Judgment D.N. Patel, J.—The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.01.1998 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No. 180 of 1996, whereby the appellants-orig. convicts (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellants’) have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 and also under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the offence punishable under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months; for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months; and for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. 2. If the case of prosecution is unfolded, the brief facts in nutshell are as under : 2.1. It is the case of prosecution that the incident has taken place on 05.03.1996 at 01-00 p.m. at Ghodasar, City of Ahmedabad. It is further the case of prosecution that the appellants had some dispute with the victims and previously a complaint was also filed by Lallubhai (deceased), against Ramsharan-father of Appellant No. 3 herein and, therefore, the appellants on 05.03.1996 (next day of holy) assaulted Lallubhai Bhagvandin Pasi (deceased) with deadly weapons. Several injuries were caused on head of Lallubhai, including fractures on head. 2.2. It is also the case of the prosecution that those who have intervened in the said assault i.e. P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, were also assaulted by the appellants and a number of injuries have been caused even to the said injured eye-witnesses. Several injuries were caused on head of Lallubhai, including fractures on head. 2.2. It is also the case of the prosecution that those who have intervened in the said assault i.e. P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, were also assaulted by the appellants and a number of injuries have been caused even to the said injured eye-witnesses. P.W. 2-Brijlal @ Gullu Ramlakhan Pasi has received fractures and he was hospitalized from 05.03.1996 to 29.03.1996. Another injured eye-witness P.W. 4-Bhagwandin Barsati Pasi has received head injuries. 2.3. The FIR bearing C.R. No. I-93 of 1996 was reduced into writing on 05.03.1996 at 14-25 hours at Vatva Police Station for the offence which took place at 13-00 hours on that day. Thus, immediate is the FIR, wherein the appellants have been referred, with weapons and the role played by them is also narrated. The investigation was carried out. The chargesheet was filed and Sessions Case No. 180 of 1996 was registered against them and upon recording the evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants mainly for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and hence, present appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that there are a number of omissions, contradictions and improvements in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial Court. Hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3.1. It is also vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the scene of offence has been changed frequently by the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the so-called eye-witnesses are not the eye-witnesses, but they are got up witnesses. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the injured eye-witnesses are otherwise also highly interested and partisan witnesses. It is also submitted that the dying declaration of one of the injured eye-witnesses was recorded, but he has not given the names of the appellants. 3.2. It is also submitted that there are neither blood stains on the weapon scythe, which is popularly known as ‘Dhariya’, as submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants; nor there is any injury noticed by this weapon. 3.2. It is also submitted that there are neither blood stains on the weapon scythe, which is popularly known as ‘Dhariya’, as submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants; nor there is any injury noticed by this weapon. There is no incise wound upon the body of the deceased and, thus, orig. accused No. 6 has not used the weapon at all. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial Court. 3.3. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the Yadi which is presented by the prosecution at Exhibit 26, does not reveal the names of the appellants and therefore also, the benefit should be given to the appellants and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3.4. It is further submitted that there is absence of common object and in fact the prosecution has failed to prove the common object of the appellants to commit murder of Lallubhai Pasi and, therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. We have heard Ms. D.S. Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, who has mainly submitted that the prosecution has proved the offence committed by the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. There are eye-witnesses who have given clear depositions before the trial Court. These witnesses are natural witnesses and they are reliable as well as trustworthy witnesses. Two of them i.e. P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 are injured eye-witnesses. P.W. 2-Brijlal @ Gullu Ramlakhan Pasi- has sustained fracture on his leg. He was hospitalized from 05.03.1996 to 29.03.1996. The other eye-witness Bhagwandin Barsati Pasi-P.W. 4 has received several injuries on head-at parietal region and occipital region. Looking to their depositions, no error has been committed by the trial Court in convicting the appellants. 