conclusivity. As such, there is no requirement to re-appreciate the evidence common to the convict-appellant Narender Singh, and, to the convictaccused in the instant case, nor also this Court is required to be making an adjudication upon the criminal appeal bearing No. CRA-D-134-DBA-2005 filed by the State of Haryana and upon the criminal revision bearing No. CRR-1651-2004 filed by the complainant, wherebys thereins, thus respective espousals are made, rather for convicting the convict Harbans Singh qua the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, nor also this Court is required to be adjudicating upon criminal appeal bearing No. CRA-S-1057-SB-2004 , preferred by convict-appellant Harbans Singh, wherebys he has challenged the making of a verdict of conviction qua him, thus only for an offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, besides has also espoused qua after annulling the consequent thereto made order of sentence, to sentence the convict Harbans Singh for an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. 22. Be that as it may, in the criminal appeal (supra) reared by the State of Haryana, and, the criminal revision petition (supra) reared by the complainant, there are espousals vis-a-vis the verdict of acquittal pronounced vis-a-vis accused Romi @ Santokh Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Tajender Singh alias Teja Singh, being quashed and set aside, thus on the premise that they are not well premised rather on a worthy appreciation of the evidence adduced before the learned trial Court concerned.
