I.A. Ansari, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 15.02.2007, passed, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (FTC), Tinsukia, in Sessions Case No. 8 (T)/2005. Since these appeals have been preferred against the same judgment and these appeals have been heard together, we propose to dispose of the appeals by this common judgment and order. The accused-appellants were charged and tried for the offences under Sections 448, 302 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted under the aforesaid penal provisions and sentenced to undergo, for their conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to surfer, for their conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellants have been further sentenced to undergo, for their conviction under Section 448 read with Section 34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 31.07.2003, at about 8 pm. the accused-appellants went to the house of Man Bahadur (deceased) and asked his wife, Ashamati (PW5), to give them CD player, but the members of the family of Man Bahadur refused. This annoyed the appellants and they abused the members of the family of the deceased in filthy language. Man Bahadur, who was lying on the bed, got up from the bed and asked the accused persons as to what had happened. The accused, Antony, asked for the CD player and threatened by saying that if the CD player was not given, he would demolish the CD player. Thereafter, accused Antony shoved Man Bahadur on to the courtyard. Accused Tuku and Rajen assaulted Man Bahadur by means of lathis. Accused Bishal and Sunil also kicked and punched Man Bahadur. When Madhuban Lama (PW4), father of Man Bahadur (since deceased), attempted to intervene, he, too, was assaulted. Smti Moti Lama (PW2), mother of the deceased, was also beaten by accused Luku. Man Bahadur succumbed to the injuries. Chandra Bahadur Thapa (PW1) brother-in-law of the deceased, lodged an Ejahar on 01.08.2003. Based on the said Ejahar and treating the same as the First Information Report (in short, FIR), Makum Police Station Case No. 65/2003, under Sections 448/325/302/34 IPC, was registered against Luku Desari, Ranjan Proja, Antony Murah and some others. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet, under Sections 448/325/302/34 IPC, against the accused-appellants.

3. In course of time, trial was held in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Tinsukia. At the trial, the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them under Sections 448, 302 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

4. During trial, prosecution examined eleven witnesses. The defence of the accused persons was that they were innocent and they were not involved in the alleged occurrence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, having found the accused-appellants guilty of the offences charged with, convicted them accordingly and passed sentences against them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences, which have been passed against them, the accused persons, as convicted persons, have preferred these appeals.

5. We have heard Mr. K. Goswami, Mr. AK Roy, Ms. A. Ajitsaria and Ms. N. Hawelia, learned amicus curiae, and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

6. PW2 (Smt. Moti Lama), mother of deceased Man Bahadur, PW4 (Madhuban Lama), father of the said deceased, and PW5 (Ashamati Lama), widow of the said deceased, have been examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence.

7. PW2 (Smt, Moti Lama), in her evidence, has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, at about 7 pm, while her members of the family were about to partake their meals, accused Luku, Antony, Vishal a