JUDGMENT :

1. The accused faced charges for commission of offences constituted under Sections 304, 201 of the IPC, and, under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 34 of the IP.

2. The learned trial Court through its decision made on 26.06.2009, upon, Sessions Case No.22/07, proceeded to convict the accused for offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, and, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. In pursuance thereto, the learned trial Court through a separate sentencing order drawn on 27.06.2009, sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for one year, and, to a pay a fine of Rs.2000/ each, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC. In default of fine, he sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Moreover, the learned trial Court through the afore sentencing order drawn on 27.06.2009, sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years, and, to a pay fine of Rs.5000/- each, for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and, in default of payment of fine amount, the accused became sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and, the period already undergone by the accused in custody hence during the course of investigation, and, trial, was ordered to be set off from the afore imposed sentences.

4. The State of Himachal Pradesh is not aggrieved, from the verdict of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, and, appertaining to its convicting the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC, and, under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Consequently, the afore verdict of conviction appertaining to the afore offences acquires fullest conclusivity and binding effect. However, the accused/convicts are aggrieved from the afore verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentences supra, as became imposed upon each of them, hence, they are led to institute the instant criminal appeal before this Court.

5. The brief facts of the case are that on 5.1.2006 in the morning at about 8 a.m. the deceased Kushal Singh with his gun, had gone to jungle in Dharamshala Mahantan along with the accused for hunting. But he did not return till evening. At about 5 p.m., accused Darshan Singh came to the house of complainant Yog Raj, the younger brother of deceased and told that while hunting Kushal Singh had received gun shot in his left arm and chest. On this complainant Yog Raj and his elder brother Gurdeep Singh accompanied accused Darshan Singh to the aforesaid jungle in a vehicle being driven by one Biju alias Vijay Kumar, resident of Abheypur and saw that the dead body of their brother Kushal Singh was lying by the side of Khad and accused Bidhi Chand and Gian Chand were sitting near the dead body. The gun belonging to the deceased was also with the accused. Thereafter the dead body of the deceased was brought to his house at about 9.00 p.m. in the same vehicle. Thereafter at about 10.30 p.m. somebody informed the police of Police Station, Gagret about the death of deceased due to gun shot. Accordingly, the police reached in village Abheypur and on reaching there it recorded the statement of complainant Yog Raj under Section 154 Cr.P.C., Ex. PW5/A, who suspected that the deceased was killed by the accused. Accordingly, a case under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the accused in Police Station Gagret. The post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted in D.H. Una. Later on it was found that the place of occurrence falls in the jurisdiction of Police Station Amb and accordingly the FIR registered in P.S. Gagret was cancelled and fresh FIR was recorded in Police Station, Amb on 9.1.2006.

6. During investigating the police took into possession a single barrel gun, Ex. P-3 belonging to the deceased besides its licence Ex.P-4, from complainant Yog Raj as he had brought the gun in question to hi