Vipul M. Pancholi, J.—Both these appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the common judgment of conviction dated 17.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 19.03.2004, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.124 of 2002, arising out of Bakhri P.S. Case No.82 of 2001 whereby the court has convicted both the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to suffer RI for life and a fine of Rs.2000/- under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have further been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences shall run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, both the convicts shall further serve the sentence of imprisonment for a period of two months each for each count.

2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:—

2.1. Fardbeyan of Ruby Devi came to be recorded on 26.10.2001 wherein the informant has stated that on 25.10.2001, Sunita Devi, Meena Devi, Usha Devi, Sushila Devi, Pinki Kumari and Rampari Devi, the deceased (mother of the informant Ruby Devi) had gone to see the Durga Puja at Bakhri Bazar. While returning, when they came near Bakhri bus stand at around 11:00 p.m., accused Rampravesh Mahto, Pappu Sah and two unknown persons kidnapped Rampari Devi (mother of the informant). On protest, the accused threatened them with guns because of which no one could raise alarm. This occurrence was narrated to the informant by her niece Pinki Kumari who came running to the house of the informant when the incident started. On receiving the information, the informant ran to the place of occurrence but by that time, the deceased had been taken somewhere by the said four accused. The informant alleged that the reason for the incident was that around two months ago, Murlidhar Mahto, the brother-in-law of the informant was killed by the accused Rampravesh Mahto, his brother Pramod Mahto alongwith others. In that case, Rampukar Mahto was the informant. The mother of the informant was kidnapped on the pretext that her husband would make compromise in the previous case. The informant also apprehends that her mother might be killed, if compromise is not reached by her father.

2.2. After registration of the formal FIR on the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, the Investigating Agency started investigation. During course of investigation, dead body of person who was kidnapped, namely, Rampari Devi was found and, therefore, the Investigating Agency added Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses, collected the documentary evidence and thereafter filed chargesheet against both the appellants and another accused.

2.3. The case was exclusive triable by court of sessions and, therefore, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the concerned sessions court where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No.124 of 2002.

2.4. During course of trial, the prosecution had examined 15 witnesses whereas the defence had examined one witness. Documentary evidence was also produced before the Trial Court. Thereafter further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code came to be recorded. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court acquitted the accused, Ramphal Tanti whereas both these appellants have been convicted for the aforesaid offences as stated hereinabove.

2.5. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellants have filed two separate appeals.

3. Heard Mr. Ansul, learned counsel for both the appellants, Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State in both the appeals as well as Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singha, learned c