D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) ALL the three appeals arising out of the same impugned judgment; have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. All the appellants in these appeals stand convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced for life under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code each and RI for three years under Sec. 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code each, the sentences to run concurrently.
(2.) FACTUAL matrix leading to these appeals are that deceased Govind Sahu had gone to sell potato in Larango Bazar within Senha police station, District -Lohardaga in the after noon of 30.6.2001. When he was returning, the appellants, named above overpowered him near Marpo bridge and killed him. They further concealed the dead body. The Senha police was informed by village choukidar on receiving information regarding the incident from the informant Senha police arrived at Morpa bridge at about 11 a.m. and recorded the statement of the informant Rajeshwar Sahu PW 6. According to the informant, the deceased was given dagger blows by all the appellants because of previous enmity. He further asserted that the incident was seen by Lakhan Yadav, Sarpanch, Morpa and others on the basis of which Senha P.S. Case No. 35 of 2001 was registered under Sec. 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police seized the left over articles of the deceased from the place of occurrence and started searching for the body. The dead body was recovered in the after noon lying concealed in the woods situated at a distance of 2 k.m. The police after investigation submitted charge -sheet against the appellants under Sec. 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the appellants was committed for trial before the Court of sessions where they were charged on 1.5.2002 under Sec. 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the four appellants pleaded hot guilty and claimed false prosecution due to previous enmity. However the learned trial Court after examining the witnesses found and held all of them guilty for the offences charge and sentenced them as mentioned aforesaid.
(3.) THE present appeals have been preferred separately by Sheo Nandan Sahu being Criminal Appeal No. 1667 of 2004 and by Raiya Mahto @ Bhagat being Criminal Appeal No. 1402 of 2004 and jointly by Raiya Mahto along with two others being Criminal Appeal No. 1476 of 2004. As such Criminal Appeal No. 1402 of 2004 filed on behalf of Raiya Mahto @ Bhagat is apparently infructuous and not maintainable. The appellants have asserted that their conviction is not maintainable on the following grounds. (i) That the prosecution witnesses are not truthful and reliable. (ii) That there is no eye witness of the occurrence. (iii) That the informant and wife of the deceased PW 7 have not been able to show that they were actually witness of assault on the deceased. (iv) That the learned trial Court has not considered the material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses properly. (v) That the non examination of the village choukidar Nejamat Ansari further makes the prosecution case doubtful. (vi) That the conduct of PWs 7, 1,5 and 6 lack credence. ;