Vipul M. Pancholi, J. – Both these appeals, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.07.1996 and order of sentence dated 31.07.1996, passed by learned 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra in Sessions Trial No.917 of 1994/31 of 1994, arising out of Rivilganj P.S. Case No.126/93, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.12.1993 at 04:00 A.M., the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Srinath Singh was recorded by A.S.I. on the embankment of village Raipura, Nawada wherein it is alleged that on 12.12.1993 at 05:00 P.M., his son Lagan Deo Singh (deceased) had gone to Rivilganj market along with four accused persons, namely, Sarba Singh, Upendra Singh, Nag Narayan Singh and Amresh Singh. The deceased did not return home till 08:00 P.M. in the night. At about 10:00 P.M., Ramashankar Singh came to his house, called him and told that the guardians of the above named four accused persons had come to his house and asked him to inquire from the informant whether his son has returned to his house or not, because their sons had already returned home at 07:30 P.M. They told their guardians that someone had shot the deceased on the embankment while he was returning to his house. The informant along with Ramashankar Singh, his nephew Amod Singh and others went to Raipura, Nawada embankment. Thereafter they saw the dead body of Lagan Deo Singh having gun shot injuries on his head and chest lying by the side of the embankment towards west. The dead body was lying in pool of blood. The bicycle was also near the dead body. It is further alleged by the informant that he has land dispute with the accused persons, namely, Lalan Singh, Satyendra Singh and Ganesh Singh. These three accused persons always threatened to do away with the son of the informant. It is alleged that the accused persons who had gone to Rivilganj market along with his son and the accused persons who are his pattidars and others have conspired and killed the deceased while he was returning to his house from Rivilganj market at a lonely place on Raipura, Nawada embankment.

2.1. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer started investigation and during course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of the witnesses and also collected other materials. After investigation was concluded, he filed charge-sheet against the appellantsaccused before the concerned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the concerned Magistrate committed the same to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No.917 of 1994/31 of 1994.

2.2. During course of trial, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Srinath Singh, PW-2 Ramashankar Singh, PW-3 Ahilya Kumari, PW-4 Dhaneshwara Devi, PW-5 Meera Devi, PW-6 Parnu Devi, PW-7 Manohar Thakur, PW-8 Harendra Kumar Singh, PW-9 Ramnath Singh, PW-10 Sunil Kumar, PW-11 Amod Kumar Singh, PW-12 Shankar Ravidas and PW-13 Awadh Kishore Singh.

3. Heard Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Saroj Kumar for the appellants as also Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.328 of 1996, Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kumar Awnish Ankit, for the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.335 of 1996, Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State as well as Mr. Nishant Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant in both the appeals.

4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants appearing in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.328 of 1996 would mainly submit that present is a