Key legal principles established include the standards of eyewitness reliability and the requirements for proving possession of intent in conspiracy cases, emphasizing that absence of evidence negates conviction.

JUDGMENT :

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.

1. The aforesaid appeals preferred under Section 374(2) read with Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) arise out of the same judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 29.01.2016 and 09.02.2016 respectively, passed in Sessions Trial No.138 of 1994 (arising out of Triveniganj P.S. Case No.85 of 1992), by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Supaul (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. Trial Judge”), hence these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed off by the present common judgment and order. By the said judgment dated 29.01.2016, the Ld. Trial Judge has convicted the aforesaid appellants of both the cases for commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “I.P.C.”) and as far as the appellant of the second case namely, Vidyanand Yadav is concerned, he has also been convicted for commission of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. By the order of sentence dated 09.02.2016, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as “R.I.”) for two years under Section 147 of the I.P.C., R.I. for three years under Section 148 of the I.P.C., R.I. for six months under Section 120B of the I.P.C., R.I. for 1 year under Section 323 of the I.P.C., R.I. for 3 years under Section 324 of the I.P.C., R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof, the appellants have been directed to remain in custody for six months. As far as the appellant of the second case namely, Vidyanand Yadav is concerned, he has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The short facts of the case are that on 05.09.1992, the fardbeyan of Ravi Yadav (the informant herein) was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Triveniganj Police Station at 10:45 a.m. In the fardbeyan, the informant has stated that about 3-4 years back, he had bought 1 bigha, 18 kathas, 10 dhurs of land from Hanuman Agrawal but the said land was being cultivated on contract basis by Natai Yadav from before, hence even after purchase of the said land Natai Yadav did not allow the informant to plough the field. In connection with the said dispute, the Panches from the neighbouring villages had got together and Panchayati was held in which it was decided that the informant will pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- to Natai Yadav upon which Natai Yadav became ready and then the informant had deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- with the Panches. The informant has also stated that the Chief Panch was Mukhiya of Kuswaha Panchayat, namely Shiv Nandan Yadav. The informant has further stated that he had ploughed some portion of the field in question, whereafter his son Dilip Kumar Yadav had gone to the land in question to plough the remaining portion of the said land. In the meantime, he came to know that the amount deposited before the Panches has been taken by Natai Yadav. The informant has next stated that today in the morning, when his son had gone to plough the field then he came to know that Natai Yadav, his sons and other people had also gone to the field in question to ask him not to plough the field. Thereafter, the informant and his wife, namely Murti Devi had gone to the field at about 8 a.m. when they saw that many people have assembled at the spot, where