JUDGMENT :

Virendra Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for appellants as well as Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State and perused the lower court record.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants, Meera @ Ashmeer, Mehndi Hasan, Muneem, Shamsuddin and Saneel @ Sanda, assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 19.07.2007 delivered by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No. 3, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 758 of 2005 arising out of Case Crime No. 146 of 2005 and connected Sessions Trial Nos. 759 of 2005, 760 of 2005, 761 of 2005 and 762 of 2005, arising out of Crime Nos. 147 to 150 of 2005, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and 3/25 of Arms Act, of Police Station Manjhila, District Hardoi.

3. The learned trial court has convicted all the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and amount of Rs.500/- has been imposed on each of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 147 I.P.C.; for the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for 1-1 year and fine of Rs.500-500/- has been imposed on each appellants. All the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of amount of Rs.5000-5,000/- has been imposed on each of the appellants.

4. Accoridng to default stipulation the appellant have to serve out additional sentence of three months for offence punishable under Section 147 I.P.C., additional sentence of three months for the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. and for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. additional sentence for one year. It is also directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

5. Learned trial court has convicted the appellant, Meera @ Ashmeer in Sessions Trial No. 759 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, the appellant, Muneem in Session Trial No. 760 of 2005, the appellant, Shamsuddin in Session Trial No. 761 of 2005 and the appellant, Saneel @ Sanda in Session Trial No. 762 of 2005 for the same offence. All the appellants have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two-two years and fine of Rs.500-500/- has been imposed on each appellants to serve out additional sentence of three-three months. It is further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

6. The appellants have mentioned in grounds of appeal that the appellants have been convicted on the basis of evidence of highly interested and partisan witnesses. P.W.1, Nazir Ali, informant, is not the eye witness of the incident. Other witnesses, P.W.2, Ismile is his real nephew and P.W.3, Bhinnu is also his relative, who is resident of different village situated at a distance of 5 kilometres from the place of incident. The most material witness, namely, Ram Gopal has been withheld by the prosecution and no reasoning, what so ever has been given by the prosecution for not producing him during course of trial. P.W.2, Ismile has stated that he does not know the witness Bhinnu. P.W.3, Bhinnu has stated that he by chance was present at the place of incident. The statements of both the eye witnesses are contradictory to each other on every material point. The complainant has accepted this fact that first of all the police came on the spot and on dictation of Sub Inspector the F.I.R. was got written at the spot by the scribe and the complainant/ informant was asked to put his thumb impression over the same.

7. It is further mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the alleged discovery of firearm from the possession of appellants is fake and fabricated. No public witness was cited in the recovery memo regarding the alleged recovery. Therefore, th