JUDGMENT Vishnudeo Narayan, J. 1. Both the appeals aforesaid have been preferred by the appellants named above against the Impugned judgment and order dated 31.8.1998 passed by Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad, Sessions Judge, Gumia in S.T. No. 122 of 1997 whereby and whereunder appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for life whereas appellant Azad Ansari was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of PW 7, Manoj Kumar Sahu, the informant and nephew of Rajendra Prasad Sahu, the deceased of this case recorded by S.I Saryu Pandit of Bharno P.S. on 26.1.1997 at 19.30 hours at Ambwa Karan Tungri Bazar Tand within Bharno P.S. regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very day at 17.00 hours at the said place in which Rajendra Prasad Sahu was done to death. The case was instituted by drawing the formal FIR (Ext. 6) on that very day and the said formal FIR and the fardbeyan was received in the Court empowered to take cognizance on 27.1.1998 the signature of the informant on the fard-beyan aforesaid is Ext. 3 and Tulsi Prasad Sahu has witnessed the said fardbeyan and his signature thereon is Ext. 3/1. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant had gone to Ambwa Karan Tungri Bazar Tand on 26.1.1997 at 16.30 hours to make purchase and his uncle Rajendra Prasad Sahu who is the deceased of this case has also gone in the said market for purchasing vegetables. It is alleged that there was an uproar at the eastern flank of that market and the informant went there and saw appellant Azad Ansari and co-accused Paras Nath Sahu having altercation with Rajendra Prasad Sahu aforesaid who was prevailing upon them not to have altercation and in the meantime appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu armed with sharp cutting pointed gupti came there. It is alleged that appellant Azad Ansari and co- accused Paras Nath Sahu caught Rajendra Prasad Sahu aforesaid the moment appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu arrived there and asked him to assault Rajendra Prasad Sahu and on this abetment appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu gave a blow at the right chest above the abdomen from the said gupti with the intention to commit his murder as a result of which Rajendra Prasad Sahu became injured and fell down. The prosecution case further is that PW 9, Lal Bahadur Sahu. PW 4, Upendra Sahu, PW 3 Raj Kishore Singh Munda and PW 8, Sushila Devi besides this informant has seen the occurrence and they lifted said Rajendra Prasad Sahu from the place of occurrence for taking him for his treatment but he died at the said place as a result of the said injury. It is also alleged that the persons present in the said market attempted to apprehend them but they made good their escape with the said weapon of assault. The prosecution case further is that the deceased aforesaid was a social worker and he used to keep watch on the illegal activities of the appellants and for that the appellants were harbouring grudge against him and getting an opportunity they have committed the murder of the deceased. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that co-accused Parasnath Sahu has been murdered in the night of 26.1.1997 itself for which a case has been lodged in which PW 7 along with others figured as an accused. 5. The appellants have pleaded not guilty to the charge leveled against them and they claim themselves to be innocent and to have committed no offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity which is existing and alive between the parties. 6. The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellants. PW 7, Manoj Kumar Sahu is the informant and the nephew of the deceased of this case. PW 9, Lal Bahadur Sahu, PW 4, Upendra Sahu and PW 8, Sushila Devi are the cousin brother, son and widow respectively of the deceased whereas PW 3, Raj Kishore Singh is said to be the friend of the informant and they claim themselves to be the ocular witnesses of the occurrence. PW 1, Dr. PW 9, Lal Bahadur Sahu, PW 4, Upendra Sahu and PW 8, Sushila Devi are the cousin brother, son and widow respectively of the deceased whereas PW 3, Raj Kishore Singh is said to be the friend of the informant and they claim themselves to be the ocular witnesses of the occurrence. PW 1, Dr. Hemant Kumar has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the decease and the post-mortem report per his pen is Ext. 1 in this case. PW 11, Saryu Pandit is the Investigating Officer of this case who has proved the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of the informant and the formal FIR (Ext. 6) and prepared the Inquest Report (Ext. 5) which bears the signature of PW 2 Narku Sahu and PW 5, Kashinath Sahu which are Ext. 2 and 2/1 respectively. PW 5, Kashi Nath Sahu and PW 2, Narku Sahu are the hearsay witnesses of the occurrence but they have witnesses the Inquest Report. PW 6, Bajrang Prasad and PW 10 Ganesh Lohra have turned hostile and they do not at all support the prosecution case. 7. The learned Court below has relied upon the ocular testimony of PW 7, PW 9, PW 4, PW 3 and PW 8 corroborated by the medical evidence coupled with the objective findings of the IO and found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 8. It is equally relevant to mention here that the learned Court below had sentenced appellant Azad Ansari to undergo RI for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and this Court vide order dated 16.10.1998 has issued notice to appellant Azad Ansari to show cause as to why the period of sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court be not enhanced but the said appellant did not submit his show case as directed. 