JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned A.P.P. 2. All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.03.2009 (sentence passed on 31.03.2009) passed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 192 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life u/s 302/34 I.P.C. No separate sentence for the offence u/s 201 I.P.C. has been passed. 3. The Fardbeyan of Braj Mohan Chattamba was recorded on 16.01.2016 at 11.30 a.m. in which it has been alleged that during the life time of his father a land dispute was going on with Suna Chattamba, Lebeya Chattamba, Laxman Chattamba, Pandu Chattamba, Patar Chattamba, Dursu Chattamba and Budhram Chattamba. Due the death of his father the informant being alone was finding it difficult to look after the landed properties due to which his brother-in-law Bijendra Hessa used to assist him. On 15.01.2006, his brother-in-law had come to his house. They were intending to take rest after having meal, but in the meantime, Suna Kerai came and on his assurance that no harm will be done, his brother-in-law had left with Suna Kerai. The informant followed them along with his wife and niece. It has been alleged that near the river he saw Suna Chattamba, Lebeya Chattamba, Laxman Chattamba, Pandu Chattamba, Patar Chattamba, Dursu Chattamba and Budhram Chattamba catching hold of his brother-in-law and causing assault upon him. Out of fear the informant came back home. Since it was night he did not go anywhere and when he started searching in the morning in a field he found the dead body of his brother-in-law with injuries on his person and his hand being amputated. There was no blood near the dead body which is indicative of the fact that the murder was committed elsewhere and his body was thrown in the field. There was no blood near the dead body which is indicative of the fact that the murder was committed elsewhere and his body was thrown in the field. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 03/2006 was instituted against eight accused persons for the offences punishable u/s 302/201 of the I.P.C. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted showing some of the accused as absconders and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 192 of 2006. Charge was framed u/s 302, 201/34 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed them to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as seven (07) witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 Satyanand Gope is the Munda of Bankatti village who has deposed that on 16.01.2006 he had come to know that a dead body is lying near the village. He reached the place of occurrence and informed the Officer-in-Charge through a written communication. The Officer-in-Charge had come to the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. Later on he came to know that the dead body is of the brother-in-law of Brij Mohan Chattamba. In cross examination he has stated that he had not seen the occurrence. P.W. 2 Padmlochan Gope had deposed that he had gone to see the dead body along with the Munda of his village Satyanand Gope. There were injuries on the dead body. The dead body was of the brother-in-law of Braj Mohan Chattamba. In cross examination he has stated that he does not have any personal knowledge about the incident. P.W. 3 Braj Mohan Chattamba is the informant who has stated that his brother-in-law was murdered on 15.01.2006 and on 16.01.2006 his body was recovered from the outskirts of village Bankatti. There was a land dispute going on between his father and Suna Chattamba. After the death of the father of the informant, his brother-in-law (deceased) used to look after the cases relating to the land. On 15.01.2006 the deceased had come to his house and when the deceased after having meal was sleeping Suna Kerai had taken him away on the assurance that the rest of the accused are not in the village. After the death of the father of the informant, his brother-in-law (deceased) used to look after the cases relating to the land. On 15.01.2006 the deceased had come to his house and when the deceased after having meal was sleeping Suna Kerai had taken him away on the assurance that the rest of the accused are not in the village. He has stated that the deceased had left with Suna Kerai at about 7 p.m. He, his wife and niece had followed them and when the deceased and Suna Kerai reached near the river, Suna Chattamba, Lebeya Chattamba, Laxman Chattamba, Pandu Chattamba, Patar Chattamba, Dursu Chattamba and Budhram Chattamba had appeared and started assaulting Bijendra Hessa. The informant and the others fled away. On the next morning in course of search the dead body of Bijendra Hessa was found lying in the outskirts of village Bankatti. The left hand of the deceased was missing and his head was crushed. This witness has proved his signature in the Fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 2. He has deposed that his brother-in-law was murdered by the accused persons due to a land dispute. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the case relating to land dispute is pending in Chaibasa Court. He subsequently states that the case has been disposed of. Suna Chattamba had earlier threatened Bijendra Hessa. He has deposed that it was moon lit night. Suna Chattamba had assaulted Bijendra Hessa with a Danda. He had given two Danda blows and thereafter the informant and others had fled away. The villagers were informed about the occurrence on the next day. P.W. 4 Subani Kui has deposed that Bijendra was murdered about two years back. Bijendra Hessa used to look after them at times of need. She has stated that Suna Chattamba had threatened to commit the murder of Bijendra Hessa. She has further stated that Bijendra Hessa was called by Suna and he went with Suna Kerai, while she, Braj Mohan and Surajmani had followed them. When Bijendra Hessa reached near the river he was assaulted by the accused persons and on seeing such assault she and the others accompanying her fled away. On the next day information was received that Bijendra Hessa has been murdered. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that a case was also filed due to a land dispute between both the sides. On the next day information was received that Bijendra Hessa has been murdered. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that a case was also filed due to a land dispute between both the sides. This case was instituted when her father-in-law was alive. She has further stated that there are no houses adjacent to her house. In order to save Bijendra Hessa, they had raised alarm, but thereafter due to fear they had fled away. On the day of the incident, they had not informed the villagers about the occurrence. P.W. 5 Surajmuni Chattamba has stated that Bijendra Hessa was her maternal uncle. The incident is of two years back and Bijendra Hessa had come to her house and was sleeping after having meals when Suna Kerai came and took him away. She, Brajmohan and Subani followed them. Suna Chattamba was the first person to commit assault upon Bijendra Hessa followed by Lebeya Chattamba, Laxman Chattamba, Pandu, Dursu, Patar, and Budhra. They had tried to save Bijendra Hessa but were outnumbered and had ultimately fled away. She has deposed that on 16th an information was received that a dead body was lying in Bankatti village and she had gone to see the dead body which bore marks of injury and left hand was also found severed. She has stated that the accused persons had murdered her maternal uncle due a land dispute. In cross examination, she has deposed that it becomes dark at 7 p.m. It was a moon lit night. She has stated that a case relating to land was instituted by her grandfather. She has also stated that Lebeya had a Farsa, Suna Chattamba had a Sota, Laxman had an axe while the others were armed with Danda. She had seen all the accused persons grasping Bijendra. P.W. 6 Jeteya Hessa is the elder brother of the deceased Bijendra Hessa. On 16.01.2006 he was in his house when the in-laws of his brother informed that his brother has been murdered and his dead body is lying in a field south of village Bankatti. He had gone to Bankatti village and had seen the dead body of his brother. He had signed on the Fardbeyan which has been proved by him and marked as Exhibit 2/1. P.W. 7 Dr. He had gone to Bankatti village and had seen the dead body of his brother. He had signed on the Fardbeyan which has been proved by him and marked as Exhibit 2/1. P.W. 7 Dr. Sudama Prasad was posted Sadar Hospital Chaibasa and on 17.01.2006 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bijendra Hessa and had found the following:- External Injuries (i) Incised wound at left arm with amputation (ii) Incised wound over left scalp, deep to cranial cavity 4”X 1” (iii) Incised wound over back into the chest cavity 5”X 1”X3” The doctor, on dissection found parietal bone fracture with blood clots, brain matter lacerated, incised wound over the right lung in a size of 3”X 1/2”X1”, right chamber of the heart contained small amount of blood while left chamber was empty, stomach contains liquor like as Haria, urinary bladder-empty. Other visceras were detected nothing abnormal. The cause of death has been opined to be due to head injuries and the injuries other than head injury were caused by hard and blunt substance. 5. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their involvement in the murder. 6. Mr. R. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. It has been submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the appellants have been convicted only on account of being last seen with the deceased. Mr. Gupta adds that the appellants have been falsely implicated due to a previous enmity on account of a land dispute. It has been submitted that P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are closely related to the deceased and are interested witnesses. It has also been submitted that Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined thereby causing prejudice to the defence. 7. Mr. B.N. Ojha, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the active participation of the appellants in committing the murder of Bijendra Hessa would be apparent from the evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W.5 and the indiscriminate assault upon the deceased is corroborated by the post-mortem report. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission advanced by the respective counsels and have also perused the lower court records. The fulcrum of the prosecution case revolves around the evidence P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W.5. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission advanced by the respective counsels and have also perused the lower court records. The fulcrum of the prosecution case revolves around the evidence P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W.5. The incident of assault appears to be in two parts; the first when Suna Kerai had allured and taken away Bijendra Hessa to the river side where the accused persons were waiting for him and who had caught hold of Bijendra Hessa and had started assaulting him; the second incident is of committing his murder and throwing the dead body in a field on the outskirts of village Bankatti. So far as P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W.5 are concerned, they are the witnesses to the first part while none had witnessed the later part of the assault. The informant who has been examined as P.W. 3 has more or less stuck to his version of the incident as depicted in the Fardbeyan and have not dwelled on any improvement. P.W. 4 and P.W.5 have also stated about accompanying P.W. 3 in following Bijendra Hessa when he was being taken away by Suna Kerai and on seeing the assault had fled away. They have stated about the assault committed upon Bijendra Hessa by the accused persons. There also cannot be any doubt about the identification of the accused persons since P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 have stated that it was a moon lit night. The fleeing away of P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W.5 from the place of occurrence and not informing about the incident to the villagers at night appears to be a natural conduct considering the previous enmity with the accused and the fear psychosis which might have gripped them on seeing the assault apart from the fact that they were heavily outnumbered by the accused persons. Moreover, it seems that the house of P.W. 3 is at an isolated place as per the description given by P.W. 4. The accused persons were last seen with the deceased as per the evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W.5 and the learned counsel for the appellants has put much emphasis on the fact that none had seen the actual assault. The ‘last seen theory’ has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Satpal Vs. The accused persons were last seen with the deceased as per the evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W.5 and the learned counsel for the appellants has put much emphasis on the fact that none had seen the actual assault. The ‘last seen theory’ has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Satpal Vs. State of Haryana” reported in (2018) 6 SCC 610 in which it has been held as follows : 6. “We have considered the respective submissions and the evidence on record. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence but only circumstances coupled with the fact of the deceased having been last seen with the appellant. Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly. But when it is coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death may have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation, or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Each case will therefore have to be examined on its own facts for invocation of the doctrine.” 9. The deceased was taken away by Suna Kerai at about 7 p.m. and in the next morning his dead body was recovered. The presence of the accused persons near the river has been established by virtue of the evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W.5. There is a close proximity with the assault being committed and the dead body of the deceased being recovered in the next morning. The presence of the accused persons near the river has been established by virtue of the evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W.5. There is a close proximity with the assault being committed and the dead body of the deceased being recovered in the next morning. The motive behind the murder has been well established as well since the deceased used to assist the informant in looking after his lands after the death of the father of the informant and the accused persons seems to be having a grudge against him. It was a pre-planned murder, the deceased being taken away by Suna kerai on the enticement that the accused persons are not in the village and subsequently the deceased was trapped and assaulted which ultimately led to his demise. The post-mortem report corroborates the manner of assault which was brutal to say the least and even the left arm of the deceased was severed. The injuries were caused by sharp cutting as well as hard and blunt substance which matches the arms in the hands of the accused as stated by P.W. 5. So far as the non-examination of the Investigating Officer is concerned, the defence has failed to impress upon this Court as to how such non-examination has prejudiced the defence. 10. A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2009 seems to reveal that the learned trial court has appreciated the evidences in their proper perspective and the involvement of the appellants in the murder of Bijendra Hessa being apparent, we do not find any reasons to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.03.2009 (sentence passed on 31.03.2009) passed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 192 of 2006 and resultantly all these appeals are hereby dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. 11. Since the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 349 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 639 of 2011 are on bail, they are directed to surrender before the learned trial court immediately and forthwith to serve out their sentence.