J. R. VORA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellants co-accused no. 1 to 5 in Sessions Case No. 148/1993 and Sessions Case No. 143/1999, against the judgment and order of conviction recorded by ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bharuch, convicting present appellants for the offences proved against them under sec. 143, 147, 148, 307, 324, 323 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The present appellants who are sentenced to suffer R/i of one year for the charges proved against them under sec. 143, 147, 148 read with section 149 of IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo S/i for one month. The present appellants were also sentenced to suffer R/i for 7 years for the offence proved against them under sec. 307 read with sec. 149 of IPC and with fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, to undergo S/i for six months. The present appellants were also sentenced for the imprisonment of one month for the offence proved against them under sec. 323 read with sec. 149 of IPC and with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment of 5 days. The present appellants were also sentenced to imprisonment of one year for the offence proved against them under sec. 324 read with section 149 of IPC and with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment of one month. The ld. Trial Judge directed that all the sentence of imprisonments shall run concurrently. The judgment and order under challenge is dated 29. 4. 2003. In the above said sessions cases, there were seven accused in all, and by the judgment impugned in this appeal, ori. accused no. 6- Shehnaj Musa and Ori. accused no. 7 Jaheda Adam Ahmad were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them by the ld. Trial Judge. Against this acquittal, it appears that no appeal has been preferred by the State. ( 2 ) IT further appears that when charge-sheet of Sessions Case No. 148/1993 was submitted to the court, ori. accused no. 3- Daud Ahmad Haji was not available and than he made himself available. Further charge-sheet i. e. Sessions Case No. 143/1999 was submitted in respect of ori. accused no. 3- Daud Ahmad Haji and hence, both these Sessions Case No. 148/1993 and Sessions Case No. 143/1999 were tried together by the ld. Addl. accused no. 3- Daud Ahmad Haji was not available and than he made himself available. Further charge-sheet i. e. Sessions Case No. 143/1999 was submitted in respect of ori. accused no. 3- Daud Ahmad Haji and hence, both these Sessions Case No. 148/1993 and Sessions Case No. 143/1999 were tried together by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch. ( 3 ) PW-1 - Ibrahim Umarji, resident of Kurchan, Tal. Amod, Dist. Bharuch, lodged a First Information Report at 7. 45p. m. in Amod Police Station before Sakarabhai Ramjibhai Parmar, PW-24, the then Police Sub Inspector, Amod Police Station, against in all, seven accused persons on 28. 9. 1992 for the offence committed by the accused under sec. 307, 143, 147, 148, 324, 323 and 504 of IPC and sec 135 of the Bombay Police Act. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, it appears that incident has taken place near Bus stand of village Kurchan at about 6. 00pm. On the day of incident i. e. 28. 9. 1992, PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji Isap along with his wife Huriben had been to Bharuch at Patel Welfare Hospital for treatment and medicines for Huriben. After taking medicines from the hospital, they boarded the tempo from Bharuch and came to village Samani at about 5. 15p. m. A bus coming from Vaghra going to Koli came to village Samani, the said bus was boarded by PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji and his wife Huriben, PW-7. In the same bus, Mahmad Umarji, PW-4, elder brother of Ibrahim Umarji, also boarded. At the same time, accused no. 1 Musa Ahmad and his son Makbul Gabbar accused no. 5 also boarded in the same bus. Accused no. 5 Makbul pushed Mahmadbhai- PW-4, in the bus. So, PW-4 Mahmad scolded accused no. 5 about pushing him. Thereafter, on scolding, accused no. 5 started giving feast blow to PW-4 Mahmadbhai. PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji attempted to intervene in the quarrel and, therefore, accused no. 1 and accused no. 5 Musa Ahmad and Makbul Musa, respectively uttered abuses to PW-1. On account of this quarrel, PW-4 - Mahmad Umarji got down from the bus and bus started for the onward journey. Accused no. 1 - Musa Ahmad and accused no. 5 Makbul also got down from the bus before it started from village Samani. While, this bus reached at the bus-stand of village Kurchan at about 6. 