Dharnidhar Jha and Akhilesh Chandra JJ.

1. The two appellants, Khursid Alam and Jauad Hussain, were tried alongwith acquitted accused Jamil Ahmad by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, in Sessions Trial No. 71 of 1982/11 of 1987. Whereas two appellants were charged for committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the acquitted accused, Jamil Ahmad, was charged under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code. The two appellants were held guilty by the learned Trial Judge by judgment dated 23rd March, 1988 of committing offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and each of the two appellants was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. That judgment and order of sentence is being assailed by the two appellants before us.

2. One of the two deceased, namely, Sharful Khan, is the informant of the case. He stated before P.W. 7, S.I., Devendra Prasad, in his Fardbayan that a Panchayati had been convened at the residence of Dr. Sunil Kumar (P.W. 4) for resolving the dispute which had arisen on account of taking away the wristwatch of informant, Sharful Khan, by one Ramesh Chandra Asthana. The two deceased Sharful Khan and Imamul Hoda alias Bijali had gone to the house of Dr. Sunil Kumar (P.W. 4) so as to participate in the Panchayati in which the said Dr. Sunil Kumar and some other acquitted accused Jamil Ahmad and others like Badu Khan, Bhairo Singh, not accused, participated. Appellant Khurshid Alarm and appellant Jauad Hussain were also present. It was decided by the Panches that the informant, Sharful Khan, would get Rs. 400/- in lieu of the Seiko wristwatch which was valued at Rs. 700/- and that decision was accepted by the informant Sharful Khan.

3. The informant stated that when the Panchayati had dispersed, he alongwith the other deceased, Imamul Hoda Khan alias Bijali came out of the house of Dr. Sunil. When they were near the house of Radhika Raman the two appellants dealt Chhura blows to the two deceased persons, as a result of which Imamul Hoda alias Bijali died at the spot. Sharful Khan was shifted to Motihari hospital and he gave his fardbayan (Exhibit-2) at Sadar Hospital, Motihari.

4. As may appear from the evidence of P.W. 7, S.I., Devendra Prasad, P.W. 8 C.I.D. Inspector, Madan Mohan Prasad Verma, and lastly P.W. 12, Circle Inspector, Jagdish Choudhary, the first information report (Exhibit-3) was drawn up on the basis of Exhibit-2. P.W. 7, S.I., Devendra Prasad, did not do any investigation work except that he prepared the inquest reports on the two dead bodies which have been marked Exhibits-5 and 5/1. He handed over the charge of investigation to P.W. 8 who was then Sub-Inspector of Police and the Officer-in-charge of Motihari Police Station and he recorded the statements of different witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence also and investigated the story of holding of Panchayati for resolution of the dispute arising out of taking away of the Seiko wristwatch. P.W. 8 handed over the charge of investigation to P.W. 12, Circle Inspector, Jagdish Choudhary, who submitted the charge-sheet sending up the three accused for trial.

5. The defence of the appellants was that no occurrence in the manner as alleged had taken place and, in fact, the two deceased persons were stabbed at some other place and for reasons unknown to the appellants they had falsely been implicated.

6. In support of the charges the prosecution examined a total number of twelve witnesses. Out of whom P.W. 1, Ramautar Prasad Gupta, P.W. 2, Anil Kumar Shrivastava, P.W. 4, Dr. Sunil Kumar, at whose residence the Panchayati had been convened, P.W. 9, Shams Tabrez, P.W. 10 Md. Hasnain, and P.W. 11 Motaullah Khan, were declared hostile on account of having not supported any part of the prosecution story. P.W. 3, Jamuna Prasad Singh, was tendered for cross-examination. P.W. 6, Imteyaz Ahmad, was a witness of formal character but proved the writings and signatures on fardbayan and fir