JUDGMENT :

SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR, J.

Heard Mr. Amis Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S.N. Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18th day of April 1994 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial no. 62 of 1993.

3. By the aforesaid judgment dated 18th day of April, 1994 appellant-Pradeep Kumar has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After hearing the convict on the point of sentence, vide consequential order dated 18 day of April, 1994, the trial court sentenced the appellant Pradeep Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian penal Code.

4. The FIR giving rise to the sessions trial was registered on the basis of the statement of the informant, namely, Panna Lal Sah, P.W.-8 who is husband of the deceased. Recapitulating the prosecution case, in short, is that on Wednesday, dated 12th day of August, 1992, the informant, Panna Lal Sah (P.W.-8) came to his home situated at Laxamipur from his shop at 3 P.M. and saw his nephew, namely, Pradeep Kumar with one person coming out from his gate of his house towards road. Associate of Pradeep was not known to the informant but he claimed to identify him by face. He asked Pradeep Kumar to stop as he had to say something, upon which he replied that he would talk later as he has some urgent work and proceeded towards Raxaul Bazar. When the informant entered into his house, none met him. In the meantime, his daughter, Sunita came there from neighbour’s house. The informant asked about her mother. She replied that her mother was talking with Pradeep Kumar and his friend, Arun Kumar Singh in the middle room of the house. She had gone to her neighbour’s house half an hour before. Informant went in that room with his daughter, Sunita. Since it was dark, he switched on the bulb and saw his wife lying dead under the ‘Palang’ and blood was found on the floor.

5. Informant started crying and local people gathered there. He checked all his rooms and found that his son’s (Jata Shankar) Almirah was broken and ornaments were missing. His son and daughter-in-law had gone to Deoghar. So he could not give details of the ornaments. Informant suspected involvement of Pradeep Kumar and his friend in robbery and murder of his wife.

6. Atelephonic message was given to police station at about 3.25 P.M. on 12.08.1993 by the informant about murder of his wife. On the basis of his information, station diary entry no. 226 dated 12.08.1992 was made. Police party including the I.O. proceeded towards the place of occurrence and statement of Panna Lal Sah (Ext.3) was recorded, which was made basis for FIR (Ext.-4) and for the first time the name of the appellant surfaced in the alleged occurrence.

7. Matter has been investigated by the I.O. and charge sheet has been submitted. Ultimately, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial.

8. Charge has been framed against the appellant and other co-accused Arun Kumar Singh under Sections 302/34 and 394 of the IPC. The trial court explained the charges to the accused under Section 302/34 and 394 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. To substantiate the charge leveled against the accused, altogether 10 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 are highly interested witnesses. There are two star witnesses, namely, P.W.-7, daughter of the informant and P.W.-8 the informant. P.W.-9 is the doctor and P.W.-10 is the I.O. of the case. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. However, they have expressed their innocence to the occurrence in their statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C..

10. P.W.1 Dinesh Prasad Chourasia is a h