1 CGHC010409732024 2026:CGHC:32536-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2115 of 2024 1 - Puran Korram S/o Shri Budhnath Korram Aged About 30 Years 2 - Kiras Korram S/o Shri Krirpal Korram Aged About 23 Years 3 - Tilakram Baghel S/o Late Shri Krirsan Ram Baghel Aged About 27 Years 4 - Daulat Korram S/o Shri Daiman Korram Aged About 29 Years All are resident of Bade Kanera Pavangudhapara Police Station Kondagaon Revenue And Civil District - Kondagaon (C.G.) --- Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kondagaon Revenue And Civil District - Kondagaon (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 2213 of 2024 1 - Sunder Korram S/o Late Raiypal Korram, Aged About 35 Years 2 - Mahesh Korram S/o Raiypal Korram, Aged About 24 Years 3 - Mayaram Baghel S/o Suktaram Baghel, Aged About 47 Years 4 - Dinesh Korram S/o Krirpal Korram, Aged About 28 Years All are resident of Bade Kanera, Pawangudapara, Police Station- Kondagaon, Revenue And Civil District-Kondagaon (C.G.) ---Appellants Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station- Kondagaon, Civil And Revenue District-Kondagaon (C.G.) BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.30 18:39:46 +0530 2 --- Respondent For Appellants- Puran Korram, Kiras Korram, Tilakram Baghel and Daulat Korram For Appellants- Sunder Korram, Mahesh Korram, Mayaram Baghel and Dinesh Korram : : Mr.Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate in CRA No.2115/2024 Mr.Satya Prakash Verma, Advocate in CRA No.2213/2024 For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 29 /07/2026 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal appeals have been filed arising out of the same judgment, they were clubbed & heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These criminal appeals filed by the appellants-accused under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.10.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District Kondgaon in Sessions Case No.98/2021, whereby the appellants-accused have been convicted for offences under Sections 148, 341 read with Section 149, 302 read with Section 149 and 120B of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for three years and fine of 3 Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months, SI for one month and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six month. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.04.2021, the complainant, Amritdas Kuldeep (PW-5), accompanied by Puliyadas Manikpuri (PW-3), Sarpanch Sohan Kashyap (PW-1), Deputy Sarpanch Prakash Churgiya (PW-2), and Sonmati Baghel, appeared at the Police Assistance Centre, Kondagaon, Revenue and Civil District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh), and orally reported that about one and a half years earlier, he had developed a love relationship with Jambati Baghel, and the two had eloped and married. Thereafter, they started living together as husband and wife. Because of this marriage, Jambati's relatives, particularly accused No. 1, Sundar Korram, and his family members harboured resentment against the complainant and frequently quarrelled with and assaulted him. On 26.04.2021, the complainant Amritdas, his mother Rambha Kuldeep (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), and his maternal uncle Puliyadas Manikpuri travelled together by motorcycle to the house of his uncle Ramesh Manikpuri in village Bade Bendri 4 between approximately 4:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. to collect money. At about 8:00 P.M., while they were returning home on the same motorcycle and had reached near the field of Pancham Das on the tar road before Pawan Gudapara, accused No. 1 Sundar Lal Korram, accused No. 2 Mahesh Korram, accused No. 3 Mayaram Baghel, and accused No. 4 Dinesh Korram emerged from the roadside carrying wooden sticks and attempted to stop them. Consequently, the deceased and her brother Puliyadas got down from the motorcycle. Thereafter, all the accused persons assaulted the deceased with lathis (wooden sticks), inflicting fatal blows. The complainant abandoned the motorcycle at the spot and fled with his maternal uncle to save their lives. It is alleged that Sundar Lal Korram, Mahesh Korram, Mayaram Baghel, and Dinesh Korram struck the deceased on her head, arms, and legs with wooden sticks, causing fatal injuries that resulted in her death. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid oral information given by the complainant, Merg Intimation (Ex. P-25) was recorded, and FIR (Ex. P-26) was registered against the four accused, namely Sundar Lal Korram, Mahesh Korram, Mayaram Baghel, and Dinesh Korram, under Sections 341, 302, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as Crime No. 138/2021. During the course of investigation, Inspector Archana Dhurandhar (PW-16) additionally invoked Section 120-B IPC. 5 5. During the investigation, an inquest report (Ex.P-2) of the deceased was prepared. Dead body of the deceased was sent to postmortem to the District Hospital, Dondagaon, where Dr.Nandini Bhandari (PW-14) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased and found following injuries:- “Lacerated wound was present over right occipital parietal area 3 cm x 2 cm x 2.5 cm. Nasal bone was fractured. Bleeding was present from nose. Multiple abrasion were present over the back of left thigh 9 x 0.5cm, 7x0.5cm, 6x0.5 cm.” 6. According to the post-mortem report (Ex. P-35), the doctor opined that death occurred due to hypovolumic shock which occurred due to excessive bleeding due to lacerated wound over right occipito parietal area, bleeding from nose and left side rib 3rd and 5th