JUDGMENT :

NAGARATHNA, J.

Being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 12.09.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.254 of 2004, 258 of 2004, 259 of 2004 by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, the original appellant Khem Singh S/o Tarachand preferred these Special Leave Petitions before this Court. By order dated 06.07.2017, leave was granted by this Court and consequently, the Special Leave Petitions have been converted to these Criminal Appeals.

Facts in Brief:

2. For ease of reference, the private respondents herein, namely,

i) Anil @ Neelu; ii) Pramod; and iii) Ashok, who were accused Nos. 4, 3 and 2 respectively in S.T. No.133/1993 in the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar (henceforth “Sessions Court”), are henceforth referred to as ‘respondents-accused’. The other accused in S.T. No.133/1993, who were acquitted by the Sessions Court, are referred to as ‘other accused’.

2.1 Briefly stated, the facts of the case according to the prosecution are that there was a long-standing previous enmity between the respondents-accused and other accused and the original informant and others. On 08.12.1992, there was some heated exchange between them. The next day, i.e. on 09.12.1992, at about 08.00 A.M., informant Tara Chand (P.W.1), his brother Virendra Singh, and P.W.1’s son Khem Singh (P.W.3) were attacked by the respondents-accused and the other accused using guns, sharp weapons, and bricks. As a result, Virendra Singh passed away, and P.W.1 and P.W.3 sustained injuries. On the arrival of villagers, all the accused managed to escape.

2.2 The specific roles attributed to the respondents-accused are that: i) Accused No.2, Ashok, fired on Virendra Singh using a gun;

ii) Accused No.3, Pramod, fired on P.W.3 using a gun; and iii) Accused No.4, Anil @ Neelu, fired on Smt. Mithilesh, wife of P.W.3. On a complaint given by P.W.1 Tara Chand, Case Crime No.547/92 dated 09.12.1992 was registered at P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar against all the accused persons. The respondents- accused were charged under Sections 148 , 452, 302, 307, 149, 326, and 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”).

2.3 After examining all the material witnesses and after hearing both the parties, the Sessions Court, vide judgment and order dated 02.08.2004/04.08.2004 acquitted the other accused on the ground that the role assigned to them was not fully proved. However, the Sessions Court found that the case against the respondents-accused was fully proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The sentence passed against the respondents-accused is as follows:

2.4 Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Sessions Court, the respondents-accused preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.254, 258 and 259 of 2004 before the High