JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J.:— These are two appeals filed by two different sets of accused who were arraigned as offenders for the incident which took place on August 19, 1967. The prosecution case is that at about 8.00 a.m. on August 19, 1967, one Dhanushdhari Missir (PW 1) who is the informant in the case, left his house along with his father, Rajendra Missir to harvest the paddy-crop in their land situate to the west of their house. To harvested the crop, his father had engaged some labourers and the crop was, according to him, harvested till about 10.00 a.m. on that day. At about that hour, his father Rajendra started from. the land to return home for his meals and the informant followed him after a little while. On the way home, the informant heard his fathers cry "Jan Bachao", and on hearing it he ran towards his father and saw that accused, Shambhoo Missir and Munib Tikulihar (appellants in Appeal No. 133 of 1979) assaulting his father with garasa, and Sarabjit Chamar and Paltan Kurmi (appellants in Appeal No. 150 of 1979) with sticks. Rajendra fell down and thereafter Shambhoo, Munib and Paltan caught hold of his hands and legs and Sarabjit chopped off his nose with a hasua. Hearing the shouts and cries, several persons arrived and the accused fled away. According to the prosecution further, the assault took place on the western flank of the kutcha road running North to South and adjacent to the sugarcane field of the informant. The prosecution case further is ,that Rajendra named the four accused persons as his assailants to whoever came near him at that time without their questioning him about it. Thereafter, Mukti Missir (PW 12) who is also the son of Rajendra and the brother of the informant and who had also seen the incident, went to the village and brought a cot on which Rajendra was taken to his house. From there, he was taken to Bettiah Hospital on a tyre-cart, On their way to the Hospital, at a place called Parsauni about three miles from the place of the incident, Rajendra was placed on a truck for being taken to the hospital. But on the way, he breathed his last. The dead body was taken to the hospital and from there the sub-Inspector of Police, Bettiah (PW 14) was informed about it. He came to the hospital and recorded the statement of the informant at about 4.30 p.m. He also held inquest. It appears that since the incident had taken place within the jurisdiction of Bagaha police station , the Sub-Inspector of that police station (PW 15) also reached the hospital on getting information and took over the investigation at about 6. 10 p.m. from PW 14.

2. On these facts, the four appellants before us were charge-sheeted. The trial court disbelieved the prosecution case against the accused and acquitted them. Against the said acquittal, the State preferred an appeal and, the High Court allowed the appeal and convicted Shambhoo and Munib, i.e., appellants in Appeal No. 133 of 1979 for the offence under S.302 read with S.34, IPC, and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The High Court also convicted Sarabjit and Paltan (appellants in Appeal No. 150/ 79) for the offence under S.304, Part 11 read with S. 34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. The High Court further convicted Sarabjit for offence under S. 326, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. His sentence was directed to run concurrently. It is aggrieved by this order of conviction passed by the High Court that the four accused have preferred these two appeals. It appears that during the pendency of these appeals the appellant Munib in Appeal No. 133/ 79 and the appellant Sarabjit in Appeal No. 150/79 died. The present appeals are pursued by the surviving appellants in each case.

3. At the instance of both the parties, we went through the entire evidence on record and the judgments of both the trial court as well as the High Court. We find that the trial court had given cogent reasons to acqui