JUDGMENT :

Heard Mrs. Bakshi Bibha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. V.K. Vashistha, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.2013, passed by Shri Barun Kumar Mishra, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 102 of 2009, arising out of Dumaria P.S. Case No.23 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. Case No.333 of 2008, whereby and wherein, the learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila, held the appellants, namely Ridho Sabar and Budhiya Sabar, guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing murder of the deceased Rengo Sabar and thereby, sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default of payment of fine, the appellants were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of six months.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Chandra Sabar, alleging therein that on 16.08.2008 at about 08:00 P.M. he came to know that his father Rengo Sabar was murdered by the appellants namely, Ridho Sabar and Budhiya Sabar. When the informant went to the place of occurrence, he saw the dead body of his father. There were injuries on his head and other parts of the body.

4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellants for the offence under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance, this case was committed to the Court of Sessions by learned A.C.J.M., Ghatsila, as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

5. Charge was framed against the appellants on 15.05.2009 for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The content of the charge was read over and explained to them in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.

7. Baka Sabar (P.W.1) is an eye witness. He has supported the prosecution case.

Tumba Sabar (P.W.2) is a witness of inquest.

Jugo Sabar (P.W.3) is a hearsay witness.

Goma Sabar (P.W.4) is a hearsay witness.

Pogo Sabar (P.W.5) is an eye witness and he has supported the prosecution case.

Kanu Ram Hansda (P.W.6) is also a hearsay witness.

Chandra Sabar (P.W.7) is the informant of this case. He is also a hearsay witness. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.1. He has identified the appellants in the dock.

Dr. Arjun Soren (P.W.8) had performed the postmortem of the deceased. He had also proved the postmortem report, which is Ext.-2.

Sunil Topno (P.W.-9) is the Investigating Officer of this case, he has proved the fardbeyan of the informant, which has been marked as Ext.-3. He has also proved the seizure list relating to recovery of iron rod and stones. Formal F.I.R has been proved by him which is Ext.-5. He has also proved the place of occurrence.

8. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication.

9. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary, available on record, learned court below held the appellants guilty and sentenced them accordingly.

10 Mrs. Bakshi Bibha, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the eye witnesses are chance witnesses and as such their testimony cannot be relied upon. It was also submitted that there are vital contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of manner of occurrence. On these grounds, it was prayed that the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below be set aside.

11. Mr. V. K. Vashistha, learned counsel for the State has submitted that Baka Sabar (P.W.1) and Pogo Sabar (P.W.5) are eye witnesses. They have corroborated each other on the point that the appellants had assaulted the deceased Rengo Sabar due to which he succumbed to his injuries. He has further submitted