The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish charges beyond a reasonable doubt, emphasizing the reliability of witness testimony and the absence of premeditation and intention to commit murder.

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.06.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.308 of 1993/108 of 2002, arising out of Majorganj P.S. Case No.58/92, whereby convicting the appellants, namely, Ramdeo Mahto alias Ram Deni Mahto and Ram Birksh Mahto, for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that Majorganj P.S. Case No.58 of 1992 was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of fardbeyan of Sanjiv Kumar Singh, son of Ram Swarath Singh of village Gamhariya, P.S. Majorganj, Disrict Sitamarhi recorded by A.S.I. R.H. Singh on 01.07.1992 on 8:45 PM at Dhang Shivir, with the allegation in succinct that while he along with other boys were playing in the field of Gamhariya Middle School, in the mean time, Surendra Mahto, Ram Birksh Mahto, Ramdeni Mahto, Anil Kumar Singh, Arun Kumar Singh and Nand Kishore Singh arrived at the road near the school and called him there. Responding the call when he went there Surendra Mahto uttered that he always abuses him in course of passing through the road. Thereafter, Anil Kumar Singh caught him hold and gave order of his elimination, whereupon all the accused persons started slapping him. In the mean time, Surendra Mahto took out a bottle from his pocket and at the instigation of Ramdeni Mahto poured acid on his face. Sustaining injury he fell senseless. At that time, some boys had rushed there in his rescue who had also received acid splashes. On hulla near by people rushed there and took him to the clinic of a doctor & from where his family members and the villagers took him to the police outpost where his statement was recorded. He had sustained burn injury on his face, right eye and rest part of the body. The bone of contention is said to be that his brother, namely, Jitendra Singh and the accused, Surendra Mahto had quarreled about 20 days back during the course of proceeding to school due to that all the accused persons, in furtherance of common intention & in order to do away with his life poured acid on him.

3. The aforesaid case was investigated by the police and on conclusion of the investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Surendra Mahto, Ram Briksha Mahto and Ramdeni Mahto, showing accused Anil Kumar Singh, Arun Kumar Singh and Nand Kumar Singh as not sent up.

4. During pendency of the case, one of the accused, namely, Surendra Mahto expired, hence the proceeding against him was dropped. Thus, there are two accused persons, namely, Ram Briksha Mahto and Ramdeo Matho who faced the trial.

5. On receiving the charge-sheet and perusing the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. On transfer, finally the case came in the seisin of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Sitamarhi for trial.

6. During course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether six prosecution witnesses to substantiate its case, namely, P.W.1-Jagannath Singh, P.W.2-Satish Kumar Singh, P.W.3-Amrendra Kumar Singh, P.W.4-Jitendra Kumar, P.W.5- Sanjeev Kumar Singh and P.W.6-Dr. Yogesh. The prosecution has also filed documents in course of the evidence. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The case of the defence is comple