Sudhir Singh, J.—The present criminal appeal has been preferred in the year 1995 i.e. 27 years ago against the judgment of conviction dated 30.08.1995 and order of sentence dated 31.08.1995 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 127/93/9/93 (arising out of Madanpur P.S. Case No. 104/92), whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code with direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. It is the case of the prosecution as narrated by the informant (P.W.4) in his fardbeyan that on previous night i.e. 27.07.92, he was sleeping in a room facing east side and affixed taati on the gate. His father was sleeping on the south facing side of the room and his brothers were sleeping on the west facing side of the room. In the said house, there was another room facing north in which his mother (P.W.6), step mother Kamla Devi (P.W.7) and his wife Shanti Devi (P.W.8) were sleeping together. At about 10 p.m., the informant awoke after hearing the sound of removing the taati and also by the sound of feet of some persons and saw that with the help of torch light, four persons entered into the room and the informant identified the accused persons in the light of dhibri as Brahamdeo Dome, Gora Dome, Bigan Dome and Maksudan Dome. He also identified that Brahmdeo Dome have a tangi in his hand, his sons Bigan Dome having farsa in his hand, Gora Dome having iron rod in his hand and his son-in-law Maksudan dome having walam in his hand. Sound of 4-5 persons was also coming from outside. The informant further stated that Brahamdeo Dome, his two sons and son-in-law attacked on his father with tangi and other weapons in their hand. In the meantime, informant’s brothers Adhar Dome (P.W.3) and Arjun Dome (P.W.5) also awoke and were also assaulted with tangi by Brahamdeo Dome due to which they sustained injuries. Thereafter, all the four persons came out of the room. Due to the injuries, the father of the informant was groaning then Brahamdeo Dome stated that if he would remain alive, he would implicate them, the accused persons again came inside the room and assaulted the father of the informant with tangi on his face due to this, the face, cheek and eye of the father of the informant got damaged and he died. Thereafter, all the accused persons went into the room situated in the eastern side in which the mother and the wife of the informant were sleeping. Few minutes thereafter, they came out of the room and went towards south west. The informant stated that he was not assaulted by them because of the reason that he hid his face with bed-sheet (chadar) at the time when his father was being assaulted. The informant further stated that thereafter his mother came in the courtyard and told that the accused persons took all the articles with them. The informant told her that the accused persons killed his father. The reason behind this occurrence has been stated that earlier Brahamdeo Dome purchased a pig from the deceased for one hundred. He paid Rs. 50/- at the time of purchase but he paid rest Rs. 50/- after much demand. Due to repeated demand, Brahamdeo Dome became annoyed and threatened to get his life.

3. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.4), Madanpur P.S. Case No. 104/92 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 323, 324, 380, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up.

4. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet and cognizance was taken by the Jurisdictional Magistrate and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellants to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether twelve witn