Hon’ble N.A. Moonis, J.—The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant Chet Ram against the judgment and order dated 18.7.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Special Judge Bareilly, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 421 of 1994, under Section 302/34 IPC for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment to serve out an additional sentence of six months. Further the appellant was convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 422 of 1994 under Section 25 (1)(A) of Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The genesis of the prosecution case narrated in a nut shell is that Arvind Kumar lodged a First Information Report on 19.10.1993 at 1.30 p.m. vide Case Crime No. 433 of 1994, under Section 302 IPC against the appellant Chet Ram and co-accused Natthu Lal with respect to the incident of the same day at 10.30 a.m. that the appellant Chet Ram and his father Natthu Lal had committed the murder of his father Chheda Lal (who is brother of co-accused Natthu Lal) by causing injury with knife. The appellant was armed with a country made pistol and the co-accused Natthu Lal was armed with knife. They were already nurturing a grudge and animus against the victim on account of property dispute. The accused persons intercepted the father of the complainant and demanded half of the sugar cane which was being carried away on a Dunlop to sell at the crusher.The father of the complainant refused to give half of the sugar cane to the accused persons which caused great annoyance and infuriation as a result of which co-accused Cheta Ram who is the son of the appellant caught the collar of the victim and the appellant started to stab him with knife on the vital parts of his body. The victim could not bear the blows of the knife as a result of which he fainted and fell down. Hearing the shrick and alarm of the victim, a number of persons ran towards the place of occurrence and the appellant and co-accused looking to the gathering of people tried to disappear from the place of occurrence. In the meantime some police constable came on the spot and chased the accused persons. The accused persons were caught on the same day at about 11.45 a.m. The victim was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. Co-accused Natthu Lal had earlier committed murder of his uncle (Tau) and he was convicted and sentenced. Against his conviction, the appeal is still pending before this High Court and the accused Natthu Lal is on bail. The motive behind the commission of the said crime as divulged by the prosecution is that Chheda Lal, the father of the complainant had acquired the land of his brother Ram Nath who was living in Beejamau. The co-accused his brother Natthu Lal (the appellant) was demanding half share of that property which was not accepted by the father of the complainant, on account of which the appellant and Natthu Lal were in search of eliminating him for ever. On 19.10.1993 at about 11.30 a.m. when the father of the complainant was bringing sugar cane to sell at the cruster, the accused persons who had pre-meditation of mind to kill the victim intercepted him and caused his death by stabbing with knife. The accused persons were arrested on the same day and the memo of the recovered knife and pistol were prepared which was exhibited as Ex.Ka.7. The corpus of the deceased was taken into custody and inquest report was prepared by the investigating officer. Thereafter the dead body was sent to the mortuary for post-mortem alongwith photo lash, challan lash, sample of seal etc. with the report of the Chief Medical Officer. After conducting all the formalities, the dead body was handed over to constable Rajveer Singh and constable Narendra Singh. The investigating officer after recording the statements of the witnesses and the accused persons prepared the site plan and collected th