accused/appellants. He further submits that there are no such circumstances in the case which can raise a strong suspicion that the deceased were killed by any person other than the accused. On the date of the incident, independent witness Pradeep (PW-4) heard the accused and the deceased arguing with each other and immediately thereafter witness Maheshwar (PW-1) saw the accused present at the scene of the incident with lethal weapons like an axe and sticks. He saw his parents and maternal grandfather lying dead. The sharp axe and bamboo stick used in the incident were seized from the accused on the basis of their memorandum statement. The inquest officer's irrefutable evidence proved that the deceased died due to blows on their heads with a sharp edged weapon and their death was proved to be of a murderous nature. There was a pending land dispute between the accused and the deceased before the incident and 8 the presence of human blood in the clothes of the accused and in the axe and bamboo stick seized from their possession, which strengthens the strong suspicion that the axe and the stick were used by the accused in the murder of deceased Sobharan, Kuni Bai and Pandru. He further submits that considering the material available on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. As such, criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12. The first question for consideration would be, whether the learned trial Court has rightly held the death of deceased Sobharan, Pandru and Kuni Bai to be homicidal in nature. 13. The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr. Snehlata Tirkey (PW-13), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased deceased Sobharan, Pandru and Kuni Bai vide Exs.P-27, P-28 and P-29 respectively, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of all the three deceased were homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. We hereby affirm the said finding. 14. The next question for consideration would be, whether the appellants are perpetrator of the crime. 9 15. The prosecution has cited Maheshwar Lakda (PW-1) and Pradeep (PW-4) as eyewitnesses in the present case and further relied on recovery of axe and his clothes from accused - Dhansai and recovery of bamboo stick at the instance accused – Milo Bai which contained human blood on it. 16. Maheshwar Lakda (PW-1) is the son of deceased Sobharan and Kuni Bai and grandson of deceased Pandru. This witness has stated in his main examination that the incident is of 08.07.2017, he was coming from Harratikra Basti on his tricycle, at that time he was near Dhodhi, his mother Kunibai, father Sobhran and his maternal grandfather Pandru were lying near the house, he saw the accused beating his parents and maternal grandfather and in fear he ran towards the Basti and told Balak Ram and Ghanaram about the incident and told Balak Ram to bring his mobile from home, then Balak Ram brought his mobile from home and gave it then he informed about the incident to his sister-in-law Sushila who lived in village Karabel by calling her. 108 vehicle came and took his parents and maternal grandfather to Sitapur hospital. When he went to Sitapur hospital with his sister-in-law, he saw that his parents and maternal grandfather were dead and blood was oozing from their head and back. Then he went to Police Station Sitapur and gave information about the death of his parents and maternal grandfather vide Ex.P-1 and lodged First Information Report Ex.P-2 against the accused persons in connection with the incident on the same date 08.07.2017. This 10 witness further stated that his signature is on the spot map Ex.P-3 and map panchnama Ex.P-4 of the incident. 17. Maheshwar Lakda (PW-1) is the complainant, who had lodged the First Information Report (FIR) Ex.P-2 in Police Station, Sitapur, regarding the incident. However, as the said witness did not support the facts of the First Information Report (FIR) of Ex.P-2, the prosecution asked leading questions to the said witness and in the leading questions asked to the witness, the witness fully supported the statement given by him to the police and the facts of the First Information Report (FIR) Ex.P-2. Although in his main examination, the witness has stated that he had directly seen the incident, but the said witness, contradicting his own statements, has admitted in paragraph 11 of his cross-examination that if Pradeep had not told him about the incident, he would not have come to know about it. By the acceptance of the above statement of the witness, it is self-evident that the said witness did not directly see the incident taking place, but on getting information about the incident from Pradeep, he immediately reached the spot of incident, then the said witness had directly seen his parents and maternal grandfather Pandru lying at the spot of incident and accused Dhansai holding an axe and accused Milo Bai holding a stick in her hand, due to which it is not proved that the said witness had directly seen the incident taking place, though it is proved that immediately after the incident he had seen his father Sobharan, mother Kunibai and maternal grandfather Pandru lying 11 at the spot of incident and accused Dhansai holding an axe in his hand and Milo Bai holding a stick in her hand, but the same is not sufficient to prove that the accused / appellant had murdered the deceased. 