00 PM, accused no. Accused no. 1 - Musa Ahmad and accused no. 5 Makbul also got down from the bus before it started from village Samani. While, this bus reached at the bus-stand of village Kurchan at about 6. 00 PM, accused no. 1 Musa Ahmad who preceded the bus in Rickshaw, was present at bus-stand with Tabal ( A weapon like an Axe ), his son Makbul accused no. 5 with hockey, Daud Ahmad accused no. 3 with Sword, Adam Ahmad Haji - accused no. 4, with stick and brother of accused no. 1 Ismail @ Sulemamad with stick. Daughter of accused no. 2 - Jubeda- ori. accused no. 7 with knife and Shehnaz daughter of accused no. 1, ori. accused no. 6, with knife, were present. All accused were uttering abuses and were saying that "kill Ibrahim. " They started to inflicting blows on the bus, and, therefore, other passengers sitting in the bus got down and ran away. Accused no. 1 and his brother accused no. 2 climbed up in the bus and accused no. 1 inflicted a blow with "tabal" on the head of PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji and they started to scuffle with PW-1. PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji was also injured above his right eye and blood started oozing. They also gave feast and kicks blow to Huriben- PW-7. When this scuffle was going on, Mustak Ibrahim PW-5 son of PW-1 and Inayat Ibrahim PW-6, other son of PW-1 and daughter of PW-1 Sayara were near the bus. Accused no. 5 inflicted blow of "tabal" to PW-5 Mustak. Accused no. 4 inflicted stick blow on the leg of Mustak. Accused no. 3 Daud inflicted sword blow to PW-6 Inayat on leg and Accused no. 2 -Ismail @ Suba inflicted hockey blow to PW-4 Inayat. Accused no. 7 and 8 acquitted by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, alleged to have given knife blow to Sayara daughter of PW-1. Dinmohamad Gul Mohamad- PW-11 and Janmohmad Gulmohmad PW-20, reached to the spot and rescued PW-1 and other witnesses from further beating. In the same bus, injured were taken to Amod Police Station from Kurchan where PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji as said above, recorded First Information Report at 7. 45pm before PW-24 Shakarabhai Ramji Parmar, PSI. Dinmohamad Gul Mohamad- PW-11 and Janmohmad Gulmohmad PW-20, reached to the spot and rescued PW-1 and other witnesses from further beating. In the same bus, injured were taken to Amod Police Station from Kurchan where PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji as said above, recorded First Information Report at 7. 45pm before PW-24 Shakarabhai Ramji Parmar, PSI. After recording of the complaint by police Yadi, all the injured i. e. PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji, PW-4 Mahamad Umarji, PW-8 Shaheraben Umarji, PW-6 Inayat Ibrahim, PW-5 Mustak Ibrahim, PW-7 Huriben and PW-9 Salim Mohmad went to Community Health Centre, Amod, who were treated by Medical Officer PW-22 Dr. Rajesh Kumar. He treated injuries of the injured, in all seven, except Huriben who had not received noticeable external injury. Mohmad Umar PW-4, Ibrahim Umarji PW-1, Inayat Ibrahim PW-6, Mustak Ibrahim PW-5, were referred to Civil Hospital at Bharuch, where, except, PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji, all were treated by PW-3 Dr. Vijaychandra Lalubhai Patel, who also gave certificate of injuries. According to him, as per prosecution case, PW-5 Mustak sustained fracture of left femur along with other injuries, while PW-1 reached at Civil Hospital, Bharuch at 400p. M. on 29. 9. 1992 and was examined by PW-2 - Lalitbhai Bhagubhai Patel who treated him and gave certificate. After investigation as said above, the charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellants and two other accused and the case wascommitted to the Court of Sessions at Bharuch. ( 5 ) BOTH the cases i. e. Sessions Case No. 148/93 and Sessions Case No. 143/1999 were tried together and in both the cases a common charge vide exh. 64 was framed by ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch on 1. 4. 2000 for the offence punishable under sec. 143, 147, 148, 307, 324, 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code as well as under sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act. All the seven accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution, therefore, was asked to produce evidence on record. The prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and a bulk of documentary evidences to prove the case of the prosecution. After recording the evidence and statements of the accused under sec. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the ld. judge vide order impugned in this appeal which is dated 29. 4. 1993 pleased to convict the present appellants and acquitted ori. accused no. 6 and 7, as aforesaid. After recording the evidence and statements of the accused under sec. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the ld. judge vide order impugned in this appeal which is dated 29. 4. 1993 pleased to convict the present appellants and acquitted ori. accused no. 6 and 7, as aforesaid. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the above said judgment and order of conviction recorded by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch, this appeal is preferred by the appellants i. e. ori. accused no. 1 to 5. The appeal was at the admission stage, ld. advocate for the appellants Mr. BS Patel and ld. APP in-charge of the case Mr. IM Pandya requested this court that having regard to the circumstances of the matter and since the admission hearing as well as bail hearing is likely to take time, requested this Court to hear the matter finally. The request was granted. The record and proceedings of the trial court was called for and was referred. Ld. advocate Mr. BS Patel for the appellants has taken care to prepare a complete paper-book and supplied a copy to this court as well as to ld. APP Mr. Pandya, in advance. So, both the ld. advocates for the parties have addressed this court in detail. Thus, the matter is decided finally. ( 7 ) BEFORE we enter into the contentions raised by both the sides and appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to have a sufficient perusal of the prosecution evidence. The prosecution examined injured eye witnesses PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji at exh. 83, PW-4 Mahmad Umarji at ex. 96, PW-5 Mustak Ibrahim at ex. 103, PW-6 Inayat Ibrahim at ex. 104, PW-7 Huriben Ibrahim at ex. 110, PW-8 Shayaraben Ibrahim at ex. 111 and PW-9 Salim Mahamad at ex. 113. Therefore, in fact, seven injured eye witnesses are examined to prove the prosecution case. ( 8 ) THE prosecution examined three medical experts with regard to the injuries caused to the injured. PW-22 Dr. Rajeshkumar Mehta is examined at ex. 128, who examined and treated five injured witnesses in first point of time at Community Health Centre, Amod and, according to the prosecution case, soon after the incident in the bus, the injured were shifted to Community Health Centre, Amod. The injured were referred to Civil Hospital, Bharuch where, except PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji, other four injured eye witnesses were examined by PW-3 Dr. The injured were referred to Civil Hospital, Bharuch where, except PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji, other four injured eye witnesses were examined by PW-3 Dr. Vinaychandra L. Patel, who had been examined at exh. 89, while PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji Isap was examined by PW-2 Dr. Lalitbhai Patel, who had been examined at exh. 87. ( 9 ) IN addition to this evidence, the prosecution also examined four eye witnesses i. e. PW-10 Bhikhabhai Govindbhai Solanki at exh. 114. According to the prosecution case, this PW-10 Bhikhabhai Govindbhai Solanki at exh. 114 and PW-11 Din Mahmad Gul Mahamad Sindhi at exh. 115 were the witnesses who intervened and the prosecution witnesses could be escaped from further beating, however, PW-10 Bhikhabhai Govindbhai Solanki and PW-11 Din Mahmad Gul Mahmad have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution obtained permission from the court to cross-examine them. PW-12 Mahmad Karim Malek, driver of the Bus bearing No. GRR-8491 of State Road Transport Corporation, has been examined at exh. 116, wherein according to the prosecution case, the quarrel took place and prosecution witness PW-13 Ahmadali Zulfikarali is examined at ex. 117, who was the Conductor of the said Bus. It is the prosecution case that both the PW-12 and 13 were the eye witnesses of the incident and they in their above said bus, shifted the injured to Community Health Centre, at Amod. However, both these witnesses i. e. PW-12 and PW-13 i. e. Mahmad Karim Malek and Ahmadali Zulfikarali did not fully support the prosecution case and made improvement to the extent that an attack was lodged by a mob and not by the accused on injured though they admitted that the injured were shifted by them to Community Health Centre, Amod. PW-20 Jan Mahmad Gul Mahmad Sindhi who is examined at exh. 124 who is also an eye witness according to the prosecution case, but did not support fully to the prosecution case and stated that a mob attacked the injured and not accused. ( 10 ) PW-14 Gulam Ibrahim Chimra ex. 118, PW-15 Anwar Mahmad Isap exh. 119, PW-16 Arvind Bhagwan Patel ex. 120, PW-17 Ibrahim Ahmad Isap ex. 121, PW-18 Ismail Isap Mota ex. 122, PW-19 Valibhai Musabhai ex. 123 and PW-21 Maganbhai Becharbhai ex. 126 are panchas of the panchanama produced on record, which is at ex. 158 panchnama of the scene of the offence, exh. 118, PW-15 Anwar Mahmad Isap exh. 119, PW-16 Arvind Bhagwan Patel ex. 120, PW-17 Ibrahim Ahmad Isap ex. 121, PW-18 Ismail Isap Mota ex. 122, PW-19 Valibhai Musabhai ex. 123 and PW-21 Maganbhai Becharbhai ex. 126 are panchas of the panchanama produced on record, which is at ex. 158 panchnama of the scene of the offence, exh. 159 a panchanama of seizure of clothes of the complainant, ex. 160 a panchanama by which ori. accused no. 6 and 7 produced weapons before the police, ex. 161 panchanama by which police seized weapons from the other accused, ex. 157 is the panchanama of the Bus of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation,involved in the incident. ( 11 ) IN addition to this, the prosecution also examined PW-23 Dinesh Hirabhai Patel, Circle Inspector of Revenue Department, at ex. 145, who failed to produce the map of scene of offence because one Mr. K. G. Pandya, the then Circle Inspector, who had prepared the map of the scene of the offence had expired in 1994. As last witness, the prosecution examined PW-24 Sakarabhai Ramjibhai Parmar at ex. 155 who recorded the complaint of PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji at Amod Police Station and investigated the crime. It is the prosecution case that from the scene of the offence injured were first reached at Police Station, Amod and then at Community Health Centre, Amod. ( 12 ) IN documentary evidence, the prosecution produced vide ex. 129 to 135 medical certificates of injuries of injured witnesses by PW-22 Dr. Rajesh Mehta. Medical Certificate of injured witnesses Sayara Ibrahim Umarji, Mustak Ibrahim Umarji and Inayat Ibrahim i. e. PW-8, PW-5 and PW-6 has been given by the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bharuch, PW-3 Dr. Vinaychandra Lalubhai Patel, is produced at Ex. 90, 94 and 95. PW-5 Mustak Ibrahim sustained fracture injuries and the X-ray papers are produced at Ex. 92 and 93. The medical certificate of PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji has given by Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bharuch i. e. PW-2 Dr. Lalit Bhagubhai Patel, is produced at ex. 88. At the instance of the accused, case papers of the injured for the treatment the injured obtained from Community Health Centre, Amod were produced by PW-22 Dr. Rajesh Mehta at ex. 136 to 142. ( 13 ) THUS, the above referred documentary as well as oral evidence were produced by the prosecution. In the statements of the accused under sec. At the instance of the accused, case papers of the injured for the treatment the injured obtained from Community Health Centre, Amod were produced by PW-22 Dr. Rajesh Mehta at ex. 136 to 142. ( 13 ) THUS, the above referred documentary as well as oral evidence were produced by the prosecution. In the statements of the accused under sec. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, vide ex. 180 and 181 and some documents are produced to show that there was a long standing enmity between the prosecution witnesses and the accused. It was stated in ex. 180 that the whole village was against the prosecution witnesses because PW-1 and his family members were in habit of making falseapplications against the citizen of the village and the accused. In that support, some documents are produced vide list ex. 181. It was the defence that the accused are innocent and falsely roped in this case on account of long standing enmity. An attempt also made by the accused to examine the defence witness i. e. . Mamlatdar or concerned person of the office of the Mamlatdar with regard to Chapter case (proceedings under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), however, record reveals that no such witness has been examined by the defence. ( 14 ) ON scrutiny of the evidence, it clearly emerges from the record that seven injured eye witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji Isap examined at ex. 83, states that the incident took place on 28. 9. 1992 in the evening. On that day, he with his wife Huriben PW-7 had been to Bharuch to obtain medicines for PW-7. After taking medicines from the hospital at about 4. 00 pm or 5. 