H. H. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants who were original accused Nos. 1,2, and 3 in Sessions Case No. 255 of 1996, have, by preferring this Criminal Appeal under Sec. 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ( for short "cr. P. C. "), challenged the correctness, legality and validity of Judgment Ex. 63 dated 27th February, 1998 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panch Mahals at Godhra (who will be referred to hereafter as "the learned Judge of the trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 255 of 1996 by which all the appellants were convicted under Sec. 235 (2) of Cr. P. C. for the offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "i. P. C. "), Sec. 325 read with Sec. 34 I. P. C. and Sec. 323 read with Sec. 34 I. P. C. and each of them is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 I. P. C and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for offences punishable under Sec. 325 read with sec. 34 I. P. C. and also to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days for offences punishable under Sec. 323 read with Sec. 34 I. P. C. The learned Judge of the trial Judge also directed to undergo aforesaid sentences by each of the accused, concurrently. The learned Judge of the trial Court has, by rendering said judgment, acquitted all the accused under Sec. 235 (1) of Cr. P. C. for offence punishable under Sec. 504 of I. P. C. ( 2 ) FROM the evidence led by the prosecution and the case unfolded by the witnesses, the case of the prosecution can be summarized in nutshell as follows:- 2. 1 p. W. 6 Gulabsing Bhavanbhai Patel is the complainant in the case. As per his complaint Ex. 31, he is resident of village Sanklianta (Tal. Godhra ). He is doing agricultural work. He has three married sons. 1 p. W. 6 Gulabsing Bhavanbhai Patel is the complainant in the case. As per his complaint Ex. 31, he is resident of village Sanklianta (Tal. Godhra ). He is doing agricultural work. He has three married sons. Eldest son is P. W. 10 Zaversing who has married with Lalitaben. Second son was Kamalsing who sustained injuries in the incident occurred at 4-00 p. m. on 21st June, 1996 and died on the next day on 22nd June, 1996. P. W. 7 Rukhaben is the wife of said Kamalsing. Youngest third son is Natwarsing whose wife Savita had shown the place of incident to the Police. All sons and their father were residing jointly. They were doing agricultural work. 2. 2 on or about 21st June, 1996, Kamalsing (deceased) and his wife P. W. 7 Rukhaben had gone to purchase seeds of paddy to the shop of one Somabhai Ramabhai. Kamalsing was also entrusted with another work with regard to the tractor. As per the case of the prosecution, P. W. 7 Rukhaben came with the seeds of paddy and Kamalsing engaged himself for talk with regard to hiring of the tractor. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident took place at 4-00 p. m. on 21st June, 1996. At that time, the complainant Gulabsing in company of his son P. W. 10 Zaversing was doing agricultural work with the help of plough in his field. At that time, when Rukhaben was on the way for her return to the house of the complainant, her husband was following her keeping distance of about 25 to 30. Suddenly Rukhaben heard shouts of her husband for his rescue, and therefore, immediately she saw at her back. At that time, she saw that three persons (appellant Nos. 1,2 and 3) were inflicting blows of sticks on the person of Kamalsing. Therefore, P. W. 7 Rukhaben raised shouts for help to her father-in-law. Rukhaben suddenly took a turn and proceeded towards her husband Kamalsing. Mean while, complainant Gulabsing and P. W. 10 Zaversing came running near Kamalsing. It is the case of the prosecution that these two witnesses i. e. complainant Gulabsing and P. W. 10 Zaversing both have seen three persons inflicting blows with sticks on the person of Kamalsing. Rukhaben suddenly took a turn and proceeded towards her husband Kamalsing. Mean while, complainant Gulabsing and P. W. 10 Zaversing came running near Kamalsing. It is the case of the prosecution that these two witnesses i. e. complainant Gulabsing and P. W. 10 Zaversing both have seen three persons inflicting blows with sticks on the person of Kamalsing. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants were asking Kamalsing as to whether he wanted to have the land and on saying so they were beating Kamalsing. 2. 3 it is the case of the prosecution that at that time, P. W. 9 Saburbhai Bapubhai and his wife P. W. 11 Dhoriben both came near the place of incident. P. W. 9 Saburbhai was telling the appellants that as the land was of his ownership, why they were beating Kamalsing. Thereupon, three appellants chased P. W. 9 Sabur Bapu and his wife P. W. 11 Dhoriben. From the evidence, it reveals that the appellants ran behind these two persons upto the field of Sabur Bapu, and they inflicted stick blows on the persons of Sabur Bapu and Bai Dholi and both sustained serious injuries. 2. 