I.A. Ansari, J.

By the judgment, dated 22.09.1993, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1989, by learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah, the appellant, Jai Sao @ Ajay Sao, stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In consequence of his conviction, the appellant stands, under the order, dated 28.09.1993, sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.

2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under:

(i) On 10th August, 1985, at about 6.45 AM, an altercation between the female members of Dinesh Prasad (since deceased), on the one hand, and accused persons, namely, Moti Sao, Lauhar Sao and Jai Sao @ Ajai Sao, on the other hand, had taken place in the lane by the side of the house of the informant, following the altercation, accused Moti Sao started abusing Debanti Kumari, sister of the informant. When the informant, Awadhesh Sah, protested, accused Lauhar Sao and Jai Sao @ Ajai Sao also arrived there and accused Moti Sah assaulted the informant with lathi. And the informant received injury on his right hand finger. Accused Lauhar Sao, then, gave two blows by lathi on the informant, one on the right shoulder and the other on his head. In the meantime, when Dinesh Prasad (since deceased), brother of the informant, reached there, accused Lauhar Sao and Jai Sao assaulted him on his head with lathi. Dinesh Sao fell down and became unconscious. The villagers arrived and saw the occurrence. The informant, then, took his injured brother, Dinesh Sao, to Krishnagarh Police Station and gave to the police oral information, with regard to the occurrence. On the basis of the statement of the informant, S.D.E. No. 147, dated 10.10.1985 (Ext-6), was recorded. The police sent both the injured to Sadar Hospital, Arrah, for treatment.

(ii) Treating the said fardbeyan as the First Information Report, Krishnagarh Police Station Case No.138 of 1985, under Section 307/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered, on 16.08.1985, against accused Moti Sao, Lauhar Sao and Jai Sao @ Ajai Sao. While remaining under treatment, as Dinesh Sao died, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was, later on, added to the case aforementioned.

(iii) During investigation, inquest was held over Dinesh Sao’s dead body, which was also subjected to post mortem examination, and, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid, under Section 302/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the three accused persons aforementioned.

(iv) As the present accused-appellant, Jai Sao @ Ajai Sao, had absconded, the trial of his two co-accused, namely, Moti Sao and Lauhar Sao, was held separately, their trial being covered by Sessions Trial No.195 of 1986. The said trial ended, on 16th January, 1991, in conviction of the said two accused aforementioned under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the charge, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, failed and the two co-accused aforementioned were acquitted of the said charge.

3. At the trial of the present accused-appellant, a charge, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed. To the charge so framed the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.

4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 9 (nine) witnesses including the doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the accused denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence.

5. Having, however, found the accused-appellant, Jai Sao @ Ajai Sao, guilty of the offence, which he stood charged with, learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above.

6. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, which has been passed ag