The court reiterated the principles of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC and the requirement for the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case.

M.L.Visa, J.

1. These two appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as they arise out of the same judgment and order dated 28-11 -1986 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions case No. 160/85 and Sessions Case No. 468/ 85 convicting and sentencing the "appellants to undergo imprisonment for life under Secs. 302/34 of I.P.C. and R.I. for 5 years each under Sec. 27 of Arms Act. Appellant Batoran Singh has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C. The different sentences passed against all the three appellants have, however, been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 11-7-84 at about 4.00 p.m. the informant Pandey Singh (P.W. 2) got his fardbeyan (Ext. 2) recorded by S.I. Arun Kumar Keshri (P.W. 4) at the house of Saudagar. Sah situated at Village Ramchandrapur, P.S. Lakhisarai, District Munger stating therein that on the same day at about 9.30 a.m. when he and his brother Ramasray Singh were going to their field from their house and when they reached in the way near the betel gumti (small shop) of appellant Barun Jha, all the three appellants called them near the shop and thereafter appellants, namely, Ghanshyam Singh and Barun Jha told appellant Batoran Singh "Ustad, Dekhte Kya Ho ? (Master, what you are looking for ?)" and hearing this the appellant Batoran Singh opened fire from pistol hitting on the back of Ramasray Singh, who after assault fell on ground and immediately died. It was further alleged that all the appellants were armed with pistols and all belong to village Ramchandrapur and after hitting the deceased all the three appellants fled away towards east-south. The occurrence was witnessed by Saudagar Sah (not examined) Hargobind Singh (P.W. 1), Ramdeo Singh (P.W. 3), Ramsagar Singh (P.W. 2) and number of other villagers. About the motive of occurrence, it is alleged that appellant Batoran Singh wanted that the deceased should join his gang for doing illegal acts but the deceased used to protest and did not agree to it. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant a case under Secs. 302/34 of I.P.C. and under Sec. 27 of Arras Act was registered against all the three appellants. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet under Secs. 302/34, of I.P.C. and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act against all the three appellants. The cognizance of the case was taken by the S.D.J.M., Lakhisarai, who thereafter committed the case in parts to the Court of Session where charges under Secs. 302/34 of I.P.C. and Sec. 27 of Arms Act were framed against all the three appellants. Appellant Batoran Singh was further, charged under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. After the trial the appellants were convicted and sentenced as indicated above.

3. The defence of the appellants before the Court below was total denial of charges framed against them and their false implication in this case, According to the defence deceased Ramasray Singh was a criminal and he was killed on the night of previous day of alleged occurrence and his dead body was brought to the alleged place of occurrence and the appellants after due deliberation have been falsely implicated because before the alleged occurrence there was a dispute between the appellant Batoran Singh and informant Pandeo Singh over the matter of cutting of ridge of afield.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. It appears that initially when charge-sheet was submitted against all the three appellants, appellant Barun Jha was shown as ab-sconder and for this reason the case of remaining two appellants, namely, Batoran Singh and Ghanshyam Singh was first committed to the Court of Session and it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 160/85 in which two witnesses, namely, Hargobind Singh (P.W. 1) and Ramsagar Singh (P.W. 2) were examined. Thereafter, when appellant Barun Jha was apprehended his case was also commit