1 2025:CGHC:54139-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1185 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Yadav S/o Rajesh Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Bazaar Chowk, Sirsakhurd, Outpost Jevra Sirsa, Police Station Pulgaron, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rupesh Yadav S/o Gaind Kumar Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Bazaar Chowk, Sirsakhurd, Outpost Jevra Sirsa, Police Station Pulgaron, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Hitesh Pande S/o Lachchhu Pande Aged About 22 Years R/o Pande Para, Sirsakhurd, Jevra Sirsa, Police Station Pulgaron, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Umesh Yadav S/o Pyare Lal Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Bazaar Chowk, Sirsakhurd, Outpost Jevra Sirsa, Police Station Pulgaron, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ghanshyam S/o Dashrath Kumbhkar Aged About 27 Years R/o Pande Para, Sirsakhurd, Jevra Sirsa, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 6 - Kuldeep Yadav S/o Gaind Lal Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Bazaar Chowk, Sirsakhurd, Outpost Jevra Sirsa, Police Station Pulgaron, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 7 - Omkar Kumhar S/o Laxman Kumhar Aged About 20 Years R/o Pande Para, Sirsakhurd, Jevra Sirsa, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pulgaon District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent CRA No. 1533 of 2025 Suraj Yadav S/o Ramlal Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No.09- Sirsakhurd Police Chowki Jevra Sirsa, Police Station Pulgaon District- Durg (C.G.) --- Appellant ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Chowki Jevra Sirsa Police Station Pulgaon, District- Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellants in CRA No. 1185/2025 : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Appellant in CRA No. 1533/2025 : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, PL Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06 . 11 .202 5 1. Since the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and common impugned judgment, this Court is disposing of the same by a common judgment. 2. These criminal appeals filed by the appellants under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 2021, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently : CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 302/149 of IPC (now amended as Section 103/190 BNS) Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for 1 month 3 U/s 147 of IPC (now amended as Section 191(2) BNS) RI for 2 months and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for 1 month U/s 427 of IPC (now amended as Section 324 BNS) RI for 2 months and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for 1 month 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.07.2021, the complainant Akash Yadav (P.W.-4) lodged a written report (Ex.P-3) at Police Station Pulgaon Chowki, Jeevra Sirsa, District Durg. He reported that on 07.07.2021, he along with Ayush Kumar Yadav, Anil Yadav, Liladhar Patel, Deepak Yadav, deceased Hemchand alias Harsh Yadav, and other members of a wedding party from village Panduka had gone to the house of Nand Kumar Yadav, resident of Sirsa Khurd, in bus No. CG-08/M- 0122 to attend the marriage of Sunil Yadav of village Panduka. During the wedding reception, both the bride’s and groom’s parties were dancing to different musical instruments. A minor altercation ensued when gulal was thrown, leading to a brief quarrel, which was later pacified. Thereafter, at about 10:30 PM, when Puresh Yadu, the son-in-law from the bride’s side, was going to Kumhar Bhawan for dinner, some baraatis allegedly pushed and slapped him. On learning about the incident, Sanjay Yadav- brother-in-law of Puresh questioned the baraatis about the assault, resulting in a heated argument and scuffle. Thereafter, Sanjay Yadav went home, took a sumba (bamba) from co-accused Suraj Yadav, and along with Suraj Yadav, 4 Kuldeep Yadav, Omkar Kumbhakar, Rupesh Yadav, Umesh Yadav, Hitesh Pandey, and Ghanshyam Kumbhakar, returned to the spot near Kumbhakar Bhawan, where the bus was parked. The accused persons, armed with sticks, rods, and bricks, allegedly assaulted members of the wedding party, caused damage to the bus, and took the deceased Hemchand alias Harsh Yadav aside, where accused Sanjay Yadav inflicted fatal injuries with the sumba, causing his death. The complainant Akash Yadav (P.W.-4) and Ayush Kumar Yadav (P.W.-3) also sustained injuries during the assault. 