JUDGMENT J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. As both the appeals arise from a selfsame judgment and order of conviction dated 31st December, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2005, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The Criminal Appeal No. 977 of 2008 is at the instance of two convict accused, viz. Vinodgar @ Rameshgar Jivangar Goswami Bavaji and Sohan @ Sunil Teja Mohan Pargi, whereas the Criminal Appeal No. 978 of 2008 is at the instance of a convict accused viz. Arvind @ Vinod Bhagvanji Patel. 2. Both the appeals are directed against an order of conviction and sentence dated 31st December, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2005, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants were directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. 3. Case of the Prosecution: "3.1. The deceased viz. Dineshkumar Karshanbhai Gami and the accused appellant viz. Arvind @ Vinod Bhagvanji were cultivating the agricultural land as partners. A dispute arose between the two with regard to the settlement of the accounts of the partnership. 3.2. It is the case of the prosecution that on the day of the incident the deceased had been called at the agricultural field of the accused appellant Arvind @ Vinod Bhagvanji for the purpose of recovering his share of the partnership income and that point of time there was an altercation between the two. 3.3. It is also the case of the prosecution that the two co-accused, viz. Vinodgar @ Rameshgar Jivangar Goswami Bavaji and Sohan @ Sunil Teja Mohan Pargi, were working with the accused appellant Arvind @ Vinod Bhagvanji and all the three together inflicted injuries on the deceased with a sword, iron pipe, knife, spade and iron tong (pincer). 3.4. According to the prosecution, the original accused No. 1 inflicted injuries on the head and the neck of the deceased, whereas the accused Nos. 3.4. According to the prosecution, the original accused No. 1 inflicted injuries on the head and the neck of the deceased, whereas the accused Nos. 2 and 3 inflicted injuries on the head and leg of the deceased. 3.5. It appears that a complaint was lodged Exh. 130 by the P.W. 2, Thobhanbhai Ramjibhai Gami, the uncle of the deceased, at Sheth Vadala Police Station on 26th April, 2005 at 18-30 hours. 3.6. The P.W. 2, in his complaint, has stated that the deceased happened to be the son of his elder brother and the deceased at the relevant point of time was working at the Samana Radar Station. He has also stated that the deceased was residing with his family at Jamjodhpur. The deceased was owning agricultural lands at Village Gigani, Sidsar and Dhrafa Sim. 3.7. On the day of the incident, the P.W. 2 was at his house and at that point of time at around 10-45 in the morning he received a phone call from the wife of the deceased, viz. Savita, stating that the deceased had not yet returned home and was not responding on his mobile phone. The wife of the deceased requested the P.W. 2 to inquire about the deceased, and therefore, the P.W. 2 and his nephew, viz. Jagdish Chhaganbhai, went in search of the deceased on a motorcycle. The P.W. 2 has stated that on reaching the sim of Dhrafa, he inquired with one labourer as to whether the deceased had come at the agricultural field or not, and the labourer informed the P.W. 2 that the deceased had not come at his field. In the mean time, the P.W. 2 heard some commotion coming from the side of the agricultural field of the accused No. 1-Arvind, and therefore, he along with Jagdish went at the field of the accused No. 1 and saw the dead body of the deceased lying next to the godown of onions situated in the agricultural field. The P.W. 2 has stated that he also saw a puddle of blood and next to the same was a sword, an iron tong and a mobile phone. A little far from the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying, the P.W. 2 spotted the motorcycle of the deceased parked over there. The P.W. 2 has stated that he also saw a puddle of blood and next to the same was a sword, an iron tong and a mobile phone. A little far from the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying, the P.W. 2 spotted the motorcycle of the deceased parked over there. The P.W. 2 inquired as to what had happened and he learnt that in the morning at around 8-30 the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and one third unknown person had inflicted injuries on the deceased with a sword and iron tong resulting in his death. The P.W. 2 in his complaint has stated that the motive behind the commission of the crime was that his nephew, the deceased, was cultivating the land in partnership with the accused No. 1-Arvind and a dispute was going on between them past a year regarding the accounts. On the date of the incident, the deceased had gone to the field of the accused No. 1 to recover his share of the partnership income and at that point of time some altercation took place between them and the deceased was killed. 3.8. On the strength of the complaint, the investigation had commenced. The inquest panchnama, Exh. 55, of the dead body of the deceased was drawn in presence of the panch witnesses. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem and the post-mortem report, Exh. 42, revealed that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries on his neck and head and the cause of death assigned was hemorrhagic shock due to injuries on the neck and head. The scene of offence panchnama, Exh. 56, was drawn in presence of the panch witnesses. The blood soiled clothes of the deceased were collected by drawing the panchnama, Exh. 57, and were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. A team of Forensic Science Laboratory was called for and the articles lying at the place of occurrence were collected including the blood soiled earth by drawing a panchnama, Exh. 58, in presence of the panch witnesses. The Circle Inspector was asked to prepare a map, Exh. 28, of the place of occurrence. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested on 30th April, 2005 and the arrest panchnama of the person of both the accused, Exh. 61, was drawn in presence of the panch witnesses. 58, in presence of the panch witnesses. The Circle Inspector was asked to prepare a map, Exh. 28, of the place of occurrence. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested on 30th April, 2005 and the arrest panchnama of the person of both the accused, Exh. 61, was drawn in presence of the panch witnesses. The clothes worn by the accused persons were collected and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. The serological test report, Exh. 146, revealed that human blood was detected on the shirt and the pants of the accused No. 2. No blood was detected on the clothes of the accused No. 3. The vehicle belonging to the accused No. 2 was discovered and the same was taken in custody by drawing panchnama, Exh. 119, in presence of the panch witnesses. The motor cycle of the ownership of the accused No. 1 alleged to have been abandoned at a particular place was recovered and a panchnama, Exh. 134, was drawn in presence of the panch witnesses. Prior to the arrest of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, their respective houses were searched by drawing panchnama, Exhs. 59 and 60 respectively. The statements of various witnesses were recorded. Finally, charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused-appellants in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamjodhpur. 3.9. As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mandvi, committed the case to the Sessions Court under Sec. 