By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present two appeals are being heard together and disposed off finally.

3. These criminal appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 22.8.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Fatehpur in Session Trial Nos. 569 of 2003 and 570 of 2003 arising out of case crime Nos. 137 of 2003 and 139 of 2003 whereby accused-appellants, namely, Jai Singh, Amar Singh and Dayaram Lodh have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they would further undergo two years additional rigorous imprisonment. Accused-appellant Amar Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 of the Arms Act and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused-appellant Amar Singh was to further undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment and all the sentences of accused-appellant Amar Singh was to undergo separately.

4. Brief facts, as per the prosecution case as set up in the FIR are that on 4.7.2003 the cousin brother of the complainant, namely, Ram Bahadur had gone to brickkiln of the Barkat Singh to deposit the money of the brick. The complainant alongwith his cousin brothers, namely, Ram Pratap, Sohan Lal, wife of Ram Bahadur, namely, Shiv Pyari and Gulab was sitting near the house of Hari Shankar Lodh @ Badku. At about 6:15 in the evening, when Shyam Bahadur came back by tempo from the brickkiln of Barkat Singh and started talking to the complainant and other persons, at that time Jai Singh came on a motorcycle on which the accused Amar Singh and Dayaram Lodh were sitting behind him. Accused Jai Singh and Amar Singh had fired upon Ram Bahadur on account of which Ram Bahadur had fallen down and thereafter accused Jai Singh having reloaded had again fired upon the deceased, whereupon the other accused Dayaram said that the work is done and lets go. Thereafter the accused persons had gone towards Fatehpur on their motorcycles after threatening the witnesses. Due to fear, the complainant had not chased the accused persons and Hari Shankar Lodh had shut down the shutter of his house and door and the people on the road had started running away here and there. The brother of the complainant, namely, Ram Bahadur had been doing business of plotting alongwith the accused persons, namely, Amar Singh and Jai Singh at Fatehpur. There was also a dispute with regard to plot between the parties and a case is also pending between them in the Court. Accused persons, namely, Amar Singh and Jai Singh wanted to take Rs. 80,000/- forcibly from the brother of the complainant and the brother of the complainant had refused to do so on account of which, accused persons, namely, Amar Singh in collusion with Jai Singh and Dayaram Lodh had murdered the brother of the complainant. Accused Dayaram is a close friend of Jai Singh. The said incident had occurred near the house of Hari Shankar Lodh, gram Madariyapur P.S. Shah Thana Ghazipur, District Fatehpur. The complainant on 4.7.2003 at about 20:35 in the night had given written taharir to the P.S. Shah Thana Ghazipur District Fatehpur (Exhibit-ka-1) with regard to the said incident and a case under Sections 302/34, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act being case crime No. 137/03 has been registered at Chauki Shah, Thana Ghazipur, District Fatehpur.

5. Before the Court proceeds to examine the evidence on record, it would be appropriate to briefly summarize the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the appellants.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the only independent witness, namely, Hari Shanker Lodh in front of whose house the alleged incident took place though examined as PW-1 before the trial Court, but he did not support the case of