Judgment H.B. Antani, J.—This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant State under Section 378[1][3] of the Code of Criminal Procedure [‘Code’ for short] against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 7th August, 2000 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 274 of 1999 by which, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code [‘IPC’ for short] and in the alternative under Section 302 read with Section 114 of IPC as well as Section 324 read with Section 114 of IPC and Section 135[1] of the Bombay Police Act. 2. It is pertinent to note that the Appeal filed by the State was heard by the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench upheld the order of acquittal against all the respondents passed by the Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 274 of 1999. The complainant being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the High Court preferred Criminal Appeal No. 429 of 2002 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, vide judgment and order dated 31st July, 2009 remanded the case to the High Court for reconsidering the same and therefore, the Appeal is placed before this Court for hearing. Prosecution case in brief is stated as under:— 3. On 18.6.1999, at around 9.00 p.m., deceased Arunbhai was sleeping on a cot on the Otla [extended balcony] of the house after the supper. Respondent No. 1 Popatbhai Manilal was walking past him when the leg of the deceased which was dangling from the cot, touched him. At this, Respondent No. 1 started abusing deceased Arun to which the deceased protested and a scuffle ensued and in the process, they reached the entrance of the Chawl. The complainant who was inside the house heard the noise and came out to see that the deceased and Respondent No. 1 were quarreling. So, she told her son’ deceased not to quarrel and took him inside the house and the Respondent No. 1 went to his house. After sometime, all the three respondents who were armed with weapons came to the place of occurrence. So, she told her son’ deceased not to quarrel and took him inside the house and the Respondent No. 1 went to his house. After sometime, all the three respondents who were armed with weapons came to the place of occurrence. Respondent No. 1 was having Gupti in his hand, Respondent No. 2 was having pipe in his hand, while Respondent No. 3 was having Dhoka [wooden log used for washing clothes] in his hand. At that time, deceased Arun was standing along with his sister Meghna and Respondent No. 1 caught hold of her. Deceased Arun told him to let his sister go as the quarrel was between him and the Respondent No. 1. At the material point of time, Respondent No. 1 hit the deceased with Gupti on the chest and then on stomach; Respondent No. 2 hit the deceased on the chest with pipe, while the Respondent No. 3 hit the deceased with Dhoka. Deceased, thus, received several blows all over the body. Vijaykumar-nephew of the deceased, who was living with them, came to the scene of offence and tried to intervene, but he was also hit on the head by Respondent No. 2 with pipe. The deceased fell down on the ground in front of his house and thereupon, all the respondents ran away from the scene of offence. The deceased was taken to the hospital by Champaben, her husband’s sister Dadamben and her nephew Vijay, where deceased was examined and subsequently he succumbed to the injuries. Post-mortem was carried out. Police came to the house of the complainant and thereafter, complaint was recorded by Police Inspector Pratapsinh Udesinh Ravol of Meghaninagar police station on 19.6.1999. Thereafter, complaint and the report prepared under Section 157 of the Code were sent to the police station to register the offence. Statements of witnesses were recorded and blood sample of the deceased was obtained and seized by the Police Constable Maheshbhai Maganbhai under the panchnama and was then sent to the police station. Seizure panchnama of clothes was also prepared. As the police felt that there was enough evidence against all the respondents, all the three respondents were arrested on 20.6.1999 and interrogated. After the arrest of the respondents, at the behest of Respondent No. 2, police found weapons involved in the offence which were hidden in the malia [loft] and panchnama in respect thereof was prepared. As the police felt that there was enough evidence against all the respondents, all the three respondents were arrested on 20.6.1999 and interrogated. After the arrest of the respondents, at the behest of Respondent No. 2, police found weapons involved in the offence which were hidden in the malia [loft] and panchnama in respect thereof was prepared. Weapons and clothes were thereafter sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory [‘FSL’ for short] on 22.6.1999 for detailed analysis. Respondents were charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 read with Section 114 of IPC. In addition, Respondent No. 2 Vijay was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, while