Judgment A.L. Dave, J.—Following seven persons came to be tried by Sessions Court, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No. 210/2004, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 504, 506(2) read with Sections 149, 147 & 148 of the Indian Penal Code [“IPC” for short]:— (1) Thakore Laxmanji Mohanji (2) Thakore Vinuji Mohanji (3) Thakore Bakaji Chunaji (4) Thakore Babuji Chunaji (5) Thakore Mohanji Rupsangji (6) Thakore Ramtuji Rupsangji (7) Thakore Chunaji Rupsangji. By judgment and order dated 13.05.2005, the trial Court acquitted Thakore Vinuji Mohanji (orig. accused No. 2), Thakor Ramtuji Rupsangji (orig. accused No. 6) and Thakore Chunaji Rupsangji (orig. accused No. 7) of the offences with which they were charged; whereas convicted rest of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. They were sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, each of them to undergo S.I for one year, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. For committing offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo R.I for three years with fine of Rs. 1500/- each, in default, each of them to undergo S.I for three months. They were sentenced till rising of the court for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Resultantly, original accused No. 3 (Thakore Bakaji Chunaji) and accused No. 4 (Thakore Babuji Chunaji) have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2005 and original accused No. 1 (Thakore Laxmanji Mohanji) and accused No. 5 (Thakore Mohanji Rupsangji) have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 783/2006. 2.1 Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order and incident, they are heard together and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the appellants are referred to by their original accused numbers as arrayed in the Sessions Case. 3. The appellants are represented by learned advocate Mr. Thakore; whereas the respondent-State is represented by learned A.P.P. Mr. Pandya. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Thakore for the appellants submitted that the prosecution case mainly depends on ocular evidence of two persons claiming to be eye-witnesses, but if their depositions are seen, it is clear that neither of them could have been stated to be an eye-witness. Thakore; whereas the respondent-State is represented by learned A.P.P. Mr. Pandya. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Thakore for the appellants submitted that the prosecution case mainly depends on ocular evidence of two persons claiming to be eye-witnesses, but if their depositions are seen, it is clear that neither of them could have been stated to be an eye-witness. The material inconsistency between their depositions and their own admissions will prove that they were not present when the incident occurred. 4.1 Mr. Thakore submitted further that the FSL report would indicate that there were no marks of blood on the weapons allegedly used in commission of the crime. He submitted further that the medical evidence does not corroborate the version of eye witnesses, so far as the injuries are concerned. As per the eye-witnesses, injury was caused on the head with dharia, whereas, as per the medical evidence, injury was possible with a hard and blunt substance. Mr. Thakore submitted that with this weak piece of evidence the trial Court has recorded the conviction, which is an error and may be rectified by allowing these appeals. 4.2 Mr. Thakore submitted that barring the two eye-witnesses, there is no direct evidence to implicate the appellants, except in the case of accused Bakaji on whose clothes bloodstains were found. The bloodstains were of human blood of group ‘AB’. The blood group of Bakaji is also same, so also that of the deceased. Therefore, find of blood itself and non-explanation for the presence of blood would not lead to any inference of involvement of the accused in the crime. There is only one of the circumstances and not a complete chain. Even this circumstance does not point guilt of the accused for the reason that the blood group of accused Bakaji himself is ‘AB’ and possibility of that blood being that of accused Bakaji cannot be ruled out. Learned advocate Mr. Thakore submitted that, therefore, both the appeals may be allowed and the conviction may be set aside. 5. Learned A.P.P has opposed these appeals. According to him, find of blood on the clothes of Bakaji is not explained by Bakaji. As per his arrest panchnama, he had no injury on his person and, therefore, this could not have been his blood and the blood on his clothes was that of the deceased. 5. Learned A.P.P has opposed these appeals. According to him, find of blood on the clothes of Bakaji is not explained by Bakaji. As per his arrest panchnama, he had no injury on his person and, therefore, this could not have been his blood and the blood on his clothes was that of the deceased. He submitted that if that is so, his involvement in the incident cannot be ruled out. The trial Court has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects. The learned A.P.P. Mr. Pandya lastly submitted that the judgment is well-considered and this Court may not interfere with it, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 6. As per the prosecution case, the incident occurred on 8.6.2004 between 17.00 and 17.30 hours in the outskirts of village Chaluva, when first informant Ramsangji Kanaji Thakore and deceased Prahladji Kanaji were repairing their hedge in their fields. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons went there in furtherance of their common object and caused death of Prahladji. 7. The prosecution examined Ramsangji Kanaji Thakore at Exh.21 and his wife Shardaben at Exh.41 to prove the guilt of the accused persons. However, the trial Court did not believe the case against three accused and convicted rest four accused, on the same set of evidence. 8. Having examined the record and proceedings in the context of rival submissions, we find from the evidence of Ramsangji and Shardaben that as per their own admissions in their cross-examination, they could not have witnessed the actual occurrence. 8.1 Ramsangji in his deposition (exh.21) clearly describes the incident and involves the accused persons with their respective weapons. However, in examination-in-chief he says that after the incident was over and Prahladji fell to the ground, his wife came to the spot. This would be a factor which will have to be considered while examining the evidence of witness Shardaben. The witness says that the assailants ran away on seeing his wife. The deceased was brought to Mehsana hospital and was declared dead. During his cross-examination, number of questions were put on topography of the place of incident and on the occurrence. He says that his wife Shardaben came to the field after about ten minutes of his reaching the field. He speaks about the assault on him and the deceased. He says that the accused persons came, started abusing and then committed assault. He says that his wife Shardaben came to the field after about ten minutes of his reaching the field. He speaks about the assault on him and the deceased. He says that the accused persons came, started abusing and then committed assault. He denies that he had any dispute or quarrel with Mohanji. He, at a later point of time, admits that his wife came to the field after 15 minutes since his reaching the field. It is also stated that when Shardaben reached there, Prahladji had injury on his person and simultaneously he fell down. He admits that when Shardaben came to the spot, Prahladji was lying on the ground in dead condition. He admits that when he reached home, his wife Shardaben had gone to the field and she found his brother lying in the field in bleeding condition. This would mean that he reached the spot after the occurrence when the deceased was lying in a bleeding condition. He suspected Mohanji. He then went to beat Mohanji and, therefore, Mohanji gave him thrash. He admits that in the hospital he had given names of the assailants. He says that he could not give names of other assailants to the doctor, though it was specifically enquired of him by the doctor. 9. Shardaben is examined at Exh.41. In her examination-in-chief she speaks about the incident in detail. However, in her cross-examination she admits that her clothes were stained with the blood of the deceased. She says that she went in an auto-rickshaw to lodge FIR and came back within half an hour. 10. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of these two witnesses that neither of them could have seen the occurrence. The possibility of both of them reaching the place of incident at a later point of time after the incident was over cannot be ruled out and their depositions, therefore, cannot be used to hold that the accused persons were involved in the offences for which they were tried. This would also lead to a situation, where direct evidence having been found untrustworthy, to examine the circumstances also. So far as accused Bakaji is concerned, his clothes were found to be stained with human blood of “AB” group. It was, therefore, contended that he ought to have been involved in the incident. 11. This would also lead to a situation, where direct evidence having been found untrustworthy, to examine the circumstances also. So far as accused Bakaji is concerned, his clothes were found to be stained with human blood of “AB” group. It was, therefore, contended that he ought to have been involved in the incident. 11. On the other hand, it is argued that this is only a piece of circumstantial evidence and would not connect the accused with the crime in absence of other circumstances. 12. We may record that the clothes of accused Bakaji did carry stains of human blood of “AB” group. 13. But, it is also to be noted that the blood of Bakaji is also of the same group and, therefore, the possibility of that blood being that of accused Bakaji also cannot be ruled out. Against this, it is argued by Mr. Pandya that Bakaji had no injury on his person, but, then the possibility of these bloodstains being old and prior to the incident cannot be ruled out. There is no evidence to show that these bloodstains were not there prior to the incident. In our opinion, therefore, presence of blood on the clothes of Bakaji cannot be a ground for holding that he is involved in the incident. 14. The resultant effect of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution evidence in the form of direct ocular evidence of Ramsangji Thakore and his wife Shardaben is found to be not believable and, therefore, there is no other direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime. So far as the circumstantial evidence are concerned, there is only one circumstance and, that too, only against accused Bakaji, viz. presence of bloodstains on the clothes of accused Bakaji of the group of his own and the possibility of that blood being of his own cannot be ruled out. That apart, there is no other circumstance to connect either accused Bakaji or any other accused with the offence. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the case against the accused persons. 15. Both the appeals, therefore, must succeed and are allowed. The conviction of the appellants, namely, Thakore Bakaji Chunaji, Thakore Babuji Chunaji, Thakore Laxmanji Mohanji and Thakore Mohanji Rupsangji, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No. 210/2004, by judgment and order dated 13.05.2005, is hereby set aside. 15. Both the appeals, therefore, must succeed and are allowed. The conviction of the appellants, namely, Thakore Bakaji Chunaji, Thakore Babuji Chunaji, Thakore Laxmanji Mohanji and Thakore Mohanji Rupsangji, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No. 210/2004, by judgment and order dated 13.05.2005, is hereby set aside. They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Original accused Nos. 1, 3 & 5 (I.e. Thakore Laxmanji Mohanji, Thakore Bakaji Chunaji and Thakore Mohanji Rupsangji) be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Bail bond of accused No. 4-Thakore Babuji Chunaji shall stand cancelled, as he is on bail. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellants.