H. H. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) AS these three appeals are arising from a judgment dated 21/5/1994 rendered in Sessions Case No. 102 of 1992 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panch Mahals at Godhra, Camp at Dohad (who will be referred to hereinafter as the learned Judge of the trial Court), at the request of learned Advocates for both the parties in these three appeals, they are heard together and decided and disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have, by preferring their respective appeals namely Criminal Appeal Nos. 681 of 1994, 693 of 1994 and 555 of 1994 respectively under Sec. 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "cr. P. C. "), challenged the legality and validity of judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Judge of the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 102 of 1992 dated 21-05-1994 by which (1) original accused No. 1 is convicted under Sec. 235 (2) of Cr. P. C. for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "i. P. C" ). and is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for seven days. He is also convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 323 of I. P. C. and also for offence punishable under Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short "b. P. Act") but no separate sentences are inflicted for said two offences; (2) the accused No. 2 is convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of I. P. C. read with Sec. 114 of I. P. C. and is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for seven days; and (3) accused No. 3 is convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 323 of I. P. C. and is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/and in default, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for seven days. ( 3 ) THE facts leading to these three appeals which are unfolded by the complainant P. W. 2 Harishchandra Chunilal Sharma in his complaint Ex. 18 dated 13-1-1991 can be summarised as follows:-3. 1. 250/and in default, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for seven days. ( 3 ) THE facts leading to these three appeals which are unfolded by the complainant P. W. 2 Harishchandra Chunilal Sharma in his complaint Ex. 18 dated 13-1-1991 can be summarised as follows:-3. 1. The complainant P. W. 2 Harishchandra is residing with his wife and two sons -one Jaydeep aged about 23 years (deceased) and another P. W. 9 Sandeep aged about 17 years in Railway Quarters situated in Freeland Ganj area at Parel in Dohad Town of Godhra District. His married daughter Sunita had come to her parents house before three days. On 13/1/1991 at about 5-30 p. m. one P. W. 3 Vijay Narendralal Kshatriya who is a son of old neighbourer of the complainant and friend of Jaydeep had come to the house of the complainant. Jaydeep and Vijay saw the movie on Television in the house of the complainant for sometime and when they found that there was disturbance in Television, Jaydeep and Vijay left the house of the complainant for Darshan at Sanatan Temple on foot at about 6-30 p. m. 3. 2 on that very day, at about 7-30 p. m. when complainant in company of his wife, son Sandeep and his daughter Sunita, was present in his house, P. W. 3 Vijay came running to him and asked him as to whether Guddu alias Jaydeep had returned the house. Thereupon, the complainant replied Vijay by saying that " you both had gone together". Thereafter, Vijay informed the complainant that after having Darshan at Sanatan Temple, Jaydeep and he (Vijay) were returning and at about 7-00 p. m. when they reached near Hindi Higher Secondary School, they saw that Rajesh Ramchandra Varma (accused No. 3 -appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 1994), Chuna alias Raghunath Dolatsinh Shishodia (accused No. 2 -appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 1994) and one young boy were coming on foot from direction of Marathi School. When these three persons came near Vijay, accused No. 3 addressed Vijay as "gaando" (mad ). Thereupon Vijay asked him as to why he addressed him as "gaando" (mad ). Rajesh told Vijay that he did not address him as "gaando". When these three persons came near Vijay, accused No. 3 addressed Vijay as "gaando" (mad ). Thereupon Vijay asked him as to why he addressed him as "gaando" (mad ). Rajesh told Vijay that he did not address him as "gaando". And on saying so, third young boy who was with them inflicted fist blow on face of Vijay and accused No. 3 also inflicted fist blow on face of Vijay. Mean while, Jaydeep (deceased) asked Vijay to run away from the place. As per compaint Ex. 18, the boy who had come on foot and one another boy who was on cycle and accused No. 2 Chuna alias Raghunathsinh ran behind Jaydeep who ran towards Hindi Higher Secondary School. As per evidence of Vijay, Jaydeep ran towards west, while Vijay ran towards east-south corner. While running towards east-south corner, Vijay heard shrieks of Jaydeep shouting "o. . . . . MAA. . . . . MAR. . . . . . GAYA. O. . . . . MAA. . . . . . MAR. . . . . . . . . GAYA ". As it reveals from evidence of Vijay, Vijay did not go near Jaydeep but he directly came to the house of the complainant and narrated the incident. 