4 as per the evidence of complainant Gulabsing, both legs of Kamalsing were broken and there was serious injury on his head from which there was a bleeding. Complainant Gulabsing managed to call for a cot and Kamalsing was shifted by taking him on cot to the residence of the complainant. From the evidence, it also appears that thereafter P. W. 10 Zaversing -brother of Kamalsing went nearby village Chanchelav to call for a Rickshaw, but he could not manage to bring the Rickshaw, as no Rickshawala was ready to come to their village. Therefore, the complainant, Bai Rukha and Zaversing, by taking injured Kamalsing in cot, brought Kamalsing to the Godhra Town Police Station at Godhra. Police advised them first to take injured Kamalsing to the Civil Hospital, Godhra. From the record, it appears that the complainant brought Kamalsing to the General Hospital, Godhra at 6-50 p. m. P. W. 5 Dr. Binaben Kantilal Parikh was on duty as Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Godhra. Gulabsing gave history to Dr. Binaben Parikh who in turn recorded the history in case papers. From the record, it appears that the complainant brought Kamalsing to the General Hospital, Godhra at 6-50 p. m. P. W. 5 Dr. Binaben Kantilal Parikh was on duty as Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Godhra. Gulabsing gave history to Dr. Binaben Parikh who in turn recorded the history in case papers. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant gave history about assault with stick at 4-00 p. m. on 21st June, 1996 by Shakrabhai Valabhai (appellant No. 1) and Mahasukhbhai Shakrabhai (appellant No. 2 ). P. W. 5 Dr. Binaben gave medical treatment to the injured Kamalsing. She noticed as many as five injuries on the person of Kamalsing. Kamalsing was admitted in the hospital and as per medical case papers, during the course of treatment, he died at 8-30 a. m. on 22nd June, 1996 in the hospital. 2. 5 as per the evidence of complainant Gulabsing, at about 12-00 midnight, police came in the hospital and asked him to lodge a complaint. Thereupon, the complainant went to the Godhra Taluka Police Station and lodged his complaint against three appellants by giving specific names of the appellants as the accused. That complaint came to be registered at 00-15 hrs. on 22nd June, 1996 as CR. No. I 199/96. P. S. O. of Godhra Taluka Police Station entrusted the police investigation of the said crime bearing CR. No. I 199/96 to P. W. 14 PSI Atmaram Somabhai Solanki. PSI Mr. Solanki went to the place of incident and drew a panchnama of scene of offence in presence of two panchas. The place of offence was shown by Savita wife of Natwarsing. Thereafter PSI Mr. Solanki recorded the statements of Sabur Bapu and Dhoriben. As injured Kamalsing expired in the hospital, P. W. 15 PSI Parvatsing Virsing Baraia made a report to the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra with a request to add offence under Sec. 302 of I. P. C. in First Information Report, copy of which was sent to said learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, PSI Mr. Baraia took over further investigation from PSI Mr. Solanki. PSI Mr. Baria held inquest of Kamalsing and drew inquest panchnama. Thereafter, PSI Mr. Baria went to village Sanklianta and recorded the statements of witnesses conversant with the facts of the case. On 22/6/1996, PSI Mr. Thereafter, PSI Mr. Baraia took over further investigation from PSI Mr. Solanki. PSI Mr. Baria held inquest of Kamalsing and drew inquest panchnama. Thereafter, PSI Mr. Baria went to village Sanklianta and recorded the statements of witnesses conversant with the facts of the case. On 22/6/1996, PSI Mr. Baria sent dead body of Kamalsing along with police Yadi to the Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Godhra. P. W. 1 Dr. Narayan Bhurabhai Patel held autopsy on dead body of Kamalsing. On 23rd June, 1996 police arrested the appellants. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants had shown their willingness to trace out the muddamal sticks which they had concealed, and therefore, at the instance of appellants, muddamal sticks were discovered under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act for which a panchnama was drawn. Thereafter, PSI Mr. Baria sent incriminating articles, control earth, blood stained earth and the clothes which were worn by deceased Kamalsing at the time of incident under forwarding letter to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Surat (for short "fsl") for examination and analysis. On receipt of reports from the FSL and after obtaining P. M. Notes etc. PSI Mr. Baria filed chargesheet against the appellants in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra on 20th September, 1996. That chargesheet came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 1743 of 1996. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred said Criminal Case No. 1743 of 1996 to the learned 8th Joint Civil Judge and J. M. F. C. , Godhra. As one of the offences viz. offence punishable under Sec. 302 of I. P. C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the said learned J. M. F. C. Godhra to whom Criminal Case No. 1743 of 1996 was assigned, passed a committal order under Sec. 209, Cr. P. C. on 4th October, 1996 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Panch Mahals at Godhra. 