Ashutosh Kumar, J. – We have heard Mr. Chaudhary Shayam Nandan assisted by Mr. Krishna Kumar Yadav, learned advocates for both the appellants and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma for the for the State.

2. Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The appellants who are related to each other have been convicted under Sections 302 & 201 with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 201/34 of IPC by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2014 and 04.12.2014 respectively in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 2013 arising out of Birpur P.S. Case No. 65 of 2012. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

4. A lady by the name of Baby Devi was killed by the appellants. The appellants stand in relation to the deceased. On 12.07.2012, a local Chowkidar namely Ram Kumar Mahto (P.W.9) learnt that a dead body of a young female is lying in a water-body in front of the field of one Soman Mahto (P.W.3). On such information, P.W.9 went to the place where the dead body was floating in water and found such information to be correct. The Officer In-charge of the concerned police Station was telephonically informed. Looking at the dead body, P.W.9 assumed that the deceased has been strangulated. Nobody was found around to identify the dead body.

5. On such fardbeyan of P.W.9, Birpur P.S. Case No. 65 of 2012 was registered for investigation on 07.12.2012 for offences under Section 302, 201 and 34 of I.P.C. against unknown.

6. It appears that later, from the photograph of the dead body, her son, her brother and others identified whereafter they also identified the dead body when it was brought before them. A suspicion was raised on the appellants whereafter they were arrested. Confessions, it has been argued were extracted from both the appellants and both of them were charged for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 376 with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C to which they pleaded not guilty. However, the Trial court, after examining 14 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. The charge under Section 376 of the I.P.C could not be made out and hence both of them were acquitted of such charge.

7. During the trial, Upendra Mahto, Sukhdev Mahto, Soman Mahto and Ramjeet Mahto (P.Ws. 1 to 4) though have claimed to have seen the dead body but did not identify that to be of the deceased. Hence their evidence at the trial is of no help to the prosecution.

8. Madhu Ram @ Dilkhush Ram, who is the son of the deceased, has stated at the trial that he did not find his mother at home on 10.07.2012. He was informed by his father/Ramashis Singh (P.W.13) that she had gone to the house of appellant/Shankar Singh to procure money for his admission in Engineering College. After hearing this, P.W.5 is said to have gone to the house of appellant/Shankar Singh where he met Shankar Singh, his wife and his mother. On the asking of Shankar Singh, P.W.5 came back home but was on telephonic contact with his mother till 11.07.2012. Thereafter, the mobile telephone of his mother was left unattended. P.W.5 thereafter called Shankar Singh on 12.07.2012 when he was informed by Shankar Singh that his mother has been sent to the place where she had to be sent. Shankar Singh’s telephone also remained unattended thereafter. When the mother of P.W.5 did not return home, then he along with his father (P.W.13) visited another house of Shankar Singh in the evening of 12.07.2012 but did not find any person there. Later, P.W.5 came to his maternal grandfather’s house. While he along with his father was there at his maternal grandfather’s house, the police party from Birpur Police Station came and informed him and others that a dead