Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J.—I have already heard Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, learned amicus curiae for the appellants as well as the learned APP for the State.

2. The appellants of both the appeals have preferred the appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against the judgment of conviction dated 31.12.2005 and order of sentence dated 02.01.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 376 of 1991/ Trial No. 539 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:—

3. The FIR was lodged on the basis of fardbayan given by the informant, Ramanand Singh, stating therein that at about 12.00 noon, when he went to his field, he saw seven accused persons, namely, Bilas Yadav, the appellant with farsa, Bhagelu Yadav (since deceased with lathi), Soharai Yadav (since deceased with farsa), Ramashray Yadav, the appellant, Suraj Yadav, the appellant, Binod Yadav and Keshwar Yadav, the appellant with lathi. The accused persons were making ridges in the field of the informant. When the informant prohibited, all the accused persons started assaulting the informant (P.W.4) and also his wife (P.W.1) with lathi and farsa. Soharai Yadav assaulted with farsa on the head of the informant and other accused persons also assaulted him with lathi. The wife of the informant suffered injuries in her hands, waist etc. The informant and his wife raised hue and cry, whereupon Pariksha Yadav (P.W.5), Permeshwar Singh (not examined) came there and they saw the occurrence. The accused persons fled away from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, the informant and his wife were brought to the hospital.

4. After lodging of the FIR, the investigation was carried out, and after conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted. The cognizance was taken and thereafter the case was committed to the court of sessions. During trial, three accused persons, namely, Bhagelu Yadav, Sohrai Yadav and Binod Yadav died and proceeding was dropped against them. The charges were framed against the appellants on 04.07.2002 under Sections 307/149 and 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. In order to prove its case, altogether 10 prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the injured witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.1.

6. P.W.1 is Savitri Devi, the wife of the informant. P.W.2 is Karmshila Devi, the daughter of the informant. P.W.3 Maratha Yadav is the brother of the informant. P.W 4 is the informant himself. P.W.5 Parikhsha Yadav is another brother of the informant. P.W.6 is Dr. Pramod Kumar, who medically examined P.W.1 and P.W.4 (the injured). P.W.7, Badri Narayyan Singh is a formal witness, who identified the signature of the then SHO on the fardbayan, which was marked as Ext.5. This witness also identified the signature of then ASI Yogendra Prasad, whose signature was marked as Ext.6. P.W.8 is the deed writer, who drafted the sale deed (Ext.7). P.W.9, Sudama Singh, is the revenue clerk, who identified his signature on the rent receipt Ext.8 and Ex