The lack of legal evidence and the trial court's hasty actions vitiated the trial, leading to the setting aside of the impugned judgment and remittance of the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants in all the three appeals and learned counsel for the State in view of earlier orders indicating that the appeals may be finally disposed of on receipt of the lower court records if it is found that there is no legal evidence on record for conviction. All the three appeals are directed against judgment of conviction dated 25.1.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Sheikhpura in ST. No. 880/05 whereby appellant Brajesh Patel has been convicted under sec. 302/34 of the IPC, sec. 27 of the Arms Act and the other two appellants under sec. 120B of the IPC. By order dated 27.1.2007, all the three appellants have been awarded R.I. for life for offence under the IPC. Appellant Brajesh Patel has been further sentenced to R.I. for three years u/s 27 of the Arms Act which is to run concurrently.

2. The fardbeyan in this case was lodged by father of the deceased, PW 7 leading to Sheikhpura PS Case No. 32/04. On investigation, police found the case true and chagesheet was filed accordingly. During trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses. All turned hostile. The 10 and the Doctor were not examined and there is no reason for their non-examination.

3. On going trhough the materials on record, particularly the deposition of witnesses and the order-sheet of the trial court, we find sufficient force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants that since all the seven prosecution witnesses including the brother and the father of the deceased (PW 6 and 7 respectively) have been declared hostile and the prosecution could not examine either the Investigating Officer or the Doctor, there is no legal evidence worth the name to sustain the conviction of the three appellants for the charge under sections 302/34 and 120B of the IPC. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment in respect of all the three convicted accused Brajesh Patel (Cr.Appeal No. 172/07), Naresh Mahto (Cr. Appeal No. 175/07) and Pramod Kumar (Cr. Appeal No. 213/07) has to be set aside. However, we have given anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that it is a serious case in which a contractor, Sanjay Ram aged about 32 years, has been killed on a public road on 17.2.2004 during day hours. The fardbeyan given on the same date by father of the deceased, Saryug Prasad (PW 7) discloses that the deceased was engaged in construction of a village road under Jawahar Rojgar Yojna and by way of extortion moeny, Rs. one lakh was demanded from him by accused Pramod Kumar with a threat that he would be killed if the amount was not paid. Since the demand was not met, hence Pramod Kumar allegedly in league with Naresh Mahto hired three persons to commit the crime. Allegedly, the assailants came on a motorcycle and shot the deceased while he was going on his motorcycle on a pitch road but the villagers chased and due to brickbat etc. the assailants fell down. One of them said to be Satish managed to escape and could not be put on trial but others two were apprehended. On account of alleged assault by villagers, one of them, namely, Ranjeet died while accused-appellant Brajesh was apprehended and confined till the arrival of the informant and recording of the fardbeyan by the police.

4. The broad features of the case disclose the influence of people engaged in the crime of extortion as all the seven prosecution witnesses appear to have been gained over and have been declared hostile. They include PW 6, Mananjay Kumar, a brother of the deceased as well as the informant (PW 7) Saryug Prasad, who is father of the deceased.

5. After going through the order-sheet of the trial court, learned counsel for the State submitted that on the prayer of the prosecution on 28.12.2006 i.e. after about 10 months of framing of charges, bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the IO because the earlier warrant issued against him had not been executed and no report was sent by the police.