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The sessions Court framed charge, Exh. 4, against the accused-appellants and statements of all the accused were recorded. All the accused did not admit the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.10. The prosecution adduced the following oral evidence in support of its case. 1 Hitesh Ramnikbhai Bhatt (the witness who produced the notification of prohibition to keep arms) Exh.14 2 Thobanbhai Ramjibhai (the complainant) Exh.24 3 Mulubhai Dudabhai Hunt (who prepared the map of the scene of offence) Exh.25 4 Dr. 3.10. The prosecution adduced the following oral evidence in support of its case. 1 Hitesh Ramnikbhai Bhatt (the witness who produced the notification of prohibition to keep arms) Exh.14 2 Thobanbhai Ramjibhai (the complainant) Exh.24 3 Mulubhai Dudabhai Hunt (who prepared the map of the scene of offence) Exh.25 4 Dr. Dipak Premjibhai Meghpara (who prepared conducted P.M. of the deceased) Exh.41 5 Gomtiben W/o Suni (w/o the witness- accused No.3) Exh.46 6 Kalpesh Meghjibhai (the Eye Witness) Exh.47 7 Bhagvanji Bhovan (a panchwitness) Exh.48 8 Alarakha Kasam Juma (a panchwitness) Exh.49 9 Pravinsinh Nathubha (a panchwitness) Exh.50 10 Rakesh Kantilal (a panchwitness) Exh.51 11 Ramesh Popat (a panchwitness) Exh.52 12 Karshan Nanjibhai (a witness) Exh.53 13 Rasik Dayabhai (a witness) Exh.54 14 Ramesh Parshotambhai (a witness) Exh.71 15 Bipinbhai Kantilal (a witness) Exh.72 16 Santigar Jivangar (a witness) Exh.73 17 Pravin Karshanbhai Gami (a witness – brother of the deceased) Exh.74 18 Mansukhbhai Bachubhai (a witness) Exh.78 19 Rohit Keshavlal (a witness) Exh.79 20 Savitaben Dineshbhai (wife of the deceased - witness) Exh.88 21 G.G. Jadeja (a Panchwitness) Exh.115 22 Mansukh Chhaganbhai (a panchwitness) Exh.118 23 M.R. Parmar (the I.O.) Exh.125 3.11. The following pieces of documentary evidence were adduced by the prosecution. 1 Notification of prohibition to keep arms. Exh.15 2 A yadi for preparing map of the scene of offence. Exh.26 3 A forwarding letter accompanied with a map of scene of offence. Exh.27 4 Map of the scene of offence. Exh.28 5 P.M. note Exh.42 6 Report showing cause of death Exh.43 7 A yadi handing over a dead body and clothes on it Exh.44 8 A yadi handing over clothes on dead body and blood sample. Exh.45 9 Inquest Panchnama Exh.55 10 Panchnama of local place. Exh.56 11 A Panchnama of seizing clothes on dead body and blood sample. Exh.57 12 Panchnama of seizing the blood stained stones (Bela), blood stained earth, control sample. Exh.58 13 A panchnama of search of the home of the accused No.1 Exh.59 14 A panchnama of search of the home of the accused No.2 Exh.60 15 Arrest panchnama of the accused No. 1, 2. Exh.57 12 Panchnama of seizing the blood stained stones (Bela), blood stained earth, control sample. Exh.58 13 A panchnama of search of the home of the accused No.1 Exh.59 14 A panchnama of search of the home of the accused No.2 Exh.60 15 Arrest panchnama of the accused No. 1, 2. Exh.61 16 Arrest panchnama of the accused No.3 Exh.62 17 A yadi in respect of procuring revenues record Exh.63 18 A yadi in respect of procuring revenues record Exh.64 19 A yadi in respect of procuring revenues record of the land of the accused No.1 Exh.65 20 Revenue record of the land of Ashok Bhagvanji. Exh.66 21 Revenue record of the land of Savitaben Dinesh. Exh.67 22 Revenue record of the land of accused No.1 Exh.68 23 A copy of the application made to the Chief Minister by Savitaben wife of the deceased for probe by C.I.D. (Crime) Exh.90 24 Letter of the Additional Private Secretary Exh.91 25 Copy of the fax of the State Level Minister of Gujarat Government. Exh.92 26 Letter No.VSF-1105-Dha.S.-52 No. of the Home Department, Gujarat Government, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. Exh.93 27 A letter written to Accountant Officer (T.R.) Jamnagar by Savitaben wife of the deceased for giving information about the phone of the deceased. Exh.94 28 A letter of BSNL written in connection with the aforesaid letter. Exh.95 29 A letter written to the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Crime and Railway, Gandhinagar by Savitaben wife of the deceased. Exh.96 30 A letter written by the complainant and the wife of the deceased about the appointment of the government advocate Exh.97 31 A copy of the application made to the Chief Minster by Savitaben wife of the deceased for probe by C.I.D. (Crime) again. Exh.98 32 An application for getting details in respect of outgoing and incoming calls made in mobile phone of the deceased at the time of incident by the wife of the deceased. Exh.99 33 An application by the wife of the deceased to the Chief Minister for personal meeting for carrying out probe by CID crimes and about appointment of Public Prosecutor. Exh.100 34 Regi. A.D. Receipts of the applications Exhibits No.90, 96, 97, 98 sent to the concerned officers Exh.104 35 Letter No.99/06 of the public Information Officer and Deputy Superintendent of Police Jamnagar Office. Exh.100 34 Regi. A.D. Receipts of the applications Exhibits No.90, 96, 97, 98 sent to the concerned officers Exh.104 35 Letter No.99/06 of the public Information Officer and Deputy Superintendent of Police Jamnagar Office. Exh.105 36 Letter No. 1684 of Police Superintendent, Jamnagar Exh.106 37 Letter No. Aarabi/2358/1938 of Divisional Police Officer, Jamnagar/ Exh.107 38 Letter No.R.B/R/1897 of the Police Superintendent, Jamnagar Exh.108 39 Letter dated 04/05/05 of PSI Sheth Vadala. Exh.109 40 Charge sheet and show cause notice given to PSI Sheth vadala by the Police Superintendent M.R. Parmar Exh.110 41 Order of fine issued to PSI Sheth vadala by the Police Superintendent M.R. Parmar Exh.111 42 Letter No. 100/06 of the Office of Public Information Officer and Deputy Police Superintendent, Jamnagar. Exh.112 43 A yadi for photographs Exh.113 44 Extract of the Station Diary Entry. Exh.116 45 Extracts of the Station Diary Entry No.7 and 11. Exh.117 46 Discovery Panchnama. Exh.119 47 A yadi of receipt of photographs. Exh.123 48 Total photographs of the local place of the offence, dead body and weapons and articles. Exh.124 49 Inquest form. Exh.126 50 A yadi forwarded for conducting P.M. of the dead body and collecting clothes on the dead body and blood sample. Exh.127 51 Receipt of handing over the dead body. Exh.128 52 Yadi for registration of offence Exh.129 53 FIR Exh.130 54 Report of grave offence. Exh.131 55 Preliminary report of FSL Mobile Unit, Jamnagar Exh.132 56 Demonstration Panchnama Exh.133 57 Discovery Panchnama of Hero Honda No. GJ-10-N-2664 Exh.134 58 Yadi for incorporating Section 34 of the IPC in FIR Exh.135 59 A yadi forwarded to FSL Junagadh for Muddamal analysis. Exh.136 60 Authority Certificate Exh.137 61 Dispatch Entry. Exh.138 62 Muddamal acknowledgment receipt from FSL Junagadh. Exh.139 63 Forwarding letter accompanied with analysis report of FSL Junagadh Exh.140 64 Muddamal Analysis Report Exh.141 65 A yadi for getting back muddamal after analysis Exh.142 66 A forwarding letter accompanied with report of physics department. Exh.143 67 Muddamal analysis report of FSL, Junagadh Physics department. Exh.144 68 Forwarding letter sending analysis report by the serological department of Junagadh. Exh.145 69 Analysis report of serological department of Junagadh. Exh.146 70 A yadi sent for preparing a scene of offence. Exh.147 3.12. Exh.143 67 Muddamal analysis report of FSL, Junagadh Physics department. Exh.144 68 Forwarding letter sending analysis report by the serological department of Junagadh. Exh.145 69 Analysis report of serological department of Junagadh. Exh.146 70 A yadi sent for preparing a scene of offence. Exh.147 3.12. After completion of oral as well as documentary evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused persons under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code was recorded in which all the accused persons stated that the complaint was a false one and they were innocent. 3.13. At the conclusion of the trial, learned trial Judge convicted all the three accused-appellants for the offence under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as stated herein before. 3.14. Being dissatisfied, the accused Nos. 1 has come up with his appeal whereas the accused Nos. 2 and 3 have come up with their appeal." 4. Oral Evidence on Record: "4.1. The P.W. 1, Hiteshbhai Ramaniklal Bhatt, has been examined by the prosecution to bring on record the notification issued at the relevant point of time by the Police Superintendent, Jamnagar, under Sec. 