9. Assailing the impugned judgment it has been submitted on behalf of Azad Ansari that the learned Court below did not properly consider the evidence on the record and has committed manifest error in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellant and the impugned judgment is against the materials and evidence on the record. 9. Assailing the impugned judgment it has been submitted on behalf of Azad Ansari that the learned Court below did not properly consider the evidence on the record and has committed manifest error in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellant and the impugned judgment is against the materials and evidence on the record. It has also been submitted that alleged ocular witnesses i.e. PWs 7, 4, 8 and 3 in view of their evidence cannot be termed as ocular witnesses of the occurrence and there is material contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in their evidence which cast a cloud of suspicion against the aforesaid witness being the ocular witnesses. It has also been submitted that PWs 7, 4 and 8 are closely related with the deceased and PW 3 is the friend of the informant and they have been purposely set up as ocular witnesses in this case and as such they are highly interested and partisan witnesses and there is also no evidence of any independent, natural and competent witness of the occurrence to support the prosecution case specially in the fact that the large number of persons had collected at the alleged place of occurrence which was the market day and there are also several hotels and shops of vegetables vendors in the close vicinity of the place of occurrence. It has further been submitted that the IO has not found any blood fallen either at the alleged place of occurrence as well as the place where the dead-body was found under the Karam tree and it appears that the deceased might have been assaulted some other place by some unknown persons and his dead-body has been brought under the Karam tree in the said market in view of the evidence on the record that the deceased has enmity with several persons prior to the occurrence. It has further been contended that the appellant Azad Ansari had no apparent reason or motive to participate in the occurrence as alleged and to abet the commission of the murder of the deceased and as per the evidence on the record appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu came all of a sudden at the place of the occurrence and is said to have given a gupti blow above the abdomen of the deceased as a result of which he is said to have died and there is also no iota of evidence on the record to come to a finding of the fact that this appellant had shared common intention with either appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu or co- accused Paras Nath Sahu in committing the murder of the deceased and in this view of the matter the conviction of this appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code suffers with manifest error. 10. Adopting the contention advanced on behalf of appellant Azad Ansari it has been submitted for appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu that the fardbeyan of PW 4, the informant is surrounded with suspicious circumstances in view of the fact that when it has seen the light of the day at 17.00 hours then by that time co-accused Paras Nath Sahu was already dead as his murder was committed by fire arm and his name has appeared In the fardbeyan. Lastly it has been contended that this appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity existing and alive between the parties prior to the occurrence. 11. Refuting the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants is has been submitted by the learned APP that in this case there is a testimony of four ocular witnesses i.e. PWs 7, 4, 3 and 8 which establishes the prosecution case regarding the commission of the murder of the deceased by appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu by causing injury by gupti at the upper part of the abdomen of the deceased and all the aforesaid four witnesses though related with the deceased have occasion to be present at the place of occurrence as it was a market and a fair day and their testimony cannot be brushed aside because of the creeping of some trivial and minor inconsistencies and contradictions in their evidence. It has also been submitted that the nature of injury as opined by PW 1, the medical witness is in strict conformity with the manner of assault as alleged by the prosecution and in this view of the matter the impugned judgment of the learned Court below does not suffer with any legal infirmity. 