00 pm in the evening, both of them boarded a bus to go to village Samani. From Samani they again boarded bus for going to their own village Kurchan. At that time, his brother Mahamad Umarji PW-4 also boarded the said bus. Thereafter, appellant no. 1 Musa Ahmad and his son appellant no. 5 - Maqbool @ Gabbar gave a push to PW-4 Mahmadbhai. PW-4 Mahmad Umarji estopped Maqbool and said why had he been pushed by appellant no. 5. On saying so by PW-4, appellant no. 1 Musa Ahmad and appellant no. 5 Maqbool supported to give fist and kick blows to PW-4. 1 Musa Ahmad and his son appellant no. 5 - Maqbool @ Gabbar gave a push to PW-4 Mahmadbhai. PW-4 Mahmad Umarji estopped Maqbool and said why had he been pushed by appellant no. 5. On saying so by PW-4, appellant no. 1 Musa Ahmad and appellant no. 5 Maqbool supported to give fist and kick blows to PW-4. According to PW-1, he intervened and, therefore, appellants no. 1 and 5 gave fist and kick blows to him also. ON account of this quarrel, PW-4 get down from the bus. Thereafter, immediately the appellants no. 1 and 5 also got down from the bus. The said bus started to go to village Kurchan. The appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 5 hiring rickshaw, preceded bus and reached Kurchan village. When bus in which he and PW-7 were travelling reached at village Kurchan, all the 7 accused armed with weapons were present at bus-stand of village Kurchan and were giving blows by sticks on bus and were shouting that kill Ibrahim (i. e. PW-1 ). The appellant no. 1 had Tabal ( a sharp edged weapon like Axe ). He climbed up on bus and by the said Tabal gave a blow. He also got injury on eye. PW-7 attempted to intervene but she was beaten by fist and kicks. On receiving information from some source, his sons Mustak Ibrahim PW-5 and Inayat Ibrahim PW-6, Sayara Ibrahim PW-8 rushed at the spot. Thereafter, appellant no. 1 Musa Ahmad, appellant no. 5- Maqbool, appellant no. 3 Daud Ahmad Haji attacked his son. Appellant no. 1 Musa Ahmad gave a blow with weapon on the hand of PW-5 Mustak. The appellant no. 5 also gave blows of hockey stick to PW-5 Mustak. The appellant no. 3 Daud Ahmad attacked PW-5 Mustak by Sword. PW-6 Inayat Ibrahim was attacked by appellant no. 2 Ismail Subbo Ahmad and appellant no. 4 assailed with stick. His daughter Sayara PW-8 received injuries on hand by knife and caused by ori. accused no. 6 Shehnaz Musa Ahmad non-appellant and ori. accused no. 7 Zaheda Adam Ahmad also attacked PW-8 Sayara by knife. Ori. accused no. 7 is also non-appellant in this appeal. At that time, PW-20 Jan Mahamd Gul Mahmad reached at the spot and rescued him. Hockey stick i. e. muddamal Article 9 was in the hands of appellant no. 5 Maqbool. Muddamal article no. accused no. 7 Zaheda Adam Ahmad also attacked PW-8 Sayara by knife. Ori. accused no. 7 is also non-appellant in this appeal. At that time, PW-20 Jan Mahamd Gul Mahmad reached at the spot and rescued him. Hockey stick i. e. muddamal Article 9 was in the hands of appellant no. 5 Maqbool. Muddamal article no. 5 was in the hands of appellant no. 1 Musa Ahmad. Muddamal article no. 7 sword was with appellant no. 3 Daud Ahmad. Muddamal Articles no. 6 and 8 sticks were with appellant no. 2- Ismail @ Subbo Ahmad. Muddamal article no. 3 knife was with ori. accused no. 6 Shehnas and muddamal article no. 4 knife was with ori. accused no. 7 Zaheda. He further stated that after the incident was over, they were taken to Amod Police Station and in the said police station he recorded the complaint which was shown to him. He confirms that he had given the said complaint which was at ex. 156, and, thereafter they shifted to Community Health Centre, Amod. In examination in cross, an attempt has been made that the witnesses had been to Bharuch for obtaining medicines for his wife that is evident from para-5 of the cross-examination. In para-6 some questions were asked that how PW-4 and PW-1 got down at Samani bus-stand. In para- 7 and 8 of the cross-examination certain facts are asked about the previous enmity and proceedings between the accused and the prosecution witnesses. The proceedings were pending as admitted by the witnesses. Some facts which are not given by the complainant are asked in para-9. He has denied that he did not mention in the complaint that the appellant no. 3 attacked by sword. He also denied that appellant no. 2 and appellant no. 4 attacked PW-6 Inayat by sticks. In para-10 of the cross-examination, a question about distance from village Samani to Kurchan were asked. It is also alleged in the cross-examination that there were 70 to 80 passengers in the bus. It is also alleged in the cross-examination that, in fact, a crowd attacked near the bus-stand and prosecution witness due