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act prohibiting possession of weapon. This witness produced the same, which was marked as Exh. 15. Nothing turns around on the evidence of the P.W. 1, except the fact that at the relevant point of time there was a notification issued under Sec. 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act prohibiting possession of dangerous weapons which was breached by the accused persons according to the case of the prosecution. 4.2. The P.W. 2, Thobhanbhai Ramjibhai Gamit, who is the first informant, has deposed in his evidence, Exh. 24, that he was residing at Village Gingani. He has deposed that the deceased happened to be the son of his elder brother and at the relevant point of time, the deceased was working with the Telecommunications Department at the Samana Radar Station. He has also deposed that the deceased was residing with his family at Jamjodhpur and had agricultural lands at Gingani and in the sim of Dhrafa Village. He has also deposed that the deceased was residing with his family at Jamjodhpur and had agricultural lands at Gingani and in the sim of Dhrafa Village. On 26th April, 2005, the P.W. 2 was at home and at that point of time he received a phone call at around 10-45 in the morning from the wife of the deceased informing him that the deceased was not responding on his mobile and had not returned home after leaving for his field situated in the sim of Dhrafa. He has deposed that he along with his nephew, namely, Jagdish Chhaganbhai went in search of the deceased on a motor cycle. On reaching the sim of Dhrafa, the P.W. 2 inquired with a labourer as to whether the deceased had come at his agricultural field and the labourer informed the P.W. 2 that the deceased had not come at his field. In the meantime, the P.W. 2 heard some commotion coming from the side of the agricultural field and spotted the motor cycle of the deceased near a godown of onions. Upon reaching the place from where the commotion was heard, the P.W. 2 found his nephew lying dead in a pool of blood. The P.W. 2 has further deposed that near the dead body of the deceased the weapons like sword, iron tong, and a mobile phone were lying over there. He has deposed that the place where the dead body of his nephew was lying was the agricultural field of the accused No. 1, Arvindbhai. He has further deposed that at that point of time he inquired with a lady labourer, who was sitting at the godown as to what had happened and the lady informed the P.W. 2 that Dinesh saheb (deceased) was finished. The P.W. 2 inquired further with the lady as to who had assaulted the deceased and in reply the lady informed the P.W. 2 that it was her master, the accused No. 1, Arvindbhai and the accused No. 2 along with a third unknown person who had committed the murder of the deceased. The P.W. 2 has deposed that the motive behind the commission of the crime was that the deceased was cultivating agricultural land along with the accused No. 1 in partnership and a dispute regarding settlement of accounts was going on between the two past one year. 4.3. The P.W. 2 has deposed that the motive behind the commission of the crime was that the deceased was cultivating agricultural land along with the accused No. 1 in partnership and a dispute regarding settlement of accounts was going on between the two past one year. 4.3. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that whatever was conveyed by the lady labourer, namely, Gomtiben had not been stated by him in his First Information Report. He has further deposed that he was stating about Gomtiben for the first time during his deposition. The P.W. 2 has also deposed that the dead body of the deceased was placed in the Maruti van of one Prabhudasbhai. He had helped the others in putting the dead body in the car but at that point of time his clothes were not soiled with blood. He has also deposed that whatever was conveyed by Gomtiben to him was not conveyed to other persons sitting in the Maruti car. He denied the suggestion that he had not visited the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination he has deposed that he had no idea regarding the nature of the partnership between the accused No. 1 and the deceased. He had no idea about the accounts which were to be settled between the two. He has also deposed that he had no idea regarding the conditions of the terms of partnership. He has deposed that the deceased had once come at his agricultural field and had told him about the partnership with the accused No. 1 and only at that point of time he had realized that there was a partnership between the accused and the deceased. He has also deposed that the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying was an agricultural farm. There was some cultivation but had no idea regarding the type of crop cultivated. 4.4. From the evidence of the P.W. 2, it appears that the wife of the deceased had called him up in the morning informing that the deceased had not returned home and was not responding on his mobile. The P.W. 2 along with his nephew had gone in search of the deceased and found the dead body of the deceased lying at the field alleged to be that of the accused No. 1. The P.W. 2 along with his nephew had gone in search of the deceased and found the dead body of the deceased lying at the field alleged to be that of the accused No. 1. It also appears that the P.W. 2 had a talk with the lady labourer, namely, Gomtiben, who happens to be the wife of the accused No. 3 but whatever was conveyed by Gomtiben was not stated by the P.W. 2 in his First Information Report. Such contradiction in the form of material omissions is a relevant fact under Sec. 11 of the Evidence Act. The overall effect of such omission shall be considered by us at a later stage while appreciating the evidence of other witnesses. At this stage, we may only say that if Gomtiben had narrated about the incident before the P.W. 2, and if such facts were not disclosed by the P.W. 2 in his First Information Report then it renders the evidence of the P.W. 2 susceptible to the complaint that he has been a got up witness. 4.5. The P.W. 3, Mulubhai Dudabhai Hun, has been examined by the prosecution to prove the map, Exh. 26, prepared by him of the place of occurrence. All that the P.W. 3 has deposed is that he received a yadi from the police station instructing him to draw a map of the place of occurrence and accordingly he had prepared the same. In his cross-examination, there are few important admissions, which are worth noting. He has deposed that the circled portion in the map, Exh. 28, of the place of occurrence did not reveal any visible signs while the map was being drawn. He has deposed that no date had been mentioned in the map. He has deposed that the place of occurrence was the land bearing Survey No. 899 situated in the sim of Village Dhrafa. He had no idea who was the owner of the said survey number and who was in possession of the same. He has also deposed that nobody had shown him the place of occurrence but he on his own had visited the place. He admitted that the police had sent the panchnama of the place of occurrence and on the basis of the same he had prepared the map. 4.6. From the evidence of the P.W. 3, two things are evident. He has also deposed that nobody had shown him the place of occurrence but he on his own had visited the place. He admitted that the police had sent the panchnama of the place of occurrence and on the basis of the same he had prepared the map. 4.6. From the evidence of the P.W. 3, two things are evident. The place of occurrence was the land bearing Survey No. 899 situated at the sim of Village Dhrafa but the owner of the said land was not known including the person in possession of the same. 4.7. The P.W. 4, Dr. Dipakbhai Meghpara, has been examined by the prosecution to prove the post-mortem report. The P.W. 4 in his evidence Exh. 41 has deposed that on 26th April, 2005 he was on duty as a Medical Officer at Primary Health Center, Vasjaliya, and at that point of time at around 3-30 in the afternoon, a dead body of a person named Dineshkumar was brought for post-mortem examination. He has deposed that he noted the following external injuries on the body of the deceased. (1) A C.L.W. 3 inch x 1 1/2 inch sharp cutting on midline of forehead vertical frontal bone fractured. Deep upto brain matter. Brain matter seen outside. (2) A sharp cutting injury, 4 inch x 1 inch curved on right temporal region. Temporal bone fractured. Brain matter seen outside. (3) Sharp cutting injury on upper part of back of neck and lower occipital region, horizontal from right ear to left ear width 3 inch. Cervical spine cut. Both carotid artery cut. (4) Sharp cutting injury on left ear. Ear cut on middle part of cartilage. 