3. 3 the complainant i. e. the father of Jaydeep and Sandeep (P. W. 9), on receiving such information from Vijay, rushed near Hindi Higher Secondary School and they found that Jaydeep was found supinely in unconscious condition, on road opposite to that school. They also found that there was bleeding from chest portion of Jaydeep. They saw that there was one wound on chest of Jaydeep which appeared to have been caused by some sharp edged weapon. The complainant, by taking help of his son Sandeep and other persons, took Jaydeep in Rickshaw of one Dinesh Kadu and brought him to hospital situated at Hillock. On reaching the hospital, it was declared that Jaydeep was dead. 3. 4 immediately thereafter, the complainant went to Dohad Town Police Station and lodged his complaint against accused No. 3, accused No. 2 and other two unnamed persons. As per evidence of P. W. 10, Police Jamadar Punjabhai Kalubhai who was P. S. O. of Dohad Town Police Station, the complainant lodged his complaint at 9-00 p. m. on 13/1/1991. That complaint came to be registered as CR. As per evidence of P. W. 10, Police Jamadar Punjabhai Kalubhai who was P. S. O. of Dohad Town Police Station, the complainant lodged his complaint at 9-00 p. m. on 13/1/1991. That complaint came to be registered as CR. No. I 5/91 for offences punishable under Secs. 323-302-114 of I. P. C. and also for an offence punishable under Sec. 135 of B. P. Act. On registering the crime, P. W. 10 Head Constable Punjabhai entrusted the police investigation to P. W. 13 P. S. I. Narendrasinh Chhatrasinh Rajput. Mr. Rajput went to the scene of offence and then went to the hospital to see the dead body. As it was a night time, he decided to hold an inquest of the dead body on the next day. He recorded the statement of P. W. 3 Vijay Narendralal. 3. 5 thereafter on 14/1/1991, he held an inquest of dead body by drawing a panchnama during the period between 9-00 a. m. and 10-15 a. m. Mr. Rajput sent dead body of Jaydeep along with necessary documents to Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Dohad for its autopsy. Thereafter, he drew a panchnama of scene of offence during the period between 11-00 a. m. and 12-30 a. m. on 14/11/1991. As per that panchnama of scene of offence, the place of scene of offence was shown by P. W. 3 Vijaykumar Narendralal. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of witnessBhupendra and other persons who were conversant with the facts of the case. 3. 6 on 15/1/1991, he recorded the statements of other witnesses. Thereafter he handed over the police investigation on 16/1/1991 for further progress to P. W. 14 -Police Inspector Mr. Chandrashekhar Maneklal Mundaliyar. Mr. Mundaliyar received papers of investigation including complaint, inquest panchnama, and panchnama of scene of offence. Thereafter through other Police Officers and also personally by himself, he inquired for the accused. On 17/1/1991, he recorded the statements of witnesses residing near by the place of scene of offence. On 18/1/1991, he continued the search of accused. On 19/1/1991, while he was on patrolling duty, two persons under suspicious condition were found coming. They were made to halt. On making inquiries about their names and places of residence, one of them informed Mr. On 18/1/1991, he continued the search of accused. On 19/1/1991, while he was on patrolling duty, two persons under suspicious condition were found coming. They were made to halt. On making inquiries about their names and places of residence, one of them informed Mr. Mundaliyar that he was Raghunath Dolatsinh Shishodiya (accused No. 2) and another second person informed him that he was Mohmad Salim Abdul Rajak Mansuri (accused No. 1 ). Mr. Mundaliyar questioned two persons with regard to murder of Jaydeep. He also inquired from them as to who were with them on the date of incident. On making inquiry, they informed Mr. Mundaliyar that one Subhash Hirabhai Bariya and Rajesh Ramchandra Varma (accused No. 3) were with