12. It will admit of no doubt that Rajendra Prasad Sahu, the uncle of the informant has been done to death and his body was found by PW 11, the IO under the Karam tree in Ambwa Karam Tungri Bazar Tand when he rushed to that place on rumour of the commission of the murder of a person after making an entry in respect thereof in the Station Diary which bears S.D. Entry No. 625 dated 26.1.1997 where he recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of the informant and, thereafter, prepared the Inquest Report (Ext. 5) which was witnessed by PW 2 and PW 5. The Inquest Report (Ext. 5) shows the existence of deep injury having blood on the right lateral chest region said to have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon. PW 1, Dr. Hemant Kumar has conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of the deceased on 27.1.1997 at 8.00 a.m. and he has deposed to have found the following ante mortem injury on the dead-body of the deceased : (i) Incised penetrating injury on right lower lateral chest region 1" x 1/2" x 6" with cutting of underlying vessels, cutting of right lobe of the lever deeply with presence of copious blood in thoracic and abdominal cavities. The medical witness has further deposed that the said injury has been caused by sharp cutting weapon and is grievous in nature and is sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. He has also deposed that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the said injury and the time elapsed since death is 12-14 hours of the post-mortem examination. In his cross-examination the medical witness has also deposed that he has not mentioned in the penetrating weapon as a weapon of assault causing the said injury appearing on the person of the deceased. In his cross-examination the medical witness has also deposed that he has not mentioned in the penetrating weapon as a weapon of assault causing the said injury appearing on the person of the deceased. He has also deposed that blood will fall on the ground in case of injury caused by penetrating weapon and in case of death of person with a penetrating wound the blood will fall on the ground within 5-7 minutes of sustaining the injury. The post- mortem report (Ext. 1) corroborates the testimony of the medical regarding the existence of the injuries as deposed by him to have been found on the dead-body of the deceased. 13. It is pertinent to mention at the very outset that the alleged ocular witnesses i.e. PWs 7, 9, 4 and 8 are closely related with the deceased as his nephew, cousin brother, son and widow respectively and PW 3 is said to be friend of the informant i.e. PW 7. It is the settled principle of law that the evidence of close relatives of the deceased cannot be discarded on the ground of their relationship with the deceased. However, the Court must scrutinize the evidence with care and caution. There is common tendency of the outsiders not to get themselves involved in a criminal case and it would be quite natural that no independent witness would come forward to assist the prosecution in a case of murder. Even with regard to the interested witness being close relatives it is the duty of the Court to separate the truth from the falsehood and the chaff from the grain and in view of the close relationship they would not leave out the real assailant and implicate any innocent person and in view of the close relationship the witnesses naturally would have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts but while appreciating the evidence exaggerated facts are to be ignored unless it effects the substratum of the prosecution story and while appreciating the evidence of a relative witness the approach must be ; whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a right of truth. Once the impression regarding the ring of truth is found then undoubtedly it is necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiency, draw backs and infirmity pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier valuation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of believe. Minor discrepancies or trivial matters not touching the core of the case a hyper technical approach in perusal of the evidence should be avoided. Let us now scan the evidence of PWs 7, 9, 4, 8 and 3 said to be ocular witnesses of the occurrence keeping in view the rule of care and caution in evaluating the said evidence. PW 7, the informant has deposed that he was in the Ambwa Karam Tungri Bazar Tand at about 5.00 p.m. on the day of the occurrence and he heard an uproar coming from east in the market and he rushed there and saw an altercation going on between Rajendra Prasad Sahu on the one hand and appellant Azad Ansari and co-accused Paras Nath Sahu and said Rajendra Prasad Sahu was prevailing upon them not to have altercation and in the meantime appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu came there armed with a gupti and he gave a gupti blow above the abdomen on the person of said Rajendra Prasad Sahu and, thereafter, both the appellants along with co-accused aforesaid fled away from there though they were chased but could not be apprehended. He has further deposed that appellant Azad Ansari and co-accused Paras Nath Sahu had caught the said Rajendra Prasad Sahu when he was assaulted by gupti by appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu. His evidence is further to the effect that Rajendra Prasad Sahu fell down as a result of the injury and he along with PWs 9, 3, 4 and 8 lifted him from the place of occurrence but he died in course of taking away only to 4-5 steps from the place of occurrence and his dead-body was kept on the ground. In para 7 of his cross-examination he has deposed that at the time of altercation he was in the western part of the said market and hearing the alarms he rushed to the place of occurrence and reached there within 2-3 minutes and the place of occurrence is in the eastern portion of the said market. He has also deposed that altercation took place in