JUDGMENT : R. Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Since the appellants have challenged a common judgment dated 7.9.2010 through separate appeals, both the appeals are therefore being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants in the instant appeals have challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 7.9.2010, passed by Sri Srikant Roy, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 3. The prosecution story arising out of an FIR instituted by the informant-Gayatri Devi is that on 3.12.2006, while she was sleeping in her house along with her family members, there was a knock at the door and on being asked by the informant, accused-Binod Sharma had disclosed that some guests have come to his house and therefore her husband’s help is required for doing some work. It has been alleged that the husband of the informant namely Ranjit Sharma had subsequently accompanied Binod Sharma to his house which is at a distance of 100 yards. It has also been alleged that after sometime, Binod Sharma once again came and had taken away the motorcycle of Ranjit Sharma on the pretext that he has to go to the market. Further allegation has been levelled that after 20-25 minutes when the informant went to the house of the appellant, she saw her husband lying on the road and the accused persons were assaulting him with knife, tangi and farsa. On alarm, several persons had come and had seen the occurrence. Later on husband of the informant had succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Jamua P.S. Case No. 258 of 2006 was instituted for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet under section 302/34 and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and after the case was committed to the court of Sessions, charge was framed under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the appellants, whereas a separate charge was framed under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant-Binod Sharma, to which both the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. 5. During the trial, eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 6. P.W-1-Harihar Ram is a witness to the seizure list of cloths worn by the deceased. This witness is formal in nature. 7. P.W-2-Ghanshyam Pandit has stated that on the date of occurrence, he was sleeping in his house at 9.30 P.M. when he woke up on hearing the cry of alarm of the deceased, his wife and mother and when he went near the door of the appellant-Binod Sharma, deceased had disclosed that the appellant and one Babulal had stabbed him with a knife. He has further deposed that the distance between his house and the house of the deceased is about 200 ft. He has further stated that house of Binod Sharma is just behind the house of this witness and when he reached the place of occurrence, the informant, the deceased and mother of the deceased were already present there. In paragraph 8 of the cross-examination, he has stated that the deceased was in an unconscious state. He has stated that he had taken the deceased, the informant and mother of the deceased to the hospital and thereafter he left. 8. P.W-3-Khagia Devi is the mother of the deceased who has stated that on the date of occurrence she was with her husband in her room and her son and daughter in law were in another room. She has disclosed that Binod Sharma had knocked at the door and her son had accompanied Binod Sharma since it was stated that some relatives had come to his house. She has further deposed that after five minutes, Binod Sharma took the motorcycle on the pretext that some necessities have to be brought from the market. This witness has stated that after sometime the informant asked her to accompany her and to see as to why the deceased had not returned. She went along with her daughter in law when she saw her son lying in front of the door of Binod Sharma. She has stated that Binod Sharma had a knife in his hand and the wife of the appellant (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 840 of 2010) and the father of Binod Sharma were armed with a farsa and tangi respectively. She has stated that Binod Sharma had a knife in his hand and the wife of the appellant (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 840 of 2010) and the father of Binod Sharma were armed with a farsa and tangi respectively. She has stated that her husband had sold two decimals of land of Binod Sharma, for which he was never paid and the deceased had several times demanded the said amount from Binod Sharma, which was the motive for the occurrence. She has also stated that the deceased was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that it was a dark night and when she reached the place of occurrence, her son was unconscious and was lying in a pool of blood. She has stated that by the time, the villagers had reached the place of occurrence the accused persons had already fled away. In paragraph 3 of her evidence, this witness has disclosed that when they had reached the place of occurrence, her son was conscious and she had seen the occurrence. 