P. Diwaker, J.

1. The above appeals since arising out of a common judgment, are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Challenge in the present set of appeals is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.9.2010 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Sessions Trial No.122/99 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth 'the IPC') and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, plus default stipulations, respectively.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.10.1998 the accused/appellants along with Anil Kumar Rai (since deceased) had gone for pre-Diwali celebration to village Manikprakashpur. It is alleged that after swimming in the pond, said Anil Kumar Rai had left the company of accused persons by saying that he is going to answer nature's call and when said Anil did not return for quite some time, he was searched but his whereabouts could not be traced and therefore a missing report was lodged by accused/appellant Pawan Pandey. This report was entered into roznamcha sanha at 6.40 in the evening. Apprehending that said Anil Kumar Rai might have drowned in the pond, a big net was thrown in the pond and next morning naked body of said Anil Rai was recovered from the pond. Un-numbered merg (Ex.P-22) was recorded on 19.10.1998 at 6.00 p.m. Inquest (Ex.P-24) was conducted over the body of deceased on 20.10.1998. Numbered Merg was recorded vide Ex.P-27. Body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Tripathi (PW-3) and the post-mortem report is Ex.P-2 where it was opined by the doctor that cause of death could not be ascertained, but he preserved viscera, right tibia bone & blood and the same were sent for chemical examination, histo-pathological examination and diatom test. After receipt of the report of Diatom test (Ex.P-39), FIR (Ex.P-34) was registered on 9.1.1999 against all the accused persons under Sections 302, 201, 34 of IPC, except accused Subhadra. Diary statement of Rukhmani Bai (PW- 1) & Ramchandra Prasad (PW-2) were recorded on 11.1.1999 wherein they have projected themselves to be the eyewitnesses of the incident. Diary statement of Sunil (PW-4) was recorded on 10.1.1999, whereas diary statement of yet another important witness i.e. PW-6, was recorded on 11.4.1999. On the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P-20) of accused/ appellant Amar Singh, one wrist watch of Lomex company was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-21 and in the test identification parade the said wrist watch was identified by PW-4 Suneel to be of the deceased.

4. On completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of IPC was filed against accused persons and accordingly the charges were framed against them by the trial Court. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused/ appellant examined 16 witnesses in all. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence & false implication. The accused persons have examined eight witnesses in their defence.

5. After hearing the parties, the Court below has convicted & sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the accused/appellants that;

testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2, so-called eyewitnesses, are completely unreliable and that is why the trial Court has disbelieved their evidence. Findings recorded by the trial Court in respect of PW-1 & PW-2 are strictly in accordance with law and unless the same is held to be perverse, the same cannot be interfered with.

diary statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 & PW-6 have been recorded with inordinate delay