ORDER

L. Mohapatra, J. - Both the appellants having been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code and having been sentenced to imprisonment for life have filed this appeal.

2. The appellants along with two other accused persons stood charged under Sections 120-B/34 of the Penal Code and the present appellants were separately charged for commission of offences under Sections 302/324/34 of the Penal Code for committing murder of Gangadhar Jena and causing hurt to P.W.B. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Gangadhar Jena and the present appellants are brothers and there was bitter relationship between them due to land dispute. On 18-11-1991 at about 10.00 A.M. all the four accused persons along with the absconding accused conspired among themselves at village Gududa to do away with the life of the deceased and while the wife .of the deceased (P.W.B) was coming with rice from house of one Jachi Ganda she heard the accused persons conspiring to kill the deceased and when they saw her, they declared to make her a widow. Thereafter, at about 12 O' clock when the deceased the husband of P.W.B, came back from Balasore and was taking food inside the house suddenly both the appellants entered into the house armed with Katarles and tried to drag him outside. At that point of time when P.W.8 objected, it Is alleged that the appellant Jogeswar assaulted by means of a Katari on the hand of the P.W.8 and thereafter dragged the deceased to a place where there was a Pipal tree. It Isalso alleged that P.W. 8 followed them crying and one Narendra Sahu (P.W.3) came to the spot and requested the appellants not to create trouble and while Narendra Sahu was looking into the injury sustained by P.W.8, the deceased tried to escape. It Is further alleged that at that point of time appellant Maheswar obstructed him on the way and appellant Jogeswar assaulted on the back side of the neck of the deceased by means of a Katari he was holding as a result of which the deceased fell down and died on the spot. Thereafter, some other villagers came to the spot and one Bhlmeswar Behera caught hold of appellant Jogeswar but Maheswar escaped from the place. It appeal from the record that P.W. 11, who is the Officer-In-charge of Remuna Police Station received a rumour about the Incident of murder in the village Gududa in which one Gangadhar Jena died. He entered this fact in the Station Diary and left for village Gududa. On his arrival at Gududa an oral report was submitted by P.W.3 which was reduced to writing. After Investigation, chargesheet was submitted for commission of offences under Sections 302/324/120B/34 of the Penal Code.

3. In order to bring the charges, prosecution examined 11 (eleven) witnesses out of whom P.Ws. 3 and 8 are eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.8 is not only an eyewitness to the occurrence but also an Injured. P.Ws. 2 and 9 claimed that the appellant Jogeswar made extra-judicial confession before them. The learned trial court relying on the evidence of these witnesses found the appellants guilty for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code and convicted them thereunder. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. The plea of the appellants is complete denial of the occurrence.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though P.W.8 claimed to be an injured and eyewitness to the occurrence, part of her evidence with regard to Injury sustained by her having been disbelieved, no reliance could have been placed on the said witness. P.W.3 being the only eyewitness to the occurrence and there being no corroboration to his statement made in the court, the conviction should not be maintained solely on the basis of the version of one eyewitness. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has suppressed the materials and referring to the evidence of P. W. 1 It was contended that one Nlranjan Mishra had been Instructed to lodge the F.I.R. In