Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Pd. and Anwar Ahmad JJ. 1. All these appeals arise out of the same judgment and, as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Paro @ Parmanand Kunwar (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2001), Sajjan Sharma (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001) and Shambhu Sharma (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2001), being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2.8.2001 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Naugachia in Sessions Trial No. 764 of 1996, have preferred these appeals. By the said judgment and order, ail the appellants have been held guilty of offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each and one year each respectively. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. It is relevant here to state that by the said judgment one Borahan Rai @ Prabhu Narain Rai was also convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 302, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, but he died during the pendency of the appeal and, as such, his appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 422 of 2001) had abated. 4. Fardbeyan given by Mukesh Kumar (RW. 4) before the Officer-lncharge of Bihpur Police Station at David Door Bahiar at village Marba on 24.11.1994 at 4 P.M. had set the criminal case on motion. According to the informant, on 24.11.1994 at 10 A.M. he alongwith his uncles Narain Kunwar and Bauku Kunwar had gone to sprinkle fertilizer in the maize field at David Door Bahiar. Narain Kunwar had a licenced 3.15 bore weapon. At 2.30 P.M. the work got finished and the labourers left the place. According to the informant, he and his uncle Bauku Kunwar (RW. 6) were chatting about the crop at the outer ridge of the field, in the meanwhile their co-villager Borhan Rai @ Prabhu Narain Rai, Shato Sharma, appellant Shambhu Sharma, Sukesh Kunwar and appellant Paro Kunwar came alongwith 3-4 unknown accused. Borhan Rai was armed with rifle and had garland of cartridges in his neck. 6) were chatting about the crop at the outer ridge of the field, in the meanwhile their co-villager Borhan Rai @ Prabhu Narain Rai, Shato Sharma, appellant Shambhu Sharma, Sukesh Kunwar and appellant Paro Kunwar came alongwith 3-4 unknown accused. Borhan Rai was armed with rifle and had garland of cartridges in his neck. Shato Sharma, who died during the course of trial and appellant Shambhu Sharma were armed with 3.15 bore weapon, whereas Sukesh Kunwar (since absconding) and appellant Paro Kunwar were armed with 303 bore rifle, so also the other 3 to 4 unknown persons. When they came near his uncle, he asked Gunanand Shagai (P.W. 3) to call his men, whereupon Gunanand Shagai moved from there but in the meanwhile Borhan Rai snatched the rifle from his uncle Narain Kunwar and dragged him towards southern direction. Seeing this, the informant and his another uncle Bauku Kunwar (RW. 6) and Gunanand Shagai (P.W. 3) raised alarm and enquired as to why they are dragging him. At this, Borhan Rai resorted to firing and asked the informant and others to return to the village, still they followed them. Informants uncle Narain Rai was taken to a barren- bushy land belonging to Lakshman Mishra. At that time the informant and other witnesses raised alarm, whereupon Borhan Rai stated that he should be killed here, otherwise villagers would collect. After saying so Borhan Rai fired at the abdomen of his uncle Narain Kunwar, who fell down and started tossing. Thereafter appellant Shambhu Sharma and Sukesh Kumar resorted to firing causing injury to his uncle and while his uncle was tossing. Borhan Rai put the weapon near his ear and fired. Borhan Rai left the place saying that the work has been done and also threatened that in case the informant gives evidence, he will meet the same fate. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Bihpur PS. Case No. 229 of 1994 was registered under Sections 302, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. 5. Police after usual investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants herein besides Shato Sharma and Borhan Rai as also Sukesh Kunwar showing him to be absconder. Shato Sharma and Borhan Rai died during the pendency of the trial and appeal respectively. 