2 inch x 1 inch. (5) Sharp cutting injury to left thumb at middle of thumb. Horizontal. 1 inch x 1 inch deep to bone. (6) Sharp cutting injury between left thumb and left index finger. 2 inch x 1 inch, 1/2 inch deep. (7) Sharp cutting injury on left forearm about one inch below the elbow joint on ventral aspect curved downward. 5 inch long x 1 inch width. Skin deep. Skit erupted. (8) A sharp cutting injury on left flank. 5 inch below shoulder joint, oblique. 3 inch long x 1/4 inch width superficial. (9) Bruish in whole left gluteal region. Brownish in colour. (10) Bruish. 1 inch x 1 inch just above umbilicus on abdomen. 5 inch long x 1 inch width. Skin deep. Skit erupted. (8) A sharp cutting injury on left flank. 5 inch below shoulder joint, oblique. 3 inch long x 1/4 inch width superficial. (9) Bruish in whole left gluteal region. Brownish in colour. (10) Bruish. 1 inch x 1 inch just above umbilicus on abdomen. (11) Abrasion - 2 inch x 2 inch on right shoulder joint. (12) Sharp cutting injury vertical, 7 inch x 1/4 inch superficial on middle of right scapula on back. (13) Sharp cutting injury vertical, 7 inch x 1/4 inch superficial, 3 inch middle of previous injury. (14) Multiple maxillary bone fractures on right side of head. 4.8. He has deposed that he noted the following internal injuries on the body of the deceased: (1) Fracture of middle of frontal bone and right temporal bone and right maxillary bone. (2) Fracture of middle and frontal bone and right temporal bone. (3) Fracture of middle and frontal bone and right temporal bone. (4) Brain matter pale and in tact meningeal pale and in tact. 4.9. He has deposed that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to injuries on the neck and the head. He has further deposed that the injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were individually as well as cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has further deposed on being shown the muddamal article sword that injury Nos. 1 to 8 and 12 to 13 can be caused by a weapon like sword. He has also deposed on being shown the muddamal article iron tong that the injury Nos. 9, 10 and 11 can be caused with the same. He has deposed on being shown the muddamal article spade that injury Nos. 9, 10 and 11 can be caused with the same. He has also deposed that the injury No. 14 can be caused, if a big stone is hit on the body of the deceased. There was no cross-examination of the P.W. 4 at the end of the accused-appellants. 4.10. The P.W. 5, Gomtiben, has been examined by the prosecution as the solitary eye-witness to the incident. The P.W. 5 is the wife of the accused No. 3. The P.W. 5 in her evidence, Exh. 46, failed to support the case of the prosecution in toto and was declared as a hostile witness. 4.10. The P.W. 5, Gomtiben, has been examined by the prosecution as the solitary eye-witness to the incident. The P.W. 5 is the wife of the accused No. 3. The P.W. 5 in her evidence, Exh. 46, failed to support the case of the prosecution in toto and was declared as a hostile witness. There was no cross-examination of the P.W. 5 at the end of the accused-appellants. 4.11. The P.W. 5, Gomtiben, could have proved to be one of the important witnesses being an eye-witness to the incident but she failed to support the case of the prosecution. 4.12. It appears that at a later stage an application-Exh. 148 was filed by the Public Prosecutor praying to recall the P.W. 5 for further examination. The trial Court in exercise of its powers under Sec. 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code ordered the recall of the P.W. 5, Gomiben. The P.W. 5 in her further examination at the end of the Public Prosecutor deposed, on being shown eighteen photographs, Exh. 24, of the dead body of a person that she had no idea who was the person in the photograph. She also deposed that she had no idea regarding the place as reflected in the photographs. Once again the P.W. 5 was declared as a hostile witness and was permitted to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. In her cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, she denied that the person in the photograph Nos. 1 to 8 was the accused No. 1, Arvindbhai, at whose place she was working along with her husband, the accused No. 3. Except few suggestions, nothing substantial could be elicited through the cross-examination of the P.W. 5, after being declared as a hostile witness. In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, she deposed that it was true that at the place of the agricultural field as reflected from the photographs, Exh. 124, neither she nor her husband had worked at such an agricultural field. 4.13. The P.W. 6, Kalpesh Meghjibhai, in his evidence Exh. 47 has deposed that he was residing at Village Gingani and had an agricultural farm admeasuring around 30 Vighas. He has deposed that he knew the accused No. 1, Arvind, as he belonged to his village. He has also deposed that the agricultural farm of the accused No. 1 is situated in the sim of Village Dhrafa. 47 has deposed that he was residing at Village Gingani and had an agricultural farm admeasuring around 30 Vighas. He has deposed that he knew the accused No. 1, Arvind, as he belonged to his village. He has also deposed that the agricultural farm of the accused No. 1 is situated in the sim of Village Dhrafa. He has also deposed that the farm of the accused No. 1 is situated next to one another farm adjoining to his own farm. He has deposed that he had not witnessed the murder of the deceased. The P.W. 6 was declared hostile as he failed to support the case of the prosecution. Nothing substantial could be elicited through the cross-examination of this witness at the end of the Public Prosecutor. 4.14. The P.W. 7, Bhagvanbhai Bhavanbhai, is one of the panch witnesses examined by the prosecution. This witness has been examined to prove the demonstration panchnama of the place where the murder was committed. It appears that the demonstration panchnama was drawn by the Investigating Officer wherein all the three accused-appellants expressed their willingness to point out the place where the deceased is alleged to have been done to death. However, the P.W. 7 failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. Nothing substantial could be elicited through the evidence of this witness so as to help the prosecution in establishing the case against the accused-appellants. 4.15. The P.W. 8, Allahrakha Kasam, is also one of the panch witnesses examined. The P.W. 8, in his evidence Exh. 49, failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. The P.W. 8 was also examined for proving the demonstration panchnama. Nothing substantial could be elicited through the cross-examination of the P.W. 8 at the end of the Public Prosecutor after being declared as a hostile witness. 4.16. The P.W. 9, Pravinsinh Natubha, was also examined as one of the panch witnesses to the demonstration panchnama regarding the accused No. 1 running away on his motor cycle, and thereafter, abandoning it at a particular place. However, the P.W. 9, in his evidence, Exh. 50, failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. Nothing substantial could be elicited through the cross-examination of this witness at the end of the Public Prosecutor. 4.17. However, the P.W. 9, in his evidence, Exh. 50, failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. Nothing substantial could be elicited through the cross-examination of this witness at the end of the Public Prosecutor. 4.17. The P.W. 10, Rakesh Kantilal, was also examined as one of the panch witnesses. The P.W. 10, in his evidence Exh. 51, failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. Nothing substantial could be elicited through the cross-examination of this witness at the end of the Public Prosecutor. 4.18. The P.W. 11, Rameshbhai Popatbhai, is also one of the panch witnesses examined by the prosecution. However, the P.W. 11, in his evidence Exh. 52, failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. Nothing substantial could be elicited through the cross-examination of this witness at the end of the Public Prosecutor. 4.19. The P.W. 12, Karsanbhai Nanjibhai, has deposed in his evidence, Exh. 53 that he was residing at Village Gingani, with his family and had an agricultural farm at Village Gingani. He has deposed that he knew the deceased as he happened to be from his own village. On the day of the incident at around 10-00 O'clock in the morning while he was at his agricultural field, one Rasikbhai Dahyabhai had come to his field and at that point of time he received a phone call from one Ramesh Parshottam Saparia that Dineshbhai had been murdered at the agricultural farm of the accused No. 1, Arvindbhai. Thereafter, the P.W. 12 in company of Rasikbhai left on a motor cycle and reached at the farm of the accused No. 1. He has deposed that on reaching he saw the dead body of Dinesbhai and besides the dead body there was a sword and stones lying over there. The P.W. 12 thereafter informed Rameshbhai that the deceased was dead being murdered. Thereafter, Rameshbhai had informed about the incident to Sethvadala Police Station. He has further deposed that the P.S.I. of Sethvadala Police Station had called him up and inquired about the place of occurrence. The P.S.I. was asked to reach at a temple, and thereafter, was taken to the place of occurrence. Thereafter, Rameshbhai had informed about the incident to Sethvadala Police Station. He has further deposed that the P.S.I. of Sethvadala Police Station had called him up and inquired about the place of occurrence. The P.S.I. was asked to reach at a temple, and thereafter, was taken to the place of occurrence. He has deposed that one Kalpesh Meghji was also present at the place of occurrence and Kalpesh disclosed that Dineshbhai had been killed murdered by the accused-appellants. 4.20. The P.W. 13, Rasikbhai Dahyabhai, in his evidence, Exh. 54 has deposed that he knew the deceased as he was residing in the same village. On the day of the incident, at around 9-30 in the morning, as he had some work with one Karsanbhai Nagjibhai, the P.W. 13, he visited Karsanbhai at his agricultural field. He has deposed that while at the agricultural field of Karsanbhai, Karsanbhai received a phone call from Ramesh Parshottam informing him that a problem had cropped up at the agricultural farm of the accused No. 1, Arvindbhai. Rameshbhai requested Karsanbhai to go and inquire regarding the same. He has deposed that thereafter he and Karsanbhai left on the motor cycle and reached at the godown situated at the farm of the accused No. 1, Arvindbhai. He has deposed that from a distance, they saw a dead body lying over there and on reaching a little near to the same, identified the dead body to be that of Dineshbhai. Thereafter, Karsanbhai called up Ramesh Parshottam and conveyed about the same to him on phone. Thereafter, Rameshbhai informed the police regarding the same. The P.W. 13 has also deposed that next to the dead body one sword and stones smeared with blood were found lying on the ground. 4.21. The P.W. 14, Rameshbhai Parshottambhai Sapariya, in his evidence Exh. 71, has deposed that on 26th April, 2005 he had gone to Village Valasan to attend a marriage. At around 9-00 O'clock in the morning, he returned to Jamjodhpur and at that point of time, he learnt that a dead body of a person was lying near a godown situated in the sim of Dhrafa belonging to the accused No. 1, Arvindbhai. The P.W. 14 thereafter informed about the same to Karsanbhai, the P.W. 2, and requested Karsanbhai to inquire regarding the same. The P.W. 14 thereafter informed about the same to Karsanbhai, the P.W. 2, and requested Karsanbhai to inquire regarding the same. He has deposed that thereafter Karsanbhai informed him on telephone at around 10-15 in the morning that the dead body was that of Dineshbhai, a resident of Jamjodhpur, working with the Telephone Department. As the place where the dead body was found was falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Dhrafa Police Station, he informed about the same to Seth Vadala Police Station. He has deposed that he informed the police that Dineshbhai had been murdered and further that he had no idea about the owner of the revenue survey number where the dead body was lying but the same was lying next to a godown. It appears that an objection was raised during the course of recording of the evidence of the P.W. 14 by the learned Advocate appearing for the accused persons that as the Public Prosecutor was putting questions to the P.W. 14 regarding the incident the same was hit by Sec. 60 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, should not be permitted to put such questions. The trial Court noted such objection and permitted the Public Prosecutor to put such questions to the P.W. 14 with a clarification that the evidentiary value of the same would be considered at the final stage of the trial. Thereafter, the P.W. 14 has deposed what was conveyed to him by the P.W. 6, Kalpesh Meghji. It may not be out of place to state at this stage that the P.W. 6, Kalpesh Meghji, failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. The P.W. 6, Kalpesh Meghji was examined by the prosecution as one of the eye-witnesses to the incident but as he failed to support the case of the prosecution and he was declared as a hostile witness. The P.W. 14 has also deposed that the motive behind the commission of the crime was that the accused No. 1 and the deceased were carrying on business in partnership and some dispute had cropped up regarding the accounts. He has also deposed that past seven to eight months the dispute had aggravated. However, he clarified that he had learnt about the same through others. 4.22. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the place of occurrence. He has also deposed that past seven to eight months the dispute had aggravated. However, he clarified that he had learnt about the same through others. 4.22. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the place of occurrence. He has also deposed that he had no personal knowledge regarding the terms and conditions of partnership between the accused No. 1 and the deceased. He has also deposed that he had no idea whether the partnership was a registered one or unregistered. He has also deposed that he had no idea whether the partnership was reduced into writing or the same was oral. He has also deposed that he had no idea or knowledge as to with whom the accused No. 1 and the deceased had worked during the partnership. He has deposed that at no point of time he was called by either of the two for settlement of the dispute. 4.23. The P.W. 15, Bipinbhai Kanitlal has been examined by the prosecution as one of the panch witnesses. However, he failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. 4.24. The P.W. 16, Shantigar Jivangar, has been examined by the prosecution to establish that he was working at the agricultural field of the accused No. 1 and was plying the tractor. However, the P.W. 16 also failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. 4.25. The P.W. 17, Pravinbhai Karsanbhai Gami, the brother of the deceased, has been examined by the prosecution. The P.W. 17, in his evidence, Exh. 74 has deposed that the deceased was his younger brother. The deceased owned around 60 Vighas of agricultural land, situated at different places like Sinsar, Gingani and the sim of Dhrafa. The P.W. 17 has deposed that his brother was serving and used to cultivate the land of others in partnership. On the day of the incident, the P.W. 17 was at Jamnagar and at that point of time he received a phone call from Karsanbhai at around 11-00 O'clock in the morning informing him that his younger brother Dinesh had been murdered. The P.W. 17 has deposed that on receiving such information he reached Jamjodhpur Government Hospital at around 2-00 O'clock in the afternoon. The P.W. 17 has deposed that on receiving such information he reached Jamjodhpur Government Hospital at around 2-00 O'clock in the afternoon. He has deposed that he saw the dead body of his brother with injuries on the head and face. He has deposed that his uncle Thobanbhai Ramjibhai, the P.W. 2, who was present at the hospital informed him that when he reached the place of occurrence, a Rajasthani lady conveyed to him that the murder of Gami saheb had been committed by her master, the accused No. 1, along with the accused No. 2 and one third unidentified person. He has deposed that at that point of time Kalpesh, who was present, conveyed him that the third person was none other but the husband of the Rajasthani lady. He has deposed that the motive behind the commission of the murder of his brother was that the accused No. 1 and his brother were cultivating land in partnership and the dispute had arisen in connection with the accounts. He has deposed that his brother, the deceased, was demanding money from the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 1 was not paying the same. He has also deposed that for the purpose of settlement of such dispute, a meeting was convened, which was attended by the elder brother of the accused No. 1, namely, Ashok, the accused No. 1 himself, the deceased and he himself. He has also deposed that a local M.L.A., namely, Chimanbhai Saparia was also present in the meeting. All those persons in the meeting examined few books and according to the P.W. 17, the deceased had also produced certain books. However, the accused No. 1 had not brought his books and failed to produce those books before the persons present in the meeting to resolve the dispute. He has deposed that as the accused No. 1 did not produce his books of accounts there was some altercation and after sometime he took out the books from the dickey of his motorcycle and produced the same. According to him, the books of accounts of both the sides were perused by the persons who had convened a meeting to resolve the dispute but even after perusal of the same, they could not reach to a definite conclusion. According to this witness, thereafter, a second meeting was convened in the office of one Pankajbhai Delvadiya. According to him, the books of accounts of both the sides were perused by the persons who had convened a meeting to resolve the dispute but even after perusal of the same, they could not reach to a definite conclusion. According to this witness, thereafter, a second meeting was convened in the office of one Pankajbhai Delvadiya. In the said meeting, it was finally decided that the accused No. 1 had to pay Rs. 5 lac to the deceased and the deceased had to pay Rs. 3 lac to the accused No. 1, and therefore, finally it was decided that the accused No. 1 owed to pay Rs. 2 lac to the deceased. According to this witness, the matter was accordingly resolved. Although the settlement was arrived at and was final, the accused No. 1 failed to make the payment of Rs. 2 lac to the deceased. The deceased kept on demanding the money from the accused No. 1. He has also deposed that a day before the incident the accused No. 1 had administered threats to him on telephone stating that he would kill his younger brother Dinesh within 24 hours and would wipe out his lineage. The P.W. 17 has deposed that the accused No. 1 at that point of time gave filthy abuses which he was not able to depose before the Court. He clarified that such threats were administered on mobile phone and at that point of time the P.W. 17 was at Mount Abu. He has deposed that he requested the accused No. 1 that as they had close relations he would like to talk to the elder brother of the accused No. 1, namely, Ashok, to resolve the controversy. He has also deposed that at that point of time the accused No. 1 told him that his elder brother Ashok was next to him and asked the P.W. 17 to talk to the elder brother of the accused No. 1. He has deposed that he requested Ashokbhai, the elder brother of the accused No. 1, to explain to the accused No. 1 not to administer the threats. However, according to the P.W. 17, Ashokbhai, the elder brother of the accused No. 1, was also not prepared to listen and Ashokbhai also started talking in a rough language. He has deposed that he requested Ashokbhai, the elder brother of the accused No. 1, to explain to the accused No. 1 not to administer the threats. However, according to the P.W. 17, Ashokbhai, the elder brother of the accused No. 1, was also not prepared to listen and Ashokbhai also started talking in a rough language. Thereafter, once again he received a phone call from Ashokbhai, the elder brother of the accused No. 1, and while talking to him he prayed for mercy. It is deposed by the P.W. 17 that he was told to see them on Sunday and they would take appropriate steps only thereafter. Saying so the phone was disconnected. According to the P.W. 17, it is only due to such reason that the accused No. 1 committed the murder of his younger brother Dinesh. 4.26. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had no idea regarding the agriculturists, whose land the deceased used to cultivate. He has deposed that the agricultural land of one, Bhagirathsinh Jadeja situated at Dhrafa was being cultivated jointly by me accused No. 1 and his brother but he had no idea in which year they had obtained the land for cultivation. He has deposed that he had no idea about anything regarding the business which was being carried on by the two. He has deposed that two meetings had been convened for the purpose of settlement and in both the meetings he was present. A contradiction in the form of a material omission was brought in the evidence of the P.W. 17, wherein he was confronted with his police statement in which he had not stated anything about the phone call which he had received from the accused No. 1 and the threats which were being administered to him on phone. 4.27. The P.W. 18, Mansukhbhai Bachubhai, examined by the prosecution is the person who was working at the field of the accused No. 1. However, the P.W. 18 failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. 4.28. The P.W. 19, Rohit Keshavlal, has been examined by the prosecution as one of the witnesses, who had heard the shouts of a lady coming from the field of the accused No. 1. However, this witness also failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. 4.29. 4.28. The P.W. 19, Rohit Keshavlal, has been examined by the prosecution as one of the witnesses, who had heard the shouts of a lady coming from the field of the accused No. 1. However, this witness also failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. 4.29. The P.W. 20, Savitaben Dineshbhai Gamit, has been examined by the prosecution, in her capacity as the wife of the deceased. The P.W. 20, in her evidence, Exh. 88, has deposed that the deceased was her husband and at the time of the incident she was residing along with the deceased and her children at Station Plot, Power House Road at Jamjodhpur. She has deposed that her husband was serving in the Telephone Department as a Junior Telecom Officer. She has deposed that her husband was posted at the Samana radar station. She has also deposed that her husband owned around 60 Vighas of agricultural land situated near Sidsar, Gingani and the sim of Dhrafa. She has deposed that her husband past five years from the date of the incident was cultivating the land in partnership with the accused No. 1 and past seven to eight months there was a dispute going on between her husband and the accused No. 1 regarding the accounts. She has also deposed that past one month, the accused No. 1 was administering threats to her husband on telephone stating that if the deceased would demand money then he would be killed. According to the P.W. 20, the incident had occurred on 26th July, 2005. She has deposed that on the day of the incident at around 7-00 O'clock in the morning, the accused No. 2, Vinodgar Jivangar Bavaji, had come to their house and had informed that the elder brother of the accused No. 1, Ashokbhai, had come at the farm, and therefore, the deceased was called at the farm for the purpose of settlement. According to the P.W. 20, such a fact was conveyed to her by her husband, the deceased. She deposed that thereafter her husband had tea and conveyed to her that the accused No. 2 had come to call him, and therefore, he was leaving for the farm of the accused No. 1. According to the P.W. 20, such a fact was conveyed to her by her husband, the deceased. She deposed that thereafter her husband had tea and conveyed to her that the accused No. 2 had come to call him, and therefore, he was leaving for the farm of the accused No. 1. She has deposed that her husband thereafter left the house on his Hero Honda motor cycle and while leaving he carried a bundle of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the labourers. She has deposed that her husband used to always keep a telephone diary, mobile and a purse along with glasses for the purpose of reading. She has deposed that thereafter at around 10-00 O'clock, she received a phone call inquiring whether her husband had gone for work or not. She has deposed that thereafter two to three phone calls were received by her and that made her restless. Due to such restlessness the P.W. 20 called up Thobhanbhai, P.W. 2, and asked him to inquire regarding whereabouts of her husband. She has deposed that as time passed by the doubt in her mind became more and more strong. At around 8-00 O'clock in the late evening, the dead body of her husband was brought at home after post-mortem examination. The P.W. 20 has deposed that the motive behind the commission of the crime was the dispute between the accused No. 1 and her husband regarding the accounts of the partnership. She has further deposed that she had also preferred a representation to the Chief Minister of the State requesting to transfer the investigation of the case to the C.I.D., Crime Branch. Such representation was brought on record and was marked as Exh. 90. 4.30. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that her husband was serving with the Telephone Department past 23 years. She has deposed that initially her husband was posted at Palitana, thereafter for one year at Bhanavad, and thereafter, at Samana Radar Station situated at Jamjodhpur. She has deposed that she had no idea worth the name about the terms and conditions of the partnership or anything relating to the partnership between the accused No. 1 and her husband. She has deposed that initially her husband was posted at Palitana, thereafter for one year at Bhanavad, and thereafter, at Samana Radar Station situated at Jamjodhpur. She has deposed that she had no idea worth the name about the terms and conditions of the partnership or anything relating to the partnership between the accused No. 1 and her husband. She has deposed that before the incident, a meeting had been convened at their house and in the said meeting, the elder brother of the accused No. 1, namely, Ashokbhai, the accused No. 1 himself, her husband-the deceased, the elder brother of the deceased, Pravinbhai, an M.L.A., namely, Chimanbhai Saparia, and other persons, namely, Pankajbhai Delvadiya, Nareshbhai Kantaria, Ketanbhai Vallabhbhai Dadhaniya were present. She has deposed that she was also present and had served the guests with tea and snacks. She has deposed that the accounts were in writing but the money was not paid. She has deposed that her husband had to recover Rs. 3 lac from the accused No. 1 and the same was reduced into writing. She has deposed that after the meeting her husband kept on demanding money from the accused No. 1. She has also deposed that as the accused No. 1 failed to make the necessary payment, she had called Pankajbhai and Nareshbhai Kantaria at her house and had complained before them regarding the same. She has deposed that they had telephone connection at their home past 15 years. She has also deposed that the accused No. 1 and his brother Ashokbhai had also phones with them. She has deposed that when the accused No. 2 had come at their house for the purpose of settlement, at that point of time her husband had not told him that the settlement had already taken place, and therefore, there was no question of once again sitting for a settlement. She has deposed that as they had received threats on telephone, she had restrained her husband from going to the farm but was told by her husband that as Ashokbhai, the brother of the accused No. 1 had come and as he had homely relations with them he would like to go. She has deposed that she learnt about the murder of her husband at around 7-00 O'clock in the evening. She has deposed that she learnt about the murder of her husband at around 7-00 O'clock in the evening. She has deposed that none had called her up between 11-00 in the morning and 7-00 in the evening informing regarding the murder of her husband. She denied the suggestion that the story of her husband going in the morning to the field of the accused No. 1 was concocted. She denied the suggestion that the accused No. 1 had no agricultural farm of his own. She also denied the suggestion that her husband had no business in partnership with the accused No. 1. 4.31. The P.W. 21, Gamarsing Galabhai, has been examined as one of the police witnesses. The P.W. 21 was examined to produce the station diary register, Exh. 116. Nothing turns around on the evidence of the P.W. 21. 4.32. The P.W. 22, Mansukhbhai Chhaganbhai has been examined as one of the panch witnesses. However, the P.W. 22, in his evidence, Exh. 118, failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. 4.33. The last witness to be examined by the prosecution is the P.W. 23, Muljibhai Parmar, the Investigating Officer. The P.W. 23 in his deposition has explained the various stages of investigation. He has deposed about the drawing of the inquest panchnama, the scene of offence panchnama, various other panchnamas like arrest panchnama of the accused persons, collection of clothes of the deceased as well as those of the accused persons. He has also deposed regarding recording of the statements of various witnesses. The P.W. 23 has proved the contradictions in the form of omissions brought on record during the course of examination of other witnesses. 5. Submissions on behalf of the Accused-Appellants: " 5.1. Mr. B.B. Naik, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the accused-appellants submitted that the trial Court committed a serious error in holding the accused-appellants guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Sec. 302of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Naik submitted that the mainstay of the prosecution during the trial was the examination of the P.W. 5, Gomatiben, Exh. 46 and the P.W. 6, Kalpeshbhai, Exh. 47, being the eye-witnesses to the incident. However, according to Mr. Naik, both these witnesses failed to support the case of the prosecution and were declared as hostile witnesses. Mr. Naik submitted that the mainstay of the prosecution during the trial was the examination of the P.W. 5, Gomatiben, Exh. 46 and the P.W. 6, Kalpeshbhai, Exh. 47, being the eye-witnesses to the incident. However, according to Mr. Naik, both these witnesses failed to support the case of the prosecution and were declared as hostile witnesses. In such circumstances, the prosecution failed to lead any oral evidence so far as the incident in question is concerned. Mr. Naik submitted that as the two eye-witnesses were declared as hostile witnesses, the prosecution had to fall back on the circumstantial evidence. Mr. Naik submitted that the trial Court committed a serious error in passing the order of conviction by relying on the circumstantial evidence like motive, the place of occurrence which according to the prosecution is the agricultural farm of the accused No. 1, the circumstance of abscondence, the demonstration panchnamas, the discovery panchnamas, Exh. 134 and Exh. 119, the circumstance of blood being detected on the shirt and the pant of the accused No. 1 and the pant of the accused No. 2. 