JUDGMENT MR. R. M. CHHAYA, J. 1. THE present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 26.7.2002, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Baroda, in Sessions Case No. 323/2000, convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ["IPC" for short] and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to undergo further R.1 for one year. 2. THE prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 20.9.2000 at about 9.00 A.M, the appellants-accused in furtherance of their common intention, knowingly caused serious injuries to deceased Meghjibhai Dhanabhai Bharvad on his chest, head, left side of the body below ribs and stomach, with deadly weapons like knife and big sized chhari and thereby committed his murder, on a public road near Bird Circle (sic. Chakli circle), Race Course Road, Baroda. It is the case of the prosecution that on the previous day of the incident, a scuffle had taken place between accused No.1- Nirmal and deceased Meghjibhai and, therefore, for taking revenge, on 20.9.2000 at about 8.45 A.M, when deceased Meghjibhai was passing through Chakali Circle in Racecourse area, on his scooty, he was struck down and assaulted by the appellants-accused with deadly weapons like knife and chhari. Appellant No. 1 was armed with knife and appellant. No.2 was armed with chhari. It is the further case of the prosecution that one Govindbhai Valjibhai, who was serving in a shop situated nearby Racecourse Circle and had come to the shop, on hearing hubbub, went to the place of the incident. Thereafter, the appellants- accused ran away on their motorbike. Govindbhai lifted the head of Meghjibhai and kept in his lap. One Ramesh Mohan, who happened to be a friend of deceased Meghjibhai, on coming to know about the assault, came to the place of incident and found that Meghjibhai was lying in a bleeding condition. Therefore,' immediately Rameshbhai shifted Meghjibhai to SSG Hospital. On reaching the hospital, Dr.Uday Prakash examined Meghjibhai and he noticed about 17 injuries on the person of Meghjibhai. Meghjibhai succumbed to the injuries at about 9.15 A.M. It is the further case of the prosecution that Bhailalbhai Dhanjibhai Bharvad, brother of deceased Meghjibhai, was informed about the incident by his cousin Bhavesh. On reaching the hospital, Dr.Uday Prakash examined Meghjibhai and he noticed about 17 injuries on the person of Meghjibhai. Meghjibhai succumbed to the injuries at about 9.15 A.M. It is the further case of the prosecution that Bhailalbhai Dhanjibhai Bharvad, brother of deceased Meghjibhai, was informed about the incident by his cousin Bhavesh. Therefore, Bhailalbhai went to the place of occurrence and from there, he went to SSG Hospital, where he found Meghjibhai dead. Bhailalbhai, therefore, went to J.P. Road Police Station, where he lodged FIR. On the basis of the FIR lodged by Bhailalbhai, the brother of deceased Meghjibhai, offence was registered and investigation was started. The investigating officer recorded the statements of those persons who were found to be conversant with the facts of the case. Incriminating articles, seized during the course of investigating, were sent to F.S.L for analysis. On completion of investigation, the appellants were charge sheeted in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Baroda, for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. As the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed for trial to Sessions Court, Baroda, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 323/2000. 3. THE learned Judge of the trial Court framed charge against the appellants at Exh.14 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the appellants, who pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove its case against the appellant. 4. AFTER recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Judge of the trial Court explained to the appellants the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and recorded their further statements as required by Section 313 IPC. In their further statements, the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them by the trial Court and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case. In their further statements, the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them by the trial Court and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case. On appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution and considering the evidence on record and submissions made on behalf of both the sides, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the appellants and recorded their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and awarded sentence referred to earlier, giving rise to instant appeal. 5. HEARD Mr. C. J. Vin, learned Counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. Mr. K.L. Pandya for the State at length and in great detail. 6. MR. Vin, learned Counsel for the appellants, after taking us through the entire evidence on record, submitted that the evidence of eye witnesses are full of major contradictions as well as omissions and, therefore, their evidence should not have been relied upon by the learned Judge for the purpose of holding that they had witnessed the incident. The learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the evidence on record clinchingly establishes that none of the witnesses had witnessed the incident while making assault on deceased Meghjibhai and, therefore, the evidence of the eye witnesses ought to have been disbelieved by the trial Court. MR. Vin has asserted that there are several inconsistencies in the oral testimonies of all the three eye witnesses and, therefore, their presence at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful, which renders their testimonies untrustworthy. He has pleaded that first informant Bhailalbhai, who lodged the FIR is not an eye witness. MR.Vin argued that Bhailalbhai lodged the FIR only on the basis of the information received by him from his cousin Bhavesh. MR. Vin has submitted that the first information report is not exhibited, which is fatal, as the very basis of the prosecution case is not proved by the prosecution. MR. Vin has further submitted that though it is clear from the evidence of Bhailalbhai, first informant, (PW.1, Exh.30) that he had no personal knowledge about the incident and that the FIR was lodged on the basis of the information given by Bhavesh, said Bhavesh is not examined. MR. Vin has further submitted that though it is clear from the evidence of Bhailalbhai, first informant, (PW.1, Exh.30) that he had no personal knowledge about the incident and that the FIR was lodged on the basis of the information given by Bhavesh, said Bhavesh is not examined. He pleaded that similarly name of appellant No.2 - Jaymal was not given and only the name of appellant No.1 - Nirmal was given by the first informant in the FIR. MR. Vin has argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive. He submitted that even though it has come in evidence that in order to take revenge due to earlier incident of scuffle, which took place between appellant No. 1 and the deceased on the previous day, i.e. on 19.9.2000, it is not believable that the appellants- accused assaulted deceased Meghjibhai, because on the contrary, it was appellant No.1, who filed complaint against deceased Meghjibhai in connection with the said incident of scuffle. "Learned Counsel Mr. Vin for the appellants submitted that there is material inconsistency in the medical evidence on record also, inasmuch as Dr. Uday S. Prakash, (PW.9 Exh.45), who examined deceased Meghjibhai in first point of time when he was taken to the hospital, noticed 17 injuries, whereas Dr. Kishorbhai Desai, (PW.2 Exh.31), who performed autopsy on the dead body of deceased Meghjibhai, noticed as many as 21 injuries. Mr. Vin has pointed out that Dr. Uday Prakash has stated in his evidence that Injury No.8 is possible by a bullet; whereas such an injury has disappeared from the evidence of Dr. Keshor Desai as well as from the post-mortem notes, and no investigation is carried out and/ or explanation is offered by the prosecution as regards Injury No.8 (i.e. bullet injury). Mr. Vin, therefore, stressed that there is material inconsistency, contradiction and omission in the ocular evidence as well as medical evidence. He submitted that even from the Serological Report it transpires that the scene of offence, as put forward by the prosecution, is also not free from doubt, inasmuch as the soil collected from the scene of offence, as indicated in the serological report, was not having any bloodstains and in the said report, it is mentioned "undecided". Mr. He submitted that even from the Serological Report it transpires that the scene of offence, as put forward by the prosecution, is also not free from doubt, inasmuch as the soil collected from the scene of offence, as indicated in the serological report, was not having any bloodstains and in the said report, it is mentioned "undecided". Mr. Vin also pointed out that on mere comparison of injuries described in the evidence of Dr.Uday Prakash and Dr.Kishor Desai, there is major contradiction in the nature of injuries. The evidence of Dr.Uday reveals 15 CLW injuries; whereas the PM notes and the oral testimony of Dr.Kishor Desai indicate 12 stab wounds injuries. Mr. Vin lastly submitted that the prosecution has, thus, failed to prove the charge levelled against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt and they have been wrongly implicated in the present crime and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge is liable to be set aside." 7. MR. K.L. Pandya. learned A.P.P., has opposed this appeal. He has contended that all the three eye witnesses have clearly narrated the occurrence of offence at the hands of the appellants-accused. It was argued by MR. Pandya that taking into consideration the nature of injuries noticed on the dead body of the deceased, the same clearly correspond with the weapons used by the appellants. MR. Pandya contended that only because the FIR Mark 20/2 is not proved, it cannot be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges levelled against the appellants. MR. Pandya has pointed out that the weapon knife was recovered at the instance of the appellants-accused. What was stressed by MR.Pandya was that appellant No.1, who was armed with knife and appellant No.2, who was armed with chhari had caused serious injuries to the deceased by their respective weapons, and as the evidence of eye witnesses gets ample corroboration from the medical evidence, the well founded conviction of the appellants should not be interfered with by the Court in the present appeal. The learned Counsel for the State submitted that no error is committed by the learned Judge in appreciating the evidence on record and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. 8. The learned Counsel for the State submitted that no error is committed by the learned Judge in appreciating the evidence on record and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. 8. WE have examined the record and proceedings in the context of rival submissions advanced at the Bar and reappreciated the whole evidence on record. So far as the incident in question is concerned, the prosecution has examined witness Govindbhai Valjibhai Bharvad, who happened to be the nephew of deceased Meghjibhai, as PW.3 at Exh.32, to prove its case against the appellants. This witness has stated in his substantive evidence before the Court that the incident had taken place at about 8.45 A.M., near Chakli Circle, when he was standing outside the shop situated in Meghdhanushy Apartment, near Racecourse Circle and on hearing hubbub, he went at the place of incident and saw that the appellants were beating deceased Meghjibhai with knife and chhari. He has also stated that appellant No. 1 - Nirmal had a knife and appellant No.2 - Jaymal had a chhari. In his cross-examination, the witness has stated that when he lifted the head of deceased Meghji in his lap, his clothes were stained with blood, however the same were not seized by the police. This witness has stated in his testimony that Ramesh Pardeshi, who happened to be a friend of deceased Meghjibhai, was not present at the time of occurrence of the incident and he did not ask him as to who were the assailants and the witness had not informed Ramesh about the assailants. The witness has further stated before the Court that he had informed his uncle Bhailabhai as to who beat deceased Meghjibhai 9. UPON reading the evidence of witness Ramesh Mohanbhai, who is examined as PW.7 at Exh.42, we find that he is not an eye witness, as he had not seen the occurrence. This witness has stated in his evidence that Bakabhai, who owned a shop opposite his shop, informed him that something had happened and, therefore, he accompanied Bakabhai on his motorbike and reached chakli circle where they found Meghjibhai in bleeding condition and saw a boy holding head of Meghjibhai in his lap and crying "uncle, uncle". This witness has stated that he and the boy took Meghjibhai to SSG Hospital in a rickshaw. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. This witness has stated that he and the boy took Meghjibhai to SSG Hospital in a rickshaw. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. He has stated in his cross examination that his shop was situated at such a juncture that he could not see the occurrence. He has further stated that Govind was present when he reached at the place of occurrence and Govind accompanied him to the hospital. In his cross-examination, the witness has stated that he had not given the names of the assailants to the doctor. Thus, on the basis of evidence of the so-called eye witness, the appellants cannot be convicted. 10. WITNESS Bhailalbhai Dhanjibhai Bharvad, who happened to be the brother of deceased Meghjibhai, is examined as PW.1 at Exh.30. He has stated in his deposition that while he was proceeding towards Haribhakti Society, his cousin Bhavesh met him near Minakshi society and informed him that the appellants-accused had assaulted Meghjibhai and, therefore, he went near Income-tax Office, Racecourse Circle and near the gate of Central Excise Office on the road, he found bloodstains as well as kinetic and rosary (in broken condition) of his brother Meghjibhai. He. therefore, immediately went to the Hospital and reached in emergency ward, where he found Meghjibhai dead. In his deposition, this witness has stated that in the hospital he came to know that the appellants-accused had assaulted upon his brother Meghjibhai. He has also stated that there was some scuffle between Meghjibhai and appellant No.1- Nirmal on the previous day. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted the fact that Bhavesh had told that Nirmal and his brother had assaulted deceased Meghjibhai, however, he had not given the name of appellant No.2 - Jaymal. He has further stated in his cross-examination that Bhavesh had informed him that deceased Meghjibhai was assaulted with sword and gupti. In his cross- examination, the witness has stated that the FIR was lodged by him as per the version given by Bhavesh. He has further stated that he had inquired about the incident from Govind Valji, Babu Fakir and other drivers at the hospital. The witness has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the version that appellant-accused No.1-Nirmal had beaten his brother Meghjibhai with gupti and sword, was given as told by Bhavesh. This witness has maintained that the injuries were caused to the deceased Meghjibhai with sword and gupti. The witness has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the version that appellant-accused No.1-Nirmal had beaten his brother Meghjibhai with gupti and sword, was given as told by Bhavesh. This witness has maintained that the injuries were caused to the deceased Meghjibhai with sword and gupti. Jaydipsinh Narvatsinh, who is examined as PW.4 at Exh.33, has stated in his evidence that he was present at the Chakli Circle. He has further stated that the appellants assaulted deceased Meghjibhai with knife and chhari and he succumbed to the injuries. He has stated that he knew appellant-accused No.1 because he also owned tempo and accused No. 1 used to park his tempo at the same place. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that at the time of occurrence of the incident, about 15 tempo drivers were present. He has stated that Govindbhai and Ramesh Pardeshi had come to the place of occurrence after about five minutes and neither Govindbhai nor Ramesh had inquired from him as to who assaulted deceased Meghjibhai. Me has also stated that one Sanjaybhai, who was holding a fast-food lorry, Babubhai Fakirbhai Nayak and Jayantibhai Vithalbhai Tadvi were also present at the place of occurrence. 11. SANJAYBHAI Vithoba Uttekar, who claims to be an eye witness, is examined as PW.8 at exh.43. He has stated in his oral testimony that he used to keep his lorry opposite Tempo Stand and used to serve fast-food to public. He has also stated that appellant No.1- Nirmal had come there with his tempo and after some time appellant No.2 - Jaymal had also come there and thereafter both of them went back with their tempo. This witness has stated in his deposition that after sometime, appellant Nos.1 and 2 came back on motorbike and parked the motorbike near his lorry and they were waiting for somebody. He has further stated that one person came from Harinagar on a kinetic and the appellants started beating him. He has also deposed that appellant No.1- Nirmal had a knife and appellant No.2- Jaymal had a chhari and as he was scared due to the incident, he had run away. He has admitted in his cross- examination that he was not knowing deceased Meghjibhai. 12. DR. Uday S.Prakash, who examined deceased Meghjibhai first in point of time, is examined as PW.9 at Exh.45. He has admitted in his cross- examination that he was not knowing deceased Meghjibhai. 12. DR. Uday S.Prakash, who examined deceased Meghjibhai first in point of time, is examined as PW.9 at Exh.45. He has stated in his oral testimony that deceased Meghjibhai was brought to the hospital in injured condition by Ramesh Mohanbhai. He has also stated in his evidence that Rameshbhai informed him that some unknown/unidentified persons had assaulted deceased Meghjibhai at about 8.50 hours with weapons near Income-tax Office, Racecourse Circle. The said doctor had noticed the following 17 injuries on the person of Meghjibhai when he was brought to the hospital :- 1. 5 x 7 x 0.5 cm contused lacerated wound ['CLW for short] on Rt.side of the head. 2. 6 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm CLW on the Rt.side of forehead. 3. 3 x 1 x 10 cm CLW on the Rt.side below the ear. 4. 1 x 0.5 x 05 cm CLW on Lt.cheek. 5. 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm CLW on Lt.side of the neck. 6. 2 x 1 x 1 cm CLW on Rt.side of neck. 7. 3 x 2 x 5 cm CLW on Rt.Shoulder. 8. There was cavity on the Rt.shoulder indicating passing of bullet. 9. 10 x 3 cm CLW below Rt.elbow. 10. 2 x 1.5 x 3 cm CLW on Lt.side of 2nd rib. 11.2x 1 x 3 cm wound on Lt.side ranging from 2nd rib to 8th rib. 12. 2 x 1 x 4 cm CLW on Rt.side of 7th rib. 13. 2 x 2 x 4 cm CLW in the middle of the chest on lower portion. 14. 2 x 7 x 6 cm CLW on Lt.side below the armpit. 15. 3 x 7 x 4 cm CLW on Lt.side on spinal cord. 16. 3 x 1.5 x 8 cm CLW on the back on Rt.side. 17. 1.5 x 0.5 x 7 cm CLW on Rt.knee. Similarly, Dr.Kishor Pramodrai Desai, who performed the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Meghibhai, is examined as PW.2 at Exh.31. He has stated in his oral testimony that he noticed the following 21 external injuries as well as 10 internal injuries on the dead body of Meghjibhai :- External injuries :- 1. A reddish pink contusion of 1.5 x 1.5 cm on front portion of Lt. ear.. 2. He has stated in his oral testimony that he noticed the following 21 external injuries as well as 10 internal injuries on the dead body of Meghjibhai :- External injuries :- 1. A reddish pink contusion of 1.5 x 1.5 cm on front portion of Lt. ear.. 2. 5 x 1 cm incised wound 3 cm above Rt. ear in horizontal plane, muscle deep. 3. 7 x 1 cm incised wound on Rt.side of the face above eyebrow, oblique, muscle deep. 4. Linear abrasion Rt.side of the face 6 x 0.25 cm horizontal. 5. Two linear abrasions of 6 x 1 cm on Lt.chcek parallel to each other 1 cm apart. 6. 6 x 1 cm incised wound, muscle deep on rear portion of Rt. Ear, 1 cm away. 7. Stab wound of 2.5 x 1 cm cavity deep on Lt.side of neck just below angle of mandible, elliptical, medial angle teethered. 8. Stab wound of 2.5 x 1 cm cavity deep on lower part of middle neck, acute upper angle and teethered lower angle. 9. stab wound of 3 x 1 cm size cavity deep below 2nd rib on front of Lt. chest, 5 cm above Lt. Nipple elliptical acute upper angle and lower angle teethered. 10. stab wound of size 3.5 x 1 cm cavity deep in 4th rib Lt.front of chest, 2 cm medial to lt. nipple, oblique, elliptical, both angle acute. 11. Stab wound of size 3 x 1 cm evity deep in Lt. 7th ICS (Inter-Costal- Space) in ant axillary line oblique, elliptical, both angle acute. 12. stab wound of size 3 x 2 cm cavity deep in epigastric region of front of abomen midline, horizontal, elliptical, 3 cm below xiphoid process both angle acute. 13. Stab wound of size 4 x 1 cm, cavity deep behind Lt. Axilla 10 cm below Lt. axilla elliptical, both angle acute. 14. stab wound of size 2.5 x 1.5 cm, cavity deep in post axillary line near 11th rib in Lt. Lumber region and 5 cm above Lt.iliac creat, elliptical, oblique, both angle acute 15. stab wound of size 6 x 1 cm, cavity deep, Rt. Upper parital region, 5 cm below Rt. shoulder top on Rt. font of chest, elliptical both angle acute 16. stab wound of size 3.5 x 1 cm, cavity deep on Rt. side of lower chest, 14 cm above Rt. stab wound of size 6 x 1 cm, cavity deep, Rt. Upper parital region, 5 cm below Rt. shoulder top on Rt. font of chest, elliptical both angle acute 16. stab wound of size 3.5 x 1 cm, cavity deep on Rt. side of lower chest, 14 cm above Rt. Iliac crest, oblique, elliptical both angle acute. 17. Abrasion of size 3 x 2 cm on Lt. thenar eminence, bright red. 18. Abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm on Rt. Middle finger tip, bright red. 19. CLW of size 6 x 6 cm with flap of size 3 x 2 cm on Rt.Elbow buks, muscle deep. 20. Stab would of size 4 x 1 cm muscle deep on Rt. Shoulder back, oblique, 14 cm below Rt.shoulder top, elliptical, oblique both angle acute. 21. Stab wound of size 2.5 x 1 cm muscle deep on Rt.front of knee, oblique, elliptical, both angles acute. Internal injuries :- 1. Brain was pale. 2. 2 x 1 cm size muscle on Lt.side chest below 2nd rib was found cut. 3. 2 x 1 cm size muscle on Lt.side in chest below 5th rib was found cut. 4. 500 cc blood was found collected in the cavity of Lt.side chest. 5. lxl cm size incised wound in Lt. Lung on upper portion. 6. 1 x 1 cm size incised wound in Lt.lung on lower portion on front side. 7. 2x1 cm size incised wound in Lt.lung base from upper to lower. Lt.lung was collapsed. 8. About 100 cc blood was found collected around the heart. 9. There was a cut of 2 x 1 cm on the back side, in the middle - left side, on outer cover of the heart. 10. There was a cut of 2 x 5 cm on back side of Lt. ventricle of the heart. This doctor has opined that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage following multiple stab injuries and injuries on vital organs, i.e. heart and lungs. He has also opined that abrasions and contusions would be caused with hard substance and stab wounds with sharp cutting weapon. According to him, punctured wound could be caused with a sharp edged rod. The doctor has stated in his cross- examination that injury Nos.4 and 5 could be caused with sharp cutting weapon and injury No.2 and 6 could be caused with a weapon like sword. 13. According to him, punctured wound could be caused with a sharp edged rod. The doctor has stated in his cross- examination that injury Nos.4 and 5 could be caused with sharp cutting weapon and injury No.2 and 6 could be caused with a weapon like sword. 13. THE sum total of the above discussion is that the prosecution has not been able to prove even the first information report lodged by PW.1- Bhailalbhai. There are several inconsistencies in the version of the so- called three eye witnesses and the same are not corroborated by other evidence, including medical evidence. The injuries described by the doctor, who first treated deceased Meghjibhai, as aforesaid, noticed 16 injuries, out of which, 15 were CLW and injury No.8 was bullet injury; whereas in the postmortem notes, 21 internal injuries arc described, out of which, one was contusion, two were incised wounds, two were linear abrasions, one CLW and rest of them were stab wounds. Thus, there are material inconsistencies between two pieces of medical evidence on record, which creates doubt on the credibility of oral testimonies of the three eye witnesses. The prosecution has not been able to prove the charges levelled against the appellants to its hilt. The oral testimonies of the three eye witnesses, therefore, creates doubts as regards time of occurrence and involvement of the appellants-accused therein. Therefore, the benefit of the same would go to the appellants-accused. 14. WE also noticed that one Bhavesh, from whom the first informant derived information about the incident and lodged the FIR, has not been examined by the prosecution. Similarly, it has come in evidence that Babu Fakir and other tempo drivers, who informed the first informant about the assault upon the deceased by the appellants, arc also not examined. As aforesaid, PW.9 Dr. Uday Prakash, who examined the deceased at the first instance at SSG Hospital when he was brought in injured condition, has stated in his deposition that the deceased had received a bullet injury being Injury No.8. The prosecution has not offered any explanation for the same. On perusal of Serological Report, we find that the sample of soil, which was taken from the place of occurrence, has remained undecided as regards presence of blood. The prosecution has not offered any explanation for the same. On perusal of Serological Report, we find that the sample of soil, which was taken from the place of occurrence, has remained undecided as regards presence of blood. We have also noticed that the bloodstains, which were found on the trouser (pants) of the accused, were having human blood group 'B', which did not match with human blood group 'A' of the deceased. As per the Serological Report, weapons knife and dragger were having bloodstains of human blood group 'A', which was the blood group of the deceased, but, that does not establish nexus between the accused and offence. On the basis of this sole piece of evidence, the appellants could not have been connected with the present crime. There are major contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies in the oral testimonies of the three eye witnesses, first informant and medical evidence on record also. As aforesaid, we find glaring contradictions in the medical evidence itself, more particularly, nature and seat of injuries as indicated by PW.9 Dr.Udaybhai, who examined the deceased first in point of time, and PW.2, Dr. Kishor Desai, who performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Cumulatively, therefore, this piece of evidence creates doubt on its credibility. The inconsistencies which are found in the evidence of the so- called eye witnesses and the medical evidence go to the root of the matter and pertain to significant aspects thereof. Having regard to the nature of incongruities obtaining in the evidence of the so-called eye witnesses and medical evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appeal deserves acceptance. 15. ON overall assessment of the evidence, as discussed above, we notice a large number of inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, ranging from the version emerging from the evidence of the so-called eye witnesses, evidence of two doctors and the FSL Report, we are of the view that the prosecution case could not have been accepted by the trial Court. The trial Court, therefore, erred in convicting the appellants. 16. WE, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Baroda in Sessions Case No.323/2000, by judgment and order dated 26.7.2002, and acquit the appellants of the charges levelled against them. The trial Court, therefore, erred in convicting the appellants. 16. WE, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Baroda in Sessions Case No.323/2000, by judgment and order dated 26.7.2002, and acquit the appellants of the charges levelled against them. Appellant No.1 - Nirmal Pravinbhai Ahir is on bail. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. Appellant No.2 - Jaymal Pravinbhai Ahir be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellants. Appeal allowed.