JUDGMENT (ORAL) Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J. 1. Appellant Prabhat Kumar Singh who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 148 and 302. IPC and been directed to undergo R.I. for two years as well as. R.I. for life respectively appellants Bharat Singh, Suchit Singh, Dilip Kumar Singh (since deceased) and Bachu Singh (since deceased) have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 147, 302/149 of the IPC and further been directed to undergo R.I. for one year. R.I. for life respectively appellant Bharat Singh, Dilip Kumar Singh (since deceased), Suchit Singh, Prabhat Kumar Singh, Bachu Singh (since deceased) have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for two years vide judgment dated 13.07.1990 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions judge Bhojpur at Arrah 'in Sessions Trial No. 299/1988 have preferred instant appeals. Accordingly they have been heard together and the appeals are being disposed off by common judgment. 2. PW-2 Shakaldeep Singh gave his fardbeyan (Exhibit-5) on 27.04.1987, 05.30 p.m. while he was admitted at State Dispensary, Bihea before S.I. Bihea alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 04:00 p.m. while his elder brother Pradeep Singh (deceased) was returning from his orchard lying East to his house and as soon as reached near ditch lying behind his house, all on a sudden Bharat Singh, Suchit Singh, Prabhat Kumar Singh, Dilip Kumar Singh, Bachu Singh hedged him. He rushed to that place. Meanwhile they all have assaulted Pradeep Singh who felled down and then he too was assaulted by them. On his cry Bhuneshwar Singh (not examined), Ram Pravesh Singh (not examined), Mritunjay Singh (not examined). Ram Kumar Singh (not examined) along with others came. Then thereafter, Prabhat Kumar Singh hurled bomb over his brother causing injury upon him and during said course, he (Prabhat Kumar Singh) also sustained injury. Thereafter he along with his brother were lifted to Bihea hospital and from there his brother has been referred to Arrah Sadar Hospital. Land dispute has been shown to be motive for commission of occurrence. 3. Thereafter he along with his brother were lifted to Bihea hospital and from there his brother has been referred to Arrah Sadar Hospital. Land dispute has been shown to be motive for commission of occurrence. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Bihea P.S. Case No. 64 of 1987, was registered followed with investigation during course of which, as is evident Pradeep Singh succumb to his injury and on account thereof, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants named above for the offences including that of murder and on account thereof they were put un trial which ultimately culminated in their conviction which happens to be the subject matter of these appeals. 4. The defence as is evident from the mode of cross-examination as well as from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete denial of occurrence as well as of innocence. There has also been plea of alibi on behalf of appellants Suchit Singh. However, the appellants examined four witnesses and exhibited series of documents not only confining the plea of alibi relating to appellant Suchit Singh rather counter version had also been brought up on record. 5. Because of the fact that certain glaring defect has been pointed out as well as perceived by us while going through the judgment impugned therefore the elaborate argument raised on behalf of rival parties are forbidden. From the L.C. record. it is evident that altogether nine PWs have been examined who are Durgawati Devi, Shakaldeep Singh, Ram Bahadur Singh, Birendra Singh, Dr. G.P. Shrivastawa. Dr. S.P. Shrivastawa. Basudeo Prasad Singh. Dr. Gorakh Nath Prasad. Murat Ram but from the L.C. record it is evident that they have not been shown in seriatim manner and it appears that on account thereof certain deficiencies cropped up. The learned lower Court in stead of taking into account stock of nine witnesses had considered presence of only eight witnesses as is evident from para-11 of the judgment. Durgawati Devi was examined on 24.01.1989. Shakaldeep Singh was examined on 24.02.1989. Ram Bahadur Singh was examined on 05.04.1989. Birendra Singh was examined on 07.04.1989. Dr. G.P. Shrivastawa as well as Dr. S.P. Shrivastawa was examined on 14.06.1989. Dr. Gorakh Nath Prasad was examined on 21.08.1989. Murat Ram was examined on 05.12.1989 while Basudeo Prasad Singh was examined on 09.02.1990. Durgawati Devi was examined on 24.01.1989. Shakaldeep Singh was examined on 24.02.1989. Ram Bahadur Singh was examined on 05.04.1989. Birendra Singh was examined on 07.04.1989. Dr. G.P. Shrivastawa as well as Dr. S.P. Shrivastawa was examined on 14.06.1989. Dr. Gorakh Nath Prasad was examined on 21.08.1989. Murat Ram was examined on 05.12.1989 while Basudeo Prasad Singh was examined on 09.02.1990. This Basudeo Prasad Singh happens to be the Investigating Officer but surprisingly neither the learned trial Court perceived his presence during trial nor taken into consideration his evidence and that is itself evident from para-19 of the judgment impugned. This lapses show clear indication of non-sincerity of the learned trial Court while dictating the judgment and on account of such lapses the judgment impugned cannot sustain its identity. Not only this, the judgment impugned also shows that the learned lower Court had not proceeded with and discussed evidence of prosecution witnesses in correct manner. 6. We have on our own gave anxious look to the deficiencies as pointed out earlier and even though made sincere efforts to proceed within a way to finally dispose of these appeals but as there happens to be inherent defect persisting in the judgment impugned, which goes to the root of the case, which could not be found to be curable at this stage without having re-appreciation by the learned trial Court hence we find constraint in deciding this appeal on its merit even acknowledging the period of pendency of appeal for such long period. 7. As such, we are compelled to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and remand the matter to the learned trial Court to proceed afresh from the stage of argument and will conclude the same by delivering judgment in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Appellants are directed to be physically present before the Court concerned on 12.02.2013 with a prayer of bail. The learned lower Court will take in to account the status of the appellants enjoying the privilege during intervening period at the time of consideration of the prayer. The trial Court will also correct the serial number of the witnesses in accordance with their production and examination. 8. This appeal is disposed of in terms as referred above. Appeal disposed of