JUDGMENT :

RAGHVENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.9.2003 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 17, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 1347 of 2001 (State vs. Shyam Kumar) convicting the accused-appellant Shyam Kumar for the offences u/s 302, 452, 504, 506 IPC in Case Crime No. 125 of 2001, P. S. B. B. Nagar, District-Bulandshahr and awarded life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- for offence u/s 302 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence u/s 452 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 504 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence u/s 506 IPC with default stipulation of two years additional imprisonment .

3. The FIR of this case was lodged with the police on 15.8.2001 at 7.15 am with respect to an incident that took place on 14.8.2001 at 9 pm. According to prosecution, the FIR of this case has been lodged by one Pradeep Kumar, who is brother of deceased Mamta and brother-in-law of deceased Dinesh. As per the FIR version, deceased Dinesh owned 65 bighas of agricultural land. Bhim and Sukhbir, who were cousin brothers of Dinesh, had also given their lands to Dinesh (brother-in-law of informant) on contractual basis for the purposes of agriculture. The same land was earlier given to accused Shyam Kumar, who is real brother of Dinesh and on this score accused Shyam Kumar felt annoyance and he developed animosity with Dinesh. Accused Shyam equipped with double barrel gun visited the place of his deceased brother and extended threats that he would see how he (Dinesh) performs agricultural work. In the meantime, Mamta, wife of Dinesh came forward to rescue her husband. The accused discharged a shot from his gun in presence of nephew and niece of informant. Then deceased Dinesh opened the door and said that Shyam has killed Mamta. As Dinesh turned back and came inside, accused Shyam discharged a fire shot upon him too. Both Mamta and Dinesh died on the spot. Thereafter, accused Shyam left the place extending threats to all by saying not to report the matter to the police. After leaving the dead bodies in the house, the informant went to the police station in the next morning for lodging FIR, which was scribed by one Pramod Kumar.

4. After lodging of FIR, the investigation proceeded in accordance with law. The inquest was prepared and certain documents were also prepared for the purposes of post mortem examination of the deceased persons. During course of investigation after recording the statements of witnesses and collection of evidence, the arrest of accused was effected along with weapon of assault. The weapon of assault was subsequently sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The investigation culminated into filing of charge-sheet.

5. After complying with the procedure the learned trial Court proceeded with the trial and framed charge against accused Shyam Kumar for the offences under Sections 302, 452, 504, 506 IPC.

6. Accused has denied the prosecution case and claimed himself to be innocent and has stated that he has been falsely implicated by the informant so as to grab the landed property.

7. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused person, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Nikhil Kumar, who is 8 years of age son of deceased and an eyewitness of the incident. PW-2 Pradeep Kumar, informant of this case, has proved the execution of written report (i.e. Ext Ka.1). He is also the eyewitness of the incident. PW-3 S.I. Mahaveer Singh has prepared and proved the inquest of deceased Dinesh and deceased Mamta and also executed the connected papers required for conducting autopsy on the corpuses of both the deceased. He has also executed the recovery memo of a torch, which was in the hands of deceased Dinesh. He has taken the sampl