JUDGMENT Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. Both the appeals have been preferred by the appellants, named above, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.61.1991, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 457 of 1990, whereby and whereunder both the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. However, both of them have been acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, as per the written information of the informant Raj Kumar Prasad, S.I. (PW 3), is that he received a written report on 13.5.1990 at 8.15 a.m. from Dinbandhu Singh Sardar (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 1991), mentioning therein, that on 12.5.1990 in between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon his younger brother Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar committed suicide by hanging. On his written statement, U.D. Case No. 2 of 1990 dated 30.5.1990 was registered and the informant was entrusted of investigate into the matter. In course of investigation, the informant (PW 3) sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and on receipt of post-mortem Examination Report it revealed that there was (a) ligature mark 1 cm. in width over front of neck, extending both sides of neck obliquely upward. The ligature mark was deficient over left mastoid region, but the right mark extending to back of neck and back of left neck. The tongue was pressed between teeth and (b) internal-There was fracture of thyroid cartilage. The m.m. of trachea, laryix and thyroid cartilage were congested with confusion so soft tissue around the trachea. The doctor opined that (1) The ligature mark was post-mortem but the internal injury No. (b) was ante-mortem, (2) Death was due to throttling and (3) Time since death was within 36-72 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. On further enquiry the villagers Kaushalya Singh, her daughter Sombari, Man Singh and Ors. informed that there was frequent quarrel in between Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar and his brother Din Bandhu Singh Sardar. Both were living separately after the death of their mother, Anath Bandhu Singh entrusted his 6 Bighas of land for cultivation to another villager. Their mother was living with Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. Her ornaments were kept with Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. Both were living separately after the death of their mother, Anath Bandhu Singh entrusted his 6 Bighas of land for cultivation to another villager. Their mother was living with Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. Her ornaments were kept with Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. Appellant Din Bandhu Singh Sardar was demanding his share of gold. Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar did not give any share of gold to Din Bandhu Singh. There was a panchayati and in that panchayati also the matter could not be settled. Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar insisted that he will keep the ornaments left by their mother. In the year, 1990 Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar had sold one Arjun tree for Rs. 200/- to villager Baijnath Singh. He had also sold one pair of bullock to Chunaram Mahto at Rs. 2000/-. All the sale proceeds of tree and bullocks were retained by him. One year ago Din Bandhu Singh Sardar had cultivated the land of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar, his younger brother, but he did not give any produce to Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. Even he did not care for his fooding. Thereafter, Anath Baridhu Singh Sardar gave his share of land for cultivation to one Durlabh Singh and was living separately, having separate mess. Informant also came to know on the day of alleged occurrence at about noon on hearing the sound that life has gone, Kaushalya Singh, her daughter Sombari and Man Singh went to the house of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. They saw Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar lying on a cot and was uttering some sound. They saw Din Bandhu Singh Sardar (Appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 1991) tying his neck with a rope and his wife Tulabala Sardarin (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 1991) had pressed the chest of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. After sometimes Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar became silent. The witnesses out of fear went away. After the alleged occurrence Din Bandhu Singh Sardar and his wife Tulabala Sardarin spread rumour, in the village that Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar had committed suicide by hanging. Din Bandhu Singh Sardar confessed before the villagers that he had committed a mistake and he prayed that he should be saved. Therefore, the villagers out of fear did not disclose the true facts before the police. Din Bandhu Singh Sardar confessed before the villagers that he had committed a mistake and he prayed that he should be saved. Therefore, the villagers out of fear did not disclose the true facts before the police. Din Bandhu Singh Sardar went to the police station next day and misinformed the police, stating that his younger brother Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar had committed suicide by hanging which could not be corroborated by the result of the post-mortem Examination Report rather the death was due to throttling. On the basis of the information (Ext. 1) of PW 3 Raj Kumar Prasad (informant) Patmda Police Station Case No. 32 of 1990 dated 26.5.1990 for the offence under Section 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 3. Both the appellants were charged under Section 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution produced altogether 13 witnesses whereas the defence had not examined any witness. The defence case appears that the appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. Appellant Din Bandhu Singh Sardar has further taken plea that he has not committed the murder of his brother rather when his brother committed suicide, he was not present in the village. He admits that he had informed the police. 