his presence for 2-3 minutes after his arrival and PWs 7, 4, 8 and 3 had already reached there before his arrival. He has also deposed that he was standing at a distance of 5 feet from the place where altercation was going on and the aforesaid persons were also standing at a distance of 5-6 feet from the place of altercation. It is evidence is further to the effect that appellant Jaileshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu came there armed with gupti all of a sudden. PW 9, Lal Bahadur Sahu has deposed that he was in the said market at about 5.00 pm. on the day of the occurrence and he heard alarms when he was 5-6 steps away from the place of occurrence and he went there and saw appellant Azad Ansari and co-accused Paras Nath Sahu catching hold the deceased and appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu gave a blow from gupti on upper portion of the abdomen of the deceased and, thereafter, they all have fled away from there. His evidence is further to the effect that he lifted the said deceased from the place of occurrence and carried him up to 4-5 steps and in that course the deceased died and his dead-body was kept under the Karam tree. In para 5 of his cross-examination he has deposed that occurrence has taken place in the north eastern portion of the market and in course of altercation appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu came there all of a sudden and gave a blow by gupti. He has further deposed that he has witnesses the occurrence from a distance of 5-6 steps from the place of occurrence. He has further deposed that he has witnesses the occurrence from a distance of 5-6 steps from the place of occurrence. PW 4 has also deposed to be present in the said market at the relevant time and had come to the place of occurrence on alarms and saw appellant Azad Ansari and co- accused Paras Nath Sahu catching hold of the deceased and, thereafter, appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu gave a gupti blow on the region of the right lateral chest as a result of which the deceased fell down and they fled away from there. He has also deposed that the deceased was being carried from the place of occurrence but he died after ten steps. In para 4 of his cross- examination he has deposed that he was only 2-3 steps away when the occurrence took place. He has also deposed that he along with other could not try to save the deceased as he was assaulted before he could reach there and the appellants fled away and, thereafter, he reached to the place of occurrence. PW 8 has also deposed that she was present in the said market and she saw the deceased having been caught by appellant Azad Ansari and co- accused Paras Nath Sahu and appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu giving a blow on the region of the right lateral chest of the deceased by gupti and she cried and they fled away from there. She has also deposed that she has reached to the place of occurrence before the arrival of other members of his family. She has also deposed that the deceased was carried towards west to the place of occurrence by her and PW 7, PW 4 and PW 9 beside some other persons. To a pointed question she has categorically deposed that appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu came there all of a sudden and gave a blow and fled away. PW 3 has also deposed that he was present in the said market at the time of the occurrence and he had seen appellant Azad Ansari and co-accused Paras Nath Sahu catching hold of the deceased and appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu giving blow by gupti on the person of the deceased as a result of which he fell down and they all had fled away from there. He has also deposed that the deceased was brought under the Karam tree where he died. In his cross- examination he has deposed that PWs 4, 8 and Anuj beside several persons were present there and he was told that Upendra Sahu i.e. PW 4 and Anuj were the son and nephew of the deceased. It is necessary to mention here that this witness has inadvertently described PW 7, Manoj Kumar Sahu as Anuj. It, therefore, appears from the ocular account of the occurrence as deposed by them that they have all seen the deceased being caught by appellant Azad Ansari and co-accused Paras Nath Sahu when the deceased was given a gupti blow on the region of the right lateral chest by appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu. All those aforesaid witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing material has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their evidence as ocular witness of the occurrence. The nature of the injury found on the person of the deceased as opined by the medical witness had its conformity with the ocular account of the incident of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses regarding the manner of the assault perpetrated by gupti on the region of the lower lateral right chest. PW 11, the IO has deposed to have found the dead-body of the deceased under the Karam tree when he reached the place of occurrence on rumour after making Station Dairy Entry in respect thereof. He has deposed that he has found blood stains on the clothes of the deceased but did not find any blood fallen at the alleged place of occurrence. Some of the ocular witnesses have deposed that blood had fallen at the place of occurrence and their clothes have also become smeared with blood when they had carried the