Vipul M. Pancholi, J. – The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, II, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 302 of 2013 arising out of Katihar Muffasil P.S. Case No. 14 of 2013 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and vide order of sentence dated 16.05.2015, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C.

2. The crux of prosecution case as it springs from the Fardbeyan of the wife of the deceased namely Devki Devi is that the Informant was living at the house of her mother situated in village Makdumpur, P.S. Makdumpur, Katihar for the last one month. On 25.01.2013, the husband of the Informant namely Budhu Ravidas (deceased) came at her parent house for taking her. At about 3 PM, the Informant was ready to go her matrimonial home situated in village Bastol. At the same time, the husband of the Informant Budhu Ravidas was persuading her brother Ravindra Singh and his wife Putul Devi for not quarreling and misbehaving to her parent. Meanwhile, the accused Ravindra @ Birendra Ravidas became infuriated and caught the ‘Collar’ of the husband of the Informant and started abusing. In the meantime, the accused Putul Devi took out dagger and handed over the same to her husband and she gave order to kill him. Then, Ravindra @ Birendra Ravidas took dagger from the hand of his wife and stabbed in the chest of Budhu Ravidas as a result of which, he fainted. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital with the help of neighbour and villagers where he was declared dead by the doctor.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan given by the wife of the deceased, who is also sister of the appellant no.2, the Investigating Officer lodged the formal F.I.R. and thereafter investigation was carried out by the investigating agency.

4. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and the dead body of the deceased was sent for conducting postmortem. The Investigating Officer also seized knife in presence of two witnesses. Thus, there is a discovery of the weapon. After the investigation was over, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against both the appellants/ accused before the concerned Magistrate court.

5. The case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and, therefore, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the concerned Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. where the case was registered as S.T. No. 302 of 2013.

6. Before the trial court, the prosecution had examined nine witnesses and also produced the documentary evidences. Thereafter, the further statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. After the conclusion of the trial, the trial court passed the impugned order against which, as observed herein above, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Km. Shashi Bala Verma, learned APP, representing the State.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants was not remaining present and, therefore, order dated 09.11.2023 was passed wherein this Court observed as under: –

“When the matter is called out, learned counsel for the appellants has not remained present. It is required to be noted that appeal is of the year 2015 and the appellant is in custody since approximately last more than ten years. However, the learned counsel is not present, therefore, in the interest of justice, as a last chance, matter is adjourned.

2. Learned APP for the State is present.

3. Re-notify on 29.11.2023.

4. It is clarified that if Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel fo