4. The genesis of the alleged occurrence as mentioned by the Informant in the FIR (Ext. 1) is that appellant Din Bandhu Singh Sardar and his brother deceased Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar were quarreling occasionally for partition of ornaments left by their mother and also regarding sale proceeds of Arjun tree and two bullocks sold by Anath Bandh Singh Sardar, who had retained all the money with him. Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar had given his share of land for cultivation to another villager Durlabh Singh, as his brother appellant Din Bandhu Singh Sardar, when cultivated the land for one year, did not give any share of paddy to Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar nor he cared for his fooding, who was living separately. The alleged occurrence took place on 12.5.1990 in between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon at village-Beldih, Tola-Pokatora, which is 12 kms away from Patamda Police Station. At the time of alleged occurrence as it was noon, Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar was sleeping in his house. The alleged occurrence took place on 12.5.1990 in between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon at village-Beldih, Tola-Pokatora, which is 12 kms away from Patamda Police Station. At the time of alleged occurrence as it was noon, Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar was sleeping in his house. At that time allegation against both the appellants is that they entered into his house and appellant Tulabala Sardarin had pressed his chest while appellant Din Bandhu Singh Sardar tied the neck of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar, while he was sleeping. On hearing some sound PW 4 Kaushalya Singh, PW 5 Sombari and PW 1 Man Singh went to the house of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar and saw the alleged occurrence. The appellants in presence of these witnesses and the villagers confessed their guilt and begged pardon and prayed to save them. Next day Din Bandhu Singh Sardar, as asked by the villagers, went and informed the police resulting registration of U.D. Case No. 2 of 1990. 5. Thus, the eye-witnesses are only PW 1 Man Singh and PW 4 Kaushalya Singh. PW 5 Sombari is a minor aged about 4-1/2 years, who can not say anything as to what she saw. PW .1 Mand Singh was thatching his tiled roof, which is just after two houses from the house of the deceased Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. He heard some sound coming from the house of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. Leaving his, work, he went to the house of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. He saw Din Bandhu Singh Sardar tightening the rope on the neck of Anath Bandhu Singh and his wife Tulabala had pressed the chest of Anath Bandhu Singh, resulting his death. Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar was paralytic patient and was unable to move freely. There was differences in between Din Bandhu Singh and Anath Bandhu Singh regarding partition of properties, due to which Anath Bandhu Singh was murdered. After one or two minutes this witness left the place of occurrence without any talk with the appellants and again started thatching his roof. He did not inform the police rather Din Bandhu Singh went to the Police Station and informed about the death of his brother. This witness did not inform anyone in the village including Mukhiya and Chowkidar. 6. PW 2 Gore Singh was also thatching the roof of his house, who is nephew of PW 1. He did not inform the police rather Din Bandhu Singh went to the Police Station and informed about the death of his brother. This witness did not inform anyone in the village including Mukhiya and Chowkidar. 6. PW 2 Gore Singh was also thatching the roof of his house, who is nephew of PW 1. He also went on hearing hulla to the house of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. There were other villagers. He saw both the appellants Din Bandhu Singh Sardar and Tulabala Sardarin coming out of the house of Anath Bandhu Singh. This witness also corroborates the evidence of PW 1 that both the brothers had differences regarding properties and had used to quarrel frequently. Anath Bandhu Singh was unmarried, being a paralytic patient. When this witness and PW 1 had gone to the house of Anath Bandhu Singh, then the villagers Vijay. Singh (PW 8), Rangalal Singh (PW 9), Bhan Singh and Bharath Singh (PW 10) were also there. They had not entered into the house of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. 7. PWs 6, 8 and 9 have deposed that Din Bandhu Singh had confessed his guilt that he caused murder of his brother and he prayed to save him. Then these witnesses asked him to go to the police station, as they would not be able to protect him. PW 6 claims that he had also gone to the police station along with choukidar and one Shankar Singh besides two others. 