JUDGMENT Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - Both the criminal appeals are arising out of common impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 15.07.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 27/2006 whereby the appellants Jeno Tanti @ Roje Tanti @ Mangala and Doba Hembrom @ Hura have been held guilty for the offence committed and punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for 90 days, but acquitted Budhan Singh Sardar from the charge under section 302/34 I.P.C. 2. Prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Narayan Pandeya (PW-6) recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police, Harendra Prasad Choudhary (PW-9), Officer-in-Charge, Toklo Police Station on 01.07.2005 at 12.45 Hrs. at village Ramaisai near the dead body. The informant has stated that yesterday i.e. on 30.06.2005 after taking meal, he was sleeping in his house. At around 11.00 P.M in the night, the mother of Lalo Lohar namely, Dukhni Lohar, wife of Parma Lohar, resident of Ramaidih came to the house of the informant and called the informant and disclosed that somebody has assaulted his brother-in-law Kunjo Hembrom, upon which, the informant (PW-6) along with his wife Raimuni Kui (PW-7) went running and saw his brother-in-law Kunjo Hembrom was lying on the ground, under Imli tree in front of the house of Parma Lohar, in pool of blood in injured condition. Informant has further stated that he woke up other villagers namely, Madhusudan Mahli, son of late Gandhi Mahali, Sudarshan Mahali (PW-1), son of late Suren Mahali, Chandra Mahali (PW-4), son of Suren Mahali, Budh Ram Mahali (PW-5), son of late Chhoto Mahali, Soma Gagrai (PW-2), son of Davsar Gagrai. They came and saw the brother-in-law of the informant Kunjo Hembrom in injured condition. Informant has further stated that at that time, it was 11.30 in the night and his brother-in-law was in conscious condition and was able to speak. The informant has further stated that in presence of the aforesaid villagers, on query the injured disclosed that he has been assaulted by Jeno Tanti, son of late Lakhiram Tangi and Doba Hembrom, son of Jabra Hembrom, both residents of Jagdasai, P.S. Toklo, District West Singhbhum. This disclosure was made by the injured before many villagers. The informant has further stated that in presence of the aforesaid villagers, on query the injured disclosed that he has been assaulted by Jeno Tanti, son of late Lakhiram Tangi and Doba Hembrom, son of Jabra Hembrom, both residents of Jagdasai, P.S. Toklo, District West Singhbhum. This disclosure was made by the injured before many villagers. Thereafter, the injured was given water and 1-2 spoon of rice. The informant has stated that his brother-in-law was not brought for treatment because of lack of conveyance / vehicles. Injured was lying on a cot under a Imli tree and the entire family members were there. At around 2.30 A.M in the night, his brother-in-law, Kunjo Hembrom succumbed to the injury. Thereafter, his hands and legs became cold. Thereafter, information was also given to the house of Kunjo Hembrom. The informant has alleged that because of purchasing of wood, Rupees 100 was given by Kunjo Hembrom to Doba Hembrom but after several days, neither wood nor money was returned by Doba Hembrom, an altercation took place leading to enmity between them. As such, Doba Hembrom along with his friend Jeno Tanti have jointly assaulted his brother-in-law Kunjo Hembrom, due to which, he died. The informant has claimed that because of old enmity, Jeno Tanti, son of Lakhiram Tanti and Doba Hembrom, son of Jabra Hembrom, both resident of Jagdasai P.S. Toklo, District West Singhbhum assaulted his brother-in-law by means of sharp weapon and iron rod, causing grievous injury, due to which, he died. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the Informant, Police has registered Chakradharpur (Toklo) P.S. case No. 86/2005 dated 01.07.2005 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the two named accused persons namely Jeno Tanti and Doba Hembrom. 4. After completion of the investigation, Police has submitted chargesheet against the accused persons Jeno Tanti, Doba Hembrom and Budhan Singh Sardar vide Charge Sheet No. 92/2005 dated 02.10.2005 under Section 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Cognizance of the offence vide order dated 06.10.2005 under Section 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the accused Jeno Tanti and Doba Hembrom and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 21.01.2006. 6. Charge has been framed against all the three charge sheeted accused persons vide order dated 29.06.2006 to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence. 6. Charge has been framed against all the three charge sheeted accused persons vide order dated 29.06.2006 to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence. Thus, they were put under trial. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether ten prosecution witnesses and also exhibited and proved documentary evidence up to Ext.3. Sudarshan Mahali has been examined as PW-1, Soma Gagrai has been examined as PW-2, Madhu Mahali has been examined as PW-3, Bharat Mahali @ Chandro Mahali has been examined as PW-4, Budh Ram Mahali has been examined as PW-5, Narayan Pandeya, (informant of the case), has been examined as PW-6, Raimuni Kui has been examined as PW-7, Dugi Kui has been examined as PW-8, Harendra Prasad Choudhary, investigating officer of this case, has been examined as PW-9 and Dr. Surendra Lov who has conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, has been examined as PW-10. Signature of the informant Narayan Pandeya on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Ext.-1; signature of Sub Inspector of Police Nawal Kishore Singh on the formal FIR has been proved and marked as Ext.-1/1; fardbeyan of the informant has been proved and marked as Ext.2; postmortem report has been proved and marked as Ext.-3. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused persons have been examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. on 19.06.2009, where the accused persons have categorically denied the truthfulness of the allegation that because of old enmity with a common intention, they have assaulted Kunjo Hembrom in the night of 30.06.2005 at 11.00 P.M causing injury. Accused persons have also denied that they have taken Rupees 100 from Kunjo Hembrom for purchasing wood and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case, though defence has not adduced any defence evidence - either oral or documentary. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the materials available on record, learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against both the appellants namely, Jeno Tanti @ Roje Tanti @ Mangala and Doba Hembrom @ Hura. By the same impugned, learned Trial Court has acquitted the co-accused namely Budhan Singh Sardar. 10. By the same impugned, learned Trial Court has acquitted the co-accused namely Budhan Singh Sardar. 10. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellants have preferred two separate criminal appeals which are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta and learned counsel for the State Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 750/2009 and Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 941/2013, both Additional Public Prosecutor. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The person, who has informed the informant, has not been examined in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the accused / appellants have been charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but learned Trial Court has convicted both the accused persons for the offence committed and punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that appellants have been falsely implicated in this case because of old enmity and village politics, as the injured Kunjo Hembrom was lying in an injured condition and after his death, his brother-in-law and sister have alleged that Kunjo Hembrom had disclosed the names of these two accused persons as the persons who have assaulted him, causing such injury. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that under the aforesaid circumstances, appellants, if not acquitted from the charge for the offence committed and punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, their conviction may be modified under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code by sentencing them as period already undergone. 13. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy and Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, Additional Public Prosecutor in both the appeals have submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the materials available on record. 13. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy and Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, Additional Public Prosecutor in both the appeals have submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the materials available on record. Learned counsels for the State have submitted that the injured Kunjo Hembrom has disclosed, the names of the persons who have assaulted him, in presence of several co-villagers namely, Madhusudan Mahali, Sudarshan Mahali (PW-1), Bharat Mahali @ Chandro Mahali (PW-4), Budhram Mahali (PW-5), Soma Gagrai (PW-2). The injured has stated that he was assaulted by Jeno Tanti, son of Lakhiram Tanti and Doba Hembrom, son of Jabra Hembrom, in presence of witnesses and several co-villagers. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant any interference by this Hon''ble Court. Learned counsels for the State have further submitted that number of injuries caused upon vital parts on the body of Kunjo Hembrom suggest that the accused persons have intention to kill him. Conviction of the accused persons passed by the learned Trial Court under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be converted into section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code seeing the nature and number of injuries on vital parts of the body. The witnesses named in the FIR have also supported the prosecution case and as such, this court may not interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14. Heard learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta and learned counsels for the State Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy and Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, Additional Public Prosecutors in both the appeals and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report, framing of charge, evidence of ten prosecution witnesses, three prosecution exhibits, statement of the appellants recorded under section 313 of the Cr. PC as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It appears from the First Information Report, which is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant Narayan Pandeya (PW-6), that information has been given by Dukhi Lohar about the injury of his brother-in-law Kunjo Hembrom. PC as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It appears from the First Information Report, which is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant Narayan Pandeya (PW-6), that information has been given by Dukhi Lohar about the injury of his brother-in-law Kunjo Hembrom. Thereafter, informant and his wife went there, where injured has disclosed to the informant in the presence of wife of the informant Raimuni Kui (PW-7) and other covillagers namely, Madhusudan Mahali, Sudarshan Mahali (PW-1), Bharat Mahali @ Chandra Mahali (PW-4), Budhram Mahali (PW-5) and Soma Gagarai (PW-2), that he has been assaulted by Jeno Tanti and Doba Hembrom. This information which has been given by the informant has been supported by all the prosecution witnesses namely PW1 Sudarshan Mahali, PW-4 Bharat Mahali @ Chandra Mahali, PW-5 Budh Ram Mahali and PW-2 Soma Gagarai. The postmortem report of the deceased shows that the deceased has sustained altogether eight injuries. As per the postmortem report which has been brought on record and marked as Ext.- 3, following injuries were found on the person of the deceased. i. Incised wound over lateral side of right eye - 2 cm x = cm x = cm ii. Incised wound over right cheek interior to right ear - 2 cm x = cm x = cm iii. Incised wound at lateral side of left eyebrow - 2 cm x = cm x = cm iv. Incised wound below left eye 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm v. Incised wound over left cheek 1 = cm x 1 cm x 1 cm vi. Incised wound on left side of chin 5 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm wider fracture of mandible vii. Two lacerated wounds over occipital area of right side - 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep with a fracture of occipital region viii. Bruise with parallel margin right anterior chest - 6 cm x 1 cm From perusal of the injury as mentioned in the postmortem report (Ext. 3), it appears that all the injuries were on the vital parts of the body caused by sharp and hard blunt substance. 15. The injured has categorically stated that he was assaulted by these two accused persons. 3), it appears that all the injuries were on the vital parts of the body caused by sharp and hard blunt substance. 15. The injured has categorically stated that he was assaulted by these two accused persons. Sudarshan Mahali has categorically stated in his examination-in- chief that when they have asked the injured as to who have assaulted him, the injured has stated that Jeno Tanti and Doba Hembrom have assaulted him. This fact has been supported by other prosecution witnesses namely, Soma Gagrai (PW-2), Bharat Mahali (PW4), Budh Ram Mahali (PW-5), Narayan Pandeya, the informant (PW-6). The wife of the informant Raimuni Kui (PW-7) has also taken the name of Budhan Singh Sardar, but because of lack of evidence against Budhan Singh Sardar, learned Trial Court has acquitted him from the charges under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as other witnesses have not taken the name of Budhan Singh Sardar. All these prosecution witnesses have been cross-examined at length, but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. The doctor who has been examined in this case as PW-10, has categorically stated that the time of death is between 6 to 36 hours. Injury no. 1 to 5 were caused by sharp cutting substance; injury no. 6 was due to heavy sharp cutting substance and injury no. 7 was caused by hard and blunt substance. The Investigating Officer Harendra Prasad Choudhary (PW-9) has also proved the fardbeyan bearing the signature of the informant (PW-6), which has been marked as Ext.-2. Formal FIR bearing signature of Sub Inspector of Police Nawal Kishore Singh has been proved and marked as Ext.1/1. The Investigating Officer has also been cross-examined by the defence, but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. This witness has categorically stated that the witness Dukhni Lohar has disclosed before him that she has seen Jeno Tanti and other accused persons fleeing away. Though Dukhani Lohar has not been examined in this case, but as per the information given by Dukhni Lohar, the informant and his wife (PWs-6 & 7) came near the injured who disclosed about the occurrence in presence of several persons. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of the view that the disclosure made by the injured before the prosecution witnesses are intact during their cross-examination and nothing has been elucidated by the defence to create any doubt. 17. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of the view that the disclosure made by the injured before the prosecution witnesses are intact during their cross-examination and nothing has been elucidated by the defence to create any doubt. 17. So far as the issue which has cropped up regarding framing of charge only under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction of the accused under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, we are of the considered view that the principle laid down under section 464 of the Cr. PC, which reads as under, would adequately answer the issue: "464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge.- (1) No finding sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. (2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may, - (a) in the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed and that the trial be recommenced from the point immediately after the framing of the charge; (b) in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit: Provided that if the Court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction." We have perused the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramji Singh and another versus State of Bihar, (2001) 9 SCC 528 para-14 thereof, which reads as under: "14. Legal position as to whether in the absence of charge under Section 34 conviction could be maintained under Section 34 was cleared by the Constitution Bench in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. where this Court observed at para 86: (AIR p. 137) "86. Legal position as to whether in the absence of charge under Section 34 conviction could be maintained under Section 34 was cleared by the Constitution Bench in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. where this Court observed at para 86: (AIR p. 137) "86. Sections 34, 114 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code provide for criminal liability viewed from different angles as regards actual participants, accessories and men actuated by a common object or a common intention; ''and the charge is a rolled-up one involving the direct liability and the constructive liability'' without specifying who are directly liable and who are sought to be made constructively liable. In such a situation, the absence of a charge under one or other of the various heads of criminal liability for the offence cannot be said to be fatal by itself, and before a conviction for the substantive offence, without a charge, can be set aside, prejudice will have to be made out. In most of the cases of this kind, evidence is normally given from the outset as to who was primarily responsible for the act which brought about the offence and such evidence is of course relevant." This was reiterated by the Supreme Court a number of times. We may refer to Dhanna v. State of M.P. where this position is reiterated after referring to the other cases. It held: (SCC pp. 82-83, para 9) "9. It is, therefore, open to the court to take recourse to Section 34 of IPC even if the said section was not specifically mentioned in the charge and instead Section 149 IPC has been included. Of course a finding that the assailant concerned had a common intention with the other accused is necessary for resorting to such a course. This view was followed by this Court in later decisions also. (Amar Singh v. State of Haryana, Bhoor Singh v. State of Punjab.) The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has no merit." Accordingly it is held that even in the absence of the charge under Section 34 the conviction could be maintained by the courts below." Similar views have been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Lallan Rai and others versus State of Bihar, (2003) 1 SCC 268 para20,21,22 and 29, which reads as under: "20. A plain look at the statute reveals that the essence of Section 34 is simultaneous consensus of the mind of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. It is trite to record that such consensus can be developed at the spot. The observations above obtain support from the decision of this Court in Ramaswami Ayyangar v. State of T.N. 21. In a similar vein the Privy Council in Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor stated the true purport of Section 34 as below: (AIR p. 6) "[T]he words of Section 34 are not to be eviscerated by reading them in this exceedingly limited sense. By Section 33 a criminal act in Section 34 includes a series of acts and, further, ''act'' includes omission to act, for example, an omission to interfere in order to prevent a murder being done before one''s very eyes. By Section 37, when any offence is committed by means of several acts whoever intentionally cooperates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person, commits that offence. Even if the appellant did nothing as he stood outside the door, it is to be remembered that in crimes as in other things ''they also serve who only stand and wait''." 22. The above discussion in fine thus culminates to the effect that the requirement of statute is sharing the common intention upon being present at the place of occurrence. Mere distancing himself from the scene cannot absolve the accused - though the same however depends upon the fact situation of the matter under consideration and no rule steadfast can be laid down therefor. 29. It is in this context Section 464 CrPC ought to be noticed at this juncture. Section 464 CrPC reads thus: "464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge.-(1) No finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. (2) If the court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may- (a) in the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed and that the trial be recommenced from the point immediately after the framing of the charge; (b) in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit: Provided that if the court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction." The Apex court has reiterated the same in the case of Narinder Singh and another versus State of Punjab, (2000) 4 SCC 603 , para-16 thereof], which reads as under: "16. Both the appellants were acting in concert. Their intention to do away with Gurdev Singh, Granthi was manifest when a couple of days before the occurrence they openly threatened him to kill him in case he did not give up the post of Granthi of the Gurudwara of Village Talwandi Fattu. This is no argument for the defence that since the Granthi is appointed by the Management Committee of the Gurudwara, appointment of the appellant Narinder Singh as Granthi of the Gurudwara would not have been automatic and, therefore, there was no occasion to hold a threat to Gurdev Singh. It was then submitted that it was dangerous to return the finding of guilt merely on the sole statement of one witness, Hardip Singh in the present case. It is contended that the conduct of Hardip Singh was not natural. He took to his heels when his father was being assaulted and he made no efforts to protect his father which was natural for a son. But then Hardip Singh has stated that the accused also wanted to assault him and to protect himself, he ran from the spot. The statement of Hardip Singh is cogent and reliable. He gets corroboration from Bikar Singh (PW 3). Both Hardip Singh (PW 2) and Bikar Singh (PW 3) are natural witnesses. But then Hardip Singh has stated that the accused also wanted to assault him and to protect himself, he ran from the spot. The statement of Hardip Singh is cogent and reliable. He gets corroboration from Bikar Singh (PW 3). Both Hardip Singh (PW 2) and Bikar Singh (PW 3) are natural witnesses. The statement of Harinder Singh, Sarpanch (PW 4) has been disbelieved to the extent that any extra-judicial confession was made to him by the appellants and in our opinion, rightly so. That, however, does not in any way deviate from the evidence on record which is cogent clearly pointing to the murder of Gurdev Singh by the appellants with a common intention. It has to be held that Narinder Singh, appellant grabbed Gurdev Singh by his arms and the second appellant stabbed him. When appellant Narinder Singh grabbed Gurdev Singh, he said in so many words that Gurdev Singh would now be taught a lesson as he did not resign as Granthi of the Gurudwara of Village Talwandi Fattu, it is not disputed that Amritdhari Sikhs always carry kirpans on their bodies and in that view of the matter it is not necessary for the appellants to carry any other arm or weapon. The kirpan (Exh. P-1) was used to commit the murder. The trial court totally went wrong when it said that the recovery of the kirpan from the second appellant was of no consequence and was not sufficient to connect the appellants with the crime. Both the appellants committed the murder of Gurdev Singh, Granthi in furtherance of their common intention. It was submitted by Mr Gupta that Narinder Singh could not have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 as this section is nowhere mentioned in the impugned judgment. Mention of the section in the judgment is not the requirement of law to convict a person. If the ingredients of the offence are present, conviction can be made. It is not material to bring the case under Section 34 IPC as to who, in fact, inflicted the fatal blow. The High Court has rightly interfered in the matter and sentenced the appellants accordingly." 18. The principle laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the evidence collected are the materials which has to be considered for holding the accused guilty. The High Court has rightly interfered in the matter and sentenced the appellants accordingly." 18. The principle laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the evidence collected are the materials which has to be considered for holding the accused guilty. Omission in framing of charge will not cause any prejudice to the appellant, rather the materials adduced during trial are the materials which has to be considered while passing the impugned judgment. The Trial Court has put question to the accused appellants under section 313 Cr. P.C. and as such, no prejudice has been caused to the accused persons because of non-framing of charge under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as the evidence has been brought to the knowledge of the accused persons to which they could not gave their satisfactory reply. 19. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered view that the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding omission in framing of charge is of no help to the appellants. The conviction of the accused - appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is based on the evidence brought by the prosecution, shows that these accused persons with a common intention have assaulted Kunjo Hembrom by means of sharp heavy weapon as well as hard and blunt substance on the vital parts of his body, having common intention to kill Kunjo Hembrom and this fact has been put to the accused persons while examining them under section 313 of the Cr. PC, but no satisfactory reply has been given by the accused persons. 20. This court is of the view that, prosecution has able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against both accused Jeno Tanti @ Roje Tanti @ Mangala and Doba Hembrom @ Hura. The prosecution evidence is consistent that injured Kunjo Hmbrom has disclosed before informant (PW-6) and other prosecution witnesses such as PW-1 Sudarshan Mahali, PW-2 Soma Gagrai, Bharat Mahali (PW-4), Budh Ram Mahali (PW-5) and Raimuni Kui (PW-7). The evidence is consistent to medical evidence, exhibit-3 (Post Mortem Report) 21. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 15.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 27/2006 is hereby upheld and affirmed. Both criminal appeals are dismissed. The evidence is consistent to medical evidence, exhibit-3 (Post Mortem Report) 21. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 15.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 27/2006 is hereby upheld and affirmed. Both criminal appeals are dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent to the Court below forthwith.