fractured. After the postmortem examination, the clothes worn by the deceased, which had been preserved by the doctor, were seized under seizure memo Ex. P-34. From the place of occurrence, blood-stained tar soil, plain tar soil, blood-stained earth, plain earth, two pairs of slippers found at the scene, and the motorcycle bearing registration CG 27 H 1023 were seized under seizure memo Ex. P-3. On 27.04.2021, the accused persons Sundar Korram, Mahesh Korram, Dinesh Korram, and Mayaram Baghel were interrogated. Pursuant to their disclosure statements (Ex. P-6, Ex. P-7, and Ex. P-8), one blood-stained 6 wooden stick allegedly used in the offence and two motorcycles bearing registration numbers CG 27 H 9819 and CG 17 KD 3568 were recovered from accused Sundar Korram, Mahesh Korram, and Dinesh Korram under seizure memos Ex. P-11, Ex. P-12, and Ex. P-13. All four accused, namely Sundar Korram, Mahesh Korram, Dinesh Korram, and Mayaram Baghel, were formally arrested on 27.04.2021 and remanded to judicial custody. A forwarding memorandum relating to the seized articles was prepared, and the articles were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jagdalpur for examination. 7. Subsequently, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon, alleging the involvement of four additional persons in the incident. To verify the truthfulness of this allegation, the complainant's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded by the competent Court on 29.05.2021. In his statement, the complainant alleged that, apart from the four previously named accused, Daulat Korram, Kiras Korram, Puran Korram, and Tilak Baghel had also participated in the murder of his mother, the deceased. On this basis, the supplementary police statements of eyewitness Puliyadas Manikpuri (PW-3) and other witnesses were recorded, and the proceedings were videographed. The complainant also produced certified copies of two previously registered FIRs relating to earlier assaults committed upon him by the accused persons, along with the original medical documents, 7 which were duly seized. The four additional accused Daulat Korram, Kiras Korram, Puran Korram, and Tilak Baghel were formally arrested on 21.06.2021 and remanded to judicial custody. Pursuant to the disclosure statements of Daulat Korram (Ex. P-9) and Tilak Baghel (Ex. P-10), motorcycles bearing registration numbers CG 27 J 0339 and CG 17 KB 0383, allegedly used in the commission of the offence, were recovered under seizure memos Ex. P-30 and Ex. P-14, respectively. In his disclosure statement (Ex. P-6) dated 27.04.2021, accused Sundar Korram stated that at about 8:00 P.M., accused Mahesh Korram had telephoned him and informed him that Amritdas, along with his mother and maternal uncle Puliyadas, had left Bade Bendri. On the basis of this disclosure, requisitions were sent to the Cyber Cell seeking details of the subscribers of mobile numbers 9302432969, 7974718968, 8889721465, and 9362132969, along with their Call Detail Records (CDRs) for the period prior to 26.04.2021. 8. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (final report) was filed on 07.07.2021 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, against all eight accused persons for offences under Sections 341, 302, 34, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered as Criminal Case No. 307/2021. By the order of committal dated 24.09.2021, the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Kondgaon received 8 the case on transfer for trial. 9. The appellants/accused abjured their guilt and entered into defence that they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely been implicated in crime in question. 10. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 52 documents. The appellants-accused examined none in their defence, however, exhibited Exs.D/1 & D/3 in support of their case. 11. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 26.10.2024, convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 148, 341 read with Section 149 IPC, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and 120B IPC and sentenced them as aforementioned, against which, these two criminal appeals have been filed. 12. Mr.Purnendra Khichariya, learned counsel for the appellants in CRA No.2115/2024 submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is contrary to the evidence available on record and suffers from serious legal and factual infirmities. It is submitted that the complainant, who claims to be an eyewitness to the incident, did not name the present appellants either in the First Information Report or in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Initially, allegations were made only against four accused persons. It was only after a delay of approximately one 9 month and five days that the names of the present appellants were introduced through a supplementary statement. No satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecution either for the delay or for such material improvement. Even during cross-examination, the complainant failed to furnish any convincing explanation for this omission and subsequent implication of the appellants. He further submits that the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses does not inspire confidence. PW-3, the brother of the deceased and an alleged eyewitness, categorically stated that due to darkness he could not identify the assailants and was declared hostile. The remaining two witnesses are the daughters of the deceased and sisters of the complainant, whose evidence is admittedly hearsay in nature. Most of the independent prosecution witnesses have also turned hostile, thereby