them. Hence Mr. Mundaliyar took that two persons with him to the house of Subhash, where Subhash was found out. Mr. Mundaliyar interrogated Subhash. Thereafter Mr. Mundaliyar brought that two persons along with Subhash to the office of Executive Magistrate. He gave Yadi to the Executive Magistrate requesting him to hold an identification parade of Mohmad Salim and Subhash Hirabhai through witness Vijay. Thereupon P. W. 12 Bhagwandas Gulabsinh Barkamthi who was Executive Magistrate at Dohad, received Yadi given by Mr. Mundaliyar and made an arrangement for holding an identification parade. He called two independent persons who can act as panch witnesses while holding identification parade. As per evidence on record, P. W. 12 Bhagwandas held identification parade in presence of two panch witnesses by keeping Mansuri Mohmad Salim Abdul Razak in a line of 15 persons and witness Vijaykumar identified Mansuri Mohmad Salim Abdul Razak as an offender in the identification parade. Said Mansuri Mohmad Salim Abdul Razak is the accused No. 1 who is appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 681 of 1994. Thereafter Mr. Mundaliyar obtained a copy of panchnama of identification parade. Therefter, he arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2 at 17-45 hrs on 19/1/1991. 3. 6 on 20/1/1991, accused No. 1 had shown his willingness to take out weapon which was used in the crime from ceiling beam of Flour Mill Shop, and therefore, Mr. Mundaliyar discovered and seized muddamal knife at the instance of accused No. 1 by keeping two persons present as panch witnesses, and thus he discovered knife by drawing panchnama under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act during the period between 10-15 a. m. and 11-15 a. m. on 20-1-1991. Mundaliyar discovered and seized muddamal knife at the instance of accused No. 1 by keeping two persons present as panch witnesses, and thus he discovered knife by drawing panchnama under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act during the period between 10-15 a. m. and 11-15 a. m. on 20-1-1991. During the investigation, on 21-1-1991, he arrested accused No. 3 at 9-00 a. m. On 21/1/1991, and sent incriminating articles, control earth and blood stained clothes to Forensic Science Laboratory, Ahmedabad (for short "f. S. L. ") and thereafter on 25/3/1991, on his transfer Mr. Mundaliyar entrusted the police investigation of the case for further progress to P. S. I. Mr. J. K. Gohil. Mr. Gohil conducted further police investigation and on completion of it, he filed a chargesheet against three accused persons in the Court of the learned J. M. F. C. Dohad. That chargesheet came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 1561 of 1991. As one of the offences was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, learned J. M. F. C. , Dohad by passing a committal order under Sec. 209 Cr. P. C. on 8/4/1992, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Panch Mahals at Godhra. The case committed to the Court of Sessions, Panchmahals at Godhra came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 102 of 1992. ( 4 ) AS the learned Judge of the trial Court was holding Camp at Dohad, the accused were tried at Dohad. Initially, on the basis of material on record, Shri H. R. Thakar, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Panch Mahals at Godhra framed charge against three accused persons at Ex. 5 on 13/9/1993. On recording pleas of accused persons, they have pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, that Sessions Case was placed for trial before the learned Judge of the trial Court. ( 5 ) IN order to prove the case against the accused persons for which a charge was framed at Ex. 5, the prosecution examined following 14 witnesses:- (1) P. W. 1 Dr. Babulal Badriprasad Mittal Ex. 15 (Doctor who examined injured witness Vijay) (2) P. W. 2 harishchandra Chunilal Sharma Ex. 17 (Complainant who is father of deceased ). (3) P. W. 3 vijaykumar Narendralal Ex. 19 (he is posed as an eye witness) (4) P. W. 4 subhashbhai Virabhai Bariya Ex. Babulal Badriprasad Mittal Ex. 15 (Doctor who examined injured witness Vijay) (2) P. W. 2 harishchandra Chunilal Sharma Ex. 17 (Complainant who is father of deceased ). (3) P. W. 3 vijaykumar Narendralal Ex. 19 (he is posed as an eye witness) (4) P. W. 4 subhashbhai Virabhai Bariya Ex. 20 (5) P. W. 5 ajaykumar Bishanswaroop Ex. 21 (6) P. W. 6 shivprakash Chandrabalising Ex. 26 (One of the panch witnesses for discovery panchnama) (7) P. W. 7 virendrakumar Parasnath Ex. 27 (Second panch of discovery panchnama) (8) P. W. 8 dr. Rajendrakumar Khishorilal