ORDER :

1. In his fardbeyan which was recorded on 22.05.2003, at about 11:00 a.m. at village-Gopalpur, the informant has named Tarun Bhakat @ Tarun Kumar Bhakat, Manoj Kr. Bhakat @ Manoj Bhakat, Guru Charan Bhakat, Prajapati Bhakat and Abhinay Bhakat as the assailants of his son, namely, Dharnidhar Bhakat. On the basis of his fardbeyan, Jadugora P.S. Case No. 26 of 2003 was registered against them for the offences punishable under sections 341, 342 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted and the appellants have faced the trial on the above charges.

2. In Sessions Trial No. 289 of 2003, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for one month under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for one year under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code the sentences are to run concurrently.

3. The appellant, namely, Prajapati Bhakat has preferred Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 525 of 2015 which, on his death during pendency of the criminal appeal, has abated vide order dated 13.05.2016.

4. During the trial, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses; the informant is PW-3.

5. The prosecution has projected the informant and his wife as the eye-witnesses.

6. Mrs. Neeta Krishna, Mrs. Sadhna Kumar and Ms. Shilpi Sandil, the learned Amicus have appeared for the appellants in this batch of criminal appeal; Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 100 of 2012 by the appellants, namely, Tarun Bhakat @ Tarun Kumar Bhakat and Manoj Kr. Bhakat @ Manoj Bhakat, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 350 of 2011 by the appellant, namely, Guru Charan Bhakat and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 522 of 2015 by the appellant, namely, Abhinay Bhakat.

7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel has also appeared for the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 100 of 2012.

8. The learned counsels have submitted that: (i) the place of occurrence is not established, (ii) the inquest report was not prepared at the place of occurrence, (iii) PW-2 and PW-3 are not the eye-witnesses, (iv) the conduct of PW-2 and PW-3 in not rescuing their son is unnatural and (v) the investigating officer has not collected the necessary information, seized the material articles and recorded statement of the independent witnesses and, therefore, there is substantial doubt on the prosecution story that the appellants have committed murder of Dharnidhar Bhakat.

9. Mrs. Neeta Krishna, the learned Amicus has referred to the judgments in Raju @ Balachandran and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12 SCC 701, Prem Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 88, State of A.P. vs. Naragudem Papireddy and Others, (2004) 9 SCC 14 and Madho Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2002 (8) SC 305 in support of her contentions. The learned Amicus has contended that failure of the prosecution to examine Kiran Bhakat who could have been the star witness has created substantial doubt on complicity of the appellants, namely, Tarun Bhakat @ Tarun Kumar Bhakat and Manoj Kr. Bhakat @ Manoj Bhakat in the crime.

10. Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, the learned Amicus who appears for the appellant, namely, Guru Charan Bhakat has contended that the prosecution has failed to establish that Guru Charan Bhakat has participated in the occurrence and death of Dharnidhar Bhakat has been caused in furtherance of common intention shared by Guru Charan Bhakat. The learned Amicus has relied on the decision in Suresh and Another vs. State of U.P. (2001) 3 SCC 673.

11. Ms. Shilpi Sandil, the learned Amicus appearing for the appellant, namely, Abhinay Bhakat has contended that testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 on assault by Abhinay Bhakat by an iron rod is not consistent and atleast in the first part of the occurrence he has not assaulted Dharnidhar Bhakat with iron rod is admitted by PW-2 in paragraph no. 17 of her testimony.

12. Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned A.P.P. has, however, contended that the overt acts of the appellants as reflect