seriously undermining the prosecution case. 13. It is argued that the earliest version of the prosecution, namely the FIR and the statements recorded immediately after the incident, implicated only four accused persons and made no reference whatsoever to the present appellants. The subsequent introduction of the appellants' names after a considerable lapse of time, without any explanation, renders the prosecution story highly doubtful and amounts to an impermissible improvement. Learned counsel further submits that the Investigating Officer himself admitted during cross-examination that, during the initial stage of investigation, the names of the present appellants did not 10 figure in the case and that only four persons were found to be involved. This admission strikes at the very root of the prosecution case against the appellants. It is contended that there is not even an iota of reliable evidence establishing the involvement of the present appellants in the alleged offence. In the absence of any credible evidence connecting them with the crime, the learned Trial Court gravely erred in recording their conviction. The finding of guilt is therefore unsustainable in law. 14. Learned counsel contended that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution case underwent a substantial change after the recording of supplementary statements of certain witnesses, wherein the names of the appellants were introduced without any justification. Such improved statements cannot form the sole basis for conviction, particularly when they are inconsistent with the earliest version of the prosecution. It is further contended that the Trial Court overlooked the legal significance of the FIR and the statements recorded by the police at the earliest point of time, which attributed specific roles only to four accused persons. These contemporaneous statements carry greater evidentiary value than the subsequently improved versions and ought to have been given due weight. He also contended that the complainant's testimony is inherently suspicious. According to his own version, the incident occurred during the night and he had fled from the place of occurrence, hiding at a considerable distance. In such circumstances, his 11 claim of having witnessed the entire incident and identified all the assailants is highly improbable and creates serious doubt regarding the veracity of his evidence. His conduct throughout the incident is also unnatural and inconsistent with ordinary human behaviour. It is emphasized that PW-3, the brother of the deceased, who was allegedly present at the spot, did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. His evidence fails to corroborate the complainant's version and materially weakens the prosecution case. 15. Learned counsel submitted that that no wooden stick or any other weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence was recovered from the possession of the present appellants. The absence of any incriminating recovery is a significant circumstance which has been ignored by the Trial Court. It is lastly submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove any cogent motive against the present appellants. The alleged motive is vague, based on an incident said to have occurred nearly two years prior to the occurrence, and even if accepted, it indicates hostility towards the complainant rather than towards the deceased. In the absence of a proved motive and in view of the otherwise weak and unreliable evidence, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the present appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on material 12 improvements, unreliable testimony, and conjectures rather than legally admissible and trustworthy evidence. It is therefore prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be set aside. 16. Mr.Satya Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the appellants in CRA No.2213/2024 submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.10.2024 are wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and has recorded the conviction on the basis of conjectures and surmises rather than legally admissible and reliable evidence. It is submitted that the impugned judgment is perverse, contrary to the evidence available on record, and suffers from serious errors of law and appreciation of facts. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are not supported by the evidence and, therefore, the judgment is liable to be set aside. 17. Learned counsel contends that there is no credible or reliable evidence on record to establish that the appellants were responsible for the death of the deceased, Rambha Kuldeep. The prosecution has failed to produce any cogent evidence proving the involvement of the appellants in the commission of the alleged offence. Despite the absence of such evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellants merely on the basis of assumptions and conjectures. It is further submitted that the 13 prosecution has failed to establish that the appellants caused the fatal injuries to the deceased. There is no direct or convincing circumstantial evidence connecting the appellants with the alleged homicidal death. In the absence of such evidence, the conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. 18. It is argued that the alleged incident occurred during the night when there was complete darkness at the place of occurrence and no source of illumination has been proved by the prosecution. In such circumstances, the possibility of mistaken identity cannot be ruled out. It is quite possible that the deceased may have been assaulted by some other persons and that the appellants have been falsely implicated. The learned Trial Court failed to properly consider this vital aspect while appreciating the evidence. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to examine any independent and trustworthy witness who could establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is inconsistent, unreliable, and insufficient to sustain the conviction. 19. It is contended that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are contrary to the evidence available on record. The Court below failed to objectively evaluate the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and ignored material inconsistencies which create serious doubt regarding the prosecution case. Consequently, the findings are perverse and liable to be 14 interfered with by this Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record falls far short of the standard required in a criminal trial, and the benefit of such doubt ought to have been extended to the appellants. The learned Trial Court committed a grave error in convicting the appellants despite the existence of substantial doubts. It is further submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses suffer from material contradictions, omissions, and improvements on material particulars. These inconsistencies strike at the root of the prosecution case and render the testimony of the witnesses unreliable. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the legal effect of these material discrepancies. 20. Learned counsel contends that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective. Relevant circumstances favourable to the defence were either ignored or not assigned due weight, resulting in an erroneous finding of guilt against the appellants. It is submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are harsh, excessive, and contrary to the settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence. In view of the serious deficiencies in the prosecution case and the absence of reliable evidence establishing the guilt of the appellants, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the 15 learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellants had neither the motive nor the intention to commit the murder of the deceased. Even assuming the prosecution version to be true, the incident is alleged to have occurred in the course of a sudden altercation and grave provocation. The prosecution has not established any premeditation or common intention on the part of the appellants to commit murder. Therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Talari Naresh v. The State of Telangana, 2026 INSC 486 (paras 3.3, 5, 7.2, 8.1, 8.2 and 10). 21. On the other hand, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the impugned judgment dated 26.10.2024 is well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and calls for no interference by this Hon'ble Court. The prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt through reliable ocular evidence, duly corroborated by the medical evidence, recoveries, and other surrounding circumstances. He further submits that the evidence of the eyewitnesses inspires confidence and has been rightly relied upon by the learned Trial Court. Merely because some witnesses turned hostile does not demolish the prosecution case, 16 particularly when the testimony of the material witnesses remains trustworthy and finds corroboration from other evidence on record. He also submits that minor contradictions, omissions, or discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses are natural and do not affect the core of the prosecution case. Such inconsistencies cannot be made a ground for discarding otherwise reliable evidence. He submitted that the contention regarding darkness and mistaken identity is without merit, as the witnesses were well acquainted with the appellants prior to the incident and had sufficient opportunity to identify them. The learned Trial Court has rightly rejected this defence. The prosecution has proved the motive behind the offence, and in any event, where there is credible direct evidence of the occurrence, proof of motive assumes only a secondary significance. He further submitted that the defence has failed to establish any plausible reason for the false implication of the appellants. Mere suggestions put in cross-examination, unsupported by evidence, do not discredit the prosecution case. The medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular testimony regarding the nature of injuries and the manner of assault, thereby strengthening the prosecution case. He also submitted that the learned Trial Court has meticulously considered the entire evidence on record and has assigned cogent reasons for accepting the prosecution case and rejecting the defence. The findings recorded are findings of fact based on evidence and do not suffer from perversity or illegality 17 warranting appellate interference. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are commensurate with the gravity of the offence and are in accordance with law. Accordingly, learned State Counsel prays that the appeals, being devoid of merit, be dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court be affirmed. 22. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 23. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased Rambha Kuldeep was homicidal in nature ? 24. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly relying upon the statement of Dr.Nandini Bhandari (PW-14), who conducted postmortem, has come to the conclusion that death death occurred due to hypovolumic shock which occurred due to excessive bleeding due to lacerated would over right occipital area, bleeding from nose and left side rib 3rd and 5th fracture. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that death of deceased Rambha Kuldeep 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 that finding. 18 25. Now, the next question for consideration would be whether the accused-appellants herein are the perpetrator of the crime in question, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by relying upon the testimony of Amrit Das Kuldeep (PW-5). 26. Amrit Das Kuldeep (PW-5) in para 1 of his deposition has stated that he identify all the accused persons present before the Court. He also identify the absent accused persons, namely Tilak Baghel, Puran Korram, Kiras Korram, and Daulat Korram, as they are all residents of his village. The incident took place on the night of 27.04.2021. On that day, his mother Rambha Kuldeep, his maternal uncle Puliya Das Manikpuri, and he had gone from their village Badekanera to the house of his uncle Ramesh Manikpuri at Bade Bendri at about 5:00 P.M. Thereafter, at around 8:00 P.M., the three of them were returning to their village. When they had travelled about one to one and a half kilometres from Bade Bendri, all the accused persons suddenly emerged before them on the deserted road, armed with wooden sticks and axes. He immediately stopped his moving motorcycle, and his mother Rambha Kuldeep and he started running back towards Bade Bendri. 27. In para 2 of his deposition, he stated that they had run about 15 metres in the direction from which they had come. While he was running with his mother, all the accused persons attacked her with wooden sticks and axes. His mother fell to the ground and 19 shouted to him, "run, son." As soon as she told him to run, he fled and hid behind a bush. From there, he witnessed all the accused assaulting his mother. After beating her, they carried her to another place and then brought her back to the spot and left her there. By that time, his mother had died. The accused persons then placed his motorcycle over his mother's dead body. Thereafter, he fled from the spot out of fear. He further states that after killing his mother, the accused persons took his motorcycle and went in search of him. He had hidden behind a brick kiln, and thereafter the accused persons left his motorcycle on top of his mother's dead body and went away. He went to the house of his uncle Ramesh Manikpuri at Bade Bendri and hid there. He informed his elder sister Sarita Kuldeep and Jambati Kuldeep about the incident and told them that the accused persons had killed their mother. Out of fear, they did not come to the place where his mother's body was lying. 28. In para 4 of his deposition, he further stated that the next morning, his elder sister Sarita Kuldeep went to the place where his mother's body was lying. After seeing the dead body, she came to him at Bade Bendri. Thereafter, the Sarpanch of his village Badekanera and his uncle from Bade Bendri, whose name is Paras, brought him to the place of occurrence. By the time they reached the spot, the police had also arrived there. The Sarpanch and the village Secretary had already informed the police about the incident over the telephone. Thereafter, he accompanied the 20 police to the District Hospital, Kondagaon, for the postmortem examination of his mother's body. His grandfather Sarjoo Das Manikpuri also accompanied him. 29. Amrit Das Kuldeep is also a injured witness. His MLC was conducted by the doctor at District Hospital, Kondagaon and found contusion vide Article A-1. 30. The Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355 held as under: “26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind: (a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or 21 embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded. (emphasis supplied)” 31. Puliya Das Manikpuri (PW-3) has stated in para 1 of his deposition that he know all the accused persons. They are all from his village. He also know Amrit Das and Rambha Kuldeep. They had gone to village Bendri and were returning from there at about 8:00 P.M. At that time, many people were standing on both sides of the road carrying wooden sticks. On seeing them, three of them ran away. They assaulted Rambha with wooden sticks, so he fled from the spot. He did not see Amrit Das and Rambha Kuldeep being beaten. In para 2 of his deposition, he stated that he was not assaulted in the said incident. The incident occurred at night, and due to the darkness, he could not identify who the accused persons were. The accused were carrying wooden sticks in their hands. On seeing the crowd of people, he became frightened and ran away. 32. Sarita Kuldeep (PW-6) has stated in para 1 of her deposition that she know and recognize all the accused because they are from her village. The deceased, Rambha Kuldeep, was her mother. The incident occurred on April 26th, almost two years ago. On the 22 day of the incident, she was at her home in Badekanera. Her mother, Rambha Kuldeep, her brother Amritdas Kuldeep, and her maternal uncle, Puliya Das, had gone to Badebendri to collect money from her uncle Ramesh. In the evening, they had informed her to prepare food and that they would be home soon. She cooked the food and was waiting for them. They did not arrive until 9-10 P.M. After that, at around 10 P.M., her brother Amritdas called and told her that 8-10 people had stopped her mother on the way and beaten her, resulting in her death. She then secretly came to Badebendri Ramesh uncle's house. In para 2 of her deposition, she stated that later she went to see her maternal uncle Puliya Das's house, her maternal uncle had come home, she told her maternal uncle that you had gone with them, you came back and why did her brother and mother not come, then her maternal uncle told her that mother Rambha Kuldeep was killed with sticks and knives by 8 people Sundar Korram, Mahesh Korram, Maya Baghel, Tilak Baghel, Dinesh Korram, Puran Korram, Daulat Korram, Kiras Korram, then she came to her home from her maternal uncle's house and after some time she again went to her maternal uncle's house, then she saw that all the above accused were threatening her maternal uncle Puliyadas that if he told anyone about killing of Rambha Kuldeep, they would kill him too and she also saw knives in the hands of two people, after that she came to her house and saw that all the accused were coming towards their house. 