9. P.W-4-Dr. Suresh Brahmachari was posted at Sadar Hospital, Giridih as Civil Assistant Surgeon on 4.12.2006 and he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ranjit Sharma. This witness had found the following injuries :- (i) One stitched wound over left cheek with three stitches, on cutting the stitch, margins were found sharp cut and was the muscle. (ii) Stitched wound 1/2” in length over the mid chest (iii) Stitched wound 2” over the left forearm. (iv) Stitched wound 1/2” in length over left elbow. (v) Stitched wound 1/2” in length over left axilla. (vi) Multiple stitched wound over the back 1/2” & 1 1/2” over just lateral in the left side of mid line and back deep to the Thorasic cavity total five in number. (vii) Two stitched around over the left plann of abdomen. (iv) Stitched wound 1/2” in length over left elbow. (v) Stitched wound 1/2” in length over left axilla. (vi) Multiple stitched wound over the back 1/2” & 1 1/2” over just lateral in the left side of mid line and back deep to the Thorasic cavity total five in number. (vii) Two stitched around over the left plann of abdomen. (viii) One stitched wound 1/2” in length over the back of the neck after the remaining stitches the margins of all wound were found clean cut and red in colour and deep in the muscle except one over the left side of the back which was through and through to the left thoric cavity (Inj) On dissection, it was found as follows :- Skull and Cranium intact Brain-Pale Lyranx and Itachea-intact but p. Left Thoracic Cavity-pull of blood and blood clots with puncture & heart lungs pale Heart empty All abdominal viscera were pale stomach contained full diet. Rice and flesh. No pungent smell but mild smell of alcohol was present in the content of stomach. Mucosa of stomach-N A D V.B. was empty The cause of death, which was opined by this witness as follows:- Cause of death-shock of hemorrhage due to A.M. injuries mentioned about caused by sharp cutting & pointing object- Time elapsed since death till P.M. Examination-within 24 hours. 10. P.W-5-Pramod Kumar Sharma is the younger brother of the deceased who is a witness to the seizure of the motorcycle of the deceased recovered under a Mahua tree near Dabarsaini More. This witness had signed on the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext-3. 11. P.W-6-Laxman Sharma is also a seizure list witness with respect to the seizure of the motorcycle of the deceased. This witness has proved his signature in the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext-3/1. 12. P.W-7-Gayatri Devi is the informant and the wife of the deceased. She had disclosed that it was a Sunday and she was sleeping at about 9.30 P.M. along with her husband when there was a knock at the door and on being enquired the person disclosed his name as Binod Sharma. She has stated that her husband was taken away by Binod Sharma on the pretext that some relatives have come to his house. She has stated that her husband was taken away by Binod Sharma on the pretext that some relatives have come to his house. She has further stated that after five minutes, Binod Sharma once again came and took away the Boxer Motorcycle of the deceased and when after 15-20 minutes when the husband of this witness did not return she along with her mother in law(P.W-3) went to the house of Binod Sharma. She has deposed that when they reached near the house of Binod Sharma she found her husband lying on the road and the accused persons were assaulting him with knife. When she and her mother in law(P.W-3) started shouting, the accused persons fled away. Subsequently, her husband was taken in a Car to the police station where she was advised to take him to Giridih hospital and at Giridih hospital, her husband breathed his last. In cross-examination, she has stated that there are a number of houses in the vicinity of the house of this witness and the distance between her house and that of Binod Sharma is 100 yards. She has stated that the night was not dark and when she went to the place of occurrence, she had found her husband lying in a pool of blood. She has deposed that when she reached the place of occurrence with her mother in law, there was no one except the accused persons but subsequently several persons had assembled on hearing the cry of alarm. She has further deposed in her cross-examination that her husband had 15-20 injuries on his person. She has stated that her husband was crying for water and thereafter he became unconscious. This witness has also stated that her father in law had facilitated the sale of land of Binod Sharma and her husband used to demand money. She has further stated that she had not given any LIC documents in the office and that her husband had insurance coverage. 13. P.W-8-Valence Minz is the Investigating Officer of the case who has stated that on 8.12.2006 he was posted as officer in charge of Jamua Police Station. This witness has proved the fardbeyan marked as Ext-5. She has further stated that she had not given any LIC documents in the office and that her husband had insurance coverage. 