Discrepancies in evidence, unexplained injuries, and contradictions in witness testimonies led to the court's decision to set aside the impugned judgment.

Mihir Kumar Jha, J.

Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 22nd of September, 1990 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions, Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 150 of 1988, whereby and whereunder, all the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections-302/34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. All the appellants except Sribhagwan Yadav have further been convicted under Section-27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The said sentences, however, are to run concurrently .

2. The prosecution case as has been set out by the informant, PW-4, Jagarnath Panday in his fard beyan, Exhibit-3, to the police officer (not examined) recorded on 13.11.1986 at 11:30 pm is that the informant on the same date i.e. 13.11.1986 at about 12 noon in company of his son Lalan Panday (deceased) as also his brother Bihari Panday (PW-1) and nephew Swaminath Pandey (PW-3) had gone to Ragunathpur bazar for certain shopping and it is said that after PW-1 (Bihari Panday) and PW-3 (Swaminath Panday) had made certain purchase in Ragunathpur bazar, all the four persons in course of return journey to their village Pokhara, while they had reached near village Rajpur at about 6 pm they had suddenly seen emergence of a mob of 7 to 8 persons, who according to informant were earlier sitting in a bush by the side of the road. The informant had also claimed that while he, PW-4 (Jagrnath Panday), PW-1(Bihari Panday) and PW-3(Swaminath Panday) were a bit ahead of Lalan Panday (deceased) walking with a bicycle, the aforesaid mob consisting of the appellant had encircled the deceased and on an order given by appellant, Ramasis Yadav, the other two persons namely appellants Bhalu Yadav @ Jitendra Yadav armed with rifle and Rudranath Yadav also armed with rifle had given two fire arm injuries on the person of the deceased Lalan Panday on account of which he had succumbed to his aforesaid injuries at the spot.

3. The further case of the prosecution is that when the informant and others on account of aforesaid assault had started crying and shouting the members of the mob including the appellants had started dragging the dead body of the deceased, Lalan Panday towards West. The informant had stated that while Swaminath Pandey (PW-3) ran towards the village, the informant Jagarnath Panday(PW-4) and Bihari Panday (PW-1) had followed the appellants and others. The informant, claimed that in the meantime villagers armed with rifle while resorting to open firing from their fire arms had reached at the place of occurrence and the accused persons including the appellants on hearing the sound of firing made by the villagers had fled away whereafter the informant could search his son and had recovered his dead body. In the fard beyan itself the informant had further alleged that the said occurrence was committed by the accused persons including the appellants on account of an earlier murder in the family of the accused which had taken place some three years back in which the deceased was also made an accused.

4. On the basis of the aforementioned fard beyan, Brahampur P.S Case No. 127 of 1986 was instituted against all the appellants under Sections-302/34 IPC and also under Section-27 of the Arms Act and the police after investigation had submitted the charge sheet. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions was committed to the Court of Sessions by an order dated 05.04.1988, whereafter the trial in question was conducted and completed in the manner leading to conviction and sentence of the appellants as indicated above.

5. Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment has basically laid stress on the aspect that the prosecution case in its entirety is fit to be rejected, inasmuch as, the evidence of three eye-witnesses did not inspire any confidence special