2. 6 consequent upon the said committal order, the learned Sessions Judge, Panch Mahals, Godhra received case papers on 28th October, 1996 and said case came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 255 of 1996. Thereafter, said Sessions Case No. 255 of 1996 was assigned to the learned Judge of the trial Court. ( 3 ) ON the basis of material on record, the learned Judge of the trial Court framed Charge Ex. Thereafter, said Sessions Case No. 255 of 1996 was assigned to the learned Judge of the trial Court. ( 3 ) ON the basis of material on record, the learned Judge of the trial Court framed Charge Ex. 2 against the appellants on 15th September, 1997. The charge was read over and explained to the appellants. On recording pleas of the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) IN order to prove the case against the appellants as per Charge, the prosecution examined (1) P. W. 1 Dr. Narayanbhai Bhurabhai Patel at Ex. 7; (2) P. W. 2 Dr. Nikitaben B. Shah at Ex. 10; (3) P. W. 3 Rumalbhai Ramjibhai at Ex. 19; (4) P. W. 4 Somabhai Virsingbhai at Ex. 21; (5) P. W. 5 Dr. Binaben Kantilal Parikh at Ex. 23; (6) P. W. 6 Gulabsing Bhavanbhai (complainant) at Ex. 30; (7) P. W. 7 Rukhaben Kamalsing (wife of deceased Kamalsing) at Ex. 32; (8) P. W. 8 Kalaben Aaratsinh at Ex. 33; (9) P. W. 9 Saburbhai Bapubhai at Ex. 34; (10) P. W. 10 Zaversing Gulabsing at Ex. 44; (11) P. W. 11 Dhoriben w/o Saburbhai Bapubhai at Ex. 45; (12) P. W. 12 Jaysingbhai Vechatbhai Patel at Ex. 46; (13) P. W. 13 Virsingbhai Gamabhai at Ex. 51; (14) P. W. 14 PSI Atmaram Shankarbhai Solanki (Investigating Officer) at Ex. 52; and (15) P. W. 15 PSI Parvatsing Virsing Baraia (Second Investigating Officer) at Ex. 55. ( 5 ) THE prosecution also produced and proved certain documents such as (1) Post Mortem Notes at Ex. 8, (2) Medical Certificate for injury sustained by Saburbhai Bapubhai at Ex. 11; (3) Medical Certificate for injury sustained by Bai Dholi Saburbhai at Ex. 16; (4) Panchnama of scene of offence at Ex. 20; (5) Medico Legal Certificate with regard to history given by father of injured and injury sustained by Kamalsing at Ex. 25; (6) Complaint at Ex. 31; (7) Inquest Panchnama at Ex. 35; (8) Panchnama of clothes put on by deceased and produced by Police Constable Jitendrakumar Chhotalal at Ex. 36; (9) Death report made by police at Ex. 37; (10) Discovery panchnama under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act at Ex. 50; (11) Report of FSL at Ex. 57; (12) Report of Serologist at Ex. 58 to prove the case against the appellants. 36; (9) Death report made by police at Ex. 37; (10) Discovery panchnama under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act at Ex. 50; (11) Report of FSL at Ex. 57; (12) Report of Serologist at Ex. 58 to prove the case against the appellants. etc. ( 6 ) AFTER recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses was over, the circumstances appearing against the appellants were brought to the notice of and explained to the appellants. Whatever replies were given by the appellants were recorded below their respective pleas, as a result of which their further statements came to be recorded under Sec. 313, Cr. P. C. The defence of the appellants is of general denial. ( 7 ) STILL however, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written reply over and above their further statements. Along with the written reply, they also produced xerox copies of certain documents. Written reply filed by appellant Nos. 1 and 2 has not been exhibited by the learned Judge of the trial Court. As per the written reply dated 27-01-1998 (Page: 361 in original Record), it is the case of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 that Valsing Virabhai Patel -father of appellant No. 1 had purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No. 79 Paiki admeasuring 2 Acres from P. W. 9 Sabur Bapu on 8th April, 1994 and on that day, possession of the land was given to the father of appellant No. 1. It is the case of the appellants that since then, they are cultivating the said land. It is the defence of the appellants that deceased Kamalsing Gulabsing and his family members in collusion with P. W. 9 Sabur Bapu wanted to snatch away the possession of the said land from the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and in that connection, they were quarrelling with the appellant Nos. 1 and 2. Before monsoon of 1996 set in, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 had cultivated the land and sowed seeds for crop of maize. On the date of incident, Sabur Bapu tres-passed in their land with ox and plough. It is a defence of the accused that for the protection of their property, they prevented Sabur Bapu, as a result of which, he got excited and made an assault with stick on the appellant Nos. 1 and 2. It is the defence of the appellant Nos. It is a defence of the accused that for the protection of their property, they prevented Sabur Bapu, as a result of which, he got excited and made an assault with stick on the appellant Nos. 1 and 2. It is the defence of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 that Sabur Bapu was entangled in the wood of plough and fell down, and therefore, he sustained injuries. It is further the defence of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 that on the date of incident, deceased Kamalsing had come to their house and gave filthy abuses to appellant nos. 1 and 2. Kamalsing also asked appellant nos. 1 and 2 as to why they have cultivated the land for crop of maize and immediately thereafter he made an assault on appellant Nos. 1 and 2 with the stick. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 snatched away the stick. Thereafter, the deceased gave abuses and quarreled with them. It is the defence of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 that Kamalsing sustained injuries with sticks of the associates of Kamalsing. They have denied that they had beaten the deceased or his wife. It is their further defence that quarrel took place while they were protecting their property. It is their further defence that in collusion with Sarpanch and Bit Jamadar of village, a complaint was lodged after long delay. It is their further defence that in collusion with Sarpanch and Bit Jamadar, a complaint was prepared and statements were recorded as per their instructions. The prosecution has suppressed true and correct facts of the case. It is also the defence of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 that some cases were filed in Civil Court as well as Mamlatdar-cum-ALT, Dohad in respect of said land. In support of their defence, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have produced certain documents. ( 8 ) THE appellant No. 3 has denied the case of the prosecution and his defence is of general denial. None of the accused has examined himself or any witness in his defence. The appellant No. 3 has not produced any document in his defence. In support of their defence, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have produced certain documents. ( 8 ) THE appellant No. 3 has denied the case of the prosecution and his defence is of general denial. None of the accused has examined himself or any witness in his defence. The appellant No. 3 has not produced any document in his defence. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing the arguments of the learned Advocates for both the parties and after making examination and appreciation of the evidence on record of the case, the learned Judge of the trial Court came to a conclusion that deceased Kamalsing Gulabsing died an unnatural death and that he was killed. He has also come to a conclusion that it was a common intention on the part of all the appellants to cause injuries to the deceased Kamalsing by inflicting blows of sticks which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and with that common intention, they, by inflicting blows of sticks, committed murder of Kamalsing. The learned Judge of the trial Court has also come to a conclusion that the appellants caused grievous hurt by inflicting stick blows to witness Saburbhai and they also caused hurt by inflicting blows of sticks to witness Dhoriben. He also came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case that the appellants gave filthy abuses with intent to commit breach of peace. On the basis of aforesaid conclusions, the learned Judge of the trial Court held the appellants guilty for an offence of murder of Kamalsing and offences of voluntarily causing grievous hurt and hurt to the witnesses Sabur Bapu and Dhoriben respectively and on the basis of these findings, the learned Judge of the trial Court rendered his Judgment of conviction on 27th February, 1998 and convicted the appellants under Sec. 235 (2) of Cr. P. C. and sentenced them for offences to which a reference is made in Para 1 of this Judgment hereinabove. The learned Judge of the trial Court has by rendering said judgment acquitted all the accused under Sec. 235 (1) of Cr. P. C. for an offence punishable under Sec. 504 of I. P. C. ( 10 ) BEING aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred this present appeal. The learned Judge of the trial Court has by rendering said judgment acquitted all the accused under Sec. 235 (1) of Cr. P. C. for an offence punishable under Sec. 504 of I. P. C. ( 10 ) BEING aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred this present appeal. The State Government has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of all the appellants for offence punishable under Sec. 504 of I. P. C. ( 11 ) SHRI T. S. Nanavati, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri P. R. Abichandani, learned APP for the respondent -State have taken us through the entire evidence on record. Shri P. R. Abichandani has also taken us through the impugned judgment. ( 12 ) SHRI T. S. Nanavati, learned Advocate for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on