1. The appellants, five in number, challenge their conviction and sentence.

2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing it was informed to this Court that Chapa Oraon died after the appeal was filed. This appeal filed by him abates. This Court has to now consider the appeal filed by the appellants No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 who were arrayed as A-l, A-2, A-3 and A-5 respectively before the trial Judge.

3. The appellants were tried under Section 302 read with 149, IPC of the allegation that they, in furtherancne of their common intention, caused the death of the deceased, Saheba Oraon by causing injury with deadly weapons on his person. The learned trial Judge, on the evidence adduced both oral and documentary, found the appellants guilty and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. They were also found guilty under Sections 148 and 201 IPC but no separate sentence was awarded for the said offence. The appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.

4. The facts are follows:

PW 9, Lakhman Grain is the mother of the deceased, Saheba Oraon. According to the prosecution, there was land dispute between the deceased and the appellants and that the unfortunate occurrence took place on 19.9.1980 on account of the said land dispute. According to PW 9 on 19.9.1980 PW 6. Chamar Munda and the deceased went to Kadarkel market and were returning home. While they were on the way to reach the village, the appellants as well as Chapa Oraon, who has died, surrounded the deceased, Saheba Oraon and assaulted him with lathi on his head. Saheba Oraon fell down. When PW 6 intervened he was beaten twice with lathi on his waist. He was also threatened and that PW 6 ran away from the place. On 21.9.1980 he met PW 9, Lakhma Grain, the mother of the deceased and informed her that her son was murdered by the appellants. She, in turn, went to the police station and laid a complaint.

5. The investigation was taken up and during the course of investigation, the body of the deceased was found floating on the river. The inquest was conducted. After the inquest the body was sent to the hospital requesting the doctor to conduct autopsy.

6. On receipt of the requisition and the dead body, Dr. B.K. Sinha, Civil Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Saheba Oraon and he found one incised wound 5-1/2 x 2-1/2 x upto vertebra column on the neck in the front. The injury was horizontal in nature. The doctor also notice another incised wounds measuring 2" x 1/2 x 1/2" on the right shoulder. The doctor issued Ext. 1, the post-mortem certificate with his opinion that the injuries found on the deceased are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

7. The police officer, who was conducting the investigation examined witnesses and after completion of investigation filed final report against the accused-appellants.

8. When the appellants were questioned under Section 313, Cr PC on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied all the incriminating circumstances. They marked Ext. A, the fardbeyan given by PW 9 to the police on 21.9.1980.

9. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that PW 6, the sole eye-witness cannot be believed since his conduct of not informing any one about the occurrence for about two days in artificial. The counsel submits that in view of the Ext. A, the fardbeyan given by PW 9, the mother of the deceased to the police on 21.9.1980, the present version brought through PW 6 that the accused-appellants inflicted injuries on the deceased cannot be believed and that PW 6 was not present and witnessed the occurrence, as claimed by him in his evidence.

10. It is not in dispute that Saheba Oraon died on account of homicidal violence. The doctor, who conducted autopsy and issued post-mortem certificate, has established the said fact.

11. The said fact was also not disputed in the trial Court not before this Court. We have medical evide