(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No.599 of 2008 has been preferred by Ayub; Criminal Appeal No.619 of 2008 has been preferred by Mukhtar and Crl. Appeal No.824 of 2008 has been preferred jointly by Shaukat Ali and Kallu @ Mansur Ali. Through these connected appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 21.2.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C.Act, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial no.193/06, whereby all the four appellants have been convicted and sentenced under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and under section 307 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The sentences of the aforesaid four persons were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) SINCE all the above three appeals arise out of common factual matrix and impugned judgment and order, we heard them together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
(3.) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where the appellants were charged under sections 148, 302 read with 149 and 307 read with 149 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Their defence was of denial. No witness was produced in defence. During trial, in all, prosecution examined seven witnesses; three of them, namely, Abdul Lateef, Saquib Ali and Abid Ali(P.Ws. 1,2 and 3 respectively) were examined as eye witnesses. The prosecution declared Saquib Ali (P.W.2) as hostile witnesses. The trial Judge rightly recorded the finding that this witness was not reliable. He, however, believed the testimony of Abdul Lateef(P.W.1) and also of Abid Ali (P.W.3), though this witness was also declared hostile, and on its basis convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above. Hence, this appeal.