following counts:- (1) The learned Judge of the trial Court has not considered the defence taken in written reply filed by appellant Nos. 1 and 2. (2) This is a case of murder by inflicting multiple blows of sticks but prosecution has not made any specific averment against each accused attributing his role for causing particular injury to deceased. (3) Quarrels were going on with regard to agricultural land and that the appellants were in possession of the land sold by P. W. 9 Saburbhai. As against this case, it is the case of the prosecution that Saburbhai had sold the land to the deceased Kamalsing. Though the said land was in possession of the appellants/accused, the deceased Kamalsing and his family members ploughed the field and sowed the seeds of paddy, and therefore, in retaliation of preserving right of property, the incident took place. Relations between the deceased Kamalsing and his family members on one side and the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 on other side were not at all cordial but strained. He argued that looking to the dispute with regard to agricultural land, due to animosity, relations were inimical, and therefore, the prosecution witnesses are inimical witnesses and they are interested to grab the land by involving the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 falsely in the crime. (4) The learned Judge of the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. 1 and 2 falsely in the crime. (4) The learned Judge of the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. He argued that looking to the evidence on record, the alleged eye witnesses are not consistent with the story put forward by the prosecution, and from their own evidence, it appears that in fact they are not eye witnesses in the eye of law, to the incident. (5) Each alleged witness describes the incident differently and therefore, real facts of the case are not forth-coming on record. The genesis of incident is suppressed by the prosecution. (6) There is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint by the father of injured Kamalsing. He has argued that incident took place at 4-00 p. m. and the complaint came to be lodged at 00-15 hrs. on the next day of the incident. Prosecution has not explained such an inordinate delay and, therefore, it casts a doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case. (7) He has argued that looking to the evidence on record, the complainant consulted Sarpanch of the village and after due deliberations and taking advice, the complainant lodged his complaint involving the appellants falsely in the crime. (8) Shri T. S. Nanavati has argued that entire incident took place in quick succession of events and, therefore, the alleged eye witnesses had no opportunity to see the actual incident as to how it happened. (9) He has further argued that looking to the evidence on record, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the learned Judge of the trial Court ought to have given benefit of reasonable doubt by holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case in the manner in which it is submitted to the trial Court. (10) Lastly he has requested this Court to acquit the appellants by allowing their appeal. ( 13 ) MR. P. R. Abichandani, learned APP for the respondent State has supported the judgment, throughout. He has argued that the complaint is a First Information Report in which the complainant has only to show that some cognizable offence has been committed. He is not required to state each and every minute detail of the incident. ( 13 ) MR. P. R. Abichandani, learned APP for the respondent State has supported the judgment, throughout. He has argued that the complaint is a First Information Report in which the complainant has only to show that some cognizable offence has been committed. He is not required to state each and every minute detail of the incident. He is not required to state the details as to which accused inflicted which blow on which part of the body of the deceased and therefore, the contention of Shri T. S. Nanavati that the prosecution has not stated a specific role attributing each accused independently deserves to be rejected. Mr. Abichandani has further argued that looking to the evidence on record, there is no delay at all. Evidence on record itself explains the delay on the part of the complainant. He has further argued that looking to the animosity in between the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 on oneside and deceased Kamalsing and his family on otherside, the prosecution has come with a specific case that because of this enmity, the appellants killed Kamalsing and caused injuries to witnesses Sabur and Dholiben. He has argued that dispute arose as Sabur sold the land to the deceased Kamalsing, though it was already sold in 1964 to the father of appellate No. 1. He has further argued that in view of this inimical relations, the prosecution has come out with a specific motive that because of this animosity, the incident took place and therefore, the evidence of eye witnesses