- (1.) BOTH the appellants stand convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life, by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1996.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that on 1st of June 1995, the informant (PW 4) Barku Turi, Chowkidar No. 2/7 of village -Budhidih Police Station -Dugda was informed by villagers of Bera Basti that a murder has taken place in the forest. Accordingly, the informant went to Bera Basti village where he was informed that during hunting of forest animals, the villagers had gone inside the forest, where they found two persons throttling the deceased. According to the villagers, they chased and could catch hold of appellant Bishnu Chouhan while appellant Dhular Chouhan could manage to flee. According to the informant, appellant No. 1 admitted his guilt before the villagers and was brought to police station. The informant gave his fardbeyan before the Officer -in -Charge of Dugda Police Station, on the basis of which Dugda Police Station Case No. 28 of 1995 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Appellant No. 1 along with First Information Report was forwarded to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. The police further prepared the inquest report of the dead body and sent it for post -mortem examination and investigated the case to finally submit charge -sheet against both the appellants. Their cases were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial where they were charged by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro on 26.4.1996 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication. However, after examining the witnesses the learned trial Court found and held both of them guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to serve rigorous imprisonment for life.
(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial Court has not considered the material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is further asserted that none of the eye -witnesses have been able to identify and name appellant No. 2. It is also asserted that at the time of incident, the appellants were minors. Learned Counsel for the appellants further point out that the eye - witnesses of the occurrence have contradicted each other on material point. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants may be set aside.;