LAW FOR ALL

statement was recorded after 14 days- Narayan (PW-11), son of the deceased, is also an eyewitness to the incident. He witnessed the incident and narrated the whole story alleging the role played by each one of the accused but his statement was recorded after 14 days and no explanation was offered for the same. Even if we 8Page 9 eschew the evidence of PW-11, as observed earlier, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of injured eye-witness (PW-5), mother of the deceased. - while pointing out that Ramswaroop (Appellant No. 1 herein) has served 7 years, 4 months and 18 days in jail and Chintu Mahte (Appellant No. 2 herein), aged about 80 years, has served 6 years, 4 months and 18 days, pleaded for leniency. We are unable to accept the above claim of the learned counsel for the appellants since the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly, the role of the appellants who caused fatal injuries. Since we are affirming the conviction under Section 302, the Court cannot impose a lesser sentence than what is prescribed by law, however, taking note of the age of Chintu Mahte (Appellant No. 2 herein), he is free to make a representation to the Government for remission and if any such representation is made, it is for the Government to pass appropriate orders as per the rules applicable. In the above circumstance, the sentence cannot be altered to the period already undergone and the said request of the counsel for the appellants is rejected. 13) Under these circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal, on the other hand, we fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.