5. Police after usual investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants herein besides Shato Sharma and Borhan Rai as also Sukesh Kunwar showing him to be absconder. Shato Sharma and Borhan Rai died during the pendency of the trial and appeal respectively. Appellants were ultimately committed to the court of Sessions to face the trial, where they were charged for intentionally committing the murder of Narain Kunwar punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also charged for possessing illegal arms for an unlawful purposes punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. Prosecution in support of its case examined altogether eight witnesses, out of whom RW. 1 Bihari Mandal, P.W. 2 Sadanand Kumar @ Manail Kumar and P.W. 3 Gunanand Sangahi have been declared hostile. P.W. 4 Mukesh Kumar is the informant of the case. He is the nephew of the deceased and claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W. 6 Bauku Kunwar is the brother of the deceased and also claims to be the eye- witness to the occurrence. P.W. 5 Binodanand Kunwar @ Chunnu Kunwar has been examined to corroborate the case of the prosecution. P.W. 7 Dr. Pramod Kumar is a Medical Officer, who had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Narain Kunwar and had proved the said report. P.W. 8 Ranjit Kumar Mishra is the Officer-Incharge of the Police Station as also the Investigating Officer of the case, who had submitted the charge-sheet. 7. Defence of the appellants is denial simplicitor and have pleaded false implication. From the trend of the cross- examination, their defence further seem to be that the deceased has enmity with a large number of persons and he might have been killed by unknown persons. However, no defence witness has been examined. 8. The court below on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable coubt and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 9. P.W. 1 Bihari Mandal and P.W. 2 Sadanand Kumar @ Manail Kumar in their evidence disclosed that they did not know anything about the occurrence nor they have given any statement before the police. Hence they were declared hostile by the prosecution. 9. P.W. 1 Bihari Mandal and P.W. 2 Sadanand Kumar @ Manail Kumar in their evidence disclosed that they did not know anything about the occurrence nor they have given any statement before the police. Hence they were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 3 Gunanand Sangahi is the brother-in-law (deceased wifes brother) and admits to be a witness to the fardbeyan but in his evidence stated that he did not know who killed Narain Kunwar. He was declared hostile and in the cross-examination admitted that his brother-in-law had enmity with a large number of persons. 10. P.W. 4 Mukesh Kumar is the nephew of the deceased and informant of the case. He also claims to be an eye- witness to the occurrence. According to his evidence, he and his uncles Narain Kunwar (deceased) and Bauku Kunwar had gone to David Door Bahiar for sprinkling fertilizer over the maize crop at 10 A.M. His uncle Narain Kunwar was armed with 3.15 bore rifle as also the cartridges. He was carrying the weapon as he had enmity with the accused persons from before. The work of sprinkling of fertilizer got completed at 2.30 PM, when all the women-labourers left the place but Bihari Mandal stayed back. This witness and his uncle Bauku Kunwar (P.W. 6) were chatting at one side of the field whereas another uncle Narain Kunwar (deceased) was on the other side of the field. There P.W. 3 Gunanand Sangahi came and started talking to Narain Kunwar. At this time, Borhan Rai, Shato Sharma, appellant Shambhu Sharma, Sukesh Kumar & appellant Paro Kunwar, besides 3-4 accused persons came near his uncle Narain Kunwar. Borhan Rai was armed with semi-automatic rifle. Shato Sharma and Shambhu Sharma were armed with rifle and the unknown accused persons were armed with 303 bore rifle. His uncle asked Gunanand Sangahi to call the informant and others and the moment he moved, Borhan Rai snatched rifle from Narain Kunwar and started dragging him towards the southern direction. The two witnesses, namely, Bauku Kunwar and Gunanand Sangahi raised alarm and protested as to why he is being dragged, whereupon Borhan Rai fired in the air and threatened to kill them, if they do not return. Still the witnesses followed. Narain Kunwar was dragged in the barren-bushy field of Lakshman Mishra where Borhan Rai stated that he be killed there, otherwise villagers would collect. Still the witnesses followed. Narain Kunwar was dragged in the barren-bushy field of Lakshman Mishra where Borhan Rai stated that he be killed there, otherwise villagers would collect. After this, Borhan Rai shot at his uncle on the abdomen. He fell down and started tossing. Appellant Shambhu Sharma and Sukesh Kumar also fired at him and while his uncle was tossing, Borhan Rai fired at his temple causing his death. According to this witness, the accused persons were threatening that in case anybody gives information about the occurrence, they will meet the same fate. According to this witness, the occurrence had taken place on account of previous enmity. He has also stated that Bihpur P.S. Case No. 3 of 1993 is pending. 