Vipul M. Pancholi, J. – Both these appeals, filed under Sections- 374(2) and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’, arise out of the common judgment of conviction dated 15.11.2016 and order of sentence dated 18.11.2016 passed by Sri Yogesh Narayan Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Bhojpur, Arrah in S.T. No.150 of 2014, arising out of Arrah (Nawada) P.S. Case No.448 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections- 302, 364, 120(B), 392 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and appellant/accused Chandan Kumar has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for Sections- 302 and 120(B) of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section- 364 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section-392 of I.P.C. Appellant/accused Sonu Kumar has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for Sections- 302 and 120(B) of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section- 364 read with 120(B) of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section-392 read with 120(B) of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, they will undergo six months imprisonment each. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and period spent under trial will be counted under sentences.

2. The prosecution story in brief is as under: –

“The informant is the owner of a Scorpio car bearing Reg. No.BR-03P-8205 which was driven by Gautam Kumar (deceased). On 14.12.2013 at about 3:30 p.m. the driver Gautam Kumar came to his residence and took permission to go for worship at Rajrappa temple in Jharkhand with some of his relatives on the assurance that he will return till 15.12.2013. At 9:30 p.m. he made a call to the owner informing him that he was at Jehanabad and was on way to Rajrappa. On 15.12.2013, the informant tried to contact the driver Gautam Kumar which whose mobile phone was switched off. He tried again on the same number, but could not contact him. On 16.12.2013 he made contacts with the family members of Gautam Kumar who informed him that he will return till 16.12.2013, but he did not return. The informant has apprehension that his vehicle has met with some mishappening in collusion with the driver and his associates.”

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh assisted by Mr. Shashi Sekhar Singh and Mr. Sadanand Roy for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 35 of 2017 and learned advocate Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh assisted by Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh and Ms. Priya for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.10 of 2017 and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the respondent State in both the appeals.

4. Learned counsels appearing for the appellants have mainly submitted that, in the present case, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence in question and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has applied the theory of last seen together and on the basis of the same, though the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances, the learned Trial Court has recorded the conviction of the appellants/accused and, therefore, the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

5. It is submitted that, as per the deposition of P.W. 1, namely Krishna Kumar, who is the brother of the deceased, accused Sonu Kumar @ Prakash Kumar and Santosh Verma went to the house of the deceased and requested him to go with them to Rajrappa in the Scorpio car. However, thereafter the said witness came to know that appellant Chandan Kumar was also present in the Scorpio car. Thus, there are contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution-witnesses.

6. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. wa