Ashutosh Kumar, J.—We have heard Mr. Sheo Jee Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellants, Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, learned Advocate for the informant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned APP for the State.

2. The appellants, who are brothers amongst themselves, have been convicted under Sections 302, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 04.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, East Champaran, Motihari, in Sessions Trial No. 166 of 2015, arising out of Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 87 of 2014. By order dated 09.05.2017, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Sections 302/120B. They have been saddled with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of which, the appellants have been directed to undergo S.I. for six months. With respect to offence under Section 201 of IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer S.I. for three months.

3. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

4. Kamlesh Kumar, a student studying in a Coaching Institute, was found dead in the field of one Bishwanath Rai. According to the medical evidence, he was bludgeoned to death. Somebody had killed him in the night intervening between 28.04.2014 and 29.04.2014. Shortly before his death, he had his dinner with his father/ Yogi Rai (P.W. 7), who is the informant of this case.

5. The FIR was lodged on 29.04.2014 by him alleging that he had learnt in the morning on 29.04.2014 that his son is lying dead in the field of Bishwanath Rai.

6. He had no clue about the killers or the reason for his son to be killed.

7. The FIR, thus, was registered as Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 87 of 2014, dated 29.04.2014, under Sections 302, 201 of the IPC against unknown.

8. The evidence reveals that the deceased was having an affair with a co-student in the coaching institute, whom we refrain from naming in the judgment. The appellants are the uncle and the father of the aforenoted friend of the deceased.

9. The prosecution story hinges on the insistence of the deceased and his friend to marry, which was not to the liking of the family of the girl.

10. Hence, the murder.

11. However, there are certain missing links in the story. The first and foremost is the complete silence of P.W. 7 about the complicity of the appellants when he had lodged the FIR. This, therefore, presupposes that the relationship between the family of the appellants and the family of the deceased had not soured and possibly the parents of the deceased were not aware of the affair of the deceased or that they had reconciled with it.

12. Had there been any dispute with respect to the deceased carrying on an affair with his friend, that would have had been the first cause of concern and doubt. If P.W. 7 was not sure about the accusation, he was expected to at least raise doubts about the family members of the girl. Not saying a word against the appellants, who are the uncle and father of the girl then means a lot.

13. Later, it appears that the prosecution has attempted to garner evidence through the mouth of the friends of the deceased, who belong to the same village and were studying along with the deceased and his friend.

14. Raja Kumar and Vikash Kumar, two of the students and friends of the deceased, have been examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2, who have disclosed before the Trial Court that the deceased was in love with a costudent at the Academy and there was a possibility of the relationship culminating to marriage. According to them, there was reluctance of the family of the girl even though the boy and the girl were of the same caste. However, both the witnesses were told later that the family of the girl had agreed to have the marriage solemnized.

15. However, from the tenor of their deposition, it appears that such statement by the family members of the girl was only a ruse to have the deceased called outside his house and then killed fo