11. According to P.W. 4 Mukesh Kumar, he went to the Police Station, gave the information which was recorded by the police and after its contents were read over and explained to him, he put his signature so also Bauku Kunwar and Gunanand Sangahi as witnesses. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that Gunanand Sangahi had gone to the Police Station to give the report and had not gone to the field. He reiterated that Gunanand Sangahi stayed back near the dead body. 12. P.W. 5 Binodanand Kunwar @ Chunnu Kunwar did not claim to be an eye-witness to the occurrence but stated that at about 2.30 P.M. on the date of incident he heard the gun sound and saw appellants Sajjan Sharma and Paro Kunwar fleeing away armed with 3.15 bore rifle and appellant Shambhu Sharma with two rifles from near the place of occurrence. He also found blood stains over the body of Borhan Rai, appellant Shambhu Sharma and Sukesh Kumar. According to him, Borhan Rai while fleeing away was threatening not to give any evidence. When he reached near Narain Kunwar, saw him dead and the witnesses Gunanand Sangahi, Mukesh Kumar and Bauku Kunwar weeping there. Mukesh Kumar disclosed that his uncle was killed by Borhan Rai. He had stated that enmity existed between Narain Kunwar and Borhan Rai, as earlier on two occasions attempts were made to murder Narain Kunwar. 13. P.W. 6 Bauku Kunwar is the brother of the deceased and claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. Mukesh Kumar disclosed that his uncle was killed by Borhan Rai. He had stated that enmity existed between Narain Kunwar and Borhan Rai, as earlier on two occasions attempts were made to murder Narain Kunwar. 13. P.W. 6 Bauku Kunwar is the brother of the deceased and claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. According to him, on the date of occurrence at about 10 A.M. Mukesh Kumar and the deceased had left the village for David Door Bahiar as fertilizer was to be sprinkled in the field of Narain Kunwar. Narain Kunwar was armed with rifle. He was also keeping the cartridges in his waist. At about 2.30 P.M. Gunanand Sangahi came and started talking to Narain Kunwar. After about half an hour Borhan Rai armed with semi automatic rifle, Shato Sharma and appellant Shambhu Sharma with rifle, Sukesh Kunwar and appellant Paro Kunwar with small 303 bore rifle, appellant Sajjan Sharma and other accused variously armed came there. Narain Kunwar asked Gunanand Sangahi to call him and Mukesh Kumar from the ridge of the field, where they were sitting. This witness and Mukesh Kumar reached there raising alarm and protested to the atrocity being committed but all the accused persons surrounded Narain Kunwar. Borhan Rai snatched his licenced arm and dragged him to a barren maize- field in the southern direction. Borhan Rai shot at his abdomen from semi automatic rifle and he fell down. Thereafter appellant Shambhu Sharma and Sukesh Kumar also fired. Borhan Rai fired at his temple causing his death. Borhan Rai left the place saying that goal has been achieved. This witness has also stated about the presence of the witnesses Gunanand Sangahi and Binodanand Kunwar @ Chunnu Kunwar at that place. He has admitted that he as also Gunanand Sangahi were witnesses to the fardbeyan. In the cross-examination, he has further stated that he sent P.W. 4 Mukesh Kumar to the Sub-Inspector of Police but he remained near the dead body. 14. P.W. 7 Dr. Pramod Kumar, at the relevant time was posted as Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Naugachia, and had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Narain Kunwar on 25.11.1994 and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Lacerated injury in front of left tragus 1/2" x 1/2" communicating wound Jo right side of face, inverted margin i.e. wound of entry. (ii) Lacerated injury beside left side of eye 1/4" x 1/4" communicating wound to the right side of face, inverted margin i.e. wound of entry. (iii) Whole right side of face lacerated with fracture of frontal and facial bone, brain material coming out, all soft tissues lacerated right side of face. Exit of injury nos.