The prosecution must prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts, and the quality of evidence is crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. We have heard Mr. Kartik Kumar Sinha, the learned advocate for the appellant/Fulan Das @ Fulman Das (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 923 of 2015) and Mr. Subodh Prasad, the learned advocate for the appellants/Ajay Das and Mahesh Das (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 924 of 2015).

2. We have also heard Ms. Surya Nilambri, who had been appointed as amicus curiaeby the predecessor Bench in both the appeals.

3. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 416 of 2018, preferred by the appellant/Bechan Das, has also been tagged along with the aforenoted two appeals arising out of the same occurrence. In this appeal, two Sessions Trial were amalgamated viz. Sessions Trial No. 603 of 2006 and Sessions Trial No. 1370 of 2006, and a common judgment was delivered by the Trial Court. In this case also, Ms. Surya Nilambri, the learned amicushas assisted us.

4. In all the three appeals, Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, the learned APP for the State has appeared.

5. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 09.09.2015 and the consequent order of sentence dated 11.09.2015 passed in Sessions Trials No. 1296 of 2008 and 1061 of 2009 and the impugned judgment of conviction dated 31.01.2018 and the consequent order of sentence dated 02.02.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 603 of 2006 and Sessions Trial No. 1370 of 2006 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-III, Bhagalpur, whereby the appellant Fulan Das @ Fulman Das (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 923 of 2015) and the appellants Ajay Das and Mahesh Das (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 924 of 2015) have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 of the IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for one year; R.I. for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for two months for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

6. The appellant Bechan Das (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 416 of 2018), has been convicted under Sections 302/149, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for six month for 302 IPC and to further undergo R.I. for two years, for 147 and 148 IPC. However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

7. All the appellants in these three appeals are alleged to have killed one Vakil Das, aged about 35 years, for which the FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased, namely, Govind Das, which led to the institution of Sabour P.S. Case No. 328 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

8. In the aforenoted case, several persons were charge-sheeted at different points of time and therefore, four Sessions Trial were initiated. However, two of the Sessions Trial viz. Sessions Trial No. 1296 of 2008 and 1061 of 2009 were amalgamated and a common judgment was passed against the appellants Fulan Das @ Fulman Das (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 923 of 2015) and Ajay Das and Mahesh Das (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 924 of 2015).

9. Two other Sessions Trials viz. Sessions Trial No. 603 of 2006 and Sessions Trial No. 1370 of 2006, respectively were also amalgamated and again a common judgment was delivered in the aforenoted two Sessions Trials, convicting the appellant Bechan Das (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 416 of 2018) and acquitting the co-accused Sakko @ Sakho Das, who was tried along with the appellant Bechan Das.

10. Govind Das, the father of the deceased as noted above, had lodged the First Information Report on 22.12.2003, at about 03.00 O'clock in the day alleging that on the same day at about 12:00 O’clock in the afternoon, while his son Vakil Das was sleeping in his house, appellant Mahesh Das came, woke him up and asked his son to accompany him outside the house. He was taken toward