JUDGMENT :

1. Cr. Misc. No.175 of 2009 wherein appellants Binod Ram and Nawal Ram are the appellants, Cr. Misc. No.199 of 2009 wherein Raj Balam Ram is the appellant and Cr. Misc. No.261 of 2009 wherein Ayodhya Ram @ Loha Ram is the appellant, have been taken together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as all these appeals arise out from common judgment of conviction dated 09.02.2009 and order of sentence dated 10.02.2009 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No.370 of 1991, whereby and whereunder all the appellants have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and each one has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years. However, Appellants Ayodhya Ram @ Loha Ram and Raj Balam Ram have been further sentenced to pay fine appertaining to Rs.3,000/-and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for three months, additionally.

2. Kailash Ram (since deceased) gave his fardbayan on 23.08.1990, while he was admitted at State Dispensary, Chandi, disclosing therein that on the same day at about 12.30 hours while he was returning from his field and during course thereof, reached in front of house of Ayodhya Ram @ Loha Ram, all of a sudden Ayodhya Ram @ Loha Ram took out pistol and fired causing injury over his back. Another firing was made by Raj Balam Ram causing injury over his left hand. Binod Ram and Nawal Ram have also fired, but anyhow, he escaped. Pappu Ram armed with Garasa came, but due to timely arrival of villagers including witnesses, he has been rescued and lifted to hospital where he is undergoing treatment. Long standing enmity has been shown to be the motive for commission of the occurrence.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid fard-bayan, Chandi P. S. Case No.246 of 1990 was registered followed with an investigation as well as submission of chargesheet, facilitating the trial, subject matter of instant appeal.

4. Defence case, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial. It has also been pleaded that informant had sustained the aforesaid injuries in different manner at different place, but in the background of prevailing animosity amongst the party, they have been roped in. However, neither ocular nor documentary evidence has been adduced on his behalf.

5. During course of argument, when the L.C. Record has been gone through, it is evident there from that the judgment passed by the learned lower Court happens to be illegal in the background of the fact that the same happens to be in contravention of Section 273 of the Cr.P.C. Though the first part of order sheets divulge the conduct of the appellants, their absence to prolong the trial and lastly, they became continuously absent since 06.06.2001, on account thereof, vide order dated 13.03.2008, they were declared absconder and record was directed to be deposited at the record room. Subsequently thereof, appellants Binod Ram and Nawal Ram were arrested on 15.05.2008, while accused Pappu Ram (since acquitted) was arrested on 23.06.2008. Then thereafter, on 24.06.2008, trial was separated with regard to absconding accused namely Raj Balam Ram as well as Ayodhya Ram @ Loha Ram. That means to say, main trial proceeded against three accused namely Binod Ram, Nawal Ram and Pappu Ram. On 03.07.2008, two witnesses Brij Ram (PW-7) and Rama Nandan Ram (PW-8) were examined, cross-examined and discharged. It is further evident that on 22.11.2008, prosecution case was closed on 28.11.2008, statement of the custodial accused Pappu Ram, Nawal Ram and Binod Ram were recorded and then, case was fixed for defence, vide order dated 17.12.2008, the case has been fixed for argument.

6. Now, coming to the status of separate record, which has been numbered as Sessions Trial No.370A of 1991, vide order dated 26.07.2008, Ayodhya Ram @ Loha Ram was apprehended while vide order dated 01.12.2008, it is evident that Raj Balam Ram had sur