(i) and (ii). (iv) Lacerated injury over back of left thigh 1/4" x 1/4" communicating wound to front of left leg laterally, inverted margin wound of entry. (v) Lacerated injury over front of left thigh, laterally 1/2" x 1/2" communicating to back of left thigh, inverted margin wound of exit. (vi) Lacerated injury laterally to auxiliary line left side over last rib 1/4" x 1/4" communicating to the exit wound i.e. wound of entry. (vii) Lacerated injury near umblicus 1" x 1/2" communicating to the entry wound i.e. wound of exit. (viii) Lacerated injury back of left chest over 9th inter coastal space 1/4" x 1/4" communicating to the exit wound i.e. wound of entry. (ix) Lacerated injury near umblicus 1" x 1/2" communicating to wound of entry i.e. wound of exit. (x) Lacerated injury just above left inguinal region left side, inverted margin 1/4" x 1/4" communicating to wound of exit i.e. wound of entry. (xi) Lacerated injury over umblicus 1/2"x 1/2" communicating to wound of entry i.e. wound of exit. 15. In the opinion of the doctor, death had occurred due to above injuries which were caused by firearms within 24 hours of the examination. He has also proved the post mortem report (Ext.-4). 16. P.W. 8 Ranjit Kumar Mishra, at the relevant time was posted as Junior Sub-Inspector at Bihpur Police Station. He conducted the investigation, recorded the statement of the witnesses, visited the place of occurrence and ultimately submitted the charge-sheet. He had found blood stains near the dead body of Narain Kunwar. He had identified the writing and signature of Sub-Inspector of Police Ram Shankar Prasad on the first information report and proved the same. He had also stated that fard-beyan was recorded by the Probationer Sub-Inspector Mahesh Prasad and had identified his writing as also the signature of the Officer-lncharge on the same. He had also identified the writing and signature of the Probationer Sub-Inspector Mahesh Prasad on the seizure list (Ext.-1) and the Inquest report (Ext.-2). He had also stated that fard-beyan was recorded by the Probationer Sub-Inspector Mahesh Prasad and had identified his writing as also the signature of the Officer-lncharge on the same. He had also identified the writing and signature of the Probationer Sub-Inspector Mahesh Prasad on the seizure list (Ext.-1) and the Inquest report (Ext.-2). In the cross-examination, he had stated that the distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence is about 7 kilometers and he had reached at the place of occurrence on hearing the gun sound. 17. Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, appears on behalf of the appellants, whereas State is represented by Mr. Lata Kailash Bihari Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor. 18. Mr. Singh contends that the fardbeyan (Ext.-3) is a spurious and doubtful document collusively brought into existence subsequently in collusion with the police. In this connection, he has drawn our attention to the evidence of P.W. 4 Mukesh Kumar in his examination-in-chief itself wherein he has stated that he gave the information about the occurrence at the Police Station which was reduced in writing there and after it was read over to him he put his signature as also the two witnesses, namely, P.W. 3 Gunanand Sangahi and P.W. 6 Bauku Kunwar. Our attention has also been drawn to the evidence of the informant wherein he has stated that Gunanand Sangahi did not go to the Police Station and stayed back near the dead body and the evidence of P.W. 6 Bauku Kunwar where he has admitted that he stayed at the place of occurrence near the dead body. From the evidence of the informant according to Mr. Singh, it is evident that the fardbeyan was recorded at the Police Station. He emphasizes as to how in such circumstance P.W. 3 Gunanand Sangahi and P.W. 6 Bauku Kunwar could be witnesses to the fardbeyan, when none of them had gone to the Police Station. He points out that from the evidence of P.W. 8, it is clear that he got the copy of the fardbeyan from the Officer-lncharge of the Police Station and the same was recorded by the said Officer-lncharge at David Door Bahiar and not at the Police Station. 19. Mr. Prasad, however, submits that the evidence of the informant that the fardbeyan was given at the Police Station is not correct. 19. Mr. Prasad, however, submits that the evidence of the informant that the fardbeyan was given at the Police Station is not correct. He submits that the fardbeyan in fact was recorded at the place of occurrence i.e. David Door Bahiar. 20. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. From the evidence of P.W. 8 Ranjit Kumar Mishra, it is evident that when he reached the place of occurrence he was handed over a true copy of the fardbeyan which was recorded by the Officer-lncharge of the Police Station at David Door Bahiar at 4 P.M. This finds support from the fardbeyan itself, in which it has been disclosed that the fardbeyan was recorded at David Door Bahiar and further from the evidence of P.W. 6 Bauku Kunwar, who had stated that after the arrival of the Sub-Inspector of Police, informant gave statement and the informant, as also this witness and Gunanand Sangahi put their signatures. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the fardbeyan is not a genuine document. 21. Mr. Singh then submits that according to the prosecution itself at the instance of the Officer-lncharge Rameshwar Prasad, the fardbeyan was recorded by Probationer Sub-Inspector Mahesh Prasad Singh, but both of them have not been examined which renders the prosecution story highly redolent with doubt and suspicion. 22. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. P.W. 8 Ranjit Kumar Mishra, who is the Investigating Officer of the case, has stated that the fardbeyan is in the writing of Probationer Sub-Inspector aforesaid which bears the signature of the Sub-Inspector of Police Rameshwar Prasad. Their signatures and writings have been proved. It is P.W. 8 Ranjit Kumar Mishra, who is the Investigating Officer of the case and, as such, mere non-examination of the Police Officer, who had recorded the fardbeyan and in whose writing the fardbeyan is written, in no way creates any doubt to the case of the prosecution. 23. Mr. Singh points out that according to the informant, his fardbeyan was recorded at the Police Station and what has been produced in the court is the fardbeyan recorded at the place of occurrence. Accordingly, he submits that the prosecution had withheld the earliest information given to the police in regard to the occurrence. 24. 23. Mr. Singh points out that according to the informant, his fardbeyan was recorded at the Police Station and what has been produced in the court is the fardbeyan recorded at the place of occurrence. Accordingly, he submits that the prosecution had withheld the earliest information given to the police in regard to the occurrence. 24. I am of the opinion that no fardbeyan in fact was recorded at the Police Station and hence there is no question of the prosecution withholding the same. P.W. 8 Ranjit Kumar Mishra had clearly stated that the fardbeyan was recorded at the place of occurrence which also finds support from the evidence of P.W. 6 Bauku Kunwar, the witness to the fardbeyan as also the fardbeyan itself which shows that it was recorded at the place of occurrence. Thus, in my opinion, no fardbeyan was recorded at the Police Station and hence there is no question of withholding the same. Accordingly, I reject this submission of the learned Counsel. 25. Mr. Singh submits that P.W. 1 Bihari Mandal, whose presence at the place of occurrence is admitted by the informant, had not supported the case of the prosecution so also P.W. 3 Gunanand Sangahi, a witness named in the first information report and a relation of the deceased. This, according to Mr. Singh, is sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution. 26. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. Both the witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross- examined. True it is that the evidence of a hostile witness is not wiped out from the record and can be taken into consideration. But in my opinion merely the witnesses mentioned in the first information report if declared hostile, itself shall not create any doubt to the case of the prosecution. In my opinion, other evidence on record if worthy of reliance, conviction can be recorded. 27. Mr. Singh points out that conviction of the appellants is mainly based on the two eye-witnesses, namely, P.W. 4 Mukesh Kumar and P.W. 6 Bauku Kunwar as also P.W. 5 Binodanand Kunwar, who has been examined to corroborate the case of the prosecution. Mr. Singh submits that claim made by P.W. 6 Bauku Kunwar to be an eye-witness to the occurrence is absolutely false. Mr. Singh submits that claim made by P.W. 6 Bauku Kunwar to be an eye-witness to the occurrence is absolutely false. He points out that he is the full brother of the deceased, who was with him in the field when the appellants arrived with firearms. It has also been pointed out that according to the prosecution itself, the deceased was killed on account of previous enmity and had it been so, the appellants would have not left this witness unharmed to be witness in the case later. For the same reason according to Mr. Singh, the informant Mukesh Kumar, who happens to be the nephew of the deceased, ought not to have been left cut. He submits that nothing prevented the appellants to kill both of them and wipe out the witnesses. 28. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. Human behaviour had always been a mystery to human beings. It is difficult for the prosecution so also the Court to enter into the hearts of the appellants and ascertain reason which prevailed with them for not causing the murder of the witnesses. These witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination and there is nothine on record to discredit their evidence. 