to enmity, he (PW-1) falsely involved the appellants in the said incident. ( 15 ) THE other injured witness is examined at ex. 96 i. e. PW-4 Mahmad Umarji Kapadvanjwala. He stated that PW-1 happened to be his brother. It is also alleged in the cross-examination that, in fact, a crowd attacked near the bus-stand and prosecution witness due to enmity, he (PW-1) falsely involved the appellants in the said incident. ( 15 ) THE other injured witness is examined at ex. 96 i. e. PW-4 Mahmad Umarji Kapadvanjwala. He stated that PW-1 happened to be his brother. The incident took place before 10 years from the date of the deposition. He had been to Samani on that day. He had some work at Samani. He was waiting for bus to go to his village at Samani bus-stand at about 5. 15 p. m. A bus came for village Kurchan, so he boarded the said bus. In the front portion of the bus, he was standing with the support of the Angle. Immediately after him, appellant no. 5 Maqbool @ Gabbar came and pushed him. He requested appellant no. 5 not to push him and on saying so, the appellant no. 5 started abusing him and caught hold of him. He was beaten by fist and kicks on mouth, chest and on hands. At that time, PW-1 intervened to end the quarrel. Thereafter, he got down from the bus and went to the Amod Police Station where he gave the complaint about the incident. Police after recording of the complaint also gave a yadi for the medical treatment. After obtaining that yadi, when he was coming out of the police station, he noticed that same bus was coming from the bus-stand with his brother and other injured. He enquired about the injuries received by them and PW-1 narrated the incident took place at the bus stand of village Kurchan. Vide ex. 9 he produced on record the complaint given by him to Amod Police Station. He has been cross-examined by the accused. In para-4, the questions regarding enmity between the parties has been asked in details to PW-1. He admitted that in the first incident which occurred at Samani bus-stand, appellants no. 1 and 5 had not started any quarrel with PW-1. An allegation in the cross-examination are made to show that he is a court-bird and tout of some advocates. Allegations are also levelled that he contested the panchayat election and lost. Some contradictions are also asked which will be dealt with later on. ( 16 ) PW-5 Mustak Ibrahim Umarji is examined at ex. An allegation in the cross-examination are made to show that he is a court-bird and tout of some advocates. Allegations are also levelled that he contested the panchayat election and lost. Some contradictions are also asked which will be dealt with later on. ( 16 ) PW-5 Mustak Ibrahim Umarji is examined at ex. 113 and stated before the court that the incident took place on 28. 9. 1992 at about 6. 00 pm at the bus stand of village Kurchan. At that time, he himself, his brother PW-6 Inayat Ibrahim Umarji and his relative Salim Mahmad Umarji PW-9 and his sister Sayara PW-8, were at their residence. At that time, they noticed that appellant no. 1 with Tabal, appellant no. 3 with Sword, appellant no. 5 with hockey, appellant no. 2 with stick, appellant no. 4with stick and ori. accused no. 6 and 7 with knife were going to the bus-stand, and in the meantime, bus came. In the said bus, his father PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji, his mother Huriben PW-7 were to come after taking medicines from Bharuch. Accused were uttering abuses and were uttering that kill Ibrahim Umarji. He saw that in the bus, his father was injured and was bleeding. At that time, he and his brother Inayat PW-6 were attacked by appellant no. 1, appellant no. 3 and his brothers. The attack was launched by them by sword, tabal and stick in his head. Appellant no. 1 Musa Ahmad inflicted two blows of Tabal, Appellant no. 3 Daud Ahmad inflicted sticks and sword blows on his head, hand and leg. PW-9 Salim Mahmad Umarji also received injury by Tabal on his left hand at the hand of appellant no. 1. He became unconscious and he was taken to hospital. He was shown muddamal article weapon no. 3 to 9 which he stated that he saw the same at the hands of the accused. He identified the accused in the dock. In the cross-examination, he was asked about his exact location when quarrel took place. He stated that he reached at the bus stand after the bus came. He stated that he saw accused going towards bus stand with weapons and, therefore, he and his brothers Inayat and Salim reached at the bus stand. He did not climbed up the bus. He admitted that there was a crowd of 50 to 60 persons. He stated that he reached at the bus stand after the bus came. He stated that he saw accused going towards bus stand with weapons and, therefore, he and his brothers Inayat and Salim reached at the bus stand. He did not climbed up the bus. He admitted that there was a crowd of 50 to 60 persons. Some contradictions were asked which he denied. ( 17 ) THE other injured witness Inayat Ibrahim Umarji PW-6, is examined by the prosecution at ex. 104, who stated that the incident took place on 28. 