Ghanshyam Prasad, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.2.1988 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 551 of 1985. All the four appellants have been found guilty under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Prosecution story in short compass as un-folded in fardbeyan (Ext.2) lodged by Mahendra Prasad Rai (not examined), son of the deceased Parmeshwar Prasad Rai is that on 15.4.1985, he was taking meal inside the house. His father (deceased) and mother Shanti Devi (P.W.5) were sitting infront of the house. In the meantime, all of a sudden, all the four appellants variously armed alongwith some known miscreants came and asked key of boxes from the deceased. On refusal, they all assaulted him with their respective weapons i.e. lathi, bhala, saif and hammer and took him away near Sheo Ganga pond situated towards west of the house of the informant and committed his murder.

3. Further case of the prosecution is that apart from the appellants, there was also 4-5 other unknown miscreants, who forcibly entered into the house and committed theft of ornaments, cash etc. and decamped with the stolen articles.

4. It has further been alleged that on hulla, brother of the informant Naresh Mandal Rai (P.W.7), mother Shanti Devi (P.W.5) and neighbour Bijay Mandal, Karo Mandal (not examined) and others came, saw the occurrence and identified the miscreants. It has further been alleged that before death, the victim Parmeshwar Rai told that these four appellants/accused assaulted him.

5. It appears that after the occurrence, the victim first of all was brought to a local private doctor, Pratap Narayan Singh. (P.W.4). After giving first aid he referred the victim to Jamui Hospital for treatment. However, in the way to hospital, he died. In Jamui Hospital, S.I. of Jamui Police Station, Shri G.P. Srivastava (P.W.10) came and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.2) of informant Mahendra Prasad Rai. He forwarded the same to concerned Sikandra Police Station where case was registered against the appellants and others under Sections 149, 447, 380 and 302 I.P.C. S.I., Baghela Dubey (P.W.11) took up investigation. In course of it, the postmortem was conducted by the then C.A.S., Dr. Satya Narayan Singh (P.W.2). Ultimately, the police submitted chargesheet only under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. against the appellants. The learned C.J.M. also took cognizance only under the above Sec. 302/34 I.P.C. against the appellants.

6. In order to establish, the charge framed against the appellants the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses out of whom P.W.2 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem, P.W.11 Baghela Dubey is the Investigating Officer, P.W.10 is the S.I., who recorded fardbeyan and P.W.4 Dr. P.N. Singh is the local doctor, who gave first aid to the victim and referred him to Jamui Hospital.

7. Out of the rest witnesses; P.W.5 Shanti Devi is the widow of the deceased and P.W.6, Ramesh Kumar Rai, P.W.7, Naresh Kumar Rai and P.W.8, Ranjit Kumar Rai are her sons. P.W.7 has been tendered. P.W.3, Surya Nath Singh and P.W.9 Gopal Mandal are the formal witnesses. P.W.1 Raja Ram Bhagat is hearsay witness.

8. Defence of the appellants is total denial of the occurrence and false implication. According to them, a year before the alleged occurrence, the appellant Bijo Panda had filed a criminal case against close relatives of the informant as a result of which they have been falsely implicated by the prosecution party. In support of their defence, they have examined one witness (D.W.1), Birendra Prasad Singh and have got some documents exhibited, which are Exts. A to D.

9. In course of argument, the learned lawyer for the appellants urged manifold submissions in order to assail the judgment of conviction recorded by the lower court. It has been submitted that the court below has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution. The witn