Ashutosh Kumar, J.—We have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur assisted by Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Ms. Kiran Thakur, Mr. Ritvik Thakur and Mr. Purushottam Kumar, learned Advocates and Shri Dilip Kumar Sinha and Shri Satyan Narayan Prasad for the State and Mr. Shantanu Kumar for the informant in all the above mentioned criminal appeals, which are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Before, we proceed to decide this case, it is necessary to be recorded that we found that the predecessor Bench had been informed about the demise of Shyam Sundar Raut, appellant no. 1 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 205/2017. A statement had been made on behalf of the appellants that Shyam Sundar Raut had passed away on 11.05.2017. The Bench vide order dated 20.01.2022 directed the appellants to file an I.A. application, bringing the death certificate on record and also issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against aforenoted Shyam Sundar Raut, perhaps in expectation of an execution report confirming the death of the afore-noted appellant.

3. The Interlocutory Application as directed by the Bench has already been filed along with a death certificate issued by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Govt. of India. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, we also directed Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned APP in one of the appeals to enquire from the office of the concerned Superintendent of Police whether the statement made by the appellants about the death of Shyam Sundar Raut is correct.

4. On necessary enquiry, Mr. Sinha has informed us today that Shyam Sundar Raut has passed away on 11.05.2017.

5. Since nobody has come forward on behalf of aforenoted late Shyam Sundar Raut to continue with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 205/2017, the appeal, so far as it relates to him, stands abated under the provisions contained in Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. The appellants in all the above appeals have been convicted under Sections 326, 302 with the aid of 149 of the IPC and 120(B), 147, 148 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 24.01.2017 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge Darbhanga in Sessions Case No. 318/2014 arising out of Kamtaul P.S. Case No. 121 of 2013 and vide order dated 27.01.2017, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC; R.I. for ten years, fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC; R.I. for life, fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 120B of the IPC; R.I. for two years, fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 147 of the IPC; R.I. for three years, fine of Rs. 5,00/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 148 IPC and simple imprisonment for one month and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under 341 of the IPC. The sentences, however, have been ordered to run concurrently.

7. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, the learned Advocate for the appellants has contended, while assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, that nobody had seen the occurrence and that the appellants have falsely been framed in this case because of enmity. He has further submitted that none of the witnesses could be relied upon for upholding their conviction and sentence.

8. The FIR was lodged by Jaiveer Yadav (PW1), the brother of the deceased (Mahavir Yadav). PW1 in his fardbeyan, which was recorded by the S.H.O./Sandeep Kumar of Kamtaul Police Station (PW8) on 27.07.2013 at about 9. P.M. near the house of one of the appellants, namely, Umakant Raut near the dead body of the deceased, he has alleged that on the same day at about 10 ‘O’ Clock in the