ORDER :

Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2009 at the instance of Shahid and Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2009 at the instance of Naved challenge the common judgment and order dated 7th August, 2007 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1993 of 2001 and 1998 of 2001.

2. Originally Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2009 was preferred by two appellants namely, Islam @ Shamim and Naved. Islam @ Shamim died during the pendency of this appeal on 6th February, 2010 and the appeal as regards Islam @ Shamim was dismissed as abated vide order dated 3rd May, 2010 of this Court.

3. In the present case, there have been three deaths i.e., of Hanif [hereinafter referred to as 'first deceased']; Yasin [hereinafter referred to as 'second deceased']; and Anis [hereinafter referred to as 'third deceased]. The appellants and the deceased accused Islam @ Shamin were tried for having committed the murders of these three deceased on 3rd November, 1994 and were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default whereof to suffer simple imprisonment for three years. The appellant Shahid @ Kallu was also convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The sentences as regards appellant Shahid@Kallu were ordered to run concurrently.

4. According to the prosecution, the first deceased and the first accused Islam @ Shamin were brothers and had a tubewell commonly shared by them. There were outstanding dues of electricity charges in respect of the tubewell which were paid by the first deceased but the first accused was refusing to pay his share of the dues. A sum of Rs. 31,000/- (Rupees Thirty One thousand) was paid by the first deceased towards electricity charges but the first accused had refused to pay his share. Resultantly, the first deceased got the electric connection disconnected, which according to the prosecution was the reason for enmity between two brothers. Relevant to note that the third deceased is the son of the first deceased and accused Naved is the son of accused Islam @ Shamin. Further, the second deceased Yasin is the step father of the accused Shahid.

5. According to the prosecution, on 3rd November, 1994, at about 12:30 p.m., P.W. 3 Mansab and P.W. 4 Rashid Ahmed were going on a bicycle accompanied by the first deceased, also on a separate bicycle from Manglaure to their house. When they reached near Bhatta at Nanheden Manglaure Road,the accused Islam @ Shamim, Naved and Shahid @ Kallu all of a sudden appeared from behind the eucalyptus trees. The accused were also on their bicycles. Islam @ Shamim was armed with a double barrel gun, while Naved and Shahid were both armed with country made pistols. All the accused started firing upon the first deceased as a result of which he sustained injuries and fell from the bicycle and died at the spot. This part of the incident was witnessed and deposed to by P.W. 3 Mansab and P.W. 4 Rashid Ahmed.

6. Thereafter, on the very same day at about 1:00 p.m. the aforesaid accused went on their bicycles to the house of P.W. 1 Mohd. Hashim where the second deceased Yasin was present. In the verandah of the house, Islam @ Shamim and Naved fired upon Yasin who, however, did not sustain any fire arm injuries at that time and rushed inside. He was chased by the accused followed by P.W. 1 Mohd Hashim and P.W. 2 Raahil. Little later, the accused fired upon Yasin who fell down and succumbed to his injuries immediately. According to the prosecution, Naved also caused injuries on the head and chest of Yasin with a Palkati, a sharp cutting weapon. The accused thus committed the murder of the second deceased at about 1:00 p.m. on the same day. This part of the incident was witnessed and deposed to by P.W. 1 Mohd Hashim and P.W. 2 Raahil.

7. After having committed the murders of Hanif and Yasin, the acc