Chandramauli Kr.Pd., J.

1. M these appeals arise out of the same judgment and, as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Prosecution story according to the fardbeyan given by Siyaram Yadav (deceased) on 24.3.1999 at 9.30 P.M. before the Officer-lncharge of Shahkund Police Station in the Government Hospital, Shahkund is that on 24.3.1999 at about 8 P.M., while he alongwith his brother Prakash Yadav (P.W. 6) were going to their masters place and reached near a banyan tree, the three appellants, who happen to be brothers, stopped them and appellant Bhutha Singh fired at the informant, which caused injury on his back. He tried to flee away from there, whereupon appellant Munna Singh fired which also caused injury on his back. Sustaining the injuries informant fell down, when appellant Sallo Singh is alleged to have stated that the victim had died. At this, the informants brother Prakash Yadav fled away from the place of occurrence shouting and after sometime villagers collected and took the injured to the Hospital.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Shahkund P.S. Case No. 28 of 1999 was registered under Sections 326 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Acts.

4. Later on Siyaram Yadav, the informant died and after his death his brother Prakash Yadav, gave another statement before the Sub-Inspector of Barari Police Station, at the Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College and Hospital, Bhagalpur. In this he had disclosed the manner of incident similar to what was stated by his brother earlier, and intimating about his death in the Hospital. After the death of the informant, Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code was added.

5. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the appellants and they were ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions to face trial, where they were charged for committing the murder of Siyaram Yadav by intentionally causing his death in furtherance of common intention and thereby punishable under Sec.302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also charged for committing the offence under Sec.27 of the Arms Act.

6. Appellants denied to have committed any offence and from the trend of the cross-examination, their defence seem to be of false implication and further that the deceased was not in a position to give any statement after he sustained injuries and the claim made by P.W. 6 Prakash Yadav to be an eye-witness to the occurrence is untrue.

7. The prosecution in support of its case had examined altogether seven witnesses, out of whom, P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W.5, namely, Koko Yadav, Ahilya Devi, Basanti Devi and Manorama Devi do not claim to be an eye-witness to the occurrence but are witnesses on the point of oral dying declaration of the deceased. P.W. 5 Prakash Yadav happens to be the brother of the deceased and claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W. 6 Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, at the relevant time, was posted as the Officer-Incharge of Shahkund Police Station, who had recorded the fardbeyan of the deceased, prepared the Inquest report, sent the dead body for post mortem, recorded the statement of the witnesses during the course of investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.

8. Appellants in their defence had also examined four witnesses to establish that the deceased was not in a position to speak after he sustained the injuries and the claim made by P.W. 6 Prakash Yadav to be an eye-witness to the occurrence is untrue.

9. The trial court on appraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and by judgment dated 4.12.2002 passed in Sessions Case No. 703 of 2000 (Trial No. 236 of 2002) held them guilty of offence under Sec.302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment on the first count, and rigorous imprisonment for three years on the second count. Sentences were directed to run con