13. P.W-8-Valence Minz is the Investigating Officer of the case who has stated that on 8.12.2006 he was posted as officer in charge of Jamua Police Station. This witness has proved the fardbeyan marked as Ext-5. He has further stated that after instituting the case he took over investigation, recorded the re-statement of the informant and inspected the place of occurrence which is at village-Manakdiha in the house of the informant and the front of the house of Binod Sharma. This witness has described the place of occurrence and he had also recorded the statement of Bhuneshwar Ram, Rajendra, Dular, Madan, Ghanshyam Pandit. He has stated that the accused persons were arrested on 10.2.2006. He had seized the shirt and trouser of the deceased and the seizure list was marked as Ext-7. He had also seized the motorcycle of the deceased bearing registration no. JH02C 2142 and the seizure list pertaining to the recovery of the motorcycle has been proved and marked as Ext-8. After obtaining the postmortem report of the deceased, he had submitted charge-sheet. 14. The appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. to which the appellants denied of being involved in the offence. 15. The defence had examined two witnesses on its behalf. D.W-1-Janki Rana is the father in law of Binod Sharma who has stated that the informant had disclosed that she had gone to the LIC office for making application for withdrawal of money. He has stated that the informant had given him the photo copy of the said application. 16. D.W-2-Ghulam Mustafa has deposed that the informant had taken out a LIC Policy and she had submitted the application through an agent-Pramod Ram Gupta. 17. Since the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the appellants were convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 7.9.2010 and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. However, the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 932 of 2010 was acquitted from the charge under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Mr. K.N. Roy, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner as alleged. However, the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 932 of 2010 was acquitted from the charge under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Mr. K.N. Roy, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner as alleged. He has submitted that in the Fardbeyan, specific allegation had been levelled against the appellants of committing the murder of Ranjit Kumar Sharma which was witnessed by the informant and her mother in law but in course of trial such allegation appears to have been completely demolished since it was deposed that at the time when P.Ws. 3 and 7 had reached the place of occurrence, the deceased was in an unconscious state. Learned counsel further submits that the entire conviction of the appellants is based upon the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 7 but since there appears to be vital contradictions in their evidence with respect to the presence of the appellants at the time of the incident, benefit of doubt should accrue to the appellants. Learned counsel submits that admittedly there is no eye witness to the occurrence and in view of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 7, both of them cannot be said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. Learned counsel has also referred to the evidence of P.W-2 by stating that P.W-2 is an independent eye witness who had also stated in his cross-examination that when he reached the place of occurrence, the deceased was in an unconscious state. Learned counsel submits that some unknown persons had committed the murder of the deceased but the prosecution has unnecessarily dragged the appellants without there being any iota of evidence which would suggest their involvement in commission of the offence. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that although it has been stated that several persons had assembled on hearing the cry of alarm, which fact has been supported by the Investigating officer who had recorded the statement of several independent witnesses but it appears that the prosecution has produced only one witness namely Ghanshyam Pandit,P.W-2 while leaving out the rest witnesses and therefore the appellants deserve acquittal in view of paucity of evidence which could not prove the guilt of the appellants. 19. Mr. 19. Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed both the appeals and have stated that the circumstances indicate that it was Binod Sharma who had called and taken away the deceased-Ranjit Sharma and subsequently Ranjit Sharma was found lying in a pool of blood in front of the house of the appellant-Binod Sharma and the presence of the appellants in the scene of crime does point to their involvement. It has been submitted that P.Ws-3 and 7 have given consistent statement and the evidence of the independent witness-P.W-2 also support the factum of occurrence and the participation of the appellants in commission of the offence. Learned A.P.P. therefore prays for dismissal of both the appeals. 