18. Another independent witness in the case, Pradeep (PW-4), has stated in his main examination that on the date of the incident, the deceased were fighting with some people and he heard the noise from a distance. When the complainant Maheshwar was coming from Harratikra, he was told on the way that there was a fight at his place, go and see. Later, he came to know that Sobhran, Kunibai and Pandru had been murdered. In the indicative question asked by the prosecution, the witness admitted that he had told the complainant Maheshwar about the verbal argument that was going on between the deceased and the accused and after the compalinant Maheshwar told him, he came to know that the accused were beating the deceased with an axe and a stick because of which Sobharan died at the spot itself and Kunibai and Pandru died in the hospital at Sitapur. Witness Pradeep (PW-4) has been extensively cross-examined by the defence. The said witness has not made any statement regarding directly witnessing the incident in his evidence, the fact that the said witness had seen the deceased and only heard the noise of argument between the deceased and the accused persons, as such, the statement of Pradeep (PW-4) is also not reliable. 19. The complainant of the case, Maheshwar (PW-1) in his Court 12 evidence has stated that he had told Balakram and Ghanaram about the incident in the First Information Report (Ex.P-2) lodged by him, but the witness Balakram (PW-14) in his examination in chief has stated that the site map (Ex.P-4) was prepared in front of him and has stated that he has no information about where and how the deceased died in the incident. This witness on being asked by the prosecution, he has admitted that he is having knowledge of the deceased Sobhran, Kunibai and Pandru being killed and thrown down by the accused when he was told about it by the complainant Maheshwar, due to which the evidence of Ghanaram, an independent witness of the case, does not provide any strength or support to the case of the prosecution at any level. Witness Ghanaram (PW-6) has stated in his main examination that he has no knowledge about the incident. The prosecution has asked leading questions to the witness, but even in the leading questions asked to the witness, the witness rejected all the suggestions of the prosecution, due to which the evidence of Ghanaram, an independent witness of the case, does not provide any strength or support to the case of the prosecution at any level. 20. Niranjan Lakra (PW-3), an interested witness in the case, has stated in his main examination that on 08.07.2017, the accused had beaten his father Sobhran, mother Kunibai and grandmother Pandru to death with an axe and a stick. On receiving information about the incident, he went to Sitapur hospital and found that his parents and grandfather were dead and blood was oozing from 13 their heads. The police had prepared the Panchnama of the dead bodies Exs.P-7 and P-8. He has admitted to having signed the seizure memo Ex.P-9 and 10. In the indicative question asked by the prosecution to the witness, the witness has admitted that the blood stained vest worn by his father Sobhran, the blood stained blue lungi of Pandru and the green coloured blouse of his mother were seized by the police. It is self-evident from the statements of the witness that on getting information about the incident, he went to the hospital in Sitapur and saw that his parents and grandmother Pandru had died due to head injuries due to which it is not proved that the witness had directly seen the incident, but even after the cross-examination of the witness, the statement of preparing seizure memo Ex.P-9 by seizing the vest, lungi and blouse of the deceased has not been refuted, due to which the evidence of the said witness that he had directly seen the incident is not proved, but it is proved that seizure memo Ex.P-9 was prepared in his presence by seizing the vest, lungi and blouse of the deceased. 21. Another interested witness in the case, Antuniya (PW-2), daughter-in-law of the deceased Sobhran, stated in her examination-in-chief that on 08.07.2017, the accused had killed her father-in-law Sobhran, mother-in-law Kunibai, and grandfather-in-law Pandru with an axe and a stick. She had seen the accused near her house. Her mother-in-law, father-in-law, and grandfather-in-law were taken to Sitapur hospital in a 108 14 ambulance. She had also accompanied them. On reaching the hospital, her mother-in-law and grandfather-in-law died, and her father-in-law died at the scene. The evidence of the said witness suggests that she witnessed the incident directly, but in the indicative question asked by the prosecution, the witness admitted that she had gone to the hospital