23 33. On a careful appreciation of the evidence available on record, it is evident that the prosecution case against the appellants of Criminal Appeal No.2115/2024, namely Puran Korram, Kiras Korram, Tilakram Baghel and Daulat Korram, stands on a materially different footing from that of the remaining accused persons. 34. In the present case, the earliest version of the occurrence, as reflected in the FIR (Ex.P-26) lodged by Amritdas Kuldeep (PW- 5), specifically named only four accused persons, namely Sundar Korram, Mahesh Korram, Mayaram Baghel and Dinesh Korram. The names of the present appellants were conspicuously absent not only in the FIR but also in the initial statements recorded during investigation. Their names surfaced only after a considerable delay of more than one month through the supplementary statement of PW-5 recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. 35. It is true that delay by itself cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case; however, where the introduction of additional accused persons is made after a substantial lapse of time and there is no satisfactory explanation for such improvement, the Court is required to examine such evidence with great caution. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to provide any convincing explanation as to why the names of appellants Puran Korram, Kiras Korram, Tilakram Baghel and Daulat Korram did 24 not find mention in the earliest version of the incident. 36. The testimony of Amritdas Kuldeep (PW-5), though being an injured witness, requires careful scrutiny insofar as the involvement of the present appellants is concerned. His evidence, which is otherwise reliable regarding the occurrence and the participation of the four accused initially named in the FIR, suffers from material improvement when it comes to implicating the present appellants. The subsequent introduction of their names appears to be an afterthought, particularly in view of the fact that the initial investigation proceeded only against four accused persons. 37. The evidence of Puliya Das Manikpuri (PW-3), who was admittedly present at the spot, also does not support the prosecution case against the present appellants. He specifically stated that due to darkness he could not identify the assailants. Though he stated that several persons were present at the spot and Rambha Kuldeep was assaulted, he failed to identify the persons responsible for the assault. His evidence, therefore, does not provide any corroboration to the subsequent allegations made against the present appellants. 38. Similarly, the evidence of Sarita Kuldeep (PW-6) is based substantially on information allegedly received from her brother and maternal uncle. Her statement regarding the involvement of appellants Puran Korram, Kiras Korram, Tilakram Baghel and 25 Daulat Korram is not based upon direct knowledge of the occurrence and, therefore, cannot by itself form the basis of conviction. 39. Further, no incriminating article or weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence was recovered at the instance of the present appellants. The recoveries relied upon by the prosecution do not establish any direct connection between these appellants and the homicidal death of Rambha Kuldeep. The prosecution has thus failed to establish any credible circumstance linking them with the commission of the offence. 40. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of appellants Puran Korram, Kiras Korram, Tilakram Baghel and Daulat Korram beyond reasonable doubt. However, the case of the remaining appellants, namely Sundar Korram, Mahesh Korram, Mayaram Baghel and Dinesh Korram, stands on a different footing. Their names were disclosed in the earliest version of the prosecution case. The FIR was promptly lodged against them, and their presence and participation have consistently been stated by Amrit Das Kuldeep (PW-5). The evidence of PW-5, being an injured eyewitness and a person closely acquainted with the accused persons, inspires confidence insofar as these four accused are concerned. 41. So far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellants on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 26 Talari Naresh (supra), is concerned, the said decision does not advance the case of the present appellants. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with a case where the prosecution evidence suffered from material inconsistencies, doubtful identification, and absence of reliable evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime. The principle laid down therein is that conviction cannot be sustained merely on the basis of suspicion or improved versions of witnesses. However, the facts of the present case are distinguishable insofar as the appellants Sundar Korram, Mahesh Korram, Mayaram Baghel and Dinesh Korram are concerned, as their names were mentioned in the earliest version of the prosecution case, their involvement has consistently been stated by the injured eyewitness PW-5, and the ocular testimony finds corroboration from the medical evidence and other circumstances on record. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Talari Naresh (supra) is not applicable to the case of these appellants. 42. The defence contention regarding darkness and mistaken identity does not carry much force in respect of appellants Sundar Korram, Mahesh Korram, Mayaram Baghel and Dinesh Korram, as the witnesses were acquainted with them prior to the incident. The medical evidence also supports the prosecution version that Rambha Kuldeep died a homicidal death due to injuries caused by assault. Minor contradictions and omissions appearing in the statements of prosecution witnesses are natural consequences of 27 lapse of time and do not affect the core of the prosecution case against these four accused persons. The learned Trial Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence, has rightly found their involvement in the commission of the offence. 43. Consequently, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court holding all the eight accused guilty with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC cannot be sustained in its entirety. Since this Court has acquitted appellants Puran Korram, Kiras Korram, Tilakram Baghel and Daulat Korram by extending them the benefit of doubt, the unlawful assembly, as found by the learned Trial Court, no longer survives in the manner held by it. The conviction of the remaining four appellants with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC, therefore, requires reconsideration. 44. From the evidence of injured eyewitness Amrit Das Kuldeep (PW-5), it stands established that appellants Sundar Korram, Mahesh Korram, Mayaram Baghel and Dinesh Korram had jointly intercepted the deceased and assaulted her with wooden sticks, inflicting repeated blows on vital parts of her body. The assault was concerted, simultaneous and in furtherance of their common intention. Their participation in the commission of the offence has been consistently established from the earliest version of the prosecution case and finds due corroboration from the medical evidence. Thus, even though the conviction with the aid of Section 149 IPC cannot be sustained after acquittal of the 28 remaining four accused, the evidence on record clearly establishes that these four appellants acted in furtherance of their common intention within the meaning of Section 34 of the IPC. 45. It is well settled that where the evidence establishes the existence of a common intention amongst the accused persons and their participation in the commission of the offence, the conviction can be altered from Section 149 IPC to Section 34 IPC, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. In the present case, the prosecution evidence from the very inception attributed active participation to appellants Sundar Korram, Mahesh Korram, Mayaram Baghel and Dinesh Korram. They were fully aware of the allegations against them and had ample opportunity to defend themselves during the trial. Therefore, alteration of their conviction from Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and similarly from Section 341 read with Section 149 IPC to Section 341 read with Section 34 IPC, does not occasion any failure of justice or prejudice to them. 46. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.2115/2024 filed by appellants Puran Korram, Kiras Korram, Tilakram Baghel and Daulat Korram is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon in Sessions Case No.98/2021, insofar as it relates to these appellants, is hereby set aside. They are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them by 29 extending the benefit of doubt. They are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. 47. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), appellants Puran Korram, Kiras Korram, Tilakram Baghel and Daulat Korram are directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the trial Court, which shall remain in force for a period of six months, together with an undertaking that in the event of filing of any Special Leave Petition against this judgment, they shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as and when required. 48. Criminal Appeal No.2213/2024 filed by appellants Sundar Korram, Mahesh Korram, Mayaram Baghel and Dinesh Korram is partly allowed. While maintaining the findings of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court, their conviction for offence under Section 341 read with Section 149 IPC is modified to offence under Section 341 read with Section 34 IPC, and their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC is modified to offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Their conviction under Sections 148 and 120-B IPC is maintained. The sentences imposed by the learned Trial Court on the aforesaid appellants for the respective offences, as modified by this Court, namely: (i) RI for three years with a fine of Rs.500/-, 30 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months; (ii) SI for one month with a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for six months; (iii) imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months; and (iv) imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months, shall remain unaltered. 49. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing him that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if so advised, with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu