JUDGMENT A.L.DAVE, J. (1) These three appeals arise out of a judgment and order rendered by the Sessions Court, Amreli, in Sessions Case No.74/2004, on 15.03.2005. In all, six persons were arraigned as accused before the Sessions Court, out of whom, accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 came to be convicted for the offence of murder of one Sukhabhai Noghanbhai Bambhaniya committed on 9.6.2004 at about 20.30 hours by assaulting the deceased with deadly weapons and causing his death. The trial Court acquitted original accused Nos.4 and 5 of the charges levelled against them. The convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred Criminal Appeal No.696/2005 and are represented by learned advocate Mr.A.D.Shah, whereas original accused Nos.3 and 6 have preferred Criminal Appeal No.695/2005 and are represented by learned advocate Mr.K.B.Aandjiwala. 1.1 The State, being aggrieved by acquittal of original accused Nos.4 and 5, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.946/2008. (2) Since all these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order and the incident, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 695/2005 and 696/2005 and the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.946/2008 are referred to as the accused with reference to their original accused numbers. The facts of the case, in brief, can be stated thus:- 3.1 The incident took place on 9.6.2004 at about 8.30 P.M, in Khodiyar Chowk area at Hathsani Road, Savarkundla, District:Amreli. The FIR was lodged with Savarkundla Police Station by victim Sukhabhai Noghanbhai Bambhaniya, who ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 13.6.2004. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the deceased, an offence was registered and investigated by the police and ultimately, charge sheet was filed in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Savarkundla, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Amreli, as the offences alleged were exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. 3.2 Upon the case being committed to the Sessions Court, Amreli, Sessions Case No.74/2004 was registered and charge was framed against the six accused at Exh.11 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 504, 323, 336and 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.3 The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried. 3.3 The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried. The trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, rendered the judgment and order whereby original accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 came to be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life, whereas original accused Nos.4 and 5 came to be acquitted. Hence, these appeals. (3) The submissions made on behalf of the appellants (original accused Nos.1,2,3 and 6) in Criminal Appeal Nos.695/2004 and 696/2004 can be narrated thus:- (a) All the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile to the prosecution. (b) The conviction is founded mainly on the basis of the FIR given by the deceased and his further statement, treating both of them as his dying declaration. (c) The FIR and the statement would not inspire any confidence for the reason that the FIR (Exh.111) does not fix the identity of the assailants. Added to this, would be the fact that as per the evidence of the Doctor, when the deceased was brought to him, the deceased was in a semiconscious state of mind and was disoriented. He, therefore, could not have given FIR and the same could not have been treated as a dying declaration. It is also submitted that the medical history recorded by the Doctor is also given by the relatives of the deceased, as per the evidence of the treating doctor and there is material to show that the history there was given by the relatives. (d) The further statement recorded by the police gives names of the assailants, but, would not inspire any confidence, as the names are given from the derived knowledge through other witnesses, who have not been examined by the prosecution. (e) There has been no T.I.Parade held to ascertain the involvement or otherwise of the accused persons. (f) Though bloodstains were found on the clothes of the accused, necessary serological report has not been produced on record by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that keeping all the above aspects in mind, the conviction may be set aside and the accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 may be acquitted of the charges levelled against them, whereas the appeal against accused Nos.4 and 5 may be dismissed. 4. Learned A.P.P. Mr.Pandya has opposed Criminal Appeal Nos.695/2005 and 696/2005. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that keeping all the above aspects in mind, the conviction may be set aside and the accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 may be acquitted of the charges levelled against them, whereas the appeal against accused Nos.4 and 5 may be dismissed. 4. Learned A.P.P. Mr.Pandya has opposed Criminal Appeal Nos.695/2005 and 696/2005. According to him, every small detail is not required to be incorporated in the FIR and missing lacuna can be read as evidence by the prosecution in case of need. In the instant case, the victim was assaulted upon by the accused and the incident was witnessed by several witnesses. The accused have misused their position and used deadly weapons in commission of the crime and no sympathy can be shown to them. The appeals by the convicts may be dismissed and the appeal against the acquittal may be allowed. (4) We have examined the record and proceedings in the context of the rival submissions. At the outset, we may record that the prosecution has examined various witnesses, of which the most relevant witnesses, who were projected as eye witnesses, have turned hostile to the prosecution case and have not supported the prosecution case at all. The panch witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case