with her brother-in-law, Maheshwar Lakra. Similarly, in the First Information Report (Ex. P-2) lodged by the complainant Maheshwar Lakda, the complainant has also reported that when his parents and maternal grandfather Pandru were taken to Sitapur hospital in 108 vehicle, he along with his sister-in-law Antuniya had gone to Sitapur hospital and met his parents and maternal grandfather Padaru, due to which there is considerable discrepancy in the facts of Ex.P-2 registered by witness Antuniya and the complainant, it is not proved that witness Antuniya had directly seen the incident and the said witness being the daughter-in-law of deceased Sobharan and Kunbai, being a interested witness, it appears that a false statement has been made in favour of deceased. 22. Sushila (PW-15), another interested witness in the case, has stated in her main examination that she knows the accused and her father Sobharan, mother Kunibai and her maternal grandfather Pandru died due to beating by the accused. At the time of the incident, she was in village Karabel. When her brother Maheshwar informed her over the phone about the incident, she went straight to Sitapur Government Hospital and saw that her 15 parents and maternal grandfather Pandru were lying dead, their bones of head had come out. It is self-evident from the evidence of the said interested witness that she came to know about the incident after being told by her brother Maheshwar and the said witness did not directly see the incident taking place, due to which the evidence of the said interested witness does not prove the fact that her parents and maternal grandfather Pandru died due to being beaten with a sharp axe and bamboo stick by the accused and the prosecution's case does not get any strength or support at any level from the evidence of the said witness. 23. Umil Kumar (PW-16), witness of seizure and memorandum of the case, in his main examination, has denied that any statement was given by the accused Dhansai and Milobai to the police before him in relation to the incident and the said witness has only accepted his signature on the memorandum statement Ex.P-16 and 17 of the accused and seizure sheet Ex.P-18 and 19. As the statements of the witness did not provide any strength or support to the prosecution's case at any level, the prosecution asked the witness leading questions, but the witness has rejected all the suggestions of the prosecution even in the indicative questions asked by the prosecution, due to which the evidence of the said witness does not give any strength or support to the case of the prosecution at any level. 24. Lalji Ekka (PW-9), other witness of seizure and memorandum of the case, has stated in his main examination that when accused 16 Dhansai and Milobai were interrogated by the police in his presence, memorandum statement of the incident Ex.P-16 was given by accused Dhansai and memorandum statement Ex.P-17 was given by accused Milobai and on the basis of memorandum statement of the accused, a sharp-edged axe was seized on the pointing out of accused Dhansai and seizure memo Ex.P-18 was prepared and on the pointing out of accused Milobai, a bamboo stick was seized and seizure memo Ex.P-19 was prepared and seizure memo Ex.P-9 was prepared by seizing the blood stained vest worn by deceased Sobharan, blood stained lungi of Pandru and green coloured blouse of deceased Kuni Bai. An old saffron coloured blood stained vest and the checkered half pant having blood stain near the right side of the packet was seized and seizure memo Ex.P-21 was prepared and the cream colour spotted saree of accused Milobai having blood stain on its border was seized and seizure memo Ex.P-22 was prepared. 25. Witness Lalji Ekka (PW-9) has been cross-examined extensively by the accused, but the statement of the witness could not be refuted and the cross-examination of the witness also did not provide any such contradictory statement, which can cast doubt on the statement of the witness, due to which, on the basis of the memorandum statement Ex.P-16 and 17 of the accused, it is proved that on the basis of the uncontroverted evidence of the witness, the iron axe and bamboo stick were seized and seizure memo Ex.P-18 and 19 were prepared. Similarly, it is proved that 17 the blood stained vest of deceased Sobharan, blood stained lungi of deceased Pandru, blood stained blouse of deceased Kuni Bai were seized and seizure memo Ex.P-9 was prepared and seizure memo Ex.P-21 was prepared by seizing the blood stained sando vest and a half pant of accused Dhansai. Similarly, on the basis of the uncontroverted evidence of the witness, it is also proved that the blood stained spotted saree of accused Milo Bai was seized and seizure memo Ex.P-20 was prepared. 26. It is also clear from evidence of the prosecution witnesses that there was a rivalry between the accused/appellants and the deceased over land dispute. 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Aslam Alias Imran v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LawSuit (SC) 420 has held as under:- “22. It is a settled law that enmity is a double-edged weapon. On one hand, it provides motive, on the other hand it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication. From the nature of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, the possibility of the present appellant being falsely implicated on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.” 28. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of aforesaid discussion, it is quite established that there was a rivalry between the accused/appellants and the deceased over land dispute, 18 which provides motive, but in absence of any eyewitness of the incident, moreover without completion of chain of circumstantial evidence, it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication. From the nature of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, the possibility of the present appellants being falsely implicated on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out. In our opinion, therefore, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Naykar (supra) has held as under:- “29. It can thus be seen that, the only circumstance that may be of some assistance to the prosecution case is the recovery of dagger at the instance of the present appellant. However, as already stated hereinabove, the said recovery is also from an open place accessible to one and all. In any case, the blood found on the dagger does not match with the blood group of the deceased. In Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 724, this Court held that sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused. Thus, we find that only on the basis of sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon, it cannot be said that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.” 30. In the case in hand, the only circumstance that may be of some assistance to the prosecution case is the recovery of an axe and 19 bamboo stick at the instance of the present appellants, which contains bloodstains on it, but in absence of any witness that the said weapons have been used for committing murder of the deceased, the appellants cannot be held guilty for commission of the said offence. Thus, in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Naykar (supra), we find that only on the basis of sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon, it cannot be said that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. 31. In the present case, according to the FSL report (Ex.P-36), test result of Articles A1, B1, C1, G, H, I, J, K, L & M is inclusive. Hence, the blood group result could not be determined. 32. At this stage, pertinent decision of the Supreme Court on this point in the matter of Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2019) 7 SCC 781 may be noticed herein, in which the Supreme Court has summarized the law on this point after taking into the decision of the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) in the matter of Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 74. 33. In Raghav Prapanna Tripathi (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that in case the prosecution needed to prove that the bloodstains found on the earth or the weapons were of a human origin and were of the same blood group as that of the accused. 20 34. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court i.e. Raghav Prapanna Tripathi (supra) was followed in Balwan Singh (supra) in which it was observed as under:- “23. From the aforementioned discussion, we can summarise that if the recovery of bloodstained articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, and if the investigation was not found to be tainted, then it may be sufficient if the prosecution shows that the blood found on the articles is of human origin though, even though the blood group is not proved because of disintegration of blood. The court will have to come to the conclusion based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and there cannot be any fixed formula that the prosecution has to prove, or need not prove, that the blood groups match.” 35. Considering the evidence of so-called eyewitnesses Maheshwar Lakda (PW-1) and Pradeep (PW-4) and further taking into consideration the FSL report (Ex.P-36), material available on record and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above- stated judgments, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellants who have caused death of the deceased and benefit of doubt ought to have given to them. 36. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302/34 (three counts) of the IPC are hereby set aside. The accused / appellants are acquitted of the said charge levelled against them. The appellants are in jail since 08.07.2017. They be set at liberty forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case. 21 37. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellants are directed forthwith furnish a personal bond each in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 38. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra