AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) ALL the appellants were charged for the offence under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC. By the impugned judgment dated 2.8.2000, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikelain Sessions Trial No. 321/1988, all the appellants were convicted for the aforesaid charges and they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/149 I PC and to undergo R.I. for a further period of three years for the offence under Section 148 IPC. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) AGAINST the said judgment of the trial court, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging their conviction and sentence. In short the prosecution case is that one Dharmu Kaibarto (PW -6) lodged first information report on 27.1.1998 alleging therein that on that date at about 7 a.m. when he and his brother Mahabir Kaibarto (the deceased) were going on by cycle to Seraikela Court and when Mahabir, who was a little ahead of him, reached in front of the house of Susen Dutta (Appellant No. 1), all the appellants namely, Susen Dutta holding Bhujali, Khorod Dutta (Appellant No. 2) holding pistol, Nibaran Dutta (Appellant No.3), Niranjan Dutta (Appellant No.4), Bisheshwar Dutta (Appellant No.5), Arjun Dutta (Appellant No.6) and their servant Panchu (Appellant No.7) holding swords in their hands surrounded Mahabir Kaibarto. Susen Dutta assaulted Mahabir Kaibarto on his head by means of a Bhujali due to which Mahabir fell down on the ground. After Mahabir fell down, other accused persons started assaulting Mahabir by means of swords due to which he died at the spot in front of the house of appellant no. 1. The accused persons also tried to chase and assault the informant Dharmu Kaibarto but he could manage to escape. On hulla raised by him, villagers arrived at the place of occurrence. The informant was going to the Court to attend a case on the said date.
(3.) IN order to establish the charges altogether 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution nor any defence witness was examined on behalf of the defence.;