- (1.) Both these appeals arise from the judgment of conviction dated 19.07.1991 and order of sentence dated 26.07.1991 passed by learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.264 of 1990 convicting the appellants under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also convicting them under Section 201 I.P.C and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, both the sentences were run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the informant, Niyamat Mian in his written report dated 16.08.1982 stated that one Rajendra Prasad (P.W.3) was a tenant in his house, who lived in the outer room alongwith his two daughters namely Gayatri Devi (P.W.4) and Manju Devi (P.W.5). Rajendra Prasad (P.W.3) was a teacher. On 03.08.1982, the husband of Gayatri Devi, namely Hira Prasad Soni (P.W.2), who was a contractor, arrived there. On 15.08.1982, in the evening at about 5 P.M., a tempo bearing No. BHV 8052 reached there with the appellants. Appellant Kamendra Prasad was son-in-law of Rajendra Prasad. Appellant Bindeshwar Prasad was 'cousin' of Kamendra Prasad. The tempo driver (deceased) was wearing steel ring in his right hand. All the three persons took their meal and stayed in the night. In the morning, the appellants left the place. The informant further stated that when he asked about the third man i.e. the tempo driver, the appellants said that he left for Ranchi in the night itself. The informant went to his duties at Tapin South Colliery. At about 4pm, he was informed that a headless body was lying to the west of the village. He went near the dead body. He found the dead body with a steel ring in his right hand. He identified the dead body is of the tempo driver. The informant suspected that the appellants had brought him with the intention to kill him and in the night, the tempo driver was killed. The appellants absconded for about 8 years.
(3.) Learned counsels, appearing for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. They submitted that the informant and Investigating Officer have not been examined in the case, which has seriously prejudiced the case of appellants. They further submitted that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and the chain of circumstances is not complete. They also submitted that there was no motive for the appellants to commit the alleged crime. They also submitted that the identification of dead body is also doubtful. ;