20. On hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the evidences of the witnesses have been dissected and the primary evidence percolates to the evidence of P.W-2, P.W-3, P.W-7 and P.W-8. There appears to be two places of occurrence. The first being the house of the informant where Binod Sharma had twice come and on one pretext or the other had taken away the deceased and thereafter the motorcycle of the deceased. The intervening period of the first appearance of Binod Sharma and his subsequent appearance while taking away the motorcycle seems to be of about five minutes as has been stated by the P.W-3. The second place of occurrence is in front of the house of Binod Sharma.P.W-7 has stated that after 15-20 minutes since the deceased did not return she and her mother in law had gone to the place of occurrence which is very near to the house of the informant. Both P.Ws-3 and 7 have stated that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. The conduct of the appellant-Binod Sharma raises grave suspicion as it was at his instance the deceased-Ranjit Sharma had accompanied him and the murder might have taken place immediately after the deceased had left his house as from the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 7 when they had reached the place of occurrence the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood. Either the incident had taken place immediately upon the deceased accompanying Binod Sharma or after Binod Sharma had taken the motorcycle of the deceased after about five minutes from his first appearance in the house of the deceased-Ranjit Sharma. Either the incident had taken place immediately upon the deceased accompanying Binod Sharma or after Binod Sharma had taken the motorcycle of the deceased after about five minutes from his first appearance in the house of the deceased-Ranjit Sharma. P.W-3 on one occasion had stated that the deceased was in an unconscious state whereas in paragraph 38, she had stated that the deceased was conscious and she had seen the assault. P.W-7 on the other hand has stated in cross examination that when she reached the place of occurrence her husband was pleading for water and immediately thereafter he became unconscious. Infact P.W-2, an independent witness, who had reached the place of occurrence on hearing the cry of alarm, had stated that the deceased was unconscious when he reached the place of occurrence. Even assuming that P.W-2, P.W-3 and P.W-7 did not find the deceased in a conscious state when they had reached the place of occurrence but the surrounding circumstances as depicted above does point to the fact that it was the appellant-Binod Sharma who was the main perpetrator of the crime and was accompanied by his wife (appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 840 of 2010) as well as his father. P.W-3 and P.W-7 have also categorically stated that the appellants were assaulting the deceased when they had reached the place of occurrence. P.W-3 had stated about the appellants being armed with knife and farsa respectively and P.W-7 has stated that when they reached the place of occurrence there was no one except the accused. The chain of circumstances right from the time when the appellant-Binod Sharma had called the deceased and taken him away till the time the appellants had fled away from the place of incident on gathering of several persons from the locality having been completed leaves no manner of doubt about the involvement of both the appellants in committing the murder of Ranjit Sharma. 21. So far as the motive is concerned, P.W-3 and P.W-7 have stated about the father of the deceased having sold a piece of land belonging to the appellant-Binod Sharma, for which the deceased was demanding money and the same appears to be a strong motive for the appellants to do away with the life of the deceased. 21. So far as the motive is concerned, P.W-3 and P.W-7 have stated about the father of the deceased having sold a piece of land belonging to the appellant-Binod Sharma, for which the deceased was demanding money and the same appears to be a strong motive for the appellants to do away with the life of the deceased. The defence witnesses have submitted that the informant had given an application to the Branch Manager, LIC, Giridih for release of the insured amount of her husband wherein it was mentioned that her husband was murdered by unknown persons. A photo copy of the purported application had been produced by the D.W-1, which has been marked as exhibit ‘X’ but the genuinity of the said documents appears to be doubtful as D.W-1 has failed to state as to whether he had obtained the said photo copy after giving an application to the concerned office. In fact, P.W-7 in her reexamination had denied filing any such application and the thrust made by the defence on a photo copy of a purported application does not bear any significance or dilutes the allegations levelled against the appellants. 22. Thus, on consideration of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence and these appeals being devoid of any merit are hereby dismissed.