rest were charged for the same offence punishable under Section 114 of IPC. Respondents were also charged for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951. Prosecution adduced oral depositions as well as documentary evidence in order to bring home the guilt against the respondents. However, at the conclusion of the trial, all the accused were acquitted by the Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 7.8.2000. Being aggrieved with the same, the State preferred Appeal against the order of the learned Sessions Judge and Division Bench of this Court confirmed the said judgment. The complainant, being aggrieved with the judgment and order of the High Court preferred an Appeal before the Apex Court and the Apex Court, as stated herein above, remanded the matter back to this Court for reconsideration of the case. 4. Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant State submitted that the prosecution has adduced ample evidence in the form of depositions of PW No. 3 Champaben Patni vide Exh. 22, PW 4 Meghnaben Patni vide Exh. 23 and PW 5 Vijay vide Exh. 33, in support of the prosecution story that the respondents had a scuffle with deceased Arun on the date of the incident and they were armed with deadly weapons. Respondent No. 1 who was armed with Gupti gave Gupti blow to the deceased in chest and abdomen; Respondent No. 2 who was armed with pipe gave pipe blow to the deceased in the chest while Respondent No. 3 who was armed with Dhoka, gave Dhoka blow to the deceased. Respondent No. 1 who was armed with Gupti gave Gupti blow to the deceased in chest and abdomen; Respondent No. 2 who was armed with pipe gave pipe blow to the deceased in the chest while Respondent No. 3 who was armed with Dhoka, gave Dhoka blow to the deceased. Depositions adduced by three witnesses, namely, PW No. 3 Champaben Patni vide Exh. 22, PW 4 Meghnaben Patni vide Exh. 23 and PW 5 Vijay vide Exh. 33, are corroborated by the depositions of PW 1 Dr. Ashwinkumar Ramrathmal Sanghvi at Exh. 14 as well as PW 2 Dr. Yogesh Mahendrabhai Yadav at Exh. 17. PW 2 Dr. Jadav who carried out post-mortem on the dead body of deceased has narrated in his deposition the internal as well as external injuries sustained by the deceased and the cause of death has been clearly mentioned by him in his deposition to be ‘due to injuries caused on the chest and shock and haemorrhage’. The depositions adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the two doctors are corroborated by the complaint Exh. 50 given by PW 3 Champaben, panchnama of the place of the incident Exh. 43, panchnama of recovery of muddamal Articles Exh. 54, panchnama of recovery of clothes put on by the respondents Exh. 52 as well as FSL report. Learned APP submitted that considering the overwhelming evidence adduced by the prosecution, the prosecution has been able to successfully establish the involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence and, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and the respondents be convicted for the offences as mentioned above. 5. Mr. Hriday C. Buch, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the prosecution has adduced the oral evidence of PW No. 3 Champaben Patni vide Exh. 22, PW 4 Meghnaben Patni vide Exh. 23 and PW 5 Vijay Patni vide Exh. 33. Considering the said depositions, there are many lacunae in their depositions and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted all the respondents for the offences charged against them. It is submitted that the incident in question took place on 18.6.1999 at about 9.00 p.m. and due to the scuffle, the respondents pelted stones on the deceased and other family members. Cross-complaint was also filed as the respondents too sustained injuries in the scuffle. It is submitted that the incident in question took place on 18.6.1999 at about 9.00 p.m. and due to the scuffle, the respondents pelted stones on the deceased and other family members. Cross-complaint was also filed as the respondents too sustained injuries in the scuffle. Therefore, it is submitted that considering the aforesaid aspect, the deceased and the family members were equally responsible for the cause of the incident. The prosecution has examined two doctors, namely PW 1 Dr. Ashwinkumar Sanghvi vide Exh. 14 and PW 2 Dr. Yogesh Jadav vide Exh. 17. No doubt, the doctors have examined the injured Vijay and the deceased and post-mortem was performed on the dead body of Arun by Dr. Yogesh Jadav. It is submitted that the prosecution has adduced the documentary evidence such as panchnama of place of incident, panchnama of clothes put on by the deceased, panchnama with regard to recovery of muddamal Articles, complaint, post-mortem report as well as medical certificate issued to the injured and the FSL report, but as depositions adduced by PW No. 3 Champaben Patni vide Exh. 22, PW 4 Meghnaben Patni vide Exh. 23 and PW 5 Vijay Patni vide Exh. 33 do not inspire confidence to upset the finding recorded by the trial Court, no interference