Per D.N. Patel, J

1) Both these appeals, one by State and another by victims [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 33 of 2013] have been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara in Sessions Trial No.103 of 2007, whereby the learned trial Court had acquitted the respondents-accused from the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

2) In Cr. Appeal (DB) No.201 of 2013, which is preferred by the State, an interlocutory application being I.A. No.1673 of 2013 has been preferred by the State under section 391(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for adducing further evidence, because it is necessary, looking to the evidence on record in Sessions Trial No.103 of 2007. There are several injured eyewitnesses who are P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8. Their injury certificates are also on the record, but, the learned trial Court has not allowed the doctors, namely, (i) Dr. R.P. Singh, (ii) Dr. S.H. Prasad and (iii) Dr. J.J. Minz, to be examined, who had given these Certificates. The summons were also issued to these doctors on 25th September, 2008. These doctors have not remained present before the learned