should not be discarded merely because they were inimical witnesses. ( 14 ) HE has further argued that Shri Nanavati has tried to magnify certain variances in the evidence of eye witnesses, but such type of variances are bound to appear because witnesses might have added embroideries to the prosecution story perhaps for fear of being disbelieved and if such addition of embroidery does not go to the root of the prosecution case and if substratum of cause remained intact then the Court should ignore such type of embroidery. He has argued that it is not correct to argue by Shri Nanavati that entire incident took place in one set. He has argued that it is not correct to argue by Shri Nanavati that entire incident took place in one set. He has argued that evidence on record makes it clear that the incident took place in two parts one at the place on unused portion of field of Virsing Gama and another at the field of Sabur Bapu which is at a distance of 10 fields from the field of Virsing. He has argued that incident with regard to Kamalsing took place at aforesaid first place, while incident with regard to beating of Saburbhai and his wife Dholiben took place at the aforesaid second place. With this submission, he has argued that both events took place in quick succession and, therefore, what one eye witness had seen might not have seen by other eye witness and if this type of variances are there on record, it cannot be said that said witnesses were not the eye witnesses to the incident. In support of his argument, Shri Abichandani has cited a decision in the case of STATE OF U. P. Vs. ANIL SINGH, reported in AIR 1988 S. C. 1998. Lastly he submitted that the appeal is devoid of merits and it requires to be dismissed. ( 15 ) WE have dispassionately considered the submissions of learned Advocates for both the parties. We have minutely and carefully examined, scrutinized and reappreciated the evidence on record to come to our own conclusions to decide this appeal. We have also perused the judgment and record and proceedings of the case called for from the trial Court. ( 16 ) AT the outset of arguments, Shri T. S. Nanavati has made it clear that appellants did not seriously dispute the fact that Kamalsing died homicidal death. Though the learned Judge of the trial Court has discussed and dealt with the evidence consisted of inquest panchnama, Post Mortem Notes and oral evidence of Dr. Narayanbhai Bhurabhai Patel, he did not come to a definite conclusion that Kamalsing died homicidal death. Looking to the points framed for determination at Para 10 and answers given in Para 11 of the Judgment rendered by the learned Judge of the trial Court, it appears that he has come to a conclusion that Kamalsing Gulabsing met an unnatural death and that he was killed. Looking to the points framed for determination at Para 10 and answers given in Para 11 of the Judgment rendered by the learned Judge of the trial Court, it appears that he has come to a conclusion that Kamalsing Gulabsing met an unnatural death and that he was killed. Merely because, the learned Judge of the trial Court has given above finding, it cannot be said that Kamalsing died suicidal death or accidental death. The learned Judge of the trial Court wanted to convey his conclusion rather in different form but meaning of above conclusion is the same in the sense that Kamalsing died homicidal death. Still however, we have examined MLC Certificate Ex. 25 read with evidence of P. W. 5 Dr. Binaben and we come to a conclusion that Kamalsing died homicidal death. Over and above, we have examined Inquest Panchnama Ex. 35 and Post Mortem Notes Ex. 8 read with evidence of P. W. 1 Dr. Patel. ( 17 ) AS per the evidence of Dr. Patel and Post Mortem Notes, it transpires that after the incident, injured Kamalsing was brought to the Civil Hospital, Godhra wherein he was examined by P. W. 5 Dr. Binaben. As per her evidence and looking to the medical certificate at Ex. 25, Kamalsing had sustained following injuries: (1) CLW right parietal region. 3 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x scalp deep. (2) Fracture on femur (left) lower end. (3) Fracture on Tibia Fibula both sides. (4) CLW left leg (L/3) (vertical) of size of 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x bone deep. (5) Bruise (Red) on right side of back (transverse) of size of 10 cm x 1 cm. AS per this certificate Ex. 25, Kamalsing expired on 22th June, 1996 at 8-20 a. m. As per the evidence of P. W. 1 Dr. Patel, when he was on duty as Medical Officer in General Hospital at Godhra, he received dead body of Kamalsing at 1-00 p. m. and he started to perform post mortem at 1-00 p. m. and completed it at 3-30 p. m. As per his evidence read with Post Mortem Notes, he noticed following external injuries: (1) A stitched wound on right parietal region of head 3" above right ear. 3 cm long. blood clots. (2) Stitched wound middle left leg at lower part 2 cm long. 3 cm long. blood clots. (2) Stitched wound middle left leg at lower part 2 cm long. (3) Swelling and contusion on right leg nipper part. Size 