Ex. 28 srivastava (Doctor who performed P. M. of dead body of deceased Jaydeep) (9) P. W. 9 sandeepkumar Harishchandra Ex. 30 (brother of deceased Jaydeep ). (10) P. W. 10 police Jamadar Punjabhai Kalubhai Ex. 37 (P. S. O. of Dohad Town Police station who received complaint) (11) P. W. 11 dilipkumar Kantilal Ex. 34 (One of panch witnesses for panchnama of Identification Parade) (12) P. W. 12 bhagwandas Gulabsinh Barkamthi Ex. 35 (Executive Magistrate who held identification Parade) (13) P. W. 13 p. S. I. Mr. Narendrasinh Chhatrasinh Ex. 39 rajput (Investigating Officer) (14) P. W. 14 p. I. Mr. Chandrashekhar Maneklal Ex. 40 mundaliyar (Second Investigating officer) ( 6 ) THE prosecution has also produced and proved certain documents in support of its case against the accused. They are - (1) inquest panchnama Ex. 13 (2) Panchnama for clothes recovered from dead body of Jaydeep and which were produced by Medical Officer, Cottage Hospital, Dohad Ex. 14. (3) Medical Certificate for injury sustained by Vijaykumar Narendralal Ex. 16. (4) Complaint Ex. 18. (5) panchnama of scene of offence Ex. 22. (6) Report of FSL Ex. 24. (7) P. M. Notes Ex. 28. (8) A Yadi written by Investigating Officer to Executive Magistrate for holding Identification Parade Ex. 36. (9) Panchnama with regard to Identification Parade which was held by Executive Magistrate Ex. 37. (10) Discovery Panchnama under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act under which muddamal knife was discovered and seized at the instance of accused No. 1 Ex. 41. (11) Copy of notification under Sec. 37 (1) of the Bombay Police Act prohibiting to hold and possess the weapons in public place at Ex. 42. 37. (10) Discovery Panchnama under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act under which muddamal knife was discovered and seized at the instance of accused No. 1 Ex. 41. (11) Copy of notification under Sec. 37 (1) of the Bombay Police Act prohibiting to hold and possess the weapons in public place at Ex. 42. ( 7 ) ON recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the circumstances appearing against the accused persons were brought to the notice of and explained to each accused separately. Whatever the replies were given by accused persons were recorded below their respective pleas at Exs. 6,7 and 8, as a result of which their further statements were recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr. P. C. The defence of all the accused is of general denial. It is their case that at the instigation of police, a false case has been lodged against them. The accused have neither examined any person as their defence witness, nor have they produced any documentary evidence in their defence. However the accused No. 1 got produced one xerox copy of Registration Certificate Ex. 43 of establishment issued under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act 1948 through Mr. Mundaliyar in his cross-examination. ( 8 ) THEREAFTER, after hearing the arguments of the learned Advocates for both the parties and after making scrutiny, examination and appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Judge of the trial Court came to a conclusion that accused No. 1 committed murder of deceased Jaydeep -son of the complainant and accused No. 2 abetted accused No. 1 while accused No. 1 committed murder of Jaydeep. He also came to a conclusion that accused No. 3 inflicted fist blow on the face of witness Vijaykumar Narendralal. On reaching said conclusions, he rendered the judgment of conviction against the accused on 21/5/1994. Thereafter, he heard the accused persons on the question of quantum of punishment and thereafter he passed an order of sentence against the accused on that very day and inflicted different sentences on the accused as stated hereinabove in Para No. 2 of this judgment. ( 9 ) BEING aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have preferred their respective Criminal Appeal Nos. 681 of 1994, 693 of 1994 and 555 of 1994, respectively. ( 9 ) BEING aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have preferred their respective Criminal Appeal Nos. 681 of 1994, 693 of 1994 and 555 of 1994, respectively. ( 10 ) WE have heard Shri J. M. Panchal, learned Advocate for accused No. 1 -appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 681 of 1994, Shri T. N. Nanavati, learned Advocate for accused No. 2 -appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 1994, Shri J. C. Sheth, learned Advocate for accused No. 3 -appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 1994 and Shri K. T. Dave, learned APP for the State -respondent in