MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. By the present appeals, the appellants challenge the impugned judgment dated 31st May, 2017 convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 9th June, 2017 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. Learned counsels for the appellants contend that the appellants are liable to be acquitted for the reason the testimony of the so called eye witnesses is unreliable. Their presence at the spot is doubtful. The alleged eye witnesses have not been able to assign the specific roles to the two appellants. No evidence was led by the prosecution to show that Vinod was the driver of the Innova and Rahul, the helper with him. Suman Rani, the purported owner of the Innova car has not been examined as a witness. Thus the conviction of the appellants is based on assumptions and presumptions.

3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand submits that the eye witnesses are natural witnesses who reside in the vicinity of the