is called for in the Appeal preferred by the State. Learned Advocate submitted that the depositions adduced by the prosecution witnesses, thus, bristle with contradictions and as the entire link connecting the respondents with the commission of offence is not established by the prosecution by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge requires to be upheld and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned Advocate has relied upon the following judgments:— [1] Babu Ram and others vs. State of Punjab, reported in [2008] 3 SCC 709; [2] Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in [2010] 2 SCC 333; [3] Ravishwar Manjhi and others vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in [2008] 16 SCC 561; [4] Chanan Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in [1979] 4 SCC 399; [5] Yogendra Morarji vs. State of Gujarat, reported in [1980] 2 SCC 218; [6] Hardas Sida Bhadarka Koli vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2009 [0] GLHEL-HC 222799; 5.1 The judgment cited by the learned Advocate in the case of Babu Ram and others reported in [2008] 3 SCC 709 has been relied upon in support of the submission that it is a well settled law that in a murder case, non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at the time of occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw following inferences:[i] that the prosecution has suppressed genesis and origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; [ii] that witnesses who have denied the presence of injuries on person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; [iii] that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on person of the accused, it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. 5.2 Learned advocate has relied upon Para 23 of the judgment reported in [2010] 2 SCC 333, which reads as under:— “It is a settled position of law that in order to justify the act of causing death of the assailant, the accused has simply to satisfy the Court that he has faced with an assault which caused a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The question whether the apprehension was reasonable or not is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be prescribed in this regard. The question whether the apprehension was reasonable or not is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be prescribed in this regard. The weapon used, the manner and nature of assault and other surrounding circumstances should be taken into account while evaluating whether the apprehension was justified or not.” 5.3 Learned advocate has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in [2008] 16 SCC 561, more particularly on Paras 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31 and 32 which are quoted hereunder. “22. Mr. Sengupta may be correct in his submission that the prosecution has not come out with the genesis of the occurrence. We also do not know as to why both the cases were not taken up by the same Court one after the other. We furthermore fail to understand as to how a criminal case of 1999 is still pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. 23. The learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court appeared to have proceeded on the premise that as the appellants had not been able to prove their defence, and therefore, the prosecution version should be accepted. The approach of the Courts below was, thus, not correct. The investigation was carried out in a slipshod manner. The FIR clearly showed that even before lodging of the FIR, investigation had started. The inquest was conducted, bloodstained grass and soil had been seized and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. 24. It is beyond anybody’s comprehension that if the incident had taken place at about 2’O clock and it took about one and half hours for P.W. 17 to reach the village Simultand, how the FIR was recorded at about 3.45 p.m. while the inquest report was prepared at about 4.05 p.m. and blood stained grass and soil was seized at about 5.00 p.m. The injured persons received grievous injuries. It was expected that they would be rendered some medical help at the earliest. They were unconscious and, thus, they should have been sent for treatment to a nearby hospital. It was absolutely necessary that at least some medical help is rendered to them. They reached Dr. Kejriwal’s Nursing Home at about 7.00 p.m. The following injuries were noticed by P.W.11, in his own words: “On Gour Das I found following injuries: 1. They were unconscious and, thus, they should have been sent for treatment to a nearby hospital. It was absolutely necessary that at least some medical help is rendered to them. They reached Dr. Kejriwal’s Nursing Home at about 7.00 p.m. The following injuries were noticed by P.W.11, in his own words: “On Gour Das I found following injuries: 1. Incised wound in left palm 9 cm x 1 cm cutting or superficial [illegible] 2. Abrasion on left shoulder joint. Aged within 6 hours. No. 1 by sharp instrument, 2nd by hard substance. No. 1 grievous in nature and 2 simple. On Puran Chand Das found following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound on scalp 5 cm x 0.6 cm x .5 cm avulsing on muscles. 