all the Criminal Appeals in detail, at length. ( 11 ) SHRI J. M. Panchal, learned advocate for accused No. 1 has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence so far as it relates to accused No. 1 on the ground that the learned Judge of the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective in consonance with the settled principles of law with regard to appreciation of evidence, and therefore, on the basis of such incorrect appreciation of evidence, he has come to a faulty conclusion which has resulted into wrong findings. He has contended that for want of complete evidence, the learned Judge of the trial Court could not come to a conclusion that particular accused played a particular role in committing the crime. As per his arguments, the whole case rests on four types of evidence; (1) evidence of P. W. 3 Vijaykumar Narendralal; (2) evidence with regard to Identification Parade held by P. W. 12 Bhagwandas Gulabsinh Barkamthi; (3) Discovery Panchnama Ex. 41 of muddmal knife which was discovered and seized at the instance of accused No. 1; and (4) as per report Ex. 24 of FSL, knife was found to have stained with human blood of "a" group. ( 12 ) HE has further contended that the entire process of Identification Parade fails to give any credence because from the record it can be said that purposely identification parade was held for only one suspected person, though two suspected persons were sent. 24 of FSL, knife was found to have stained with human blood of "a" group. ( 12 ) HE has further contended that the entire process of Identification Parade fails to give any credence because from the record it can be said that purposely identification parade was held for only one suspected person, though two suspected persons were sent. He has submitted that looking to the evidence on record, it can be said that not only the investigation was improper and illegal but it can be said that it was dishonest investigation on the part of the Investigating Officer as well as the Executive Magistrate who had held the Identification Parade. On reading evidence of the complainant together with the complaint and the evidence of P. W. 3 Vijaykumar who is posed to be an eye witness, he has argued that the evidence led by the prosecution is self-contradictory from each other and on reading evidence as a whole, it can be said that there is lack of consistency in the case advanced by the prosecution and genesis of incident is suppressed. ( 13 ) SO far as evidence of P. W. 3 Vijay is concerned, Shri Panchal has vehemently argued that this witness who is posed to be an eye witness is not at all trustworthy and dependable and his evidence does not inspire confidence of the Court. Shri Panchal has then contended that the evidence of Vijay is contrary to the evidence of the complainant as well as that of P. W. 9 Sandeep -brother of the deceased. His conduct and behavior is found to be unnatural, and therefore, his sole evidence cannot be relied on to base a conviction. ( 14 ) BY reading the complaint, Shri Panchal has argued that from the very beginning, the prosecution has come before the Court with the case that in all four persons were involved in the incident and out of these four persons, two persons were named and two persons were unnamed. In F. I. R. two persons who are named, are accused Nos. 2 and 3 and rest of two persons were unnamed. The Investigating Officer had sent these two unnamed/suspected persons along with Yadi Ex. 36 to the Executive Magistrate for holding Identification Parade for identifying the real culprit through P. W. 3 Vijaykumar. In F. I. R. two persons who are named, are accused Nos. 2 and 3 and rest of two persons were unnamed. The Investigating Officer had sent these two unnamed/suspected persons along with Yadi Ex. 36 to the Executive Magistrate for holding Identification Parade for identifying the real culprit through P. W. 3 Vijaykumar. Inspite of sending two suspected persons having been sent for identification to the Executive Magistrate by the Investigating Officer, for the reasons best known to the Executive Magistrate, the Executive Magistrate held the Identification Parade for only one suspected person for identifying him through P. W. 3 Vijaykumar and as per the case of the prosecution, the person who was identified by Vijay in the Identification Parade was the accused No. 1. He has argued that this is a case in which the Investigating Officer was having with him the FIR in which it is clearly mentioned that four persons had taken part in commission of the crime but the Investigating Officer dropped one of those two unnamed