Vipul M. Pancholi, J.—Both the appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Code’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 26.09.2018 and order of sentence dated 03.10.2018 passed by learned Fast Track Court-Ist, Rohtas, Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 285/93, arising out of Shivsagar (Baddi) P.S. Case No. 34 of 1992, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the present appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(A)/27 of the Arms Act and sentenced them for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code to go rigorous imprisonment for life, for offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code rigorous imprisonment for three years, for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act rigorous imprisonment for three years. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

1.1. Since, both these appeals arise out of common judgment and order, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. The crux of the prosecution case is as under:—

2.1. The informant, on 06.03.1992 at 10:00 p.m., in presence of his brother and samdhi got his statement recorded at Baddi Police Station where it has been stated that on 28.02.1992 at 06:30 p.m., his nephews Sudama Ram and Bhabhikshan Ram came and took his son Dukhan @ Radheshyam Ram with them on the pretext of hunting, but Dukhan @ Radheshyam Ram (deceased) did not return home. He searched for Radheshyam Ram everywhere but could not find him. His nephew Sudama Ram has also been missing from home since that date and has not returned home. His nephew Bhabhikshan Ram used to come home sometimes. He used to enquire about his son but he did not tell him anything and said that he did not know anything. On 06.03.1992, at about 09:00 p.m., he caught Bhabhikshan Ram and interrogated him after beating him upon which he told him that he along with Sudama Ram had killed his son with a pistol due to which he died there and when he asked him where he had hidden the body, he refused to tell and told that Sudama Ram stays hidden in Sasaram market out of fear and sometimes sends him home to inform him about the affairs of the village and that is why he had come. When Bhabhikshan Ram was being brought to the Police Station with the help of constable Dinesh Singh and chowkidar Nathuni Paswan, he told on the way that both of them buried the dead body in the dam of Marichai Bahiyar pond.

2.2. After registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer started the investigation and, during the course of the investigation, he had recorded the statement of the witnesses and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the appellants/accused before the concerned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the Sessions Court where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 285/93.

2.3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined following 13 witnesses:—

3. In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 7 of 2019, we have heard Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh and Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

3.1. In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1444 of 2018, we have heard Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

4. Learned advocates for the appellants submit that the present is a case of circumstantial evidence and th