1. 1. By filing instant criminal appeal under Section 374 Criminal Procedure Code, the accused appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.2.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City (for learned 'Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 108/2001, whereby it convicted the accused appellants as under:-

Accused appellant No.1 Bhawani Singh:-

Section 304 & 109 Indian Penal Code : Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo six months' Simple Imprisonment.

Section 29 of the Indian Arms Act:-

Three years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.

Accused appellant No.2 Gopal Singh:-

Section 304 Indian Penal Code : Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo six months' Simple Imprisonment.

Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act:-

Three years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 8.2.1997 informant Kesar Lal submitted a written report (Ex.P6) at P.S. Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur to this effect that his brother Lal Chand after standing on his land was cutting the tree. Suddenly, Bhawani Singh s/o Dr. Sardar Singh alongwith Gopal Singh, Driver came there. They gave beating near about 1:20 PM. This occurrence has been seen by Madan Lal and Ashok Kumar. He further mentioned in the report that Bhawani Singh told Gopal Singh, Driver that he should give a gun shot, as the gun was with Gopal Singh Driver. Upon this he (Gopal Singh) immediately caused gun shot on Lal Chand, the result of which his brother died at the spot.

3. The Police on the basis of this written report, registered an FIR No. 42/2007, for the aforesaid offences.

4. Th e police after investigation submitted challan against the accused appellants for the aforesaid offences.

5. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter.

6. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 18 witnesses including one Court witness namely Prem Sagar Manocha and certain documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the statements of the accused appellants under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded in which they stated that the police has falsely implicated them in the aforesaid case.

7. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused appellants vide Judgment 24.2.2003 as mentioned above. The accused appellants being aggrieved with the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.2.2003 has preferred the instant criminal appeal.

8. Mr. S.R. Bajwa, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused appellant No.1 submits that prosecution has examined in this case nine eye witnesses namely; PW1 Madan Lal, PW2 Ashok Kumar Kumawat, P'W3 Gulab Chand, PW4 Mohan Lal Agarwal, PW5 Sita Ram, PW6 Kesar Lal, PW7 Pushpa Agarwal, PW8 Chandra Mohan and PW15 Neemnarayan. PW2 Ashok Kumar Kumawat, PW3 Gulab Chand, PW4 Mohan Lal Agarwal, PW7 Pushpa Agarwal and PW8 Chandra Mohan, who are said to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence and are also star witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution, have been declared hostile. The testimonies of PW1 Madan Lal, PW5 Sitaram PW6 Kesar Lal and PW15 Neemnarayan are contradictory to each other. On the one hand, PW1 Madan Lal and PW6 Kesar Lal, in their testimony have stated that appellant No.1, Bhawani Singh exhorted, appellant No.2 Gopal Singh to shoot Lal Chand (since deceased), but on the other hand PW5 Sitaram stated that the appellant No.1 Bhawani Singh fired at Lal Chand. But PW15 Neemnarayan, in his statement has stated that he did not know as to who