persons at the stage of identification parade and ultimately he filed a chargesheet against only three persons and thus, entire investigation is shrouded with doubt for which a benefit of doubt be given to the accused. ( 15 ) SO far as evidence with regard to discovery of muddamal knife under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, Shri Panchal has argued that evidence in the form of discovery panchnama does not satisfy the requirements of Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, because at the initial stage, accused No. 1 had disclosed the place where muddamal article was kept and therefore this is nothing but a recovery panchnama and in no case, it can be said that panchnama Ex. 41 is a relevant piece of evidence connecting accused No. 1 with the crime. ( 16 ) HE has then argued that here in this case, the complainant lodged his complaint on the basis of information given by Vijay and that information was given immediately after the commission of the crime, and therefore, the complaint is a relevant piece of evidence and is admissible in evidence under Sec. 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. ( 16 ) HE has then argued that here in this case, the complainant lodged his complaint on the basis of information given by Vijay and that information was given immediately after the commission of the crime, and therefore, the complaint is a relevant piece of evidence and is admissible in evidence under Sec. 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. He has further argued that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused No. 1 inflicted blow of knife on the person of the deceased. Merely because the Muddamal knife stained with human blood of "a" Group was discovered at the instance of accused No. 1, no inference can be drawn that accused No. 1 committed murder of Jaydeep. As per his argument, some third person might have committed murder of Jaydeep and that third person might have concealed the muddamal article and that concealment was seen by the accused No. 1. He has then contended that if it is accepted that the accused No. 1 concealed that muddamal knife, then at the best, it can be said that he has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 201 of I. P. C. At this stage, he has argued that here in this case, the learned Judge of the trial Court has not framed charge against accused No. 1 for an offence punishable under Sec. 201 of I. P. C. and therefore, now accused No. 1 can not be convicted and punished for an offence punishable under Sec. 201, I. P. C. ( 17 ) SHRI Panchal lastly argued that on over all appreciation of the evidence on record, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused No. 1 and therefore he has submitted that accused No. 1 be acquitted by allowing his appeal. ( 18 ) SHRI T. N. Nanavati, learned Advocate appearing for accused No. 2 has adopted the arguments of Shri J. M. Panchal. He has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that here in this case, there is no eye witness coming forward with the evidence attributing any case against any of the accused. ( 18 ) SHRI T. N. Nanavati, learned Advocate appearing for accused No. 2 has adopted the arguments of Shri J. M. Panchal. He has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that here in this case, there is no eye witness coming forward with the evidence attributing any case against any of the accused. He has argued that accused No. 2 is convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of I. P. C. with the aid of Sec. 114 of I. P. C. Sec. 114 of I. P. C. speaks for abettor present when offence is committed. As per his argument, the prosecution was required to prove a principal offence first and then an offence of abetting prime accused committing principal offence for abetment by accused No. 2. Shri T. N. Nanavati has argued that the prosecution has not advanced any case by leading cogent and convincing evidence as to how and in what manner, accused No. 2 abetted accused No. 1 in committing the offence of murder of Jaydeep, and therefore, there is absence of evidence with regard to attribution of a particular role played by accused No. 2. He has further argued that the evidence of Vijay is very much doubtful and inconsistent looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, evidence of Vijay cannot be made a sole basis for conviction. He has argued that looking to the nature of evidence led by the prosecution, it can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused No. 2 for which a charge was framed against him. Lastly, he has submitted that accused No. 2 be acquitted by allowing his appeal. ( 19 ) SHRI J. C. Sheth, learned Advocate for accused No. 3 has adopted the arguments advanced by Shri J. M. Panchal and Shri T. N. Nanavati. He has further argued that only evidence against accused No. 3 is to the effect that he gave one slap on the face of Vijay, as a result of which his two teeth had fallen down. He has further argued that accused No. 3 has been acquitted by the learned Judge of the trial Court for an offence punishable under Secs. 302 - 114 of I. P. C. and as against said acquittal, the State Government has not preferred any appeal. He has further argued that accused No. 3 has been acquitted by the learned Judge of the trial Court for an offence punishable under Secs. 302 - 114 of I. P. C. and as against said acquittal, the State Government has not preferred any appeal. He has argued that accused No. 3 has, after conviction undergone sentence of about 16 days and that period of sentence is adequate for an offence punishable under Sec. 323 of I. P. C. It is his argument that the case against accused No. 3 is such that benefit of doubt should be given to him. He has further argued that after lapse of about 10 years, it would not be justifiable in the interest of justice to send accused No. 3 in Jail to serve out the unserved sentence. Lastly, he has submitted that accused No. 3 be also acquitted by allowing his appeal. Alternatively, he submitted that whatever the sentence has been undergone by accused No. 3 be treated as adequate sentence. ( 20 ) SHRI K. T. Dave, learned APP for the Respondent -State in all the three appeals has supported the judgment of conviction and sentence throughout and argued that the learned Judge of the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and come to a right conclusion and in no case, it can be said that the judgment is wrong. He has argued that the whole case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is complete chain of circumstances which connect all the accused with the crime. He narrated following circumstances and according to him, the following circumstances are sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the offences for which they are convicted and sentenced: (a) On 13/1/1991, 20 to 25 minutes before 7-00 p. m. deceased Jaydeep and Vijay went together outside the house of the deceased for Darshan at Sanatan Temple. (b) As per complaint, at about 7-00 p. m. deceased and Vijay were returning from Sanatan Temple and when they reached near Hindi Higher Secondary School, there was a melee (an altercation) in between deceased and Vijay on one side and three persons on other side and this incident establishes first part of the episode. (c) As per complaint, when such a melee was going on, a young third boy (other than accused Nos. (c) As per complaint, when such a melee was going on, a young third boy (other than accused Nos. 2 and 3) inflicted fist blow on the face of Vijay and second fist blow was inflicted by accused No. 3 Rajesh on the face of Vijay. (d) During such an altercation, deceased Jaydeep immediately asked Vijay to run away from the place, and therefore, deceased Jaydeep and Vijay started running and as per evidence of P. W. 3 Vijay, accused Nos. 1 and 2 chased the deceased and accused No. 3 chased him. While running away from the place, on the way P. W. 3 Vijay heard the shrieks of the deceased Jaydeep O. . . . MMA. . . . MAR. . . GAYA. MAR. . . . . GAYA, when he was being chased by accused No. 3. (e) As per complaint, Vijay straight way went to the house of the complainant and inquired as to whether Jaydeep had reached his house. He narrated the incident to both -the complainant and Sandeep. Immediately thereafter the complainant in company of Sandeep and Vijay came to the place from where Vijay heard the shrieks of Jaydeep and they saw Jaydeep supinely on the road opposite to Hindi Higher Secondary School and at that time Jaydeep had sustained injuries on his body. (f) Doctor has opined that such injuries could be possible by muddamal knife. (g) Said muddamal knife was discovered at the instance of accused No. 1 under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. (h) That muddamal article was found with blood stains of human blood of "a" Group. (i) Blood group of deceased was found to be "a" group. By quoting aforesaid circumstances, he has vehemently submitted to this Court that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused on the basis of complete chain of aforesaid circumstances and the learned Judge of the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for committing murder of Jaydeep. .