JUDGMENT :

Kailash Prasad Deo, J.

Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. Five appellants had preferred the present criminal appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 28.09.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No.137 of 1991 by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bokaro, whereby they have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code and have been awarded imprisonment for life for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order of sentence of the same date.

3. During pendency of appeal one of the convict/appellant Ramayan Sharma died and his criminal appeal has abated vide order dated 16.05.2019, as such the present criminal appeal is pending with respect to four surviving appellants namely, Shri Ram Sharma, Dharmendra Sharma, Vidya Sagar and Haridwar Prajapati and is being taken up.

4. In the present appeal the questions arises for consideration are as follows:-(i) whether the prosecution has been able to prove the murder of deceased, Sujit Kumar son of informant Chandra Deo Prasad by the appellants? (ii) whether there is any eye witness to the occurrence, or if not, (iii) whether the chain of circumstances have been conclusively proved and are so connected as to prove the guilt of the appellants?

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, has submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence nor there is any circumstantial evidence against the appellants to connect them with the alleged offence rather on the basis of misreading of evidence, surmises and conjecture, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants without having any legal evidence on record. As such, it is a case of no evidence against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that First Information Report was lodged after an unexplained delay of four days. The deceased, Sujit Kumar was missing from his house since 04.09.1990 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 07.09.1990, after recovery of the dead body from the cooling pond. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prosecution has examined altogether thirteen witnesses and six exhibits have been brought on record but neither has any of the circumstances been conclusively proved nor they form a chain of circumstances to connect the appellants with the commission of offence. As such, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code is not-sustainable in the eyes of law and the appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charge and conviction passed by the learned trial Court.

6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are consistent evidence on record that Sujit Kumar was teasing daughter of Ramayan Sharma (appellant whose appeal has abated) and these appellants have caught hold of him, assaulted him by fists and slap, brought him to his house and handed over to the parents giving threatening of dire consequences in evening of 04.09.1990 and since then the boy was missing from his house. As such, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code and the same does not require any interference by this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that there is evidence of P.W.3 (Gobardhan Sharma), P.W.6 (Chandrika Singh) and that of P.W.7 (Shiv Narain Singh) having seen the appellants taking this victim with themselves while taking the name of each other so as to prove the guilt against the appellants. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that though Gobardhan Sharma, who has been examined as P.W.3, an eye witness to the occurrence, has