1. Cr. Appeal No. 155 of 1995 is by Ram Lakhan Singh and Nawal Kishore Singh, who were arrayed as A-3 and A-1 in Sessions Trial No. 426 of 1995 and Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 1996 is by Raj Krit Singh, who was arrayed as A-2 in the said Sessions Trial.

2. The above two appeals are being disposed of by the following common judgment and in this judgment, the appellants in both the appeals will be referred as A-1 to A-3, in the same order, as they were arrayed before the trial judge, for the sake of convenience.

3. The facts are as follows :

Ram Pratap Singh, the deceased in this case, is the brother of PW-5, Jagmohan Singh. They were residents of village Chatampur and Ram Lakhan Singh, the 3rd accused and the other two accused were also residing in the same village. About two years prior to the date of incident, the deceased and Ram Lakhan Singh, A-3, quarreled with each other over throwing of dung in the pit. Therefore, they were in inimical terms and this is said to be the motive of the said occurrence. At about 9.00 a.m. on 22.5.1989, the deceased, Ram Pratap Singh, left the house after informing his brother, PW-5, Jagmohan Singh, that he is going to Bero Bazar. PW-5 followed him. When the deceased and PW-5 reached Dahara Kudarnala, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 appeared before them. It was 10.00 a.m. by then. The 2nd accused, Raj Krit Singh was having a sword in his hand and the 1st accused and the 3rd accused were armed with lathis. On seeing the deceased, Ram Pratap Singh, the 2nd accused, Ram Krit Singh cut him and A-1, Nawal Kishore Singh and A-3, Ram Lakhan Singh, abetted him to cut and kill the deceased, Ram Pratap Singh. The deceased was cut and PW-5 raised alarm to save his brother. The villagers gathered and the accused 1 to 3 ran away from the place. PW-5 informed the Chowkidar as well as PW-6, Bihari Singh, who is the son of the deceased. After the arrival of Chowkidar, PW-4, Falguni Ahir, information was sent to the police station and then the Fardbayan was given to the police by PW-5 (neither the Police Officer was examined nor the Fardbayan given by PW-5 was marked, during trial).

4. After the investigation was taken up, (Investigating Officer was also not examined) inquest was conducted, during which witnesses were examined. PW-3, Pramod Pathak, is one of the witness to the inquest(PW-3 turned hostile). After the inquest, dead body was sent to the hospital for the purpose of post mortem (the prosecution did not examine the doctor, who conducted autopsy and did not mark Page 1204 the post mortem certificate). Later, after the completion of investigation, final report was filed.

5. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them.

6. The learned Advocates, appearing for the respective appellants, in both the appeals, strenuously contend that in absence of any legal evidence, the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellants and, therefore, they are entitled for acquittal.

7. We have considered the contention and heard Mrs. C. Prabha, learned A.P.P.

8. It could be seen that the prosecution wanted to prove that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence, but failed to do so by not only not examining the doctor but also by not marking the post mortem certificate. There is absolutely no evidence on record even remotely to indicate that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence.

9. The prosecution examined PWs-1,2,3 and 5 as witness to the occurrence and out of them, PWs-1,2 and 3 turned hostile and only PW-5 supported the prosecution version. According to PW-5, he saw the occurrence when he was following his brother, Ram Pratam Singh, who was on his way to Bero Bazar. He has further stated that on seeing the occurrence, he raised alarm and the villagers gathered. According to him, he informed the son of the deceased and the Village Chowkidar and later laid Fardbayan (We have already noticed that