(1.) Criminal Appeal (DB) No.483 of 2014 has been filed by appellant/convicted accused Baidhyanath Mukhiya whereas Criminal Appeal (DB) No.526 of 2014 has been filed by appellant/convicted accused Basu Yadav. Both of them are convicted on 28/4/2014 by the learned Adhoc Sessions Judge-IV, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Sessions Trial No.407 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with 34 and under Sec. 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 30/4/2014, they came to be sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20000.00 each as well as rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5000.00 each on each count respectively. In addition, appellant/convicted accused Basu Yadav is also convicted of the offence punishable under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years apart from fine of Rs.5000.00. Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial court. For the sake of convenience, appellants/convicted accused shall be referred to in their original capacity as 'accused'.
(2.) Facts in brief leading to the prosecution of the accused can be summarized thus:
(3.) We heard the learned counsel appearing for both the appellants. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that as P.W.6 Janki Devi has heard about the incident from P.W.3 Dhanraji Devi, P.W.6 Janki Devi is not an eye witness to the incident. She has claimed that the incident took place at Chaumukha. The prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses to corroborate version of P.W.6 Janki Devi and other witnesses have turned hostile. It is further argued that dead body of Gulli Mukhiya was not found and because of land dispute, the prosecuting party has concocted the case. The Investigating Officer had not found any marks on the place of the occurrence. It is further argued that even P.W.4 Dinesh Mukhiya and P.W.5 Dular Mukhiya are not an eye witnesses to the subject crime as they all are stating different place as the spot of the occurrence.