The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, to uphold the conviction of the appellants.

KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL, J.

A-1 (Sumit Mishra), A-2 (Manna Singh) and A-3 (Pankaj Singh) have been convicted under section 302/34 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. By the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2013 and order of sentence dated 15.05.2013 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Begusarai in S.T. No. 473 of 2011, they have been sentenced to suffer R.I. for life under section 302/34 IPC with fine having default clause. Additionally, they have also been sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years with fine, having default clause under section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences, however, are directed to run concurrently.

2. The trial emerged out of Matihani P.S. Case No. 49 of 2010 registered on the basis of the written report submitted by Ramchandra Singh @ Naga Singh (P.W. 5) alleging that on 07.05.2010, at about 2:00pm in the noon, when the informant had gone to his land in Diyara to see his field and was returning with the harvested crops (Ajmain) he saw his son Devendra Singh (deceased) tending the she-buffalo in the field at Bhatta Pari Barki Nakti Bandh. Soon he noticed Devendra Singh fleeing away followed by the appellants and three other named accused persons besides two others unknown. While the deceased was on the run, the accused persons fired at him. He received gunshot injury and fell down whereafter A-2 fired at the chest of the deceased. A-3 Pankaj Singh also fired at him(deceased). Two other co-accuseds had also fired at the deceased. The assault was made at the order of the co-accused Lakho Mishra. After having assaulted the victim the accused persons escaped. The deceased died at the spot instantaneously. The incident was witnessed, amongst others, by his son (P.W.7) and his brother (P.W.8). An information was given on telephone to P.W. 9 who is the SHO of Matihani police station. He was then at Begusarai. Within few hours of the occurrence, P.W.9, along with a police party, reached the site of the incident, carried out the death inquest proceeding, collected the empty shell of the cartridges found scattered near the place of occurrence under a seizure memo and inspected the place of occurrence whereafter the deadbody was dispatched for post mortem examination. A written report bearing the LTI of the informant (P.W.5) and the signature/LTI of P.Ws.7 and 8 as attesting witnesses was made to P.W.9. He himself later became the I.O. of the case. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. P.W.6 was then posted as the Medical Officer of Begusarai Sadar Hospital. He performed the autopsy on 08.05.2010 at 8.30am and furnished the post mortem report (Ext.2). On conclusion of investigation and finding the accusations true against the appellants filed the charge-sheet which gave rise to the present trial on the file of the learned trial Judge.

3. The appellants abjured the guilt and claimed the trial. On behalf of the defence, a plea of innocence and false implication due to village politics was taken. The defence also put up a case that the deceased was a criminal as several cases were pending against him. He was killed at a different place and in a different manner of occurrence.

4. To prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubts, the prosecution adduced oral as well as the documentary evidence. As many as 9 prosecution witnesses were examined. The prosecution also placed on record Ext.1 (the signature of the witnesses on the seizure memo), Ext.2 (post mortem report), Ext. 3 (signature of the I.O. on the seizure memo) and Ext. 4(Signature and endorsement of the I.O. on the formal FIR).

5. In appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the appellants guilty of the charges and sentenced them in the manner stated above.

6. We have heard the counsels appearing in the respective appeals as well as Mr. S.N.Prasad, APP for the State. Perused the materials on record.

7. The judgment of conviction has been challenged on several counts. Firstly, it