29. Mr. Singh submits that had P.W. 5 Binodanand Kunwar seen the appellants fleeing away, his name ought to have been shown in the first information report as a witness. He also points out that this witness had met the informant Mukesh Kumar and, as such, in normal course his name ought to have been shown in the first information report. Our attention has also been drawn to paragraph 3 of his cross-examination where he has stated that he had not disclosed the names of the appellants to the police when he was examined 10 to 20 days after the occurrence. 30. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. Only on the ground that the name of P.W. 5 Binodanand Kunwar is not mentioned in the first information report, itself, in no way discredit his evidence. He has clearly stated in his evidence that he saw the appellants fleeing away from the place of occurrence variously armed having blood stains on their bodies. He has also asserted that after the incident he disclosed that he saw the appellants fleeing away from the place of occurrence. He has clearly stated in his evidence that he saw the appellants fleeing away from the place of occurrence variously armed having blood stains on their bodies. He has also asserted that after the incident he disclosed that he saw the appellants fleeing away from the place of occurrence. This witness has withstood the test of cross-examination and I am not inclined to discard his evidence only on the ground that his name is not mentioned in the first information report. 31. Mr. Singh lastly submits that the medical evidence is highly inconsistent and incompatible with the prosecution story. According to him, Borhan Rai fired a shot in the abdomen from his semi automatic rifle but no such injury has been found by P.W. 7 Dr. Pramod Kumar, who conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. He also points out that according to the prosecution itself, Borhan Rai fired by putting muzzle of the weapon close to the ear and had it been so, entire head of the deceased would had blown off and further caused charring. It has also been pointed out that during the post mortem examination, lacerated injury over back of left thigh was found on the person of the deceased, but the said injury has not been explained at all. 32. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. P.W. 4 Mukesh Kumar and RW. 6 Bauku Kunwar have not stated in their evidence that firing made by Borhan Rai in the abdominal region in fact hit him there and caused any injury. Further evidence of witness has to be appreciated not literally. In my opinion when the witnesses have stated that Borhan Rai fired touching (satakar) the muzzle at the temple of the deceased, it does not mean that in fact there was no space in between. In my opinion what the witnesses meant was that deceased was fired from a close distance. 33. RW. 4 Mukesh Kumar and P.W. 6 Bauku Kunwar claim to be the eye- witnesses to the occurrence. They were with the deceased at the time of occurrence and have stated about the role played by the appellants. There is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their evidence. 33. RW. 4 Mukesh Kumar and P.W. 6 Bauku Kunwar claim to be the eye- witnesses to the occurrence. They were with the deceased at the time of occurrence and have stated about the role played by the appellants. There is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their evidence. Further their evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 5 Binodanand Kunwar, who had seen the appellants with blood stains on their bodies fleeing away from the place of occurrence. P.W. 4 Mukesh Kumar had disclosed the name of the appellants to P.W. 5 Binodanand Kunwar, immediately after he arrived there after the incident. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses also find support from the evidence of P.W. 7 Dr. Pramod Kumar, who had found injuries on the person of the deceased as disclosed by them. The Investigating Officer of the case P.W. 8 Ranjit Kumar Mishra had found blood stains at the place of occurrence. From the aforesaid, I have no manner of doubt that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the court below rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 34. In the result, I do not find any merit in these appeals and are dismissed, accordingly. Appellants Paro alias Parmanand Kunwar (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 391 of 2001) and Sajjan Sharma (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 394 of 2001) are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender and serve out the sentence.