Vinod Kumar Sarthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anurag Awasthi S/o Shri Shivsahay Aged About 25 Years Working On The Post Of Assistant Grade - III, Primary Health Center, Malhar, Permanent, R/o Masturi, Police Station - Masturi, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶30

--- Appellant

¶31

Versus

¶32

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station - Masturi, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶33

--- Respondent

¶34

CRA No. 388 of 2022

¶35

1 - Narendra Tripathi S/o Shri Radheshyam Aged About 36 Years

¶36

2 - Birendra Tripathi S/o Shri Radheshyam Tripathi Aged About 38 Years

¶37

3 - Surednra Tripathi S/o Shri Radheshyam Tripathi Aged About 48 Years

¶38

4 - Ashutosh Tripathi S/o Shri Surendra Aged About 23 Years

¶39

5 - Kamal Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Sarju Prasad Aged About 32 Years

¶40

6 - Vivek @ Rinku Tripathi S/o Shri Kedarnath Aged About 28 Years

¶41

7 - Akku @ Vijay Tripathi S/o Shri Kedarnath Aged About 30 Years

¶42

8 - Kedarnath Tripathi S/o Shri Radheshyam Aged About 53 Years

¶43

9 - Vinod Sarthi S/o Shri Lalji Sarthi Aged About 36 Years

¶44

All Appellants R/o Village- Masturi, P.S.- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶45

--- Appellants

¶46

Versus

¶47

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer P.S.- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶48

--- Respondent

¶49

CRA No. 566 of 2022

¶50

1 - Saumitra Shukla, S/o Shri Sanjay Aged About 25 Years

¶51

3

¶52

2 - Pramod Bharat Awasthi, S/o Shri Jai Narayan Aged About 52 Years

¶53

3 - Prabhat Awasthi, S/o Shri Jai Narayan, Aged About 45 Years

¶54

4 - Prakash Awasthi, Shri Jai Narayan Aged About 38 Years

¶55

5 - Manish Awasthi, S/o Shri Gurgashay Aged About 25 Years

¶56

6 - Santosh Shukla, S/o Shri Ganesh Shukla, Aged About 40 Years

¶57

7 - Sharda Shukla, S/o Shri Ganesh Shukla, Aged About 35 Years

¶58

8 - Brijendra Pandey, S/o Shri Sundar Lal, Aged About 45 Years

¶59

9 - Pritesh Awasthi, S/o Shri Pramod, Aged About 24 Years

¶60

10 - Saurabh Shukla, S/o Shri Sanjay Shukla, Aged About 19 Years All R/o Masturi, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶61

--- Appellants

¶62

Versus

¶63

State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶64

--- Respondent For Appellants in : Mr.Devershi Thakur, Advocate ACQA No.57/2022 and CRA No.388/2022 For Appellant in : Mr.V.K.Pandey, Advocate CRA No.235/2022 For Appellants in : Mr.Pritendra Chauhan, Advocate holding the CRA No.566/2022 brief of Mr.Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For Respondent- : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate State General For Respondents : Mr.Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate No.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 in ACQA No.57/2022

¶65

For Respondents : Ms.Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate No.8 and 9 in ACQA No.57/2022

¶66

4

¶67

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶68

Judgment on Board

¶69

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

¶70

07/10/2025

¶71

Appellants-Vinod Kumar Sarthi, Vivek Tripathi, Kamal Prasad Yadav and Virendra Nath Tripathi have filed Acquittal Appeal No.57/2022 under Section 372 of the CrPC against the impugned judgment dated 01.01.2022 passed by the 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No.32/2019, whereby the trial Court has acquitted respondents No.2 to 12 from the charge under Section 307/149 of the IPC and convicted them under Section 324/149 of the IPC.

¶72

Appellant Anurag Awasthi has filed Criminal Appeal No.235/2022 and appellants Saumitra Shukla, Pramod Bharat Awasthi, Prabhat Awasthi, Prakash Awasthi, Manish Awasthi, Santosh Shukla, Sharda Shukla, Brijendra Pandey, Pritesh Awasthi & Saurabh Shukla have filed Criminal Appeal No.566/2022 against the impugned judgment dated 01.01.2022 passed by the 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No.32/2019, whereby the trial Court has convicted them under Sections 148, 324/149, 324/149 & 323/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 7 months and 5 days and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 30 days for injured Vivek Tripathi for offence under Section 148 of the IPC, SI for 7 months and 5 days and fine of Rs.3000/-, in

¶73

5

¶74

default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 30 days for injured Kamal Yadav for offence under Section 324/149 of the IPC, SI for 7 months and 5 days and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 30 days for injured Vinod Sarthi for offence under Section 324/149 of the IPC and SI for 7 months and 5 days and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 10 days for injured Vivek Tripathi for offence under Section 323/149 of the IPC each.

¶75

Appellants Narendra Tripathi, Birendra Tripathi, Surendra Tripathi, Ashutosh Tripathi, Kamal Prasad Yadav, Vivek @ Rinku Tripathi, Akku @ Vijay Tripathi, Kedarnatyh Tripathi and Vinod Sarthi have filed Criminal Appeal No.338/2022 against the impugned judgment dated 01.01.2022 passed by the 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No.52/2019, whereby the trial Court has convicted them for offence under Sections 148 and 323/149 of the IPC (6 times) and imposed fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 148 of the IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 30 days and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 323/149 of the IPC (6 times), in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 30 days on each count.

¶76

The case of the prosecution, in brief, in Acquittal Appeal No.57/2022 and Criminal Appeals No.235/2022 and 566/2022 is that complainant Vivek Kumar Tripathi, son of Mr. Kedarnath Tripathi, resident of Masturi, on 29.09.2018 between 9:40 P.M.

¶77

6

¶78

and 10:00 P.M., submitted a written complaint in his own handwriting at Masturi Police Station stating that he was sitting with his friends in front of the Masturi Block Office, Masturi Police Station, Bilaspur. Monu Manikpuri, who works at Kamal Yadav’s place (the injured party), was being assaulted by Rakheeram Gupta and accused Soumitra Shukla. Both were separated from the fight by the complainant and Kamal @ Pappu Yadav and sent home. During the intervention, accused Soumitra Shukla fell down. Taking this incident otherwise, Soumitra Shukla verbally abused and, along with his relatives accused Pramod Bharat Awasthi, Prabhat Awasthi, Prakash Awasthi, Anurag Awasthi (Raja), Manish Awasthi (Mukku), Santosh Shukla, Sharda Shukla, Brijendra Pandey, Pritesh Awasthi, Saurabh Shukla, and others whose names are unknown came and verbally abused the complainant, Pappu Yadav @ Kamal, and Vinod Sarathi with filthy abuses against their mother and sister, saying, "they will not leave them alive," and started attacking their heads, foreheads, faces, and whole bodies with swords, knives, iron rods, and thick sticks. With the intent to kill, Vinod Sarathi was hit on the head with an iron rod, causing a deep injury on his head, after which he fell unconscious. When the complainant’s uncle, Virendra Tripathi, passed by the scene, they abused him with filthy language about his mother and sister and struck his face with belts, rods, and sticks, causing his face to bleed. The complainant sustained a blow to the head. The incident was witnessed by the

¶79

7

¶80

seizure/eyewitness Rajesh Shrivastava. Upon the arrival of the police at the scene, the injured parties were able to save their lives.

¶81

On the basis of the complainant’s report, First Information Report in Crime No. 448/2018 was registered at Masturi Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506, 323, 324, and 307 of the IPC.

¶82

The injured parties—complainant Rinku @ Vivek Tripathi, Virendra Nath Tripathi, and Kamal Prasad Yadav were medically examined. On 30.09.2018, a site plan of the incident location was prepared. Queries were received from the doctor regarding the injuries sustained by injured Vinod Sarathi. During the investigation, sticks, rods, knives were seized from the accused, and a blood-stained vest was seized from injured Vinod Sarathi. The accused were arrested and produced before the competent Court and sent to judicial custody. On 09.11.2018, a medical report related to the seized weapons/property (knife, iron rod, and sticks) was received from the doctor. A site map prepared by the Patwari was also submitted.

¶83

After investigation, on 26.12.2018, a Final Report No. 474/2018 was submitted against the accused. The trial Court registered Criminal Case No. 181/19. After submission, the case was transferred to the jurisdictional Court for proper trial.

¶84

Charges under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323/149 (twice for injuries to Vivek Tripathi and Virendra Tripathi), 324/149 (once for injuries

¶85

8

¶86

to Kamal Prasad Yadav), 307/149 (once for injuries to Vinod Sarathi), and 506 Part II of the IPC were framed against the accused.

¶87

The case of the prosecution in brief in CRA No.388/2022 is that on 29.09.2018, at around 9:30 PM, complainant Soumitra Shukla was returning home from in front of the Janpad Panchayat office. At that location, accused persons Vivek Tripathi, Surendra Tripathi, Narendra Tripathi, Vinod Sarathi, Kamal Kishore Yadav, Virendra Tripathi, Kedar Tripathi, Vishu Tripathi, and two nephews (who can be identified upon sight), Akku Tripathi, and their friends while intoxicated, stopped the complainant, verbally abused him, and physically assaulted him. Upon receiving information about the incident, the complainant’s relatives Prabhat Awasthi, Santosh Shukla, Prakash Awasthi, and Saurabh Shukla came to intervene. They were also verbally abused and threatened with death if a police report was filed, and were assaulted with sticks, swords, knives, and belts.

¶88

Based on the complaint of Soumitra Shukla, a case was registered at Masturi Police Station under Crime No.449/2018, under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506 (Part 2), and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The victims in the incident Soumitra Shukla, Santosh Shukla, Saurabh Shukla, Prabhat Awasthi, Prakash Awasthi, and Pramod Bharat Awasthi underwent medical examinations. On 30.09.2018, a site plan of the incident location

¶89

9

¶90

was prepared. During the investigation, weapons such as belts, sticks, and iron rods were seized from the accused. A land record map (Patwari map) of the incident site was also prepared. Since the offenses registered against the accused were bailable, they were arrested and later released on bail.

¶91

After investigation, on 26.12.2018, a final report was filed in court against nine accused persons under Crime No.482/2018. Upon registration of the case (Criminal Case No.423/19) titled State of Chhattisgarh vs. Narendra Tripathi and others, the case was transferred to the competent Court for proper disposal.

¶92

12.On 26.04.2019, charges under Sections 147, 148, 341/149, 294, 323/149 (six counts), and 506 (Part II) of the IPC were formally read and explained to the accused. Upon being asked for their pleas, the accused denied the charges. The accused did not present any evidence in their defence.

¶93

13.The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 01.01.2022 in Sessions Case No.32/2019 convicted and sentenced appellants Anurag Awasthi, Saumitra Shukla, Pramod Bharat Awasthi, Prabhat Awasthi, Prakash Awasthi, Manish Awasthi, Santosh Shukla, Sharda Shukla, Brijendra Pandey, Pritesh Awasthi & Saurabh Shukla as mentioned above. Being aggrieved, Acquittal Appeal No.57/2022 and Criminal Appeals No.235/2022 and 566/2022 have been filed.

¶94

10

¶95

The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 01.01.2022 in Sessions Case No.52/2019 convicted and sentenced appellants Narendra Tripathi, Birendra Tripathi, Surendra Tripathi, Ashutosh Tripathi, Kamal Prasad Yadav, Vivek @ Rinku Tripathi, Akku @ Vijay Tripathi, Kedarnatyh Tripathi and Vinod Sarthi as mentioned above. Being aggrieved, Criminal Appeal No.388/2022 has been filed.

