D.V. SHARMA, J. :- Both the criminal appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 26-4-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, in Sessions Trial No. 476 of 2002, convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-each and on non-payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

2. Factual matrix is as under :-

According to the prosecution case, there was enmity between the parties on account of election rivalry for the post of Gram Pradhan to which wife of the deceased won and earlier Avadhesh and Jang Bahadur, collaterals of the deceased were murdered by the accused. In this background, on 13-04-2001 at about 5:30 p.m. while the deceased Promod Kumar and Arvind son of Barrister Singh were purchasing some domestic articles from the general store of Rajput of Harpalpur, in presence of the complainant Dinesh Kumar, Arvind Kumar and Mahavir were also purchasing articles from another adjoining shop of Chhotey Yadav, accused Rajni Kant Pathak having double barrel gun and Ram Pratap and Ashok having 12 bore country-made pistols fired at Promod Kumar, which hit him and caused instantaneous death on the spot. On exhortation accused Girind Singh fired from his rifle of 315 bore, but in spite of this, accused Ram Pratap along with his country-made pistol was apprehended by the witnesses and rest accused succeeded in fleeing away. The complainant Dinesh Kumar (since dead) lodged the F.I.R. about the occurrence on 13-4-2001 at 6:45 p.m.

3. The matter was investigated by the police, who after due investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-persons under Section 302/341.P.C. They were charged accordingly by the trial court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case examined Arvind son of Barrister Singh as P.W. 1, Mahavir as P.W. 2, Arvind Kumar son of Samar Singh as P.W. 3, Dr. V.V. Tripathi, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased as P.W. 4, Hari Narayan Singh Tewatiya (S.I.), who conducted the investigation as P.W. 5 and Vijay Kumar as P.W. 6. Out of them P.W. 1 Arvind, P.W. 2 Mahavir, P.W. 3 Arvind Kumar and P.W. 6 Vijay Kumar are the witnesses of fact and rest are formal ones.

5. After considering the entire evidence on record and hearing the parties counsel, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 341.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them accordingly as mentioned above.

6. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid conviction and sentences the appellants preferred these appeals on the following grounds :-

A. The impugned conviction order is wholly illegal- arbitrary and against the evidence on record.

B. The learned trial court failed to consider that P. W. 1 Arvind Kumar became hostile and P. W. 2 Mahavir has said that the gun-shot of Rajni Kant hit the deceased and P. W.6 Vijay Kumar has stated that he has seen running and heard the fires voice and not seen that who has fired.

C. The appellant No.2 Ram Pratap has been acquitted in Crime No. 54/2001 under Arms Act.

D. The medical report does not support the prosecution story.

E. There is major contradiction in the prosecution witnesses.

F. The learned trial court failed to consider that the occurrence took place on 13-4-2001 at 9.10 p.m. and panchayatnama took place on 14-4-2001 at 7.00 a.m. which creates doubt on the prosecution story.

G. The investigation officer recorded statement of P. W.2 u/S. 161 Cr. P.C. after one month which has become baseless.

H. Rifle of the appellant No. 1 Girind Singh was already deposited in the Arms shop prior to two months of the said occurrence.

I. The case u/S. 302/34 I.P.C. has not been proved against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

J. The learned court below fails to consider that no any independent witnesses have been cited in th