4.1. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the victims had no weapons in their hands, whereas the accused came with weapons, chased Lallubhai Pasi, assaulted him so severely that Lallubhai Pasi expired near the spot. This as a cumulative effect, is proving their common object of committing murder of Lallubhai Pasi. 4.2. 4.1. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the victims had no weapons in their hands, whereas the accused came with weapons, chased Lallubhai Pasi, assaulted him so severely that Lallubhai Pasi expired near the spot. This as a cumulative effect, is proving their common object of committing murder of Lallubhai Pasi. 4.2. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the appellants were having iron pipes, sticks and scythe in their hands. A number of injuries have been inflicted to the witnesses. Even those who have interfered to save the life of Lallubhai Pasi (deceased) were also severely be beaten up by the appellants and they have also sustained head injuries and fractures. The doctors who have given Injury Certificates have also been examined by the prosecution. 4.3. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that looking to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the blood group of the deceased is found present on the clothes and weapons recovered by the prosecution at the behest of the appellants. No error has been committed by the trial Court in appreciating the evidence in convicting the appellants mainly for the offence of committing murder of Lallubhai Bhagwandin Pasi under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the both the sides and looking to the evidence on record, it appears that the whole incident has taken place on 05.03.1996 at about 13-00 hours. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 1-Digpal Pasi, who is the complainant, he has clearly stated that it was the festival day of ‘Dhuleti’ (the next day of ‘Holy’ festival). Lallubhai Pasi (deceased) had invited him for lunch. He has also stated that previously Lallubhai and Ramsharan-father of orig.accused No. 3 had a dispute in last ‘Diwali’ festival and a complaint was also filed by Lallubhai (deceased) against the said Ramsharan. The matter was going on at Mirzapur Court, District Ahmedabad (Rural). Looking to the deposition of this witness at Exhibit 12, it appears that he has seen the incident. He has stated that Lallubhai (deceased) was running and the appellants were chasing. He has given the names of all the appellants and also weapons in their hands and he has also stated that they are Appellant Nos. Looking to the deposition of this witness at Exhibit 12, it appears that he has seen the incident. He has stated that Lallubhai (deceased) was running and the appellants were chasing. He has given the names of all the appellants and also weapons in their hands and he has also stated that they are Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 6, who had inflicted head injuries to Lallubhai Pasi. Likewise, orig. accused No. 4 had also inflicted injuries on hand and orig. accused No. 5 had also inflicted iron pipe blow and, therefore, thereafter he had fallen down and he was taken to L.G. Hospital at Ahmedabad. P.W. 2-Brijlal Ramlakhan intervened and he was also assaulted by orig. accused Nos. 1 and 7, and injuries on head and left leg were also inflicted by these accused to P.W. 2, whose deposition is at Exhibit 16. Looking to the deposition of this witness and looking to his cross-examination, we find that he is a trustworthy and natural witness. He has also informed the Police. FIR bearing C.R.No.93 of 1996 registered with Vatva Police Station is filed by him immediately on 05.03.1996 at 14-25 hrs. after the incident has taken place. Thus, within a period of 01 hour and 25 minutes, the FIR (Exhibit 83) was lodged by this witness, wherein he has also given the names of the appellants along with the weapons and the role played by them. 6. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 2-Brijlal Ramlakhan at Exhibit 16, it appears that he is an injured eye-witness. He has sustained the following injuries: 1. CLW 6 x 1 cms. on forehead. 2. CLW 1 x 1 cm. on left leg. 3. Fracture on fibia and tibula at left leg. This witness had tried to intervene to save the life of Lallubhai Pasi and he has also clearly given the names of appellants along with the weapons and the role played by them. He has also stated that he was also assaulted by orig.accused Nos. 1 and 7, who had inflicted injuries by iron pipe on his left leg and head. He had received fracture on his left leg. He had also fallen down and was also taken at L.G. Hospital, Maninagar at Ahmedabad, who was examined by P.W. 8-Dr.Satishbabu Dindayal (Exhibit 24) and issued Injury Certificate at Exhibit 25. He was hospitalized from 05.03.1996 to 29.03.1996. He had received fracture on his left leg. He had also fallen down and was also taken at L.G. Hospital, Maninagar at Ahmedabad, who was examined by P.W. 8-Dr.Satishbabu Dindayal (Exhibit 24) and issued Injury Certificate at Exhibit 25. He was hospitalized from 05.03.1996 to 29.03.1996. Looking to the deposition of this witness, it appears that he had become unconscious because of the injuries and even after he was discharge from the hospital, he could resume his duty with Cadila Laboratories only from 25.12.1996. Looking to his deposition i.e. Examination-in-Chief as well as Cross-Examination, they are the appellants who have caused head injuries to Lallubhai (deceased) by deadly weapons and they have not spared, even the interveners i.e. P.W. 2 and P.W. 4. The fracture was caused to P.W. 2 and head injuries were inflicted to P.W. 4, which reveal the common object and mens rea of the accused. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 2, it is also clear that the appellants had also made up in their mind that those who would try to save the life of Lallubhai (deceased), do not reach to Lallubhai and they would see that they are at least injured and, therefore, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 were severely beaten up by the appellants. The cumulative effect of this reveals the common object which the appellants were having. Looking to his deposition, he is a trustworthy and natural witness. 7. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 4-Bhagwandin Barsati Pasi-father of the deceased Lallubhai, he is also an injured eye-witness, who is examined at Exhibit 18. Looking to his deposition also, he has also given a detailed narration about the appellants with their weapons and the role played by them. He has also stated that the orig.accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 had inflicted injuries to Lallubhai (deceased), whereas orig. accused Nos. 1 and 7 had inflicted injuries to P.W. 2; and orig. accused Nos. 3,4 and 5 had inflicted injuries to P.W. 4. There is no inconsistency in his narration as to the weapon and role played by each accused. P.W. 4 had sustained the following injuries : 1. CLW Extent of 3 x 1 cm. in size over scalp (parietal). 2. CLW Extent of 3 x 1 cm. in size over scalp (parietal). 3. CLW Extent of 4 x 1 cm. in size over occipital. 4. P.W. 4 had sustained the following injuries : 1. CLW Extent of 3 x 1 cm. in size over scalp (parietal). 2. CLW Extent of 3 x 1 cm. in size over scalp (parietal). 3. CLW Extent of 4 x 1 cm. in size over occipital. 4. Minor abrasion over left 5. Minor abrasion over back elbow. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 4, it appears that he has been examined by P.W. 22- Dr.Firozbhai B. Munshi, who has been examined at Exhibit 48, who has issued Medical Certificate at Exhibit 49 to P.W. 4. Looking to the aforesaid injuries, it appears that he had also sustained vital injuries on palatal region and occipital region. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 4, his presence is natural at the scene of offence and he is a trustworthy and reliable witness. If the cumulative effect of evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 is read with other evidence, no error has been committed by the trial Court in appreciating the depositions of eye-witness P.W. 1 and depositions of injured eye-witness P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 and thereby, convicting the present appellants. The appellants have assaulted Lallubhai (deceased) by deadly weapons. They chased Lallubhai (deceased) and those who had tried to intervene to save the life of Lallubhai (deceased), there were also not spared by the appellants. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the trial Court. 8. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 8-Dr.Satishbabu Dindayal, whose deposition is at Exhibit 24, who examined P.W. 2 and gave injury certificate of P.W. 2 at Exhibit 25 and looking to the deposition of P.W. 22-Dr.Firozbhai Munshi, whose deposition is at Exhibit 48, who examined P.W. 4 and gave Injury Certificate of P.W. 4 at Exhibit 49, it appears that the injured eye-witnesses have received serious injuries, including the fracture and head injuries. P.W. 1 was hospitalized for considerable longer period from 05.03.1996 to 30.03.1996. Looking to the Injury Certificates of these injured witnesses and looking to their depositions, it appears that orig. accused Nos. 1 and 7 inflicted injuries to P.W. 2 on left leg and head, which exactly match with the Injury Certificate of P.W. 2 (Exhibit 25). P.W. 1 was hospitalized for considerable longer period from 05.03.1996 to 30.03.1996. Looking to the Injury Certificates of these injured witnesses and looking to their depositions, it appears that orig. accused Nos. 1 and 7 inflicted injuries to P.W. 2 on left leg and head, which exactly match with the Injury Certificate of P.W. 2 (Exhibit 25). Likewise, looking to the deposition of P.W. 4 and looking to his narration of sustaining injuries at the hands of appellants and looking to the injury certificate of P.W. 4 (Exhibit 49), he has correctly narrated the whole incident. Thus, there is enough corroboration from Exs.25 and 49 to their depositions. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that these witnesses are got up witnesses. They are highly interested and partisan witnesses and, therefore, very little is the evidentiary value of these witnesses. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that these two witnesses have sustained severe and serious injuries. Their presence at the scene of offence is natural one. P.W. 2-brother-in-law of deceased was invited for lunch on the festival day of ‘Dhuleti’ and P.W. 4 is father of the deceased. P.W. 2 has remained in hospital as an injured patient for much longer period looking to the depositions given by the doctors at P.W. 8 and P.W. 22, who have given injury certificates. The narration given by these two witnesses is corroborated by the FIR lodged by P.W. 1. Even looking to the scene of offence panchnama and looking to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which will be narrated hereinafter, there is enough corroboration to the depositions of these two injured eye-witnesses. The date of incident was the day of “Dhuleti” Festival (i.e. next day of festival of “Holi”). P.W. 4 is the father of Lallubhai (deceased). P.W. 2 was invited by Lallubhai (deceased) for lunch on the day of “Dhuleti”. Their presence at the scene of offence was absolutely natural one and without any exaggerations, these two witnesses have narrated the incident. Though they are rustic witnesses, there is no omission or contradiction in their statements. Immediate is the FIR and even looking to the hospital register entry at Exhibit 26, it has been mentioned therein that 4 to 5 persons have assaulted P.W. 2-Brijlal Ramlakhan and P.W. 4-Bhagvandin Pasi and P.W. 1 was admitted in the Trauma Ward. Though they are rustic witnesses, there is no omission or contradiction in their statements. Immediate is the FIR and even looking to the hospital register entry at Exhibit 26, it has been mentioned therein that 4 to 5 persons have assaulted P.W. 2-Brijlal Ramlakhan and P.W. 4-Bhagvandin Pasi and P.W. 1 was admitted in the Trauma Ward. Thus, right from Hospital Registration Entry at Exhibit 26 which was followed by FIR on the same day at 14-25 hours. Looking to Exhibit 26, which is the Hospital Register Yadi and looking to the FIR at Exhibit 83, it appears that the FIR is earlier in point of time. The FIR registered with Vatva Police Station is filed by P.W. 1 and was reduced into writing vide C.R. No. I-93 of 1996 on 05.03.1996 at 14-25 hours, whereas Exhibit 26 is recorded on 05.03.1996 at 15-20 hours. Thus, Exhibit 26 is subsequent in point of time and it is only for the injured eye-witnesses and not for the entire incident and, therefore, the contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that no names of the accused were given in Exhibit 26 Yadi, is of no help to the appellants because already an FIR was registered on 05.03.1996 at 14-25 hours, which reveals the names of appellants, along with the weapons in their hands and the role played by them and the FIR also reveals the motive on the part of appellants. 9. Looking to the Injury Certificates of these two injured eye-witnesses and also looking to other contemporary evidence like scene of offence panchnama, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and recovery panchnama, which corroborate the evidence of these two injured eye-witnesses, the depositions of these two witnesses cannot be disbelieved or cannot be brushed aside merely because they are interested or partisan witnesses. As a Rule of prudence, their depositions are required to be viewed with all circumspections. As stated hereinabove, even if their depositions are perused closely, they get enough corroboration from other evidence. Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants, is absolutely just and proper. 10. As stated hereinabove, even if their depositions are perused closely, they get enough corroboration from other evidence. Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants, is absolutely just and proper. 10. Looking to the depositions of P.W. 24-Dr.Jayendra Ratilal Modi, whose deposition is at Exhibit 51 and who has carried out postmortem of Lallubhai on 05.03.1996 at 05-05 p.m., it appears that the death of Lallubhai has been caused due to head injury mentioned in Column No. 23 of the Postmortem note, which is at Exhibit 52. The following are the injuries sustained by Lallubhai (deceased): 1. A deep CLW 3 cm. long on (R) parietal region above (R) ear. 2. A CLW on (L) frontal region 2 cm. long. 3. A CLW on (L) side forehead oblique 3 cm. Long. 4. A CLW mind parietal region 6 cm. long near midline posteriorly. 5. Hematoma corresponding to (1) and (2) superficial injuries 3 cm. x 5 cm., 8 cm. x 6 cm. in scalp. 6. # # (R) temporal bone. 7. Separation of (R) temporal and parietal bone from jt. out line. 8. A transverse ## of frontal bone of the skull 15 cm. long extending to base of the skull between both ears. 9. Congestion and hematoma on whole area of the brain frontal, parietal, occipital, base of the brain including bones, hudula, etc. 11. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 24 and looking to the aforesaid injuries, it appears that Lallubhai (deceased) had received serious injuries on head. He had also received two fractures at skull. There was a separation of right temporal bone and parietal bone from joint out line. Lallubhai (deceased) had expired near the spot. Looking to these injuries which are referred to in Column No. 19 of the postmortem note and looking to the deposition of P.W. 22, it provides enough corroboration to P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4. 12. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 26-Hussainminya Saiyed (Exhibit 56), who is a Police Witness and who has drawn the scene of offence panchnama, arrest memo, and even the clothes of the accused and weapons of accused were also recovered by this witness, that he has given clear deposition without any exaggeration. The scene of offence panchnama has also been proved by this witness. The scene of offence panchnama has also been proved by this witness. Likewise, the weapons were also recovered at the behest of appellants. He has also narrated in his deposition, especially in paragraph No. 2 of his deposition, that there is no change of scene of offence. What is narrated in the FIR at Exhibit 83 has also been stated by this witness in paragraph No. 2 of his deposition. Much has been emphasized by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that there is change of scene of offence. The whole incident has not taken place where the prosecution is alleging, but looking to the FIR at Exhibit 83 and looking to the depositions of eye-witness and injured eye-witnesses and looking to the deposition of P.W. 26, it appears that the whole incident has taken place near Rajaji Bharvad’s Chawl, Opposite Cadila Laboratories, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad. The distance between the railway track and huts and Bhagyalaxmi Society has also been mentioned by this witness. There is no discrepancy in narration of incident by the eye-witnesses and even looking to the scene of offence panchnama, it is getting corroborated. Accused were chasing Lallubhai with weapons. 13. Looking to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory at Exhibit 70, the clothes of the accused were blood stained. They were having human blood stains of blood group ‘O’. Looking to this report, the blood group upon the clothes of the deceased was also ‘O’. Thus, upon the clothes of the accused, there were blood stains of the same blood group of the deceased. Even the weapons which have been recovered at the behest of appellants as per P.W. 26 were also having human blood stains. Thus, this report of the Forensic Science Laboratory at Exhibit 70 provides enough corroboration to the deposition of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4. As a cumulative effect of these depositions and other evidence, it appears that the appellants came with deadly weapons in their hands, chased Lallubhai (deceased) who had previously filed a complaint against Ramsharan-father of orig. accused No. 3 and a Court case was also going on in Mirzapur Court at Ahmedabad. This reveals their common object. Even those who had tried to intervene to save the life of Lallubhai (deceased), have also not been spared by the appellants. The head injuries and fractures have also been inflicted to them. accused No. 3 and a Court case was also going on in Mirzapur Court at Ahmedabad. This reveals their common object. Even those who had tried to intervene to save the life of Lallubhai (deceased), have also not been spared by the appellants. The head injuries and fractures have also been inflicted to them. The injured eye-witnesses were taken to hospital and the doctors have also given injury certificates. Immediate is the FIR. There is no omission or contradiction so far as role played by the accused-appellants is concerned. Their common object is being reflected from their action. In fact, for an offence punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, mere presence in unlawful assembly is sufficient, but looking to the depositions of the said P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, it appears that not only the appellants were present in unlawful assembly, but, they had weapons in their hands and they inflicted injuries to Lallubhai (deceased) and injured eye-witnesses. Thus, their liability is rightly imposed under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court. 14. It is also important to note looking the depositions of these eye-witnesses that the appellants had chosen the time of lunch on ‘Dhuleti’ day, where the victims could not have weapons in their hands. It was a festival day of colours and instead of weapons, they should have only colours in their hands. However, the appellants were having arms in their hands. Thus, the place and time chosen by the appellants and the place is also nearby the houses of victim, reveals their common object. The victims had no weapon in their hands. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant No. 6 that it is the case of prosecution that he was holding scythe in his hand and there is no injury by scythe on the body of the deceased and, therefore, the benefit ought to have been given at least to orig. accused No. 6. This contention is not accepted, because looking to the depositions given by P.W. 1-orig. complainant, he has clearly stated the name of orig. accused No. 6 in the complaint filed by him on 05.03.1996 at Vatva Police Station at 14-25 hours, reflecting his name, weapon and the role played by him. Thus, he was present with deadly weapon in an unlawful assembly. complainant, he has clearly stated the name of orig. accused No. 6 in the complaint filed by him on 05.03.1996 at Vatva Police Station at 14-25 hours, reflecting his name, weapon and the role played by him. Thus, he was present with deadly weapon in an unlawful assembly. Secondly, for the reason that looking to the depositions of all these three eye-witnesses, he had inflicted injuries on the head of Lallubhai (deceased). Thirdly, for the reason that looking to the deposition of P.W. 24-Dr.Jayendra Modi, who has carried out postmortem of Lallubhai (PM Note at Exhibit 52), the said postmortem reveals a number of head injuries and two fractures on head. This is suggestive of the fact that an injury must have been inflicted by a heavy weapon with great force on head and, therefore, there are fractures on skull. The scythe is a heavy weapon. When 5 to 6 persons are causing assault on the victim-deceased, it might happen that the witnesses might have stated that the scythe injury was cause on the head of the deceased, which does not methodically and necessarily mean that always the sharp cutting side of the scythe must have been inflicted by the accused. When several assailants are causing injuries and the victim is running away, it might happen that the hard and blunt side of scythe might have been inflicted on the head of Lallubhai (deceased), which has resulted into fracture on the skull. Looking to the depositions of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, they have narrated the whole incident without any exaggeration and clearly they have stated that it was orig.accused No. 6, who has caused injury by scythe on the head and looking to the postmortem note, there are several injuries on head, including fractures. This is corroborative to their depositions. There is no discrepancy between the ocular evidence and medical evidence and, therefore, no benefit can be given to orig. accused No. 6 merely because there is no incise wound on head of the deceased. Therefore, this contention of the learned Counsel appearing for orig. accused No. 6 that the benefit of doubt should be given to orig. accused No. 6, is not accepted by this Court. No error has been committed the trial Court in appreciating the evidence on record and the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. Therefore, this contention of the learned Counsel appearing for orig. accused No. 6 that the benefit of doubt should be given to orig. accused No. 6, is not accepted by this Court. No error has been committed the trial Court in appreciating the evidence on record and the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. P.W. 2 has received serious and severe injuries as stated hereinabove, and therefore, the appellants have also been rightly punished for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. We see no reason to deviate from the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. The depositions of eye-witness and injured eye-witnesses are getting corroboration from all corners of the evidence right from the FIR (immediate is the FIR), Injury Certificates of injured eye-witnesses, Postmortem Note, scene of offence panchnama, recovery of clothes and recovery of weapons at the behest of accused and report of Forensic Science Laboratory. As a cumulative effect of the evidence on record, there is no substance in this appeal. The prosecution has proved that they are the appellants who have caused murder of Lallubhai Bhagwandin Pasi. It is submitted by Ms. D.S. Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that Appellant Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 have been enlarged on bail under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and hence, they are required to be directed to surrender before the jail authority. 15. In view of aforesaid observations and discussion, the present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.01.1998 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No. 180 of 1996, is upheld. The bail bonds executed by the Appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 stand cancelled. The Appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are directed to surrender themselves before the trial Court on or before 30th January 2009, failing which the trial Court shall issue a non-bailable warrant for arrest of the appellants so that they are sent to prison to serve the substantive sentence imposed upon them.