(1.) The appellant Kana and his son Maran, the other appellant have been convicted under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code (for short, 'the Code') for having committed the murder of Dasarath Majhi (to be referred to hereinafter as 'the deceased') in furtherance of their common intention on Nov. 2, 1979, at village Banjipani in the district of Kalahandi. The case of the prosecution was that there had been a land dispute between the appellants on the one hand and the deceased on the other. Of this, there was no paucity of evidence and it had been admitted by the appellants. It is not disputed at the Bar that the deceased had died a homicidal death and that the trunk and the head portions over which autopsy had been conducted by the doctor (P. W. 2) were of the deceased. The prosecution sought to establish its case mainly on the evidence of the son of the deceased (P. W. 8), the sole witness to the occurrence and his statements made to his brother (P. W. 9), his mother (P. W. 10) and two co-villagers (P. Ws. 11 and 12) immediately after the occurrence naming the appellant Maran Majhi as the person who had assaulted his father by means of a Tabal by dealing a blow on his neck coupled with the medical evidence. The prosecution further sought to establish that on the day following the day of occurrence, the appellant Kana, who, according to P. W. 8, had instigated the other appellant on the spot to kill the deceased, produced the cut head of the deceased with the killing instrument (Tapal) tied to the hairs. There was, in addition, the evidence that a piece of cloth (M. O. VI) had been seized from the appellant Kana which on chemical and serological test, contained human blood. No article belonging to the appellant maran contained human blood, as found on chemical and serological test.
(2.) On an examination of the evidence of the fifteen witnesses adduced from the side of the prosecution, the trial Court held that the charge had been brought home to both the appellants and each of them sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
(3.) Mr. Suman Kumar Dey, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has taken us through the relevant evidence and has contended that the charge had not been established against any of the appellants.