Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—Challenge in these two connected appeals, under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., by the five appellants Mahendra Singh (A-1), Yogendra Singh (A-2), Pappu son of Kunwarpal (A-3), Chandra Pal (A-4) and Pappu son of Chandra Pal (A-5) are to the impugned judgement of their conviction and order of sentence dated 11.1.2002 recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Aligarh in S.T. No. 1455 of 1996, State v. Mahendra Singh and others, P.S. Khair, district Aligarh by which, learned trial Judge has convicted all the appellants herein for offences under Section 148, 302/149 I.P.C. and has sentenced to them to 2 years R.I. with Rs. 2000/- fine, the default sentence being 4 months additional R.I. and life imprisonment with Rs. 10,000/- fine, the default sentence in the event of non-payment of fine being 2 years further R.I. Respectively for both the offences while further directing that both the sentences shall run concurrently and benefit of set off shall also be applied to them.

2. As is evident from the trial Court record prelude to the present incident was gestated in a family feud, which is mentioned in the written F.I.R., Exhibit Ka-1, by the informant Sher Singh P.W.1 and later on testified by him and other fact witnesses Prem Shankar P.W.2 and Pawan Kumar P.W.3 during the Sessions trial. According to these evidences informant’s grand-father Nem Singh r/o village Baknare, P.S. Khair, district Aligarh had five sons namely, Manvir, Vijay Pal, Ramvir Singh, Raghuvir Singh and Sultan Singh. Manvir had four sons Padam Singh (deceased), Prempal, Prem Shankar (P.W.2) and Sher Singh (informant/P.W.1). Pawan P.W.3 is the son of Padam Singh(deceased). Pista Devi (a co-accused for conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, since acquitted) is the wife/widow of Prempal, who had died in the year 1990. Prempal and Pista Devi have four daughters and a son. At the time of the present incident two of the daughters were already married and widow Pista Devi was living with her two damsels and her son in a separate abode from her in-laws house.

3. Manvir (father of informant P.W.1, Prem Shankar P.W.2 and Padam Singh, deceased) though owned 45 bighas of farm land, but he (Manvir), had renounced the world and had embraced seer hood. He had not visited the village since last four years. His 45 bighas of land was partitioned amongst his four sons. Whereas informant Sher Singh P.W.1, Prem Shankar P.W.2 and Pawan P.W.3 (son of the deceased) were cultivating their agricultural plots, agricultural land belonging to widow Pista Devi was initially lying vacant, but since last one/two years deceased and Pawan P.W.3 had trespassed and grabbed it and were farming over it. Pista Devi, the widow, thus, was deprived of her rightful inheritance and usufruct of her agricultural land although she and her son had an indubitable right of inheritance.

4. It further emerges that Pista Devi was originally a resident of village Damora and all the appellants herein, are her parental and marital relatives. Sher SinghP.W.1,during his cross-examination at page 11 has disclosed their relationships as (A-1) and (A-2) being her (Pista Devi’s) sons-in-law (damad) and (A-3) being son-in-law of her brother. (A-4) is her brother-in-law (jija) and (A-5) Pappu is the son of (A-4) and nephew of the widow. Thus it becomes evident that both the warring factions were close relatives and were very well known to each other.

5. Next it is evident that after demise of Prempal, not only the widow was not allowed to cultivate the agricultural land falling in her share but, with a clandestine motive to grab her agricultural properties, even her chastity was slandered by levelling a faux pas that she was a trollop having an illicit extra marital relationship with one Baljeet, a co-villager. The deceased, for the aforementioned reasons was not agreeable to allow Pista Devi to reside in the village as that was an impediment in his way to execute his nefarious design. To throw