3 x 1 cm. red in colour. (4) Swelling on left knee junction and lower part of thigh. (5) Fracture of Tibia Fibula. (6) Fracture of left femur lower part. P. W. 1 Dr. Patel also noticed following external injuries : (1) Blood clot in subcultural issue of scalp. (2) Depressed fracture of right parietal bone. size, 5 cm. x 2 cm. (3) Linear fracture of right parietal bone oblique above right ear. (4) There was hemorrhage in subarachnoid and intracerebral region of brain - dark brown in colour. ( 18 ) DR. Patel has deposed that aforesaid all injuries were ante-mortem. He has also deposed in Para 9 of his evidence that injuries on head and thigh co-related were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has given his opinion for death as under:"from the Post mortem examination, cause of death was shock and internal hemorrhage (cranial) due to head injury and fractures of left humerus and right tibia fibula. "looking to short cross-examination in one para, evidence of Dr. Patel is not seriously challenged by the defence lawyer. He has denied a suggestion that he has not performed Post Mortem. Considering aforesaid evidence which we have discussed earlier, the prosecution has ably proved important fact that Kamalsing died homicidal death on 22nd February, 1996. 28-08-2003 ( 19 ) IT would be proper for us to discuss and deal with the medical evidence with regard to two injured eye witnesses i. e. P. W. 9 Saburbhai and his wife P. W. 7 Dholiben. As per the evidence of Saburbhai at Ex. 34, it is found that during the midnight time, police came to know about the incident and thereafter both were shifted in tractor and brought to the Civil Hospital, Godhra. ( 20 ) THE prosecution has examined P. W. 2 Dr. Nikitaben who examined two injured witnesses Sabur Bapu and his wife Dholiben in the hospital. P. W. 2 Dr. Nikitaben has deposed in her evidence that on 21st June, 1996 she was on duty as Medical Officer in General Hospital, Godhra and during that time at about 11-30 p. m. Saburbhai Bapubhai Patel and Dholiben Saburbhai both had come to her with police Yadi. P. W. 2 Dr. Nikitaben has deposed in her evidence that on 21st June, 1996 she was on duty as Medical Officer in General Hospital, Godhra and during that time at about 11-30 p. m. Saburbhai Bapubhai Patel and Dholiben Saburbhai both had come to her with police Yadi. As per her evidence, those two persons gave history that at about 6-00 p. m. on 21st June, 1996, assaults were made on them with the sticks. She examined them one-by-one. 20. 1 she found following injuries on the person of Saburbhai Bapubhai Patel for which she issued a medical certificate at Ex. 11: (1) Defused tenderness swelling over both thighs fracture of lower third - femur shaft. (2) Puncture wound over right arm. fracture of humerus lower third. On taking X-ray plates, she found that there was a fracture of femur middle third and lower third AP and on reading both X-ray plates, it was found that there was fracture of lower third femur on both sides. On taking X-ray of humer/ap, middle third + lower third, it was found that there was a fracture of lower third humerus. At the bottom of the certificate, she has opined that aforesaid injuries were grievous in nature and it could be caused by hard and blunt substance and the age of injuries were within 24 hours. As per the certificate, Saburbhai was admitted on 21st June, 1996 and was discharged on 21st August, 1996. Thus, this patient remained as Indoor Patient in the hospital for two months. 20. 2 for injuries sustained by Dholiben, she found following injuries which she noted down in medical certificate at Ex. 16:- (1) CLW over right thigh anteriorally -10 cm x 2 cm. x vertical Skin Deep. Fracture of femur. (2) DTS right hand (dorsal aspect) fracture of 5th MT Bone. (3) Tenderness over right shoulder. For these injuries, X-ray plates were taken but not a single fracture was detected. As per certificate at Ex. 16, the injuries were simple in nature and were likely to be caused by hard and blunt substance. She has opined that age of injuries was within 24 hours. As per certificate Ex. 16, Dholiben was admitted as Indoor Patient in the hospital on 21st June, 1996 and was discharged on 16th July, 1996. Thus, she remained in the hospital as Indoor Patient for about 25 days. Dr. She has opined that age of injuries was within 24 hours. As per certificate Ex. 16, Dholiben was admitted as Indoor Patient in the hospital on 21st June, 1996 and was discharged on 16th July, 1996. Thus, she remained in the hospital as Indoor Patient for about 25 days. Dr. Nikitaben in her cross-examination at length has specifically opined that injury No. 1 sustained by Saburbhai cannot be possible by fall. In the same manner, she has opined that injury No. 1 sustained by Dholiben could not be possible by fall. She has denied the suggestion that injury No. 1 sustained by Saburbhai was of such a nature that it could be possible by fall. Dr. Nikitaben has produced X-ray plates for injuries sustained by Saburbhai and those X-ray plates are on record at Ex. 12 to Ex. 15. .