R.S. Garg, C.J.

1. These three appeals have been filed by the accused persons being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.7.2007 holding the accused persons guilty of offences punishable under Section 304A IPC, 302 IPC, both read with Section 120B and Section 201, IPC read with Section 34, IPC.

2. The learned trial judge after holding the accused persons guilty proceeded further to hear the accused persons on question of sentence and vide further order dated 24.8.2007 awarded death penalty to the three appellants for committing murder of Baivabh Singh @ Bebu @ Vishal, under Section 364A, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,000 in default thereof each accused to undergo RI for three years and also sentenced them to undergo RI for six years, for offences under Section 201, IPC and did not propose to award any sentence for offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC, in view of the fact that each of the accused had been convicted for the substantive offences.

3. We are not required to detail out the details of the prosecution case suffice to say that the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR and before the court is that on the evening of 28.5.2006 at about 8.45 p.m. the OC of Tura Police Station, West Garo Hills received an oral communication from one Bibash Das about missing of a 9 years old boy, namely, Baivabh Singh @ Babu @ Vishal from a locality called Fancy Valley, Tura Town, West Garo Hills. It was alleged by the prosecution that one Suraj Gupta and his accomplice Sovraj Sonar and, Ajay Das @ Kirtaniya after entering into a conspiracy kidnapped the boy for ransom and thereafter murdered him. It was also alleged that the accused persons shared common intention and they had committed the crime.

4. It is to be noted that at the instance of some of the accused persons certain articles could be recovered, each of the accused was examined under Section 164, Cr.PC, the accused persons confessed their guilt, when charges were framed, they again pleaded guilty and when they were examined under Section 313, Cr.PC as written in the judgment but under Section 364, Cr.PC as recorded in the statements of the accused, they again confessed their guilt that for ransom they kidnapped the young boy and thereafter committed the murder.

5. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner in his judgment as referred to above after relying upon the evidence placed before him came to the conclusion that it could safely be held that the accused persons were guilty of the offences charged against them. He also came to the conclusion that though on plea of guilt, the accused persons could be convicted but the prudence demanded that the accused be given opportunity of hearing. He also observed that the accused persons committed murder punishable under Sections 302and 364A, IPC for kidnapping for ransom and, therefore, the accused persons could safely be convicted. The learned trial court after awarding capital punishment referred the matter to this Court under Section 366 of the Cr.PC for confirmation of the death sentence. Accordingly, the reference and the three appeals have been placed before us.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellants in each of the appeal firstly submitted that as the statement of the accused available on page 85 onwards of the paper book was not in accordance with Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the trial was vitiated and each of the accused is entitled to be acquitted. In the alternative, it is submitted that if the court is not agreeing with their submissions then they will be allowed to proceed with the matter.

7. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the accused persons on three different occasions either confessed their guilt or pleaded guilty and assuming all and sundry circumstances appearing against the accused were not put to them then too the trial would not stand vitiated. It is also submitted that the trial was conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner under Ru