4. On the basis of the report, a merg intimation (Ex.P-4 & 39) was recorded at Police Post Jeevra Sirsa, Police Station Pulgaon, and subsequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 147, 323, 427, and 302 IPC against Sanjay, Suraj, Rupesh, and other accused persons. Investigating officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning witnesses vide Ex.P-5, inquest over the dead body of deceased Hemchand alias Harsh Yadav was prepared vide Ex.P-6 and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was sent to District Hospital, Durg for conducting postmortem, wherein Dr. Roshini Khande (PW-14) conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased, who found following injuries :- (i) A stab wound measuring approximately 1.5 x 1 x 3 cm on the left side of the chest, between the fourth and fifth ribs. 5 (ii) A stab wound (deep wound) measuring 1 cm long, 2 cm wide and 5 cm deep on the left side of the deceased's chest between the sixth and seventh ribs. (iii) The third stab wound was measuring 3 cm long, 1 cm wide and 3 cm deep, 2 cm away from the second injury of the deceased. (iv) The fourth stab wound was 1.5 x 1 x 2 cm below the navel. (v) The fifth stab wound was 1 x 1 x 1.5 cm in size on the right side of the deceased's back, between the lumbar vertebrae L-1 and L-2. (vi) The sixth stab wound was 1.5 x 1 x 2 cm in size on the right side of the deceased's back, between the lumbar vertebrae L-3 and L-4. (vii) The deceased's lungs and heart were injured. Upon opening the chest during the postmortem examination, a stab wound measuring 1 x 1 x 4 cm was found in the deceased's right ventricle, along with another stab wound measuring 2 x 1 x 3 cm. The stab wound had ruptured and collapsed the deceased's left lung. The Doctor opined that death was due to hypovolemic shock caused by injuries to the intestinal vital organs due to the stab wound on the body of the deceased and excessive bleeding from external injuries. The injuries on the body of the deceased were caused within 24 hours. 5. During investigation, site maps were prepared vide Exs.P-7 & 8. Blood-stained and plain asphalt samples and a towel were seized vide Ex.P-12. Memorandum of the accused were recorded under 6 Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exs.P-16 to 23, pursuant to which the sumba (bamba) used in the offence was seized from Sanjay Yadav, and sticks were recovered from Kuldeep Yadav, Omkar Kumbhakar, and Suraj Yadav through seizure memos (Ex.P-24 to 28). The injured witnesses Ayush Kumar Yadav and Akash Yadav were medically examined, and reports Ex.P-37 and 38 were obtained. Arrest memos (Ex.P-44 to 51) were prepared accordingly. 6. The seized articles, including the blood-stained clothes of the deceased and the accused, were sent for forensic examination to the FSL, Raipur, and report Ex.P-56 was received. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 147, 427, 323 IPC, and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial and ultimately, the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, received the case on transfer for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 7. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 147, 302/149, 323 (2 times), and 427 IPC, which were read over and explained to them. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined nineteen witnesses (P.W.-1 to P.W.-19) and exhibited 56 documents. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied all incriminating circumstances and pleaded innocence, choosing not to adduce any defence evidence. 7 8. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 20.05.2025 convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, these two criminal appeal have been preferred by the accused/appellants. 9. Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants in CRA No. 1185/2025 vehemently argued that the learned trial Court erred in holding that the prosecution successfully establish the charge of murder beyond any reasonable doubt. It is respectfully submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge u/s 302/149 of I.P.C. (Now amended as section 103/190 BNS) beyond any reasonable doubt and by bringing legal and clinching evidence in the nature of conclusive evidence against the present appellants so as to hold them guilty for the commission of any crime. Hence, the findings and reasons recorded in the impugned judgment are liable to be quashed and set-aside acquitting the present appellants from the charges. He further argued that the prosecution has further failed to prove the genesis of the crime and further failed to prove that the murder was committed by the present appellants sharing their common object. In the entire evidence it is not established that the present appellants have committed the offence for which they have been charged and tried. It is also important to note that on the same nature and set of evidence the present appellants have been acquitted from the charges u/s 323 of IPC and have been 8 convicted under other charges. He also submitted that the prosecution witnesses including the two injured eyewitnesses i.e. Ayush Kumar Yadav (PW-03) and Aakash Yadav (PW-04) have failed to identify the assailants at the time of commission