Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. – We consider it apt to take note of certain facts which are essential for adjudicating upon the core issue involved in the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC in short).

2. Shahpur P.S. Case No. 16 of 2004 was registered on 08.02.2004 naming 12 persons as accused including these appellants, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. We are not entering into the nature of accusation in view of the nature of order which we are going to pass in the present appeal, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

3. It is manifest from the records that initially, after the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted charge-sheet against six persons, namely, Rama Shankar Gond (Appellant No. 1), Mohan Gond (Appellant No. 6), Santosh Gond (Appellant No. 4), Tejan Gond (Appellant No. 2), Baban Gond, Upendra Gond (Appellant No. 4) for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and kept the investigation against rest of the accused pending. Thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against two persons named in the F.I.R., namely, Manu Gond (Appellant No. 3) and Kishun Gond (Appellant No. 8) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Based on both the charge-sheet and the case diary, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara took cognizance of the offences against the aforesaid accused persons. The case was committed to the court of Sessions after separating the case of the absconding accused persons, namely, Manu Gond (Appellant No. 3) and Kishun Gond (Appellant No. 8). After receiving the case records on commitment, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case records to the file of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge for trial and disposal. Subsequently, the case of the absconding accused persons was also committed to the court of Sessions and two separate sessions records, namely, Sessions Appeal No. 385A of 2004 and Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2008 were maintained. Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2008 was amalgamated in Sessions Trial No. 385A of 2004 vide order dated 09.05.2008 and the split up case record i.e. Sessions Trial No. 385A of 2004 has been amalgamated in original case record i.e. Sessions Trial No. 385 of 2004 vide an order dated 19.05.2010. The appellants have put to challenge in the present appeal, the judgment and order dated 21.10.2014/31.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhojpur at Ara in Sessions Trial No. 385 of 2004 and 385A of 2004 which was subsequently amalgamated in original case records of Sessions Trial No. 385 of 2004 vide order dated 19.05.2010. By the said judgment and order of the trial court, the appellants stand convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307/149 and 302/149 of the I.P.C.

4. Paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment of the trial court depicts the manner in which the trial court has taken into consideration the evidence adduced in Sessions Trial No. 385 of 2004 for deciding the case of Sessions Trial No. 385A of 2004 which reads as under: –

“The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in support of its case and out of them PW-8 is the informant. PW-9 and PW- 11 are the Surgeon, who conducted Postmortem on the dead body of deceased X Deo Muni Yadav and Naga Yadav, PW-10 is the I.O. of the case. On perusal of split up record of S.Tr. No. 385 A/ 2004 it transpires that 8 witnesses have been examined who are also examined in original Sessions Trial No. 385 of 2004 and rest two witnesses Dr. Abdul Qyum and Sabbir Ahmad have been examined as Court witness after allowing petition of the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. On perusal of the split up record of Sessions Tr