deceased from the place of occurrence and kept his dead-body under the, Karam tree. IO has also deposed that he did not find the blood fallen at the place where the dead-body was found kept. IO has also deposed that he did not find the blood fallen at the place where the dead-body was found kept. Much ado have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in respect thereof in view of the testimony of the medical witnesses that blood will fall on the ground in case of injury caused by penetrating weapon and if the injured died within a minute and the blood will ooze out and fall on the ground in such death within 5-7 minutes of having sustained the injury. It is relevant to mention here that copious blood was found in the thoracic abdominal cavity of the deceased when post-mortem was conducted on his dead-body. There is evidence on the record that the clothes of the deceased were besmeared with blood. There is also evidence on the record that the clothes of the persons had also blood stains thereon who had carried the dead-body of the deceased from the place of occurrence of the Karam tree immediately soon after the occurrence. It is equally relevant to mention here that the place of occurrence is a market where a large number of persons had assembled there and the people were also moving here and there at the place of occurrence since it was a fair day. Therefore, the IO when reached the place of occurrence did not find blood fallen at the place of occurrence and that is whey he could not collect the blood from there. This aspect of the matter cannot be termed as an infirmity of the prosecution case is the facts and circumstances of the place of occurrence having been situated in a market which was a fair day. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in respect thereof has no substance. 14. It has been averred in the Jardbeyan (Ext. 4) of PW 7, the informant that the deceased used to keep vigil and watch over the legal activities of the appellants and for that the appellants were harbouring grudge against him and getting an opportunity they have committed the murder of the deceased. It, therefore, appears from the averment aforesaid that there was enmity existing and alive between the appellants and the deceased prior to the occurrence. It, therefore, appears from the averment aforesaid that there was enmity existing and alive between the appellants and the deceased prior to the occurrence. In para 4 of his evidence PW 7 has deposed that the appellants used to collect rangdari in the said market which was always objected to and protested by the deceased. He has further deposed that the deceased had got a license issued in the name of the co-accused Paras Nath Sahu regarding Public Distribution Shop but on being objected to by the villagers it was cancelled and the license in respect thereof was issued in his (informants) name. He has further deposed that the deceased used to manage contract work for the boys of village for carrying sand, brick and stones which was also objected to by the appellants. The evidence has come on the record that on the fateful day of the occurrence there was a show of cock fight arranged in the said market which was attended by a large number of persons. PW 4 has deposed that the appellants were extorting rangdari tax in the said cock fight from the winners which was objected to by the deceased and there was also enmity between the deceased and the appellants on the question of contract work and the murder of the deceased is a sequel to that enmity. PW 9 in para 2 of his evidence has deposed that there was enmity between the deceased and the appellants on the question of contract work two to three months prior to the occurrence and the occurrence is the sequel to that enmity. Similar is the evidence of PW 8, the widow of the deceased. Therefore, there is legal evidence emanating in the evidence of PWs 7, 9, 4 and 8 which corroborates the motive and genesis of the occurrence of this case. Therefore, the possibility of the deceased having been killed by some unknown person at a different place and bringing his dead-body from there near the Karam tree as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant is totally ruled out in the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of the ocular account of the occurrence as deposed by PWs 7, 9, 8 4 and besides PW 3. In view of the ocular account of the occurrence as deposed by PWs 7, 9, 8 4 and besides PW 3. I have no hesitation to come to the finding that the deceased was done to death as a sequel to the said enmity which was existing and alive between the deceased and the appellants prior to the occurrence. PWs 7, 9, 8 and 4 beside PW 3 had occasion to be present in the said market as per their testimony since it was a fair day in the said market and, therefore, they are natural and competent witnesses of the occurrence and they have occasion to witness the occurrence. Their testimony cannot be simply discarded on the score that there was enmity existing and alive between the deceased and the appellants and the co-accused. I, therefore, see ring of truth in their evidence. It is true that no other witness of the vicinity of the place of occurrence or any other person who were present in the said market and had assembled at the place of occurrence in the course of occurrence has taken oath in this case and for this reason are not very far to seek. There is a common tendency of the outsiders