The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to establish each appellant's complicity in murder beyond a reasonable doubt; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Ms. Kumari Rashmi, the learned APP has filed counter-affidavit bringing the facts on record that the appellant No. 1 Lal Lohra and appellant No. 3 Jago Lohra have died.

2. Accordingly, this appeal stands abated as far as appellant No. 1 Lal Lohra and appellant No. 3 Jago Lohra are concerned.

3. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the remaining appellants and Ms. Kumari Rashmi, the learned APP on behalf of the State.

4. The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30th January 1999 passed by Mr. Ravindra Nath Verma, Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in connection with Sessions Trial No. 284 of 1994, corresponding to GR No. 740 of 1993, arising out of Arki PS Case No. 49 of 1993 holding the appellants guilty of the offence under section 302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and thereby sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life.

5. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Dani Swansi alleging therein that on the date of occurrence at about 02:15 p.m. he was going with Sobraj Singh Munda to the village Jenadih to collect Tono. When they reached near the house of Lal Lohra, they found the appellants standing there. The deceased Sobran Singh Munda asked appellant No. 1 Lal Lohra to hand over his Tono but the same was not ready. There was some altercation between Sobran Singh Munda and the appellants. The deceased appellant No. 1 Lal Lohra fell Sobran Singh Munda on the ground, thereafter, the appellant No. 2, Gurwa @ Guru Lohra and the deceased appellant No. 3 Jago Lohra caught hold of Sobran Singh Munda and Jago Lohra stabbed Sobran Singh Munda due to which he succumbed to his injuries.

6. After investigation, police has found the offence to be true and submitted charge-sheet under section 302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

7. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti committed the case to the court of Sessions on 15.4.1994 as the same was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Charge was framed against the appellants on 18.5.1998 under section 302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The contents of the charge were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral as well as documentary evidence.

Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sandilya has been examined as PW-1. He has proved the postmortem report of the deceased which is Ext.1.

Dani Swansi who is informant of this case has been examined as PW-2.

Chamo Machua has been examined as PW-3. He is an eyewitness to the occurrence.

Jag Jivan Munda has been examined as PW-4. He is also an eyewitness to the occurrence.

Laxmi Narayan Singh Munda has been examined as PW-5. He is a hearsay witness.

Purnchandra Singh Munda has been examined as PW-6. He is a witness to the inquest has proved his signature on the inquest report,which is Ext.3/1.

Mahendra Munda is PW-7 has been declared hostile.

Moti Chand Choudhary has been examined as PW-8. He is a formal witness. He has proved the formal FIR which is Ext.5.

9. Statement of the appellants was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., defense is general denial of the occurrence and false implication.

10. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary available on record, the learned Sessions Court held the appellants guilty and sentenced them accordingly.

11. Mr. A.K.Sahani, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all the eyewitnesses have specifically stated about overt acts of deceased-appellant No. 1 Lal Lohra and d