¶96

Mr.V.K.Pandey and Mr.Pritendra Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeals No.235/2022 and 566/2022 would submit that the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is contrary to the facts & evidence available on record, hence the same is liable to be set-aside. Three is a case and counter case between the parties, but learned trial Court has not properly considered the same before passing the impugned judgment, hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside. They would further submit that there is no any reliable and cogent material available on record, which shows that the present appellants came at the spot in furtherance of common object for assaulting the accused persons, but learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellants under Section 148 of the IPC. There is no any whisper evidence available against the present appellants that they have caused injuries to any persons and no any seizure has been made from the possession of the present appellants nevertheless learned trial Court held guilty to the

¶97

11

¶98

present appellants under the alleged charges, therefore, the impugned judgment is perverse. Mr.V.K.Pandey submits that appellant Anurag Awasthi has taken the plea of alibi and has proved the same by producing two defence witnesses namely Rakhi Ram Gupta and Gajendra Gupta, but learned trial Court has not given any waitage to the statement of the said witnesses and has convicted the appellant only on the basis of presumption. The seizure and memorandum statement have not supported the prosecution case and their statement are full of surmises and conjectures, but learned trial court has not considered the same before passing the impugned judgment. The appellant is a government servant, therefore, the conviction will affect the service career of the present appellant, therefore also, this Court may be pleased to consider it, in the ends of justice. As such, the appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

¶99

Mr.Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants in CRA No.388/2022 would submit that Soumitra Shukla (PW-1) was the aggressor who had initially assaulted one Monu Manikpuri which was intervened by Vivek Tripathi/Appellant No.6 & Vinod Sarthi /appellant No.9, after which complainant Saumiitra, abused dared & threatened the appellants herein, had left to prepare and had come back along with others to assault the appellants with weapons where FIR No.448/2018 was registered. He would further submit that learned trial Court has stretched its

¶100

12

¶101

imagination for convicting the appellants to a great extent not permissible under the law. The conviction is only based on presumptions as the statement of Soumitra Shukla, and Prabhat Awasthi (PW-3), where the doctor's statements demonstrates no corroboration with the prosecution story, thus benefit should always go the accused. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

¶102

Mr.Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants in Acquittal Appeal No.57/2022 would submit that the finding of the learned trial Court is against the facts, where the act as alleged proved as per the prosecution story, cannot be sentenced for lessor offence under Section 324 of the IPC rather than Section 307 of the IPC, when after preparation & planned assault had been made with intent to commit murder, inflicting multiple grievous injuries over 4 victims. He would further submit that the statement of PW-1 Vivek Tripathi, PW-2 Kamal Prasad Yadav, PW-6 Vinod Sarthi, PW-11.Dr.P.k.Ghosh, PW-11.Dr.P.k.Ghosh & PW-16. Dr. Rajkumar had clearly stated about the multiple grievous injuries over the victims. As such, acquittal appeal deserves to be allowed and respondents No.2 to 12 deserves to be convicted for offence under Section 307 of the IPC.

¶103

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State would support the impugned judgments.

¶104

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

¶105

13

¶106

perused the impugned judgments.

¶107

The trial Court in para 49 of its judgment in Sessions Case No.32/2019 has observed that the record shows the seizure of two iron knives, a stick (danda), and iron rods (sariya) under the control of the accused. Knives and iron rods can be used as cutting instruments. The seized weapons knives and iron rods are of a nature capable of causing death. Therefore, the seized weapons knives and iron rods can be classified as dangerous instruments / lethal weapons.

¶108

The trial Court in para 50 of its judgment has observed that all 11 accused, present at the scene of the incident, without the consent of complainant Vivek Tripathi and the injured persons Kamal Yadav (PW-2) and Vinod Sarathi (PW-6), assaulted the complainant and injured persons by applying force with dangerous weapons such as the stick, knife, and iron rods using their personal physical strength. It is clearly established that the accused knew that by using the stick, knives, and iron rods during the commission of the incident, harm would be caused. Although evidence is available indicating that the incident initially started between accused Saumitra Shukla and others at the scene, it is evident that the remaining 10 accused were present at the location subsequently and that all accused, during the incident, voluntarily caused harm using deadly weapons, acting in furtherance of a common intention.

¶109

14

¶110

The trial Court in para 51 of its judgment has observed that the defence side, while pleading that the case was registered against the accused due to enmity, has suggested that prior cases were registered between the parties involved. The defence has referred to the cross-examination records of Vivek Tripathi (PW-1) in paras 6, 7, 8, and 9 of cross-examination, pointing to various criminal cases (cases No. 113/2017, 112/2017, and 100/2017) registered against him, and has suggested that the complainant and the alleged eyewitness Rajesh Shrivastava are accused in those cases. The complainant has agreed to this suggestion. However, the defence has not produced the relevant police station records or documents related to the aforementioned cases. Although in para 9 of cross-examination, the complainant has accepted, based on confession, that the seized/alleged eyewitness Rajesh Shrivastava (PW-15) is a co-accused with him in other cases, this admission is not unreliable. On the other hand, due to the lack of documentary evidence concerning earlier pending criminal cases between the parties, no inference can be drawn regarding the content, basis, cause, or the parties' conduct in those cases, nor regarding any judicial decisions passed therein. In para 5 of cross-examination, injured witness Vinod Sarathi admitted that his wife, Sunita Sarathi, who held the position of village head (Gram Panchayat Sarpanch), was removed from office following allegations of financial irregularities raised against her by other panchayat members, the deputy

¶111

15

¶112

Sarpanch Durgasahay Awasthi, and accused Santosh Shukla’s wife, Savitri Shukla (panch). This suggests that there were tense relations between the parties concerning the village headship. Conversely, if a First Information Report (FIR) can be registered against any person out of enmity, the possibility of an incident being committed out of enmity cannot be denied. The defence’s submission of counter-cases, including written complaints and FIRs (Exs.D-1 and D-2), clearly indicate that crimes have also been registered against the complainant and injured persons with respect to the injuries caused during the incident. Under such circumstances, there is no doubt about the occurrence of the incident. The registration of the FIR is a consequence of the occurrence of the incident. Therefore, the assertion that the accused were falsely implicated solely out of enmity is not credible.

¶113

The trial Court in para 52 of its judgment has observed that upon careful consideration of the available evidence, it is established that on the date and time of the incident, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common object, were armed with deadly weapons namely, sticks, knives, and iron rods and engaged in the use of force and violence, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC. Furthermore, it is proved that, at the time, place, and date of the incident, the accused persons did not make a direct attempt to commit murder of injured Vinod Sarthi (PW-7), but instead, voluntarily caused

¶114

16

¶115

hurt to him by means of dangerous weapons. Therefore, the offence under Section 307/149 IPC is not made out; rather, the offence punishable under Section 324/149 IPC stands proved. Similarly, it is established that the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to injured Kamal Yadav (PW-2) by stabbing him in the thigh with a knife, a dangerous weapon. This act constitutes an offence punishable under Section 324/149 IPC. Additionally, based on the available evidence, it is also established that the accused persons voluntarily caused simple hurt to complainant Vivek Tripathi (PW-1) by beating him. This act constitutes an offence punishable under Section 323/149 IPC (one count).

¶116

The trial Court in Sessions Case No.52/2019 has observed in para 28 of its judgment that the accused persons, using lathi danda and iron rods, assaulted complainant Soumitra Shukla (PW-1) along with the injured parties Santosh Shukla, Saurabh Shukla, Prabhat Awasthi, Prakash Awasthi, and Pramod Bharat Awasthi thereby voluntarily causing them hurt. The seizure of the lathi, danda, and iron rods from the accused persons has been clearly established through the seizure memo. Despite being aware that such an assault with lathi, danda, and iron rods was likely to cause injuries to the victims, the accused persons voluntarily assaulted the complainant and the injured parties. Therefore, it stands proved that on the date, time and place of the incident, the accused persons assaulted Soumitra Shukla (PW-1) and the aforementioned injured persons using lathi, danda, and

¶117

17

¶118

iron rods, thereby voluntarily causing hurt.