not to get themselves involved in the criminal case and it would be quite natural that no independent witness would come forward to assist the prosecution especially in the case of murder. Therefore, the non-examination of any other witness not related with the deceased cannot be viewed as an infirmity of the prosecution case, And last but not the least, there is some minor and trivial contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the ocular witnesses but these minor and trivial contradictions creeping in the evidence of the ocular witnesses are of not such a magnitude to cast a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of the prosecution case regarding the murder of the deceased in the market. Moreover, the aforesaid trivial inconsistencies and contradictions do not at all touch the core of the case on its proper scrutiny and evaluation. It is equally per- tinent to mention here that appellant Azad Ansari had shared the. Moreover, the aforesaid trivial inconsistencies and contradictions do not at all touch the core of the case on its proper scrutiny and evaluation. It is equally per- tinent to mention here that appellant Azad Ansari had shared the. common intention with appellant Jaleshwar Sahu @ Charka Sahu and his father co-accused Paras Nath Sahu for committing the murder of the deceased as soon after the assault by gupti on the deceased all the three culprits simultaneously fled away from the place of occurrence as deposed by the prosecution witnesses aforesaid. The materials on the record clearly establish the fact that the assault on the deceased has been made in furtherance of the common intention of both the appellants and of co-accused Paras Nath Sahu. There is clinching evidence on the record that in course of assault appellant Azad Ansari had caught the deceased. Therefore, appellant Azad Ansari cannot be absolved of his criminal liability in this case in commission of the murder of the deceased and the learned Court below has rightly come to the finding of his guilt for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, there appears no suspicious circumstances surrounding the fardbeyan of the informant when it was recorded at 7.30 hours where the dead-body of the deceased was lying under the Karam tree and the appearance of the name of co-accused Paras Nath Sahu as a participant in the occurrence in question in the fardbeyan can definitely not to be considered as a suspicious circumstance in view of the fact that by then there was nothing on the record to show that he was dead. The learned Court below has meticulously considered the evidence on the record and has rightly come to the finding of the guilt of both the appellants in the commission of the murder of the deceased. I, therefore, see no illegality in the impugned judgment requiring an interference therein. 15. It is evident from the impugned judgment that the learned Court below has found appellant Azad Ansari guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code but he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code mandates that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code mandates that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore, intention of the legislature is very much explicit that only two types of punishment have been provided for the person found guilty of murder which, is either death or imprisonment for life. In view of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court has only discretion vested in him is either to award capital punishment or imprisonment for life. The Court has no discretion vested in it to award any lesser term of punishment for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Notice for enhancement to show cause was issued against appellant, Azad Ansari regarding enhancement of the sentence imposed against him for conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian. Penal Code. No show cause has been filed on behalf of appellant Azad Ansari for the reasons best known to him. Awarding sentence of ten years imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/34 as ordered by the learned Court below is against the mandate of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code which is not only grossly inadequate but it contravenes the mandate of the law. The learned Court below has committed, a manifest error in awarding ten years rigorous imprisonment to appellant Azad Ansari for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is a fit case in which the sentence imposed against appellant Azad Ansari has to be enhanced. Considering all the pros and cons of the matter and after giving anxious thought on this issue the period of sentence imposed against appellant Azad Ansari is hereby enhanced to life imprisonment. The impugned judgment of the learned Court below is modified to that extent. 16. There is no merit in both the appeals which fail. The impugned judgment of the learned Court below is hereby affirmed with modification as stated above. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The sentenced imposed against appellant Azad Ansari is hereby enhanced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The bail of appellant Azad Ansari is hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned Court below to serve out the sentence. The learned Court below is directed to take all coercive steps to apprehend Azad Ansari for serving out the sentence. Lakshman Uraon, J. I agree.