of crime and their evidence is full of improvements on material facts, therefore, the learned trial Court has committed an error of law in relying the evidence of the witnesses. He contended that as the appellants have not been charged with 427 r/w 149 of IPC therefore their conviction for the offence punishable u/s 427 of IPC simplisitor is bad and liable to be set-aside. He further contended that the prosecution had further failed to prove the ingredients of section 140 and 141 of IPC during the course of the trial therefore the conviction u/s 147 of 1.P.C. is also bad. He also contended that the prosecution through its witnesses have failed to establish the actual overt act against the present appellants and also the factum of forming unlawful assembly in order to establish the allegation of sharing the common object, therefore their conviction u/s 302 with the aid of section 149 of IPC is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 10. Mr. Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 1533/2025 adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants in CRA No. 1185/2025. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that conviction of the 9 appellant is based on direct evidence. The prosecution during investigation recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses in which they have categorically deposed in their statements regarding conduct and commission of offence by the appellants, which is concurrent evidence against the appellants and thus, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant. Therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. He further submitted that though the injured eyewitness Aakash Yadav (PW-04) has specifically stated in paragraph 4 of his evidence that accused held Harsh alias Hemchand Yadav from behind, and Sanjay Yadav was stabbing him with a sharp weapon. Harsh alias Hemchand Yadav collapsed on the spot. The accused also damaged the rear glass of the bus during the scuffle. He was injured on the head and cheek below his eye, and Ayush was injured on the waist. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court and as such, criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 13. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased Harsh alias Hemchand Yadav was homicidal in nature ? 10 14. The trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly relying upon the statements of Dr.Roshnini Khande (PW-14), who had conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased Harsh alias Hemchand Yadav, has stated that on examining the body of the deceased, she found that he died due to hypovolemic shock caused by injuries to the internal vital organs due to the stab wound in his body and excessive bleeding due to external injuries, has come to the conclusion that cause of death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that death of deceased Harsh alias Hemchand Yadav was homicidal in nature is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby affirm the said finding. 15. Conviction of the accused appellants is based on the evidence of so-called eye-witnesses Liladhar Patel (PW-1), complainant / injured Aakash Yadav (PW-4), Deepak Yadav (PW-5) and Anil Yadav (PW-7) and further based on the FSL report (Ex.P-56), whereby it revealed presence of human blood in the seized vest and jeans of the deceased and the iron sumba (used for taking out grains from the sack) seized from the accused Sanjay Yadav containing group B blood on it. 11 16. The next question for consideration would be whether the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the accused/appellants on the basis of aforementioned oral and documentary evidence ? 17. In this regard, Liladhar Patel (PW-1) has stated that he recognizes the accused. On 07.07.2021, a wedding procession came to the house of his village friend Sunil Yadav, who is his neighbor. He also went there and everyone came by bus. During the Parganahi, the wedding party and the family members were dancing separately. The wedding party members were spraying gulal while dancing, when an argument broke out between the two sides, which was pacified by Harsh Yadav alias Hemchand. The people from the bride's side stopped their music, saying that the program was getting late. At that time, the music played on the groom's side, to which the people from the bride's side started dancing. During this time, pushing and shoving and arguments started between them, so the music was stopped. He further stated that after eating, he boarded on the wedding party bus. A short while later, he heard abusive language and the accused pelting the bus with stones. He then got up and came down from bus and saw the accused hitting the wedding party by with sticks, bricks, rods and stones, then he intervened and made 3-4 people sit in the bus. After that he was standing outside the bus. 4-5 boys among them were hitting Hemchand alias Harsh, one of them hit Hemchand in the stomach and chest with some weapon like an iron stick, after that Hemchand fell down. Even after 12 falling, the accused were kicking him. After that the accused ran away from there. Then the villagers made the wedding party sit in the bus and sent them away. The police interrogated him and took his statement. In the incident, Akash Yadav got injuries below his right eye and on the back of his head and Ayush got injuries on his waist. This witness has admitted in paragraph 7 of the cross-examination that he did not know the people who had caused the incident and assaulted them. In paragraph 8 he has admitted that he had not given any description, height or description of the perpetrators of the incident to the police and the police had not made him do any identification work regarding the perpetrators of the incident. In paragraph 11 he has admitted that the incident had happened suddenly and he was sleeping, hence he did not understand what was happening and how Hemchand was assaulted, at that time he was making the other wedding party members board the bus. He voluntarily said that he saw the incident after 4-5 people had boarded the bus. In Paragraph 12, it has been accepted that there was a huge crowd of both the bride's and groom's side at the incident spot. 18. Thus, from perusal of aforesaid statement of Liladhar Patel (PW-1), though it is quite clear that somebody were hitting the wedding party with sticks, bricks, rods and stones, but this witness did not identified the people who had caused the incident and who had assaulted deceased Hemchand alias Harsh Yadav. 13 19. Tirathram Devangan (PW-2) has stated that he had seen some of the accused persons when they were serving food at a wedding in Jevarasirsa. On 07.07.2021, they had gone to the wedding procession from Kopra village to Jevarasirsakhurd village. After the wedding procession was dropped off, he was on the bus. The family members then offered the wedding procession to the bride's side. A dispute arose between the bride's side and the groom's side over the sprinkling of gulal (coloured powder). Harsh, who was present there, pacified everyone, leading to a calming down of both sides. After the wedding procession was finished, it was time for dinner. This witness further stated that after the meal, the wedding party members said they were going home. They had served the food at the same place where they had stayed. The family members dragged one of the wedding party members out of the wedding party, and a scuffle broke out between them. They began pelting them with bricks and stones. Some of the wedding party members were standing near the bus, chatting among themselves, and the violence was horrified. The family members dragged a boy named Harsh out. Harsh, also known as Hemchandra, was beaten by 5-10 people and stabbed in the chest with a sharp object, resulting in his death. Seeing the incident, the villagers were frightened and quickly sent the wedding party members back. He was the driver of the bus used for the wedding party at the time of the incident. The police prepared the bus damage report, Ex.P-02, which bears his 14 signature. 20. This witness has admitted in paragraph 6 of his cross- examination that he had taken the wedding party to Jeevra Sirsa. He has denied the suggestion that the bus was parked in the field at the time of the incident. He voluntarily stated that the bus was parked near the Janwas at the scene of the incident. He has admitted that he never saw the people he saw serving food after that. He has voluntarily stated that at the time of the incident, as the village lights and the vehicle lights were on at the scene of the incident, hence he could not see the faces clearly. In paragraph 8, he has accepted that he does not recognize the persons who assaulted Harsh alias Hemchand, due to which the statements of this witness prove that the deceased Harsh alias Hemchand died at the spot where there was provision of light due to the dragging of the deceased Harsh alias Hemchand by the family members, beating him, hitting him on his stomach and chest with a sharp object and causing serious injuries to him, but the statements of this witness do not prove that Harsh alias Hemchand Yadav died due to the serious injuries inflicted on him by the accused by beating him. 21. Injured Ayush Kumar Yadav (PW-3) stated that Sunil Yadav is his maternal uncle, and he had accompanied him to Jevarasirsa Durg for his wedding. Hemchandra, Anil Yadav, Akash Yadav, Rajesh Yadav, and several others were also in the procession. 