The delay in sending the FIR to the Court and the absence of the police case number in the post-mortem report did not invalidate the prosecution's case. The court found no evidence of ante-dating or ante-timing of the FIR. The conviction and sentence of the accused were upheld.

HARISH CHANDRA MISHRA, J.

1. As all these four appeals arise out of the common Judgment passed by the Trial Court below, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. Heard learned counsels for the appellants in the respective appeals and learned counsel for the State.

3. The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 19th September 2008 (in the case of the appellant, Sarfaraj Khan by Order of sentence dated 27.08.2010) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur, in S.T Case No. 291 of 2006, whereby, out of the five accused persons who had faced the trial, four accused persons who are the appellants herein, have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, they were sentenced to undergo R.I for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the said offence. The accused appellant Sarfaraj Khan, in Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 2010, could not be produced at the time of hearing on sentence on that date, and he was heard on the point of sentence on 27.8.2010, and the same sentence has been passed against him also. One accused, Sk. Anwar was found not guilty and he was acquitted of the charge.

4. The prosecution story was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Vidya Devi, the wife of the deceased Arvind Kumar Singh, recorded on 7.5.2006 at M.G.M hospital, Jamshedpur, at 16:30 hours, wherein she has stated that on that day, her husband had taken meal at about 2:30 P.M and was going on his duty. As he had left his mobile phone behind, he returned back to take his mobile phone, when Sk. Mukhtar, who was running a S.T.D. booth in the neighborhood, called her husband. Her husband came out of the house and she also followed her. As soon as her husband reached near the main door, the accused, Sk. Mukhtar called his other accomplices, namely, his son Anwar, Nanka, Sarfaraj, and Aman. Mukhtar, his son, Anwar, Sarfaraj and Aman apprehended her husband and on the order given by Mukhtar, Nanka took out a pistol from his waist and fired the pistol causing injury on the chest of her husband, due to which, he fell down. The informant started weeping, whereupon, the persons from neighborhood came out and all the accused persons fled away on two motorcycles. The occurrence took place at about 3:00 P.M., and it is stated in the fardbeyan that the occurrence was caused for creating terror and supremacy in the locality, and also for the fact that her husband had got the neighborhood house belonging to one Muslim, purchased by one Sanjay Singh. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Mango (Olidih) P.S Case No. 177 of 2006, corresponding to G.R No. 1057 of 2006, was instituted against the five named accused persons for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case.

5. Upon the commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against all the accused persons for the offence under Sections 148, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and against the accused, Md. Sadaullah @ Sadab @ Nanka, also for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial.

6. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses, including the Investigating Officers and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The defence has also examined six witnesses in the case and has proved certain documents.

7. P.W.-3 Vidya Devi is the informant and the wife of the deceased. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 7.5.2006 at about 3:00 P.M. She was in her house along with her husband, in the meantime, Mukhtar called her husband from