HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 12.05.1994 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in Sessions Case No.96 of 1992, by which and where-under he convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. P.W.7 gave his fardbeyan on 27.03.1991 at about 09.30 P.M. at his house to P.W.8 Phuldeo Singh to this effect that on the same day, his father, namely, Sudhir Chaudhary, had gone to Samsa Chowk at about 02.00 P.M. He further claimed that at about 07.00 P.M., he was going to purchase match box to the shop of Kasim Mian of his village and reached near the house of Tarachand Paswan and saw the appellants, who were assaulting his father. The bicycle of his father was lying there. The aforesaid appellants started taking away his father towards Dusadh Toli, upon which he raised alarm and back to his home and gave information about the aforesaid occurrence to his mother as well as his other family members. He further claimed that his other family members came in search of his father but his father did not return to his home. P.W.7 further claimed that Jay Jay Ram Mahaton (P.W.5) had witnessed the aforesaid occurrence. P.W.7 further claimed that he gave his fardbeyan in presence of his uncle, namely, Upendra Chaudhary (P.W.3), who signed his fardbeyan as a witness.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of P.W.7, Bhagwanpur (Mansoorchak) P.S. Case No.21 of 1991 for the offences punishable under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and after registration of the F.I.R., P.W.8 took the charge of investigation. However, formal F.I.R. was drawn up against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and, subsequently, after recovery of the so-called dead body of Sudhir Chaudhary, Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code were also added.

4. P.W.8 inspected the place of the occurrence on the same day, however, on 28.03.1991, Upendra Chaudhary gave information to him that a dead body of the deceased of this case was lying, tied with the boring pipes of one Ram Bahadur Singh of village-Rudauli. P.W.8 having got the aforesaid information went there but due to night, he deputed Havildar and Chowkidar there and on 29.03.1991, he prepared the inquest report of the aforesaid dead body and sent the dead body of the deceased to the hospital for postmortem but before completion of investigation, on the direction of the Superintendent of Police, he handed over the charge of investigation to other police officer, namely, Jai Narain Ram. P.W.8 admitted that the aforesaid dead body was a headless dead body. However, another Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants.

5. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions, in usual way.

6. The appellants stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined, altogether, 9 witnesses and also got exhibited certain documents.

8. The statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which they reiterated their innocence and claimed their false implication. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellants in support of th