8. PW 10, who had also gone there at the place of occurrence, has been tendered by the prosecution. PW 11 Durlabh Singh has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 9. PW 7 Dr. Yogendra Nath on 14.5.1990 at 8.00 a.m. conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar son of late Baneshwar Singh of Village-Beladih Tola Pakodera, Police Station-Patamda, aged about 30 years and found the following in juries : (a) ligature mark--1 cm. in width over front of neck, extending both sides of neck obliquely upward. The ligature mark was deficient over left mastoid region, but the right mark extending to back of neck and back of left neck. The tongue was pressed between teeth and (b) Internal--There was fracture of thyroid cartilage. The mm. of trachea, laryix and thyroid cartilage were congested with confusion of soft tissue around the trachea. The ligature mark was deficient over left mastoid region, but the right mark extending to back of neck and back of left neck. The tongue was pressed between teeth and (b) Internal--There was fracture of thyroid cartilage. The mm. of trachea, laryix and thyroid cartilage were congested with confusion of soft tissue around the trachea. This witness opined that ligature mark was post mortem in nature but injury No. (b) was ante mortem The death was due to throttling and time since death was within 36 to 72 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. This witness prepared post-mortem in his pen and signature (Ext. 4), This witness did not find any Injury mark on the dead-body, which could have been caused by resistance. Doctor opined that (1) the ligature mark was post-mortem but the internal injury No. (b) was ante-mortem, (2) death was due to throttling and (3) time since death was within 36-72 hours from the time of postmortem examination. 10. PW 13 Deo Narayan Saha took charge for further investigation of the case from PW 12 Jagta Nand Tiwary. He produced Vijay Singh, Ranglal Singh and Bharat Singh for recording their statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, he submitted charge-sheet. 11. PW 12 has received written information on 13.5.1990 from Din Bandhu Singh and registered U.D. Case No. 2 of 1990. He entrusted S.I. Raj Kumar Prasad (PW 3) for investigation. When he received the Post-mortem Examination Report then he informed him in writing (Ext. 1) that it was a case of throttling and not suicide by hanging and hence Patamda P.S. Case No. 32 of 1990 dated 26.5.1990 was registered under Section 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of investigation he re-examined the informant and also inspected the place of occurrence, which was the house of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. 12. Learned counsel for both the appellants has submitted that the evidence of PW 1 is quite unnatural as he claims to be the eye-witness of the alleged occurrence but he did not inform anybody in the village or the police rather he again went back and started thatching the roof of his house. PW 4 Kaushalya Singh who claims to be, the eye-witness has also not deposed about the alleged occurrence to any police officer or the villager. PW 4 Kaushalya Singh who claims to be, the eye-witness has also not deposed about the alleged occurrence to any police officer or the villager. PW 8 Vijoy Singh, PW 9 Ranglal Singh and PW 10 Bharat Singh were also examined under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In their statements under Section 164, Cr PC these witnesses have not uttered anything that appellant had confessed before them and the villagers that he caused murder of his brother and prayed to save him. But later on in course of evidence in Court they have improved their statements and have given a different version which is not reliable. It was also submitted that PW 7 the doctor, did not find any injury on the dead-body which could have been caused due to resistance. The dead body of the deceased was average built, who might have resisted while he was being strangulated by the appellants. 13. Learned APP on behalf of the State has submitted that PWs 1 and 4 are the eye-witnesses of the alleged occurrence, whereas PWs 6, 8, 9 and 10 are the villagers who had gone to the place of occurrence and saw both the appellants coming out of the house of deceased Anath Bandhu Singh. The appellant confessed his guilt before these witnesses and the villagers that he caused murder of his brother Anath Bandhu Singh and prayed to save him. The villagers advised him to go to the police station and inform about the alleged occurrence as they would not be able to save him, It was also submitted that the post-mortem examination report (Ext. 4) is very clear that the doctor has found injury No. 1 post-mortem in nature. This shows that after throttling Anath Bandhu Singh, the appellants gave a colour of suicide by hanging, resulting post-mortem injury No. 2. On these grounds, it was submitted that the learned Court below has rightly arrived at the conclusion and convicted these appellants and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. 14. At about noon on 12.5.1990 PW 1 Man Singh, who is the eye-witness of the alleged occurrence, was just thatching his roof. On these grounds, it was submitted that the learned Court below has rightly arrived at the conclusion and convicted these appellants and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. 