9. 1992 at 6. 00 pm. near the village Kurchan bus stand. He himself, his brother Mustak PW-5, his cousin brother Salim Mahmad Umarji PW-9 and his sister who were at the residence because some construction work was going on. At that time, they noticed that appellants and accused no. 6 and 7, appellant no. 1 Musa Ahmad with tabal, appellant no. 5 Maqbool with hockey, appellant no. 3- Daud Ahmad with sword, appellant no. 2 - Ismail @ Subbo Ahmad with stick, were going towards the bus stand. They suspected that some quarrel might take place and, therefore, they followed the accused persons. In the said bus, according to the witness, his parents who were to come to village Kurchan from Bharuch. The accused reached at the bus-stand and who were uttering that kill Ibrahim. Appellant no. 1 - Musa Ahmad climbed up in the bus and attacked his father by tabal. His father received tabal injury on forehead and on eyes. Thereafter, appellant no. 1 also gave fist and kicks blows to his parents. Appellant no. 3 attacked him by sword. A sword blow was given by appellant no. 3 but since he parried, the abrasion was caused on his left leg. Appellant no. 2 inflicted stick blows on his head, on hands and shoulder. They also had beaten his brother Mustak. Appellant no. 5 Maqbool inflicted hockey blow on the head of Mustak. Appellant no. 1 gave a tabal blow to PW-9 Salim Mahmad Umarji. The police has recorded his statement. He identified the weapons as muddamal Article no. 3 to 9 and identified the accused in the dock. An attempt has been made in cross-examination by the accused that the witness was not present at the scene of the offence as evident from para-3 of the cross-examination. The police has recorded his statement. He identified the weapons as muddamal Article no. 3 to 9 and identified the accused in the dock. An attempt has been made in cross-examination by the accused that the witness was not present at the scene of the offence as evident from para-3 of the cross-examination. The questions were asked that how this witness along with other witnesses came out of his house and how and in what manner they followed accused. The contradiction from the police station about his being unconscious was asked. The witness exaggerated this story and he was unconscious for half an hour. He denied the allegation that appellants and other accused were falsely roped in this case due to enmity. ( 18 ) PW-7 Huriben is also examined at ex. 110. She stated that PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji her husband and herself on the day of incident, had been to Bharuch for he medicines for her. She has supported the incident which took place at Samani bus stand in the bus. She has stated that when bus reached at village Kurchan, the accused were present. Appellant no. 1 Musa Ahmad had tabal, appellant no. 5 Maqbool had hockey, appellant no. 3 Daud Ahmad had sword, appellant no. 4 Adam Ahmad had stick and appellant no. 2 Ismail @ Subbo Ahmad had stick in their hands. They climbed up in the said bus. The appellant no. 1 inflicted a blow of tabal on the head of her husband. She was beaten and thrown on the floor. They were taken to Community Health Centre, Amod in the said bus. She stated that his son Mustak suffered fracture injury. She did not know who had beaten her. First son Inayat also received injury but who inflicted blow was not known to her. In her cross-examination, an attempt has been made to separate the incident in two parts; one which took place in the bus and other out of bus. An allegation is also levelled that at the Samani bus stand in the alleged quarrel, her husband did not take any part which she admitted. She has also admitted that there was a mod and quarrel amongst them. She also admitted that a crowd of 100 to 200 persons attacked her. ( 19 ) PW-8 Sayaraben, injured eye witness has been examined at ex. 111. She has also admitted that there was a mod and quarrel amongst them. She also admitted that a crowd of 100 to 200 persons attacked her. ( 19 ) PW-8 Sayaraben, injured eye witness has been examined at ex. 111. She stated that complainant PW-1 Ibrahim Umarji happened to be his father. On the day of the incident, she was at village Kurchan. The incident took place at about 5. 