Ashutosh Kumar, J.—All these appeals, arising out of the same occurrence but with two different sessions trial, have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 309 of 2017, we have heard Mr. Harsh Anuj and Mr. Prashant Kumar for the appellant, whereas Mr. Ansul, assisted by Ms. Priyanka Singh, has appeared in all other three appeals on behalf of the appellants.

3. The State has been represented by Mr. Dilip Kumar Singh, the learned APP.

4. The appellants have been charged for murdering one Mainuddin @ Laddu @ Dhudhu. The appellants are alleged to have taken the deceased away from his house and killed him by stabbing several times.

5. The F.I.R. has been registered by the brother of the deceased, namely, Jainuddin Ahmad, who has been examined in both the sessions trial as P.W.-5 (Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2014 and Sessions Trial No. 283 of 2017). He has alleged that on 03.08.2013, at about 6:30 A.M. in the morning, the deceased along with one Sajid Khan had gone to a gym, where he met appellants/Sanjeet Kumar and Sonu Kumar. At the gym, one person informed the deceased that a plan has been made for killing him. The deceased ignored such information and came back to home along with appellants/Sanjeet Kumar and Sonu Kumar. After having his meal, the deceased left the house with aforesaid Sanjeet and Sonu on a motorcycle. At about 6:30 P.M., in the evening, the grandmother of the informant inquired from the deceased regarding his whereabouts when he had disclosed that he shall be coming back shortly. A little later, the informant (P.W.- 5) learnt that in order to settle a fight in the town, the appellant/Raju Yadav and Sajid Khan had called the deceased and, thereafter, the appellants/Sanjeet Kumar and Sonu Kumar took him out of the house on a motorcycle. At about 8:00 P.M., a villager of the informant by name of one Bindu told him on telephone that the deceased has been attacked by knife and he is being treated in the hospital. On this information, the informant reached the hospital along with many others only to find his brother dead. He, therefore, suspected that the appellants have killed the deceased. The reason for the occurrence is said to be old enmity.

6. On the basis of the afore-noted fardbeyan statement, a case vide Siwan Town P.S. Case No. 311 of 2013 was registered for investigation under Sections 302/34 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the I.P.C.) against the appellants/Sanjeet Kumar/Sonu Kumar/Raju Yadav and one Sajid Khan, who has not been put on trial as he was discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. The police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants, whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Two trials were held, viz., Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2014 in which appellants/Raju Yadav/Sanjeet Kumar, Abhishek @ Chhotu and Rahul Kumar were tried, whereas in the other, viz., Sessions Trial No. 283 of 2017, appellant/Sonu Kumar was tried.

8. By two different judgments and orders dated 31.01.2017 and 08.02.2017 (Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2014) and 04.10.2018 and 12.10.2018 (Sessions Trial No. 283 of 2017), the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 120B/34 of the I.P.C. The appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for five years, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 120B/34 of the I.P.C. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

9. Seven prosecution witnesses have been examined in both the trials with the only difference of their serial number in two different trials. We w