Ashutosh Kumar, J. – All the three appeals by three appellants have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. We have heard Sri Ansul, learned Advocate for the appellants, Mr. Satish Kumar for the informant and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned APP for the State.

3. This appeal is against judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.12.2019/19.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- IInd, Sheikhpura in connection with Sessions Case No. 123 of 2016, arising out of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 222 of 2014, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 364 IPC.

4. The FIR has been lodged by Pratima Devi (P.W. 9), who is the mother of the deceased. On 23.06.2014, regarding the occurrence of the previous night i.e. on 22.06.2014, P.W. 9 has asserted that while she and her sister Simmi Kumari (not examined) were in her house, Rajnish and Champak came and called her son/Bir Kumar (the deceased). Outside the house, the appellants and others were waiting. The son of the informant was taken towards the field. When the daughter of P.W. 9 tried to stop the accused persons from taking away her brother, appellant/Mukesh is said to have stopped her from holding back her brother. Nonetheless, Simpi Kumari followed the accused persons and saw that about 10-12 persons, who were present in the field, divested the deceased of his belongings and thereafter fired at him. The dead body was recovered on the next day. The police was not informed in the night of the occurrence. P.W. 9 claims to have gone to the police station on the next morning i.e. on 23.06.2014 to report about the occurrence. According to her, the deceased had suffered gun-shot injuries in his head and both the arms. The accused persons kept on firing till about 11:00 P.M. in the night of 22.06.2014. According to P.W. 9, the deceased had only recently come out of jail and had been residing in the house for the last 15 days. The reason attributed for the occurrence is the dispute during the time of election. For the reason of the deceased not having supported one Rajnish, there was enmity and at the instance of Rajnish, the appellants were asked to murder the deceased.

5. Hence, the occurrence.

6. On the basis of the aforenoted fardbeyan statement of P.W. 9, Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 222 of 2014 dated 23.06.2014 was registered for investigation under Sections 364, 302, 379, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

7. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellants, whereafter they were put on trial. The Trial Court after having examined 14 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and equal number of witnesses on behalf of the defence, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

8. Mr. Ansul, learned Advocate has pointed out that apart from P.W. 9 and P.W. 14, nobody has supported the occurrence. Usha Devi (P.W. 1), a neighbour, knew about the killing of the deceased but had no personal information. She has made statement before the police during the course of investigation and had stated that the appellants were responsible for the murder of the deceased. However, at the time of deposing, she did not identify the appellant/Avinash Kumar @ Avinash Singh in the dock.

9. P.Ws. 2 to 7 viz. Gopal Singh, Dinesh Singh, Jaya Singh, Bhim Singh, Maheshwar Singh @ Bhaso Singh and Shambhu Sharan have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile.

10. The father of the deceased viz. Karyanand Singh has been examined as P.W. 8. He does not claim to have any idea about the occurrence except for what was told to him. In his examination-in-chi