The judgment emphasizes the fundamental legal principle of proving a case beyond all reasonable doubts, highlighting the importance of credible evidence and witness testimonies in criminal proceedings.

A.K.Sinha, J.

1. These three appeals were heard together as they arise out of the same judgment and this common judgment will govern all the three appeals.

2. The appellants, namely, 1. Suresh Rai, 2. Awadhesh Rai, 3. Shivadhar Rai, 4. Radheshyam Singh and 5. Ram Perwesh Singh Yadav (Cr. Appeal No. 478/99) have been convicted under sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. They have further been convicted under section 307 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Further they have also been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act for which they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years. The appellant Gopal Rai (Cr. Appeal No. 495/99) has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has further been convicted under section 307, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act for which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years on each counts. The appellant Kameshwar Rai (Cr. Appeal No. 525 of 1999) has been convicted under section 302, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has further been convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act for which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each on both counts.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.12.95 at about 9.00 a.m. Ram Nagar Rai (P.W. 3) was going to his Khalihaan situated in the north east corner of the village on his tractor and the informants father Raj Nandan Rai was sitting on the mud guard of the tractor. The informant Ram Daras Rai (P.W. 6) along with his cousin brother Ram Vyash Rai (P.W. 7) were behind the tractor and carrying the bag of wheat seeds on their head. As soon as the tractor reached in front of the house of Rama Shankar Rai, all of a sudden, the accused persons appeared from the north side from the house of Kashi Nath Rai. The appellant Gopal Rai, Kameshwar Rai, Radhe Shyam Singh and Ram Prawesh Singh Yadav were armed with rifle, Suresh Rai, Awadhesh Rai, Shivadhar Rai were armed with guns, whereas, other accused, namely, Jagannath Rai was armed with gun, Munna Rai was armed with country made pistol, and Kashi Nath Rai, Baban Rai and Vijay Narain Yadav were armed with lathi. All the accused surrounded the tractor and on being exhorted by Kashi Nath Rai, Gopal Rai fired upon Raj Nandan Rai @ Raja Rai with rifle, Kameshwar Rai also fired upon him. When Ram Nagar Rai tried to flee away after jumping from the tractor, accused Kameshwar Rai, fired upon him on his back with an intention to kill him and all the accused fired 5-7 rounds from their respective guns causing injury to Raj Nandan Rai and Ram Nagar Rai. As a result of firing, Raj Nandan Rai died instantaneously but Ram Nagar Rai succ any how to flee away and was saved. On halla raised by the informant, Maheshwar Rai (P.W. 2), Jagdamba Rai (P.W. 1) and many others came from the village and saw the occurrence. The accused persons also damaged the radiator of the tractor by firing upon it. The motive behind the occurrence is that Kashi Nath Rai and his family members had blocked the canal by which the informants field used to be irrigated for which litigation was going in the Court and due to this reason the accused persons committed the murder of Raj Nandan Rai and fired upon the informants cousin brother Ram Nagar Rai with an intention to kill him.

4. The Police registered a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324. 307. 342, 426 of the Indian Penal Code read with 27 of the Arms Act and chargesheet was submitted against them under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 307, 342, 426 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance in the case and committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

5. The po