2. Incised wound on (illegible) left scapula .10 cm x 1.2 cm. 3.Incised wound (illegible) left knee joint 8 cm x 10 cm. age within 6 hrs. Number one caused hard blunt object and another by sharp instrument. All the injuries are grievous the two injuries re in pen and signature Exh. 4 and 4A.” In response to all the relevant questions, his standard answer was “I do not remember”. 26. Whereas all the other prosecution witnesses were admitted in the hospital on the same day, P.W. 7 is said to have been admitted on the next day although he had suffered a grievous injury. It is not known whether he had been given any medical aid or not. Statement of none of the witnesses was recorded either on the day on which the occurrence had taken place or the day after. P.W. 1 was examined after the ‘Shradh Ceremony’ of deceased was over which would be about twelve days after the death. P.W. 3 stated that he was examined after one month. Statement of P.W. 7 was also taken after he was discharged from hospital, i.e., at least after a week. 27. The Investigating Officer in a case of this nature should have been examined. His examination by the prosecution was necessary to show that there had been a fair investigation. Unfortunately, even no site plan was prepared. There is nothing on record to show as to the exact place where the occurrence had taken place. It is stated that the house of the parties is divided by a road. His examination by the prosecution was necessary to show that there had been a fair investigation. Unfortunately, even no site plan was prepared. There is nothing on record to show as to the exact place where the occurrence had taken place. It is stated that the house of the parties is divided by a road. If that be so, it was all the more necessary to pin point the exact place of occurrence to ascertain who was the aggressor. 28. No doubt, a life is lost and two persons suffered grievous injuries but we must also notice the injuries suffered by two of the appellants as was disclosed by Dr. Virendra Kumar (D.W. 2) in his evidence. “On 31.10.1997 I was posted at M.O. at Chandankiyari. On that day at 9.30 p.m. I examined Ravishwar Manjhi s/o Berga Manjhi P.S.Chandankiyari, District Bokaro and found following injuries: 1) Incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/6" x 1/6" over left palm ventrally below (illegible) of thumb by sharp cutting substance. 2) Scratches at four places over both sides of back and upper portions due to sharp cutting instrument 6" and 5". 3) Incised wound at two places over right palm posteriorly 4" x ?” x 1" deep and 2" x ?” x ?” by sharp cutting instrument. 4) Age within 12 hours. 1 and 2 simple and 3 grievous. On the same day I examined Jaleshwar Manjhi,w/o Berga Manjhi of same village and found following injuries. 1) Incised wound at two places over head posterior and interior by sharp cutting substance 3" x =” x skin deep over top of head posteriorly. 2) 2" x ?” x skin deep over front head. 3) Complain of pain on whole body without illegible. Injury with 12 hours simple. The patient Ravishwar Manjhi was referred for X-ray and on receipt of the report both injuries on palm were found to be grievous. 29. The injuries being grievous in nature, the prosecution owed a duty to explain the same. It is unfortunate that the High Court did not take serious notice of the nature of injuries suffered by the appellants, relying on the decision of this Court in Ayodhya Ram alias Ayodhya Prasad Singh and Ors. vs. State of Bihar [ (1999) 9 SCC 139 ], wherein only minor injuries were suffered by the accused persons. 30. It is unfortunate that the High Court did not take serious notice of the nature of injuries suffered by the appellants, relying on the decision of this Court in Ayodhya Ram alias Ayodhya Prasad Singh and Ors. vs. State of Bihar [ (1999) 9 SCC 139 ], wherein only minor injuries were suffered by the accused persons. 30. Out of seven eyewitnesses, P.W. 7 was not believed by the Courts below. P.Ws. 4 and 5 were not present exactly at the place of occurrence. They are said to have witnessed only a part of the occurrence. All other eyewitnesses were related to the deceased. However, we do not hesitate to add that only on that ground their evidences should not be disbelieved. 31. Furthermore, there was no enmity between the parties. Only a case under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pending against them. Even in respect thereof, no documentary evidence was brought on record to show as to when the said proceeding was initiated and at whose instance. The prosecution witnesses merely supported the prosecution case that a death had taken place and two witnesses suffered grievous injuries but it was absolutely necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case to show that the accused were the aggressors. It was for that reason the genesis of the prosecution case must be held to have grave significance. 32. The very fact that the appellants had gone back to their house to come out with arms and caused injuries on the person of the deceased and injured persons may or may not be correct, but even accepting the prosecution case to be correct, evidently the prosecution party also went to their house and brought weapons from their house. If it is accepted that the appellants were armed with such deadly weapons, it must also be accepted that the prosecution witnesses would also be armed with such weapons. It is, inter alia, for this reason the production of ‘Sanha’ entry was necessary. If it is accepted that the appellants were armed with such deadly weapons, it must also be accepted that the prosecution witnesses would also be armed with such weapons. It is, inter alia, for this reason the production of ‘Sanha’ entry was necessary. We are not oblivious of the fact that a mere information received on phone by a Police Officer without any details as regards the identity of the accused or the nature of injuries caused by the victims as well as the name of the culprits may not be treated as FIR, but had the same been produced, the nature of information received by the police officer would have been clear. It is interesting to note that the High Court in its judgment recorded the following: “The explanation given by the prosecution witnesses that they could not notice the injuries, if any, on the person of the above named appellants on account of the fact that they themselves had sustained injuries and one of their own having sustained fatal injuries had died at the spot and the assault continued hardly for less than five minutes whereafter the assailants had fled away, appears to be a reasonable explanation as far as the injured witnesses are concerned. This, however, does not apply to the other eye witnesses, since they had an opportunity to see the entire occurrence from the beginning to end. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution and that by the defence, it appears that both sides had indulged in a free fight with each other in course of which, members of both the parties had sustained injuries. In the FIR of the counter case instituted by the appellant Ravishwar Manjhi, a feeble attempt to explain the injuries found on the person of the members of the prosecution party has been made. It is contended that it was in exercise of right of private defence by the appellants while resisting the advances made by the deceased that some injuries may have been caused to the deceased and other members of his family.” 5.4 Learned Advocate has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in [1979] 4 SCC 330, in support of the submission that the injuries sustained by the accused in a scuffle also require to be taken into consideration. The High Court having rejected the fundamental detail of the prosecution version and having held that the true version of the occurrence was not presented by the prosecution, erred in upholding that conviction of the appellant for individual assault by reconstructing a new case. It is true that the defence case also has not been accepted by the High Court, but once there is a probability of the accused having acted in self-defence, that is sufficient to entitle him to an acquittal. 5.5 The case reported in [1980] 2 SCC 218 has been relied upon by the learned Advocate in support of the submission that scuffle took place between the accused as well as the respondents during which the accused also sustained injuries and that fact cannot be overlooked by the Court while considering the entire evidence on the record of the case. 5.6 The case reported in 2009 GLHEIHC 222799 has been relied upon by the learned Advocate in support of the submission that considering the manner in which the offence is committed and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, the case of the respondents can be considered for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC, as during the heat of the moment, scuffle took place and injuries were caused to the deceased and in the scuffle, accused also received injuries. 5.7 Thus, learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that considering the ratio laid down in the above judgments, learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents from the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code [‘IPC’ for short] and in the alternative under Section 302 read with Section 114 of IPC as well as Section 324 read with Section 114 of IPC and Section 135[1] of the Bombay Police Act. 6. We have heard Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Advocate for the appellant State and Mr. Hriday C. Buch, learned Advocate for the respondents, at length and in great detail. We have perused the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 read with Section 114 of IPC as well as Section 324 read with Section 114 of IPC and Section 135[1] of the B.P. Act. We have perused the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 read with Section 114 of IPC as well as Section 324 read with Section 114 of IPC and Section 135[1] of the B.P. Act. We have also perused the record and proceedings of the present case. As regards the decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the respondents, there is no dispute about the ratio or propositions laid down in those judgments. Depositions adduced by the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PW 3 Champaben Patni at Exh. 22, PW 4 Meghna Patni at Exh. 23 and PW 5 Vijay Patni at Exh. 33 have been carefully perused by us. Deposition adduced by PW 1 Dr. Ashwinkumar Sanghvi at Exh. 14 who had examined the injured Vijaykumar, is also perused by us. Deposition of PW 2 Yogesh Jadav examined at Exh. 17, who carried out the post-mortem of the deceased Arun on 19.6.99 and the post-mortem report given by him has been taken into consideration by us. Deposition of PW 12 Pratapsinh Ravol, Investigating Officer examined in the present case vide Exh. 49 has been taken into consideration by us. On perusal of deposition of PW 3 Champaben at Exh. 22, she has deposed in her testimony that on the date of the incident on 18.6.99, deceased Arun was sleeping on the cot of Otla of the house after taking supper. Respondent No. 1 was walking past him when the leg of the deceased which was dangling from the cot touched Respondent No. 1 and as Respondent No. 1 started abusing the deceased, the deceased protested and a scuffle ensued and in the process, they reached the entrance of the Chawl. Complainant who was inside the house heard the noise and came out to see that the two were quarreling. She told her son-deceased not to quarrel with Respondent No. 1 and took him inside the house. Respondent No. 1 then went to his house and after sometime, all three respondents, armed with weapons came to the place of occurrence. Respondent No. 1 was armed with Gupti, Respondent No. 2 was armed with pipe, while Respondent No. 3 was armed with Dhoka. Respondent No. 1 then went to his house and after sometime, all three respondents, armed with weapons came to the place of occurrence. Respondent No. 1 was armed with Gupti, Respondent No. 2 was armed with pipe, while Respondent No. 3 was armed with Dhoka. As per the deposition of this witness Champaben, Respondent No. 1 gave one Gupti blow to deceased Arun in the chest as well as in the abdomen; Respondent No. 2 gave pipe blow to the deceased in the chest while Respondent No. 3 gave Dhoka blow to the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased fell down at the place of the incident and subsequently succumbed to injuries. Extensive cross-examination of this witness was done wherein, she re-iterated as to in what manner the incident took place and how the deceased was assaulted by all the three respondents. 7. PW 4 Meghna Patni has been examined at Exh. 23. She, in her testimony has deposed that the incident in question took place on 18.6.99 and at the material point of time, quarrel ensued between the deceased and the respondents. She has stated that Respondent No. 1 was armed with Gupti, Respondent No. 2 was armed with pipe and Respondent No. 3 was having Dhoka in his hand. It has further been stated by this witness in her deposition that during the quarrel, Respondent No. 1 gave Gupti blow on the chest as well as in abdomen of the deceased; Respondent No. 2 gave pipe blow to the deceased and Respondent No. 3 gave Dhoka blow to the deceased. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she had seen the respondents from a distance of about 2 feet. Assault was committed in the Osari situated near the door of the house. During the scuffle, her brother received injuries. She has stated that Respondent No. 3 gave Dhoka blow to the deceased, but she could not state as to how many blows were given to the deceased. She has stated that Respondent No. 2 gave pipe blow to the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground. 8. PW 5 Vijay Patni has been examined at Exh. 33. On perusal of his deposition, he has narrated the incident which took place on 18.6.99. She has stated that Respondent No. 2 gave pipe blow to the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground. 8. PW 5 Vijay Patni has been examined at Exh. 33. On perusal of his deposition, he has narrated the incident which took place on 18.6.99. He has deposed in his testimony that at the material point of time, he had seen the deceased Arun who was beaten by the respondents. Respondent No. 1 was having Gupti in his hand, Respondent No. 2 was having pipe in his hand and Respondent No. 3 was having Dhoka in his hand. It is deposed by him that Respondent No. 1 gave one Gupti blow to the deceased in the chest as well as in the abdomen; Respondent No. 2 gave pipe blow to the deceased in the chest, while Respondent No. 3 gave Dhoka blow to the deceased. This witness has further stated that he made an attempt to intervene in the scuffle and therefore, Respondent No. 2 gave a pipe blow on his head. In his cross-examination, this witness has deposed that he could not say as to how many blows were given by Respondent No. 3 to the deceased with Dhoka and on which portion of the body blow was given with Dhoka by Respondent No. 3. Thus, on perusal of depositions of the above three witnesses, namely, PW 3 Champaben Patni at Exh. 22, PW 4 Meghna Patni at Exh. 23 and PW 5 Vijay Patni at Exh. 33, it becomes clear that the respondents were involved in the commission of offence and they had a quarrel with the deceased and during the quarrel, Respondent No. 1, who was armed with Gupti, gave Gupti blow to the deceased in the chest as well as in the abdomen; Respondent No. 2 gave pipe blow to the deceased in the chest. PW 1 Dr. Ashwin Sanghvi, who is examined at Exh. 14 has stated in his deposition that Vijay Patni was brought to the hospital on 18.6.99 and as per the history given by Vijay Patni, during the scuffle, he was hit by the stones by the other side. After examining Vijay Patni, the doctor had issued certificate which is produced vide Exh. 15. Ashwin Sanghvi, who is examined at Exh. 14 has stated in his deposition that Vijay Patni was brought to the hospital on 18.6.99 and as per the history given by Vijay Patni, during the scuffle, he was hit by the stones by the other side. After examining Vijay Patni, the doctor had issued certificate which is produced vide Exh. 15. He has further deposed that the injury which was caused to the injured Vijay Patni, could be caused with pipe or a wooden Dhoka or with a hard and blunt substance. He has narrated the injuries sustained by the victim. He has further deposed that on the next day, he had examined Popatbhai Manilal and he had sustained two injuries, namely, on the right portion as well as in the middle portion of the head. He has stated that these injuries could have been caused with hard and blunt substance. Savitaben Popatlal was also examined by the doctor and she had sustained injuries in the middle portion of the head. PW 2 Dr. Yogesh Jadav is examined vide Exh. 17. He had carried out the post-mortem on the dead body of Arun when he was brought to the hospital on 19.6.99. PW 2 Dr. Yogesh Jadav found the following injuries on the external part of the body of the deceased:— “[1] 2.5 x 1 cm vertical stab wound on left side of chest to midline end 2 cm inferior to nipple plane, margins of wound are cut sharply and inverted. [2] 2 x 1 x 1 cm incised wound on medial and superior of Rt. elbow directed downwards posteriorly. [3] 4 cm Linear incised wound limited to skin on Rt. Lower chest lateral aspect directed downward anterior. [4] 2.5 cm transverse linear incised wound limited to skin on lateral end lower abdomen. [5] 1.5 x 1 cm contusion on abrasion on lateral and upper part of left hip, 4 cm inferior to injury No. 4. [6] 3.1 cm transverse contusion abrasion posterior to injury No. 5.” Thus, there are contradictions in the depositions adduced by the prosecution witnesses as well as PW 1 Dr. Ashwinkumar Sanghvi. Likewise, there are contradictions in the depositions adduced by PW 4 Meghna Patni and PW 5 Vijay Patni with regard to the injuries inflicted by Respondent No. 3 to the deceased as well as to the injured. Ashwinkumar Sanghvi. Likewise, there are contradictions in the depositions adduced by PW 4 Meghna Patni and PW 5 Vijay Patni with regard to the injuries inflicted by Respondent No. 3 to the deceased as well as to the injured. Both these witnesses could not say with precision as to how many Dhoka blows were given by Respondent No. 3 to the deceased and on which portion of the body. 9. Investigating Officer is examined in the present case at Exh. 49. He has deposed in his testimony as to how investigation was carried out in pursuance to the complaint given by PW 3 Champaben Patni. He has deposed that he had visited the place of offence, prepared panchnama in presence of panch witnesses as well as panchnama of recovery of clothes. He had seized weapons which were used in the commission of offence at the behest of Respondent No. 2 and had prepared panchnama in respect thereof. Thereafter, he had recorded statements of witnesses and had sent the muddamal to FSL and on receipt of analysis report, injury certificate as well as post-mortem report, respondents were charge-sheeted. We have also perused the complaint given by PW 3 Champaben Patni as well as other documentary evidence such as panchnama of place of incident, panchnama of seizure of clothes put on by the respondents, panchnama of recovery of weapons at the behest of Respondent No. 2, injury certificate as well as post-mortem report which are produced by the prosecution on the record of the case. 10. Depositions adduced by panch witnesses are also carefully perused by us. However, on consideration and evaluation of the entire gamut of oral depositions and documentary evidence, it is clear that Respondent No. 1 who was armed with Gupti gave Gupti blow to the deceased on the chest and abdomen, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The deposition adduced by PW 3 Champaben Patni is corroborated by her own complaint as well as depositions adduced by PW 4 Meghna Patni at Exh. 23 and PW 5 Vijay Patni at Exh. 33. Necessary corroboration is also forthcoming from the deposition adduced by PW 2 Dr. Yogesh Jadav at Exh. 17. The deposition adduced by PW 3 Champaben Patni is corroborated by her own complaint as well as depositions adduced by PW 4 Meghna Patni at Exh. 23 and PW 5 Vijay Patni at Exh. 33. Necessary corroboration is also forthcoming from the deposition adduced by PW 2 Dr. Yogesh Jadav at Exh. 17. As narrated by us, injuries, both external as well as internal, sustained by the deceased have been elaborately narrated by the doctor and the doctor has given an opinion that the death of the deceased could have been caused because of the injuries sustained in the chest and as a result of shock and haemorrhage. We have also considered the provisions of Section 302 as well as Section 304 Part-II. Respondent No. 1 was armed with Gupti and he assaulted the deceased but from the evidence it appears to us that Respondent No. 1 had the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but Respondent No. 1 had no intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. We have also considered the mitigating circumstances such as assault committed by the deceased and his family members on the respondents, as a result of which they had also sustained some injuries. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to convict the Respondent No. 1 under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. So far as Respondent No. 2 is concerned, it has come in the evidence that he was having pipe and he gave pipe blow on the chest of the deceased. However, considering the injuries sustained by the deceased and the opinion given by the doctor, the doctor has clearly opined that the cause of death is shock and haemorrhage due to stab injury on the chest. The said injury could be possible by a sharp-edged weapon which is attributed to Respondent No. 1. Therefore, Respondent No. 2 deserves to be acquitted. Considering the deposition adduced by the prosecution witnesses, role attributed to Respondent No. 3 is not established in conclusive manner by adducing evidence in cogent and conclusive manner. The said injury could be possible by a sharp-edged weapon which is attributed to Respondent No. 1. Therefore, Respondent No. 2 deserves to be acquitted. Considering the deposition adduced by the prosecution witnesses, role attributed to Respondent No. 3 is not established in conclusive manner by adducing evidence in cogent and conclusive manner. There are many contradictions in the depositions adduced by PW 3 Champaben Patni, PW 4 Meghnaben Patni and PW 5 Vijay Patni and considering the contradictions in their depositions, Respondent No. 3, in our view, deserves to be given benefit of doubt as the injury inflicted by him has not been specifically narrated by all the witnesses in consistent manner during the course of their depositions before the trial Court. Thus, considering the oral depositions discussed herein above and the documentary evidence, there are many chinks in the armour of the prosecution case so far as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned and they, in our view deserve to be acquitted for the offences charged against them. The depositions adduced by witnesses are consistent in nature and in consonance even with the complaint given by PW 3 Champaben Patni so far as Respondent No. 1 is concerned. In view of the above, the Appeal filed by the State deserves to be partly allowed. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and order dated 7th August, 2000 passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No. 274 of 1999 is hereby quashed and set aside in so far as Respondent No. 1 is concerned. Respondent No. 1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 [Ten] years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand], in default of payment of fine, Respondent No. 1 shall undergo rigorous imprisonment of further 6 months. 12. So far as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, judgment and order of acquittal dated 7th August, 2000 passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No. 274 of 1999 against them is hereby confirmed and they are acquitted for the offences charged against them. 13. 12. So far as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, judgment and order of acquittal dated 7th August, 2000 passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No. 274 of 1999 against them is hereby confirmed and they are acquitted for the offences charged against them. 13. As Respondent No. 1 is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled and he shall surrender before the jail authority within 6 [six] weeks from the date of this judgment. Bail bonds of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall stand cancelled. Muddamal Articles be disposed of in terms of judgment and order passed by the learned City Sessions Judge.