30pm. At that time, some construction work was in progress. At that time, she, his brother Mustak, his cousin brother Salim were present. They noticed that appellant no. 1 with tabal, appellant no. 3 with sword, appellant no. 4 with stick, appellant no. 2 with sticks and ori. accused no. 6 and 7 with knife, were going towards the bus stand and uttering abuses. They followed accused. At about 5. 40pm, a bus came to bus stand. After the passengers got down from the bus, the appellant no. 1 climbed up in the bus and gave fist and kick blows to her mother Huriben and a blow by tabal on the head of her father. After getting down from the bus, the appellant no. 1 gave a blow of tabal on the head of her brother Mustak. The appellant no. 4 inflicted stick blows on Mustak. Inayat her brother, received injury on the back side of the head by hockey which was caused by appellant no. 5. She received knife injuries at the hands of ori. accused no. 6 and 7 (non-appellants ). She identified the weapons and the accused. She denied the suggestions that the incident never occurred in the manner in which she stated. She denied that a crowd was gathered of 100 persons and attacked on her parents and others. In further cross-examination, an attempt is made to ascertain as to what exact time the quarrel took place. She has denied that though in the village, there are relatives and acquainted persons, but due to enmity, none came to rescue of parents. A contradiction from police statement is asked as to whether she stated before the police that the accused was uttering abuses, to which she denied. She also denied that in her police statement, she did not state that appellants got down from the bus and had beaten her brother Mustak. She denied the allegation that she was not present at the scene of offence. She also denied that in her police statement, she did not state that appellants got down from the bus and had beaten her brother Mustak. She denied the allegation that she was not present at the scene of offence. ( 20 ) THE last injured witness is examined as PW-9 Salim Mahmad Umarji at Ex. 113. He is cousin brother of PW-5 Mustak and PW-6 Inayat Ibrahim. According to him, the incident took place on 28. 9. 1992 and at that time, in the evening he was sitting near the resident of his uncle. He noticed that the appellants who were with weapons going towards the bus stand and uttering that kill Ibrahim. They had enmity with the family and hence,he followed the accused towards the bus stand. When bus reached at the bus stand of village Kurchan at about 6. 00pm in the evening, the appellant no. 1 gave a blow on the head of his Uncle and an injury was also caused on the right eye. The appellants no. 1 and 2 also inflicted fist and kick blows to her aunt Huriben. Thereafter, appellant no. 1 climbed down from the bus and gave a tabal blow on the leg of PW-5 Mustak Ibrahim. The appellant no. 3 gave a sword blow and appellant no. 2 gave a stick blow. His cousin brother Inayat Ibrahim PW-6 also received injury by tabal and by stick which were inflicted by appellants no. 2 and 4. The appellant no. 1 rushed towards him to hit tabal to him, but he parried the blow and he received superficial injury on his right shoulder. The other eye witness Din Mahmad Gul Mahmad came there and he rescued the injured. In cross-examination, he was asked about his injury which was superficial and he received treatment only from Medical Officer, Amod. He was also asked that how his aunt Huriben was beaten by appellant no. 1 by fist and kick blow when appellant no. 1 was holding tabal. He replied that he hanged his tabal in arm and inflicted fist and kick blows to Huriben. He stated that he reached to Kurchan village before bus came to bus stand. In para-3 of the cross-examination, an attempt has been made that the bus stand was situated in crowded area and of thickly populated. 1 was holding tabal. He replied that he hanged his tabal in arm and inflicted fist and kick blows to Huriben. He stated that he reached to Kurchan village before bus came to bus stand. In para-3 of the cross-examination, an attempt has been made that the bus stand was situated in crowded area and of thickly populated. He has admitted that bus stand and residence of the accused are populated between the house of PW-1 and appellant no. 1. There are 15 to 20 buildings. He has denied the allegation that the quarrel, in fact, took place between the persons gathered at the bus stand. He has been also asked in cross-examination bout the enmity between the parties. .