D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THE Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Shri Krishna Murari, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 766 of 1994/14 of 1995 on 15.11.1999 and 19.11.1999 respectively whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149, 201/149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and three years imprisonment respectively on each count. Both the sentences were directed against each of the appellants to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution story as it stands narrated in the fardbeyan of the informant Maheshwar Hembrom (PW 3) recorded on 12.6.1994 at about 12 hours before the Ghatsila Police at the alleged place of occurrence was that on 9.6.1994 he along with his brother Krishna Hembrom (since deceased) while returning to their village at about 7 p.m. after serving notice of panchayat upon Purno Manjhi (not examined) were held up by the appellants while both of them were about to reach their village. All the appellants belonged to village Puljor Kashidanga under the Ghatsila Police Station. The informant alleged that all the five appellants caught hold his elder brother, Krishna Hembrom and one them Ram Pado Hembrom inflicted blow with kulhari (Axe) on his head as a result of which his brother fell down on the ground sustaining injuries on his head. The informant further narrated that he attempted to escape after witnessing the occurrence of assault on his brother but he was over -powered by the accused Pandas Hembrom who forcibly brought him to the house of the appellant gagged his mouth preventing from crying and also by extending threat to his life. The informant was then brought to the house of the appellant Binod Hembrom where he was assured to be let -off only after arrival of other three appellants, Rampado Hembrom, Mongla Hembrom and Ramesh Hembrom. On their arrival the informant was allowed to return and he left the place running and narrated the occurrence to his father in his home. The informant further narrated that his father Sarkar Hembrom (PW 2) tried to persuade the villagers to accompany him to the place of occurrence but none of them paid any heed to it out of fear. In spite of extensive search Krishna Hembrom could not be located dead or alive in the night and also on subsequent days. On the informant Maheshwar Hembrom, Ghatsila P.S. Case No. 63 of 1994 was registered under Sections 147/148/149/307/364 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and after recovery of the dead body of Krishna Hembrom Section 302/201, IPC was added in the FIR on 19.6.1994. The Investigating Officer submitted charge -sheet against all the five appellants for the offence under Sections 147/148/149/307/364 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and after recovery of the dead body of Krishna Hembrom Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code after investigation. Admittedly, the FIR was instituted on 13.6.1994 after four days of the alleged occurrence and the dead body alleged to be of Krishna Hembrom was recovered on 15.6.1994 in putrified condition. According to the defence, the dead body in complete putrified condition with skull without brain matter and skeleton without sufficient flesh was not in a position to be identified. Altogether nine witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution. Besides, the prosecution proved signature of PW 1 Boloram Hembrom (PW1) on the seizure list Ext. 1, signature of the informant Maheshwar Hembrom on the fardbeyan Ext. 1/a, signature of Bal Hari Hembrom on the inquest report Ext. 1/b, post - mortem report Ext. 2, formal FIR Ext. 3, entire fardbeyan Ext. 4 endorsement on fardbeyan Ext. 5 and the inquest report Ext. 6.
(3.) AFTER aducement of the prosecution evidence all the appellants were separately confronted with incriminating materials produced on the record, but each of them denied guilt in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr PC and declined to adduce defence witness.;