14. At about noon on 12.5.1990 PW 1 Man Singh, who is the eye-witness of the alleged occurrence, was just thatching his roof. On Hulla he went to the house of deceased and saw that Tulabala Sardarin (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 1991) had pressed the chest of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar in his house, who was sleeping and Din Bandhu Singh Sardar (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 1991) was tightening the string, which was tied around the neck of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar thereafter, died it (sic) PW 2 Gore Singh also went there and saw both the appellant coming out of the house of deceased Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. Thereafter, other witnesses including PW 6 Niranjan Singh, PW 8 Bijoy Singh, PW 9 Ranglal Singh, PW 10 Bharat Singh and PW 11 Durlabh Singh, also assembled there before whom the appellant Din Bandhu Singh Sardar confessed his guilt that he has murdered his brother and prayed to save him, on the request of the appellant the witnesses asked him to go to the police station and inform the police, as they would not be able to save him. This seems to be the reason why PW 1, who is the eye-witness, did not go to inform the police nor he informed the villagers who themselves had assembled at the place of occurrence and started thatching his roof again. The other witnesses are PW 2 Gore Singh, who just saw the appellants coining out of the house of the deceased Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. PW 8 Bijoy Singh PW 9 Ranglal Singh and PW 10 Bharat Singh who had earlier given their statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Exts. A, A/1 and A/2 respectively) have deposed that they have no knowledge about the alleged occurrence. But while deposing in the Court, PWs 8 and 9 have deposed that in their presence also the appellant Din Bandhu Singh Sardar had confessed his guilt. However, it is improvement in course of examination in the Court, giving a different statement to that of the statement, made by them under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Exts A and A/1). However, it is improvement in course of examination in the Court, giving a different statement to that of the statement, made by them under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Exts A and A/1). Hence their evidence does not carry any importance whereas Bharat Singh (PW 10) is a tendered witness, who has also been examined under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he has deposed that he did not know anything about the alleged occurrence (Ext. A/2). 15. Another independent witness is PW 6 Niranjan Singh, who has deposed that Din Bandhu Singh had confessed his guilt and asked him to save his life, after giving pardon to him. This witness has also gone to the police station to inform the matter along with the chowkidar. 16. The appellant himself had gone to the police station and informed the police, resulting institution of U.D. Case No, 2 of 1990, giving wrong information that his brother Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar had committed suicide. Later on post-mortem report conducted by Dr. Yogendra Nath PW 7 revealed that the death was due to throttling. He found ante-mortem injuries on the person of deceased Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar. This is corroborated by the evidence of PW 1 Man Singh that he saw the appellant Din Bandhu Singh Sardar tightening the string tied around the neck of the deceased, giving ligature mark on the neck, which was post-mortem and the cause of death was throttling. 17. Thus, I find that the submission made on behalf of the appellants that Din Bandhu Singh Sardar was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence, is not believable. The reasons for not informing the police by the eye-witness PW 1 Man Singh and other villagers is that they asked the appellant Din Bandhu Singh Sardar to go to the Police Station and inform the matter. They were not knowing as to what information was given by the appellant. Later on it revealed that he had raised rumour in the village that his brother had committed suicide by hanging and reported accordingly to the police. However, he confessed before the villagers including PW 6 Niranjan Singh and Ors. that he committed murder of his brother. 18. They were not knowing as to what information was given by the appellant. Later on it revealed that he had raised rumour in the village that his brother had committed suicide by hanging and reported accordingly to the police. However, he confessed before the villagers including PW 6 Niranjan Singh and Ors. that he committed murder of his brother. 18. The evidence of PW 1 Man Singh, corroborated by the evidence of PW 2 Gore Singh, which gets support by the statement of PW 6 Niranjan Singh regarding the confession made before the villagers, goes to show that due to the share of ornaments left by his mother and also regarding the landed properties for cultivation, which was in the share of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar, at about noon when Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar, who was a paralytic patient, was sleeping in his house, appellant Tulabala Sardarin pressed his chest whereas appellant Din Bandhu Singh Sardar tightened the string, tied around his neck, resulting his death, due to throttling. The deceased could not resist as he was suffering from paralysis and was also sleeping and that is why no any mark of resistance on his body and found by the doctor (PW 7). Both these appellants after causing murder of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar came out of his house, which was seen by PW 2 Gore Singh, whereas PW 1 Man Singh is the eye-witness of the alleged tightening of string on the neck by Din Bandhu Singh Sardar and pressing his chest by appellant Tulabala Sardarin. 19. In view of these considered facts, I find that the learned Court below has rightly arrived at the conclusion that these appellants caused the murder of Anath Bandhu Singh Sardar in furtherance of their common intention with a view to grab his properties. Thus, I find that there is no merit in both the Criminal Appeal Nos. 175 of 1991 and 179 of 1991, which are accordingly, dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Court below against both these appellants are hereby affirmed. As both the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Court below to serve their sentences. The learned Court below is also directed to take all coercive steps for apprehension of the appellants to serve their sentences. Vishnudeo Narayan, J. I agree.