JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned Amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The appeal was initially filed by nine appellants out of which appellant nos. 1, 4, 5, 7 and 9 have died and, therefore, the appeal has abated so far as these appellants are concerned which would appear from the order dated 09.04.2019. This appeal is, therefore, restricted to the appellant nos. 2, 3, 6 and 8.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.12.1992 passed by Shri S. M. M. Alam, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 383 of 1989 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 148 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 302/149 of the Penal Code, 1860 and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 of the Penal Code, 1860 and no separate sentence was passed under Section 148 of the Penal Code, 1860.

4. The First Information Report reveals that on 07.10.1988 at around 07 : 00 am the Munda of Debabir Mauza, Bihari Ram Sorin had informed that Pataal Boipai has been murdered. On receiving such information, the informant along with Bihari Ram Sorin had come to the house of Pataal Boipai where he saw the dead body of Pataal Boipai lying on the road smeared in blood. The informant had conducted a local enquiry in presence of Shyam Narayan Koda. The wife of Pataal Boipai namely Mukta Kui disclosed that last evening around 06-06 : 30 p.m Ram Rai Boipai, Hari Charan Boipai, Mathwa Boipai, Man Singh Boipai, Dongal Boipai, Tuti Boipai, Bisnu Boipai, Sinu Boipai, Chakro Boipai and Pandeya Boipai had come laced with tangi and danda and they dragged out her husband and Ram Rai Boipai assaulted him on his head by a tangi. The other accused persons had assaulted with danda. On account of such assault, Pataal Boipai died. The reason for the occurrence as disclosed by the wife of the deceased is existence of a land dispute. Based on the aforesaid allegations Sonua P. S. Case No. 27 of 1988 was instituted against ten named accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Penal Code, 1860. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was numbered as S. T. No. 383 of 1989. Charge was framed against the accused persons under Sections 148, 302/149 of the Penal Code, 1860 which was read over and explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case.

6. P.W. - 1 Gopal Das has proved the formal First Information Report which has been marked as Exhibit - 1.

7. P.W. - 2 Mukta Kui is the wife of the deceased. She has deposed that the incident had taken place one year eight months ago in the afternoon between 02 : 30-3 p.m. She was in her house and her husband was also present. The alias name of her husband is Pradhan. At that point of time, Sheo Charan, Ram Rai, Hari Charan, Chakro, Sinu, Bisnu, Tuti, Pandeya, Dongal, Man Singh and Mathwa had entered the house. They were armed with lathi and bows and arrows. She has stated that Sheo Charan had forcibly got opened the door and Ram Rai had taken the tangi kept inside the house and had given a blow on the head of her husband. Her husband sustained injuries and blood started coming out. The accused persons had thereafter dragged her husband to the courtyard and started assaulting him indiscriminately with lathi. She had raised alarm. She has stated that her husband was done to death by the accused persons. She informed the Munda and Manki who had come to the place of occurrence and she had apprised them about the incident. The reason for the occurrence is a land dispute which was existing between her husband and Ram Rai as w