JUDGMENT :

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.

The aforesaid appeals preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’) arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2019 and 13.12.2019 respectively, hence the aforesaid appeals have been heard together and are being disposed off by the present common judgment. By the said judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2019, passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-1^st, Jehanabad (herein after referred to as the ‘Ld. Trial Judge’) in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2017/14 of 2017 (arising out of Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 296 of 2016), the appellants of the first, third and fourth case have been convicted under Sections 302/201/120(B) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) while the appellants of the second, fifth and sixth case have been convicted under Sections 201/120(B) read with Section 149 of the IPC. By the order of sentence dt. 13.12.2019, the appellants of the 1st, 3rd and 4th case have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life under Sections 302/ 120(B) read with Section 149 of the IPC with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of the same they have been further directed to undergo RI for one year each as also they have been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years each under Sections 201/120(B) read with Section 149 of the IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of the same they have been further directed to undergo RI for six months each. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. As far as the appellants of the 2^nd, 5^th and 6^th case are concerned, by the order of sentence dt. 13.12.2019, they have been sentenced to undergo RI for five years each under Sections 201/120(B) read with Section 149 of the IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of the same they have been further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.

2. The short facts of the case as per the written report of the informant of the present case, namely Vidhi Kumar (PW-6), filed before the Officer-in-Charge Jehanabad Police Station is that on the previous day i.e. 22.06.2016, at about 08:00 p.m. in the night his brother Mantu Kumar aged about 33 years had told his wife Sheela Kumari (PW-4) that he has been called on telephone by Mithilesh Kumar for taking money, whereafter he had left the house, however when he did not return late in the night, his wife told the informant about the same, whereupon all the family members started searching for the said Mantu Kumar but he could not be found. The informant has further stated that the mobiles of Mantu Kumar bearing mobile nos. 8083588035 and 7091204544 were found to be switched off. He has also stated that when he had enquired from Mithilesh about his brother, he told him that he had to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- which he had given to Mantu Kumar near ICICI Bank, Jehanabad and then they had come up to Mallahchak More, whereafter the said Mantu Kumar had left on the pretext of purchasing vegetables, after which he cannot say about his whereabouts. The informant has next stated that his brother Mantu Kumar had left the house on a black colour Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle, whereafter he is missing. On the basis of the said written report of the informant, an FIR bearing Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 296 of 2016 was registered on 23.06.2016 at 10:30 am under Section 365 of the IPC against unknown persons.

3. The police had then conducted investigation and upon finding the case to be true had filed a charge sheet dated 30.09.2016 under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “I.T. Act”) against the aforesaid six appellants. The learned Trial Court upon considering the chargesheet and the materials available on record had taken cognizan