D.P. Singh, J.

1. Both the appeals, arising out of same judgment, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.2.2001 and 22.2.2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 254/99, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge held all the appellants guilty under Sections, 302, 376(2)(g), 201, 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for life under Section 302 IPC, 12 years RI under Section 376(2)(g) and 5 years RI under Section 201 IPC. However, sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The factual matrix leading to these appeals are that in the night of 1.9.11.98 Munni Devi, wife of the informant Pradeop Sao, Munni Devi was not found in the house when he returned home at about 10.45 PM. The informant tried to search her out but she could not be found. According to the informant, he went in search of his wife along with PWs 9 and 11 towards the river assuming she might have gone for natural call. However, they could not locate the lady. It is further stated that during such search appellant Raju Chhatisgarhia and one man met them near the river bed who informed that no lady was seen by them. It is also alleged when they tried to move forward they were chased by them. The search for missing lady continued till next day and ultimately an information was given to police at about 3 PM. According to the informant, when he returned from the police station, he learnt that the dead body of a female was lying near Lal Bhatta. The informant went there along with villagers to find the dead body of his wife lying in river bed. Somebody informed the police, which arrived and recorded his statement. The Informant further asserted in the fard beyan that in the evening of 19.11.98 all the appellants had assaulted PW 5 Ajay Kumar Roy, neighbour of the informant and the deceased had intervened. He further asserted that thereafter the appellants came back at abut 9 PM threatened the neighbour and carried away his wife to commit gang rape and killed her.

4. On the basis of this information, Sidgora P.S. Case No. 84/98 was registered against all the above named appellants under Section 202,376,201,34 IPC. The police prepared inquest report, sent the dead body for post mortem examination and recorded the statements of a number of witnesses, wherein it was disclosed that appellant Raju Chhatisgarhia was apprehended by villagers in the evening of 20.11.98 and he has confessed his guilt to have committed this offence along with all other appellants. The police started searching the appellants who surrendered in the court of CJM Jamshedpur on 23.11.98. The police took all of them on remand and recorded their statements. On the basis of their confessional statements the police again arrived at the river bed and recovered d Sari worn by the deceased in the night of the occurrence, concealed within the river bed. Police further seized broken bangles from the place where the deceased was gang-raped. Accordingly the police submitted chargesheet against all of them under Sections 302,376,201,34 IPC.

5. The appellants trial was committed to the court of sessions for charges as mentioned above. They have denied the confessional statements made before the public and police. They have further denied that they made any confessional statement and any incriminating article was recovered on the disclosure of appellant Kanchan Bhuiyan. Appellant Raju Chhatlsgarhia has also denied his involvement in any such crime and to have made any extra judicial statement before the villagers as well as police. According to all the appellants their LTI and signatures have been obtained by the police on plain papers. However, the learned trial court considered the evidence on record and found and held them guilty for committing gang-rape with murder and attempt -to destroy the evidence to sentence