Shashi Kant Gupta, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant Subedar against the judgment and order dated 06.08.1983 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 250 of 1983 convicting and sentencing the appellant Subedar to Life Imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.

2. The factual scenario as described by the prosecution is essentially as follows:

The accused Leela and Subedar are sons of the accused Lakhan. The complainant Ram Chandra (P.W.1), the accused Lakhan, Chhotey Lal and the deceased Kuber happened to be sons of Zalim. The deceased Kuber and the complainant Ram Chandra (P.W.1) had no wives. Ram Chandra (P.W.1), Chhotey Lal and Kuber were living in a shared household. The accused Lakhan was living in a separate accommodation.

3. The four brothers, namely, Ram Chandra (P.W.1), the deceased Kuber, the accused Lakhan and Chhotey Lal, had one-fourth share in their house.

4. The accused Lakhan had raised a one foot high and half hoot wide wall in the courtyard of the aforesaid house about 6 months prior to the occurrence in question.

5. It was on 14.03.1983, at about 12 noon, when Ram Chandra (PW 1) and the deceased Kuber were meas