1. - These are two appeals one by Sukdeo Singh and one by Balwant Singh arising out of common judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh dated 29.08.85, seeking to challenge their conviction for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC and sentence of life Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment.In view of above, both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The facts of this case, as projected by the prosecution are, that on 11.09.82 at 5 AM, Banta Singh (PW/2) lodged an oral report at Police Station, Hanumangarh Town (Ex.P/1), to the effect, that accused persons Sukhdeo Singh and his brother Kela habitually hurl abuses to him, while he stops them, therefore, they are annoyed. With this it is alleged, that on 10.09.82 at 1:30 in the noon, younger brother of the informant being Teja Singh came to the informant for some domestic work. That evening itself, wife of Teja Singh, Tej Kaur and Manga Singh were also sitting at his house. With this, it is alleged that at 9-10, accused Sukhdev Singh called the informant, whereupon he came out. Teja Singh also came with him. At that time, they found accused Sukhdev Singh and his brother-in-law Balwant @ Ganda Singh and third Kela (acquitted) were standing there duly armed with 'barchis'. Seeing the informant, the accused persons started hurling abuses and on being asked to stop, Sukhdev Singh inflicted a barchi blow on the right side of informant, then Karnali inflicted another barchi blow on the chest and when Teja Singh wanted to save, Sukhdeo Singh and Khanda Singh inflicted barchi injuries on the head of Teja Singh, as a result of which Teja Singh fell down. Banta Singh raised a cry, which attracted his wife, Manga Singh and Guljara Singh, seeing them the accused ran away. Teja Singh was bleeding profusely. Informant's wife brought a chunni from the house and tied on the head. However, after some time, Teja Singh died. It was also mentioned that it being night, the informant was afraid and did not get any conveyance, therefore, he did not come to lodge the report earlier. On this report, a case under Section 302 and 304/34 IPC was registered and investigation has commenced. Postmortem examination was got conducted. Injuries on Banta Singh were got examined, recovery of weapons was made and ultimately, challan was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh against three accused persons, where-from, the case was committed.

3. Learned trial court framed charges against the two appellants for the offence under Sections 302, 302/34 and 307/34 IPC while Khanda Singh was charged with Section 307/34 and 302/34 IPC. Accused denied the charges.

4. During trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses. PW/1, PW/2, PW/3 and PW/4 have been produced to support the prosecution case basically being Manga Singh, Banta Singh , Guljara Singh and Tej Pal, While PW/6 is the Investigating officer and PW/7 is Medical officer. Who examined the injured, and conducted the postmortem examination.

5. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused persons adopted a stand of denial. Accused Balwant Singh has taken a stand that his name is Balwant Singh and his name is not called Khanda Singh while other accused simply gave out that on account of groupism, witnesses are telling lie.

6. In defence, one witness Radhey Shyam was examined, who happens to be Additional Superintendent of Police, ACD, Kota, to prove Ex.D/1, D/4, D/6 etc. that statements contained therein were correctly recorded by him.

7. Learned trial court after completing trial, convicted the two appellants as above. However, the prosecution case was not believed against Karnail Singh, on the ground, that the injuries attributed by the injured PW/2 to Karnail Singh are not supported by medical evidence, inasmuch as according to PW/2 injuries were inflicted on him by 'barchis', while there were only two injuries on his p