15 While they were dancing, the bride's side also came and entered their midst and started dancing. The groom's side was throwing gulal while dancing, when an elderly man from the bride's side objected. A dispute ensued between the groom's side and the bride's side, which was then calmed down after the elders intervened. He further stated that he was sitting down to eat at the wedding and the accused served him food. After they had finished eating, the elders told him, "Let's go and get on the bus, we're going back." This occurred at 11:00 p.m. on the date of the incident. They then began boarding the bus, and about half the wedding party had already boarded. He was near the bus and was about to board when suddenly the accused attacked him with bricks and stones. A brick struck his left hip, causing him to fall forward. His arm was bruised and he suffered injuries to his waist, causing him pain while walking. 22. This witness further stated that the accused were assaulting other wedding guests. They broke the bus windows. His uncles picked him up from outside the bus and forced him inside. His uncles, Akash Yadav, Anil Yadav, Rajesh Yadav, Deepak Yadav, and others were also assaulted by the accused. His uncle, Hemchandra, was trying to protect all the wedding guests from the accused and boarded the bus. He did not know when the accused took his maternal uncle Hemchand away from near the bus, but after taking him in front of the bus, the accused were beating his maternal uncle Hemchand, the bus was not starting, 16 they started the bus by pushing it and when he came out from the spot, suddenly he saw that his maternal uncle was lying there, but at that time he did not know that his maternal uncle had died. He further stated that the accused were repeatedly attacking them, so the driver drove the bus forward. His uncle Hemchand was not on the bus; they had gone ahead. His other uncles inquired about who was left behind, and then everyone realized that Hemchand was not on the bus. He learned from the people on the bus that his uncle Hemchand had been attacked with a knife. He called and learned that his uncle Hemchand had died. The bus was stopped 10-20 kilometers from the scene, and within half an hour, the police arrived at the bus stop. The police questioned him about the incident and recorded his statement. 23. This witness has admitted in paragraph 18 of his cross- examination that he was in line to board the bus and was facing the bus door. He also admitted that all the wedding guests were lined up to board the bus. He did not see who attacked him and injured him. In paragraph 19, he has accepted that as soon as he was injured, he fell forward and he could not see who was at the spot, who took the deceased Hemchand from near the bus and caused the injuries, due to which the statements of this witness prove that at the time of the incident, the accused broke the glass of the bus with bricks and stones and that his maternal uncle Hemchand Yadav died due to someone taking him in front of the bus and beating him, but the statements of this witness do not 17 prove that the death of the deceased Hemchand Yadav was due to beating by the accused at the time of the incident. 24. Complainant /injured Akash Yadav (PW-4) has stated that on 07.07.2021, they had gone from their village, Kopra, District Gariaband, to Sirsakhurd Jevarasirsa, District Durg, with a wedding procession for Sunil Yadav, his grandfather's son. The groom and bride's bands played separately. The bride's band stopped playing. The accused, Umesh Yadav, and members of the bride's side began dancing in the middle with their band. Accused Umesh Yadav had an argument with Hemchand Yadav, which was resolved. Around 11:30 pm to 12:00 pm, he, Ayush, Anil, Harsh alias Hemchand Yadav, Rupesh, Deepak, and others were standing near the bus after dinner when the accused arrived and began attacking with bricks, stones, and sticks. Some of the wedding party had boarded the bus. He, Harsh alias Hemchand Yadav, Anil, and Deepak were under the bus. He too was hit with a stick, but he couldn't see who hit him. He suffered injuries to his head and under his eyes, and Ayush suffered injuries to his waist. He further stated that the driver then began to accelerate the bus slowly, when the accused grabbed Harsh alias Hemchand Yadav, who was still under the vehicle. The accused were holding Harsh alias Hemchand Yadav from behind, and Sanjay Yadav was stabbing him with a sharp weapon, causing him to collapse on the spot. The accused also smashed the rear glass of the bus, and after loading all the wedding guests, the driver drove off 18 towards his village. People told the driver they would report the incident to the police station. He then took the bus back to Sirsa to report the incident. He filed a report of the incident at the Jewar Sirsa police station, Ex.P.-3. The police had medically examined him. In paragraph 10 of his cross-examination, this witness has specifically admitted that he do not know the accused / appellants by name or face. This witness voluntarily stated that he has recognized them by their faces since the day of the incident. 