¶119

The trial Court in para 29 of its judgment has observed that complainant Soumitra Shukla (PW-1) and the injured persons Santosh Shukla (PW-4), Saurabh Shukla (PW-5), Prabhat Awasthi (PW-3), Prakash Awasthi (PW-2) and Pramod Bharat Awasthi (PW-6) during their deposition before the Court, clearly identified the accused persons by name as being present at the scene of the incident at the relevant date and time. No evidence has been brought on record to suggest the absence of any accused from the scene. Although no seizure of any knife (a deadly weapon) has been shown from the possession of the accused persons, seizure of lathi, danda, and iron rods has been duly established through the seizure memo. It is proved that an iron square rod was seized from the possession of accused Surendra Tripathi. If such an iron rod is used to strike a sensitive part of the human body in an aggressive manner, it could likely result in the death of the victim. Similarly, even a lathi used aggressively on delicate parts of the body could lead to the possibility of death. Therefore, it is clear that the accused were armed with deadly weapons at the time of the incident.

¶120

The trial Court in para 30 of its judgment has observed that it is established that the accused persons, by using lathi, danda, and an iron square rod, along with their own physical strength, aggressively attacked the complainant and injured persons with

¶121

18

¶122

the intent to voluntarily cause hurt. Hence, it stands proved that the accused persons, at the date, time, and place of the incident, being members of an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, used force and committed riot.

¶123

The trial Court in para 31 of its judgment has held that based on the evidence on record and investigation, it is conclusively established that the accused persons, on the date and time of the incident, in furtherance of a common object, used force and violence while being armed with deadly weapons such as lathi, danda, and iron rods, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC. Furthermore, by jointly assaulting and voluntarily causing hurt to the injured parties Soumitra Shukla, Santosh Shukla, Saurabh Shukla, Prabhat Awasthi, Prakash Awasthi, and Pramod Bharat Awasthi the accused persons have been found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 323/149 of the IPC (six counts).

¶124

Having carefully gone through the entire record, the rival submissions of learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 235/2022, 566/2022, 388/2022 and Acquittal Appeal No. 57/2022, and after examining the impugned judgment passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, this Court finds that the trial Court has rightly recorded findings that in both Sessions Cases No. 32/2019 and 52/2019, the accused persons were members of unlawful assemblies, armed with deadly

¶125

19

¶126

weapons such as iron rods, knives, sticks, and lathis, and had voluntarily caused hurt to the victims. The material on record, including the seizure memos, medical reports, and eyewitness testimonies, clearly support the conclusion that the appellants acted in furtherance of a common object, which fulfills the ingredients of Sections 148, 324/149, 323/149 of the IPC. The trial Court has rightly relied on the seizure of weapons and the medical evidence confirming the injuries.

¶127

As far as Acquittal Appeal No. 57/2022 is concerned, seeking conviction under Section 307/149 IPC instead of the trial Court's finding under Section 324/149 IPC, this Court finds no merit in the contention. The trial Court, after meticulous evaluation of medical evidence (including testimony of doctors and nature of injuries), has specifically concluded that though the weapons were dangerous and the injuries were serious, there was no direct attempt or intent to commit murder. Hence, the trial Court rightly refrained from convicting under Section 307 IPC, instead convicting the accused under Section 324/149 IPC.

¶128

The arguments made by appellant’s counsel in Criminal Appeal No. 235/2022 regarding lack of individual overt acts, failure to seize weapons from all appellant, alibi of appellant Anurag Awasthi and prior enmity between parties have been duly considered by the trial Court. The defence witnesses produced in support of alibi were not found reliable, and the trial Court has

¶129

20

¶130

cogently explained its reasoning for not giving weightage to their testimonies.

¶131

Regarding lack of specific injuries caused by each accused, it is well-settled law that in offences involving unlawful assembly and common object, individual roles are not necessary to be established, and collective liability applies under Section 149 IPC. Also, while there is evidence of prior rivalry and political enmity, the incident has been proved independently, and mere prior enmity does not nullify the occurrence of the incident, as rightly held by the trial Court. Both Sessions Case No. 32/2019 and Sessions Case No. 52/2019 are counter-cases arising out of the same transaction. The trial Court has considered both sets of evidence and has given reasoned findings based on ocular evidence, medical records, and recovered articles.

¶132

Upon detailed scrutiny, this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or misappropriation of evidence by the trial Court. The findings are reasoned and supported by material on record.

¶133

In light of the above findings, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgments dated 01.01.2022 passed by the 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No. 32/2019 and Sessions Case No. 52/2019 are legally sound and do not warrant interference.

¶134