and most of them are declared hostile. The only material, therefore, that remains behind, to support the prosecution case, is the FIR and the further statement of the deceased recorded by the police, which would take the colour of a dying declaration. The close scrutiny of the FIR at Exh.111 would reveal that it does not reveal/disclose the names of the assailants. Differently put, the identity of the assailants is not fixed by Exh.111. It is a matter of doubt whether such FIR could have been given by the deceased because from the medical evidence, as emerges from the evidence of Dr.Chandresh Shashikant Vora recorded at Exh.81, it is clear that when the deceased was brought to him and was treated by him, he was in semiconscious state of mind and lacked orientation. It also emerges from his evidence that the history must have been given by the relatives because if the history was given by the patient, then it would have been recorded in the medical papers that the history was given by the patient himself. It also emerges from his evidence that the history must have been given by the relatives because if the history was given by the patient, then it would have been recorded in the medical papers that the history was given by the patient himself. In the instant case, the medical case papers produced at Exh.83 do not carry any endorsement to the effect that the history was given by the patient himself. Therefore, in our opinion, it is a matter of doubt whether the deceased could have given a detailed FIR (Exh.111). (5) The next piece of evidence is the statement of the deceased recorded by the police, produced at Exh.131. This was recorded on 11.6.2004 at Amreli Hospital. A scrutiny of Exh.131 would reveal that the deceased gave names of the accused persons as assailants on the basis of the information given to him by the visitors, whose names he does not reveal. The prosecution has not examined any such visitor as a witness, who claims to have witnessed the incident and identified the accused persons as assailants. It also transpires from the further statement Exh.131 that there was a past incident of a quarrel which is projected by the deceased as a motive for the accused persons to assault him. But, if it is looked from a different angle, this would mean that the deceased knew the accused persons prior to the incident and he had no reason not to reveal the names of the accused persons as assailants while lodging the FIR and had no reason to state, while giving his statement on 11.6.2004, that he learnt through the witnesses that the assault was committed by the accused. (6) It is also relevant to record that no T.I.Parade was held by the investigating agency in respect of the assailants vis-a-vis the victim. The victim in his FIR does not reveal the names of the accused and in his further statement gives names on the basis of some information derived from the visitors. Therefore, to complete the chain, it was necessary for the investigating agency to hold T.I.Parade and that has not been done. The chain, therefore, remains incomplete. The weapon, allegedly used in the commission of the crime, had been recovered from accused No.1. It is the case of the prosecution that it was a single edged knife and had bloodstains on it. The chain, therefore, remains incomplete. The weapon, allegedly used in the commission of the crime, had been recovered from accused No.1. It is the case of the prosecution that it was a single edged knife and had bloodstains on it. It is also the case of the prosecution that the clothes of the accused were also stained with blood. However, the prosecution has failed to produce serological report to establish that the blood, that was found on this article, was of the same group of that of the deceased. (7) Lastly, we may refer to the evidence of Rajubhai Noghanbhai, brother of the deceased, recorded at Exh.49, which, though apparently connects the accused with the crime, does not inspire any confidence for the reason that the prosecution case suffers from the above narrated defects, which would render the evidence of Rajubhai Noghanbhai susceptible to doubt. His evidence, if seen, would create an impression that his support to the prosecution is not natural or wholehearted. Initially, he deposes as if he is an eye witness and supports the prosecution case. But, later on, as the cross-examination developed, he has given certain admissions, which led the prosecution to declare him hostile and cross-examine as a hostile witness. Therefore, in our opinion, conviction cannot be founded on this solitary piece of evidence when other contemporaneous evidence is found to be suffering from several defects and doubt. (8) The trial Court has overlooked the above aspects and, therefore, the appeals preferred by original accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 deserve to be allowed by setting aside their conviction. Criminal Appeal Nos.696/2005 and 695/2005 are hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence of original accused No.1 (Abdulbhai Satarbhai Abdul Karim Makrani), No.2 (Javedbhai Abdulbhai Satar Hot, No.3 (Faruq Ladavo Rahimbhai Malek Sipai, and No.6 (Mamu Mohmadbhai Iqbalbhai Jadav Sipai, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Amreli, in Sessions Case No.74/2004 by judgment and order dated 15.03.2005, for the offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby set aside. They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Accused No.1 be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Bail Bond in respect of accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 would stand cancelled. They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Accused No.1 be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Bail Bond in respect of accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 would stand cancelled. 12.1 So far as the State appeal is concerned, as a necessary corollary, it would get dismissed in light of the foregoing discussion and stands dismissed.