25. From perusal of the statement of Akash Yadav (PW-4), it is quite clear that though he has specifically stated in paragraph 4 of his statement that the accused were holding Harsh alias Hemchand Yadav from behind, and Sanjay Yadav was stabbing him with a sharp weapon, causing him to collapse on the spot, but in paragraph 10 of his cross-examination, this witness has specifically admitted that he do not know the accused / appellants by their name or face and he has recognized them by their faces since the day of the incident. Thus, the statement of this witness is contradictory and does not inspire confidence. 26. Similarly, Deepak Yadav (PW-5) has also stated that he knew the accused. Sunil Yadav is his neighbor, for whose wedding he had gone to Sirsakhurd with his friends Anil, Ayush, Akash, Yogesh, and other villagers. During the procession, the groom's and bride's side were dancing to their respective musical instruments when someone in the procession sprayed gulal, leading to a 19 dispute between the groom's and bride's side. Harsh Yadav intervened, and the situation was calmed down. The bride's side's music stopped. The groom's side continued dancing to the musical instruments, which led to another dispute. After the procession and the meal, he returned to the bus. Some of the wedding guests were on top of the bus, while others were underneath. He was inside the bus. Then, 8-10 people arrived and started attacking the bus with bricks and stones, then a fight broke out between the family members and the wedding guests, and he got off the bus to intervene. The accused slapped him two or four times. After that, 4-5 people came and dragged Harsh Yadav a short distance away from the bus. One of them, Sanjay Yadav, stabbed Harsh Yadav in the chest with a sharp weapon, causing him to collapse on the spot. Then all the accused fled from there. Seeing the situation getting heated, the bus driver moved the bus forward. Raju Akash, Ayush, and Dinesh were also injured in the incident. After that, the bus driver parked the bus at the Pulgaon police station. The police interrogated and took his statement. 27. In paragraph 16 of the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that while giving police statement Ex.D-3, he had not told who were the 8-10 people he had mentioned as attackers and what were their names. In paragraph 17, he has admitted that while giving his statement to the police, he had not given the description of the appearance, height, etc. of the people who had 20 vandalized and assaulted him. In paragraph 18, he has admitted that the police had not conducted any identification process of the accused in the case. This witness has admitted that while giving his statement to the police, he did not tell them that he knew the people who were assaulting him by name. 28. Thus, from perusal of the statement Deepak Yadav (PW-5), it is also quite clear that when asked by the trial Court to this witness, pointing towards the accused present in the Court, he has said that after 4-5 people came there and dragged Harsh Yadav a little distance away from the bus. One of them, Sanjay Yadav, came and attacked Harsh Yadav with a sharp weapon in his chest due to which Harsh Yadav fell down on the spot. Then all the accused ran away from there. Seeing the situation getting heated, the bus driver moved the bus forward. It further transpires that in paragraph 16 of the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that while giving police statement Ex.D-3, he had not told who were the 8-10 people he had mentioned as attackers and what were their names, then how he told the name of accused Sanjay Yadav that he has assaulted the deceased, thus there are full of conjuncture and surmises in the statement of this witness and the learned trial Court has committed grave illegality in relying upon the statement of this witness while convicting the accused/ appellants. 29. Anil Yadav (PW-7) has stated that on 07.07.2021, he had gone to 21 Sirsa Khurd for his brother Sunil Yadav's wedding procession. During the Parghanni ceremony, the bride's side was dancing. During the Janvas ceremony, the bride's side started pushing and shoving the band. Harsh then arrived and calmed the situation, and the situation was settled. The bride's side then objected to the throwing of gulal (coloured powder). Harsh also calmed the situation. They then went to the Janvas Bhavan for dinner, where the accused were distributing food. As the wedding procession was leaving, he went to call the band members, but a boy, whom he did not recognize, began assaulting him. The accused then began assaulting him with sticks, bricks, and stones near the bus. Sanjay Yadav and other accused dragged Harsh alias Hemchandra Yadav towards the front of the bus. This witness further stated that Sanjay Yadav, one of the accused, then attacked Harsh alias Hemchandra Yadav in the chest, stomach, and shoulder with a sharp weapon, while the remaining accused held the deceased's hands and legs. Harsh Yadav then fell to the ground, but the accused continued to kick and beat him with sticks. He witnessed the incident. After that, his friends put him on a bus. The bus was then driven 2-3 kilometers further. The police took the bus to the Jeevra Sirsa police station. The police then brought the accused to the police station. The police interrogated him and took his statement. 30. This witness admitted in paragraph 12 of his cross-examination that on the date of the incident, the police arrested the accused 22 and brought them to the police station. He was shown the accused at the police station, and he admitted that after seeing the accused at the police station that night, he did not tell the police who had killed the deceased. Thus, the statement of this witness also does not inspire confidence and trustworthy and the learned trial Court has committed grave error in relying upon the statement of this witness while convicting the accused/ appellants. 31. So far as presence of human blood in the seized vest and jeans of the deceased and the iron sumba seized from the accused Sanjay Yadav containing group B blood on it, it is concerned, the same is also doubtful because as per query report Ex.P-36 given Dr. Roshini Khande (PW-14), no stain was found in the seized iron sumba, which is alleged to be seized from accused Sanjay Yadav and the same was used for killing the deceased Harsh alias Hemchand Yadav. 32. From the aforesaid discussion, it is quite clear that during the wedding reception, both the bride’s and groom’s parties were dancing to different musical instruments. A minor altercation ensued when gulal was thrown, leading to a brief quarrel, which was later pacified. After marriage ceremony was over and while the wedding parties were boarding on the bus, somebody were hitting the wedding party with sticks, bricks, rods and stones and also damaged the bus, but as the so-called eye-witnesses 23 Liladhar Patel (PW-1), complainant / injured Aakash Yadav (PW-4), Deepak Yadav (PW-5) and Anil Yadav (PW-7) have failed to identify the assailants at the time of commission of crime and their evidence is full of improvements on material facts and the learned trial Court erred in holding that the prosecution successfully establish the charge of murder beyond any reasonable doubt as the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge u/s 302/149 of I.P.C. (Now amended as section 103/190 BNS) beyond any reasonable doubt by bringing legal and clinching evidence in the nature of conclusive evidence against the present appellants so as to hold them guilty for the commission of any crime, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellants who had caused death of the deceased and benefit of doubt ought to have given to them. 33. Moreover, the prosecution has further failed to prove the genesis of the crime and further failed to prove that the murder was committed by the present appellants sharing their common object. In the entire evidence it is not established that the present appellants have committed the offence for which they have been charged and tried. It is also important to note that on the same nature and set of evidence the present appellants have been acquitted from the charges u/s 323 of IPC and have been convicted under other charges. 24 34. Further as the appellants have not been charged with Section 427 r/w 149 of IPC therefore their conviction for the offence punishable u/s 427 of IPC simplisitor is bad and is liable to be set-aside. The prosecution had further failed to prove the ingredients of Sections 140 and 141 of IPC during the course of the trial therefore the conviction u/s 147 of IPC is also bad. The prosecution through its witnesses have failed to establish the actual overt act against the present appellants and also the factum of forming unlawful assembly in order to establish the allegation of sharing the common object, therefore their conviction u/s 302 with the aid of section 149 of IPC is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 35. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid factual aspects, both the criminal appeals filed on behalf of the accused/appellants are allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.05.2025 passed by the passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 2021, convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence mentioned in preceding paragraph of this judgment is hereby set aside. The accused /appellants are acquitted of the said charge levelled against them. It is stated that the appellant are in jail. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case. 25 36. 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 in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Proceure of sum of Rs.25,000/- each 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. 37. 37. 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