JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Since the criminal appeal(s) (supra) as well as the revision petition (supra), involve common questions of facts and law. Therefore, they are amenable to be decided through a common order.

2. CRA-290-DB-2006, CRA-392-DB-2006 and CRA-421-DB-2006 are directed by the convicts-appellants, against the verdict of conviction, as made on 28.03.2006, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, upon, Sessions Case No. 5 of 1999/2005, wherethrough, in respect of charges drawn for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 324 and 323 IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC, under Section 201 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, he made a finding of conviction against the accused.

3. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order drawn on 30.03.2006, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to impose upon the convicts (supra) both sentence(s) of imprisonment as well as of fine, but in the hereinafter extracted manner :-

4. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the period of sentence already undergone by the convicts during the course of investigation and pendency of the trial, was set off against the period of sentences awarded to them.

5. The convicts-appellants become aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, become aggrieved from the consequent thereto sentences of imprisonment, and, of fine as became imposed upon them, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and hence have chosen to institute there-against separate criminal appeals, before this Court.

6. Moreover, through the above drawn verdict, thus the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of acquittal qua accused Naresh and Ishwanti.

7. CRR-1591-2006 has been instituted by the complainant-Bhupinder, praying that the conviction awarded upon the accused-respondents be maintained. However, the sentence imposed be enhanced, thus in accordance with law. Further, it has been prayed therein that a heavy amount of fine may kindly be awarded and be paid as compensation to the legal heirs.

8. The further prayer therein is that respondents No. 7 and 8 may be dealt with in accordance with law, and, they be convicted under Sections 302/149 IPC and they be also sentenced accordingly.

Factual background

9. The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex.PD/1 is assigned.

10. As per the prosecution version, on 09.09.1998, Baldev Singh, the then SI/SHO, PS Bawal alongwith other police officials were present in the area of Bawal for patrolling duty and there they received an information on the wireless set that complainant Bhupinder Singh and Nand Lal had been both admitted in CHC, Bawal after sustaining injuries in an occurrence. Immediately, he alongwith other police officials rushed to CHC, Bawal and came to know that both the injured had already been referred to Government Hospital, Rewari and after taking MLR of Bhupinder, he rushed to Government Hospital, Rewari and recorded the statement of complainant Bhupinder, who alleged that he was resident of village Tikla and was a student of 11th standard in school at Pranpura. On 6.9.1998 on an application preferred by one Subh Ram, a distant grandfather of the complainant, shamlat land of Bidiawala Kua was got demarcated and in the demarcation it was found that the house of accused Davender and the land under cultivation of accused Davender and Kartar were actually situated on the land of cosharer Nand Lal