JUDGMENT 1. Since both the appeals, arise out of common judgment, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.6.2002 and 18.6.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC II Palamu, Daltonganj in Sessions trial No. 12/95, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty under Sections 302/201 and 449, IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for life under Section 302/34, IPC, RI for three years under Section 201, IPC and three years RI under Section 449, IPC. 3. The brief facts leading to the appeals are that during intervening night between 10 and 11th September, 1990 the informant Rama Mahto was sleeping inside his house when someone called him from outside to open the door. It is further stated that when he enquired who was calling, the appellant Puran Manjhi named himself and requested him to open the door, as he intended to save the life of his brother Sitaram Mahto, who was being searched by the dacotts. Accordingly the informant opened the door and saw outside his house the appellant along with 3-4 persons standing. The informant saw two of them carrying guns. After this he informed the appellant that Sitarams house was situated nearby. The appellant and his companions went towards the house of Sitaram while two of the assailants were standing with the informant. Shortly he found that his brother Sitaram was being dragged by those assailants, his hands were tied behind and assaulted with the butt of the gun. They brought his brother near a well and assaulted him variously saying that he used to commit theft and dacoity bringing bad name to them. According to the informant, they fatally assaulted Sitaram and threw him inside the well. After some time ensuring that Sitaram died, the assailants left the place. The incident was seen by PWs 6 and 7, wife of the informant and deceased respectively. 4. The informant reported this matter at Tarhasi TOP of Manatu P.S. at 6.15 a.m. His statement was recorded by ASI, on the basis of which Manatu P.S. Case No. 45/90 was registered under Section 302/201, IPC against three named persons and some unknown persons. 4. The informant reported this matter at Tarhasi TOP of Manatu P.S. at 6.15 a.m. His statement was recorded by ASI, on the basis of which Manatu P.S. Case No. 45/90 was registered under Section 302/201, IPC against three named persons and some unknown persons. The police recovered the dead body from the well, prepared inquest report and investigated the case to finally submit charge-sheet against four persons, Maldeo Mahto, Jharnan Mahto, appellant Puran Manjhi and appellant Sarju Mahto. During pendency of trial Jhaman Mahto died while Maldeo Mahto was acquitted. However, appellants Puran Manjhi and Sarju Mahto were found and held guilty under Sections 302, 201 and 449, IPC. Both the convicts preferred appeals separately. Cr. Appeal No. 376/2002 preferred by Sarju Mahto is taken up for disposal along with Cr. Appeal No. 1220/2006 filed by Puran Manjhi. The present appeal was admitted after condoning the delay. However, when the appeals were taken up for final disposal, on the request of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both the appellants, it was informed that said Sarju Mahto has already died during pendency of the appeal. In this regard it is submitted that Sarju Mahto was aged about 90 years who was granted bail because of his old age during pendency of the appeal on 7.8.2002. As such, the appeal preferred by appellant Sarju Mahto, Cr. Appeal No. 376/2002 stands abated. 5. The learned Counsel appearing in Cr. Appeal No. 1220/2006 preferred by appellant Puran Manjhi, has assailed the judgment of the trial Court on various grounds including that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against this appellant beyond reasonable doubts. According to the appellant, the witnesses examined by the prosecution contradicted each other on materials points. It is also submitted that the post-mortem does not support the allegations regarding assault on the deceased as well as prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the occurrence. It is also stressed that in absence of IO, who was not examined during trial, the defence has been prejudiced. 6. Mr. It is also submitted that the post-mortem does not support the allegations regarding assault on the deceased as well as prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the occurrence. It is also stressed that in absence of IO, who was not examined during trial, the defence has been prejudiced. 6. Mr. S.P. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, tired to point out that in absence of any independent witness, the reliance placed by the learned trial Court upon related and interested witnesses was not justified particularly in view of the fact when land dispute between the family of the informant and the present appellant has been brought on record. It is also pointed out that the assertion of the informant that appellant named himself appears to be absurd because no person, who goes to commit an offence, would like to disclose his identity to the family of the deceased or informant. In this context, the learned Counsel drew our attention towards the TIP held for identification of the appellant after two years of the occurrence. 7. Mrs. Banani Verma, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, vehemently opposed the submission made on behalf of the appellant. According to Mrs. Verma, the appellant himself has asserted in his statement under Section 313, Cr PC that he was well known to the informant and his family. Therefore, the doubt raised regarding identification and disclosure of the name of the appellant is of no assistance to the defence. She further asserted that in view of the specific evidence of PWs 1, 6 and 7, the guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. 8. We have carefully gone through the materials on record. The learned trial Court has dealt with all the materials available on the lower Court records. We have also gone through the evidences of the witnesses. PW 1, the informant, PW 6, Binda Devi and PW 7, Demanti Kuer are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The informant has been able to support his earlier statement made before the police in fardbeyan that when the appellant called out from outside to open the door he identified him along with accused Maldeo and Sarju. He has also named Jhaman along with appellants. The informant has been able to support his earlier statement made before the police in fardbeyan that when the appellant called out from outside to open the door he identified him along with accused Maldeo and Sarju. He has also named Jhaman along with appellants. His version has been supported by PWs 6 and 7 that the assailants including the appellants went to the house of the deceased situated nearby and dragged him out beating and finally threw the deceased inside the well after killing him. The incident is said to have taken place in a remote village in the dead of night between 10-11th September, 1990. The learned Counsel for the appellant criticized the prosecution story on the ground that even in village when anything occurred like this, the villagers would assemble and might have seen the materials. We do not find substance in the submission as in a remote village, where fear of extremists as well as dacoits prevails, normally no neighbour or villager would dare to come out in the dead of night. The informant has asserted in his evidence that he tried to approach the neighbour, who refused to come out to save the deceased and to bring him out of the well. The police came just after recording of the fardbeyan at 6.15 a.m. and got the dead body recovered in presence of the witnesses PWs 2, 3 and 4, who have signed over the inquest report. The doctor, PW 9 has found the injuries on the head of the deceased, which in his view, was sufficient to cause death. The doctor further found that stomach did not contain water. Therefore, it is apparent that death of Sitaram has already taken place with the assault on his head before he was thrown inside the well. The ligature mark found on the elbow and hands supports the prosecution story that his hands were tied during assault by the assailants. 9. The suggestion that appellant has been implicated falsely due to previous dispute for landed property between the families of Maldeo, already acquitted, and the lather of the informant and deceased appears to be far fetched. The ligature mark found on the elbow and hands supports the prosecution story that his hands were tied during assault by the assailants. 9. The suggestion that appellant has been implicated falsely due to previous dispute for landed property between the families of Maldeo, already acquitted, and the lather of the informant and deceased appears to be far fetched. The appellant claimed to be related with said Maldeo, however, he specifically asserted in is statement under Section 313, Cr PC that he was well known to the informant much before the occurrence during his examination by the trial Court on 18.4.1996. Thus the question that he has been falsely implicated on suspicion or after thought do not appear to be convincing. We have further scrutinized the statements of PWs 1, 6 and 7 at length. These witnesses were cross-examined in which they denied to know the appellant from before. According to these witnesses the identity of the present appellant was disclosed himself by calling from outside. They further identified this appellant when he was produced in TIP. We further find that except some minor contradictions, these witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination. Even if the defence story is believed, enmity cuts both ways. The trial Court has considered all these aspects and finally held the appellant guilty. 10. Having scrutinized the materials on record, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly found and held the appellant Puran Manjhi guilty under Section 302/201/449, IPC. 11. In the result, we find the present Cr. Appeal No. 1220/2006 is without merit. The conviction of the appellant as well as sentenced imposed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. The appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed.