Sudhir Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Spl. P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. These criminal appeals arise out of same judgment of conviction and order of sentence and hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2018 and the order of sentence dated 25.01.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. Balia 65 of 2016 arising out of Balia P.S. case No.65 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘I.P.C.’), Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter ‘SC/ST Act’). The appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and have been awarded fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one year. They have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and have been awarded fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months. They have also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and have been awarded fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one year. All the sentences of the appellants have been directed to run concurrently.

3A. The prosecution case as per written information (Ext. 4/1) lodged by the informant Indu Devi (P.W.14), in brief, is that on 21.03.2016 at about 06:00 p.m. she had gone to the flour mill of one Rakesh Chaudhary for getting the wheat grinded and her brother-in-law Mahesh Ram and cousin brother-in-law Ram Pravesh Ram were returning on motorcycle from Balia Bazar. In the meantime, all of a sudden the accused persons including the appellants came out of flour mill and surrounded the motorcycle of her brother-in-laws and pulled them from the motorcycle. It has further been stated that appellant Surendra Chaudhary ordered to kill those purcha holders so that none of purcha holders could dare to go on the lands under their purcha. Thereupon, appellant Surendra Chaudhary himself along with appellants Himmat Chaudhary, Jitendra Chaudhary, Chhote Chaudhary made indiscriminate firing upon the brothers-in-law of the informant thereby causing their death. Upon hearing the sound of firing, Sarita Devi, Mantus Ram, Shambhu Ram, Jhapsu Ram, Parvati Devi, Mukesh Ram and others came and saw the occurrence. The motive of the occurrence is that Narain Ram, father-in-law of the informant, and others are purcha holders and the accused persons want to dispossess them of their land.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid written information lodged by the informant Indu Devi, Balia P.S. case No.65 of 2016 was instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 302 of the I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arm Act and Sections 3(i)(v) of the SC/ST Act. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(ii)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Thereupon, cognizance was taken and 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 nineteen witnesses, namely, Sarita Devi (P.W.1), Lalan Paswan (P.W.2), Goshi Sah (P.W.3), Arbind Sah (P.W.4), Parvati Devi (P.W.5), Hari Shankar Poddar (P.W.6), Pramod Sah (P.W.7), Sosho Thakur (P.W.8), Mantush Ram (P.W.9), Dr. Diwakar Singh (P.W.10), Shambhu Ram (P.W.11), Jhakshu Ram (P.W.12), Deepo Kumar (P.W.13), Indu Devi-informant (P.W.14), Mukesh Ram (