5.2. Mr. Naik submitted that there is no evidence worth the name to establish the motive behind the commission of crime. Mr. Naik submitted that if the eye-witnesses would have supported the case of the prosecution then in such circumstances perhaps the motive would have not been of much importance but since the entire case has been decided by the trial Court on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, motive would definitely play an important role and in the present case no motive has been established by the prosecution. 5.3. Mr. Naik submitted that the circumstance of the dead body of the deceased alleged to have been found at the agricultural farm of the accused No. 1 also could not have been taken into consideration by the trial Court as there is no evidence to even remotely suggest that the farm is of the ownership of the accused No. 1. On the contrary, the documentary evidence on record would indicate that the farm is of the ownership of the elder brother of the accused No. 1 and there is no evidence even to suggest that the accused No. 1 was in possession of the farm and was taking care of the same on behalf of his elder brother. 5.4. Mr. On the contrary, the documentary evidence on record would indicate that the farm is of the ownership of the elder brother of the accused No. 1 and there is no evidence even to suggest that the accused No. 1 was in possession of the farm and was taking care of the same on behalf of his elder brother. 5.4. Mr. Naik further submitted that the circumstance of blood being detected on the clothes of the accused persons is also hardly of any significance because no questions were put to the accused-appellants by the trial Court while recording their further statements under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the same. According to Mr. Naik, if any incriminating circumstance is sought to be relied upon against the accused then an opportunity should be given to the accused to explain by putting a specific question to him in his statement under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5.5. Mr. Naik submitted that the appeal merits consideration and the same be allowed by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court." 6. Submissions on behalf of the State: "6.1. Ms. Chetna Shah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State vehemently opposed these appeals and submitted that the trial Court committed no error in finding the accused-appellants guilty of the offence of murder. Ms. Shah submitted that although the two eyewitnesses to the incident, namely, the P.W. 5, Gomatiben and the P.W. 6, Kalpeshbhai, failed to support the case of the prosecution and were declared as hostile witnesses yet the circumstantial evidence on record is consistent with the reasonable or rational hypothesis of guilt of the accused. Ms. Shah submitted that there was a long standing enmity between the accused and the deceased in connection with the settlement of partnership accounts and due to such a dispute the deceased was called at the agricultural farm of the accused No. 1 and while at the farm of the accused No. 1, the deceased was inflicted with injuries all over his body by the accused-appellants. 6.2. In such circumstances, referred to above, Ms. Shah prays that there being no merit in these appeals, the same may be dismissed. 7. 6.2. In such circumstances, referred to above, Ms. Shah prays that there being no merit in these appeals, the same may be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration in this appeal is whether the trial Court committed any error in holding the accused-appellants guilty of the offence of murder. 8. On overall appreciation and evaluation of the evidence on record, it appears that in the course of investigation of the crime the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of two eye-witnesses, the P.W. 5, Gomatiben and the P.W. 6, Kalpeshbhai. The P.W. 5, Gomatiben is the wife of the accused No. 3. However, it appears that both these witnesses failed to support the case of the prosecution and were declared as hostile witnesses. Although after being declared as hostile witnesses they were cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor yet nothing worth the name could be elicited through their cross- examination so as to help the prosecution in any manner in establishing the case against the accused-appellants. We have gone through the evidence of both these witnesses although they were declared as hostile but we do not find any part of the deposition of both these witnesses which could be said to be in any manner helpful in establishing the case against the accused-appellants. 9. In such circumstances, we are left with no other option but to consider the circumstantial evidence on which reliance has been placed for the purpose of proving the case against the accused-appellants. 10. The logical process involved in the admission and consideration of circumstantial evidence is explained by Wigmore in Para 32 et seq. The test for the admissibility of evidence to prove a circumstantial fact is that "the evidentiary fact will be considered when, and only when, the desired conclusion based upon it is a more probable or natural, or at least a probable or natural hypothesis, and when the other hypotheses or explanations of the fact, if any, are either less probable or natural, or at least not exceedingly more probable or natural" {Para 32, Page 421). "Where even the possibility of a single other hypothesis remains open, Proof fails, though it suffices for Admissibility if the desired conclusion is merely the more probable, or a probable one, even though other hypotheses, less probable or equally probable remain open. It is thus apparent that, by the very nature of this test or process, a specific course is suggested for the opponent. He may now properly show that one or another of these hypotheses, thus left open, is not merely possible and speculative, but is more probable and natural as the true explanation of the originally offered evidentiary fact". (Para 34, Page 423). 11. Kenny states that "an amount of testimony which is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence entirely (i.e., to shift the burden of proof so completely as to compel the prisoner to call legal evidence of circumstances pointing to his innocence), may yet suffice to throw upon him the necessity of offering, by at least an unsworn statement, some explanation. If he remain silent and leave this hostile testimony unexplained, his silence will corroborate it, and so justify his being convicted". (Page 388). 12. The principle that Criminal Courts should bear in mind is, in the words of C.B. Pollock: "To make a comparison between convicting the innocent man and acquitting the guilty is perfectly unwarranted. There is no comparison between them. Each of them is a great misfortune to the country and discreditable to the administration of justice. The only rule that can be laid down is that in a criminal trial you should exert your utmost vigilance and take care that if the man be innocent he should be acquitted, and if guilty that he should be convicted." (quoted in Donough's Principles of Circumstantial Evidence, 1918, 158). 13. From the above discussion of the law the following propositions emerge as laying down the correct law: "(1) Circumstantial evidence to justify conviction must be inconsistent with any reasonable or rational hypothesis of guilt of the accused. (2) When the inference of guilt from the proved incriminating (i.e. circumstantial) facts is a more natural and probable hypothesis than the other, the onus of offering an explanation for the incriminating facts lies upon the accused. (2) When the inference of guilt from the proved incriminating (i.e. circumstantial) facts is a more natural and probable hypothesis than the other, the onus of offering an explanation for the incriminating facts lies upon the accused. If he does not offer any explanation, or falsely denies the very existence of the incriminating facts it is itself a circumstantial fact against him, even if the Court is in a position to imagine an explanation. The guilt is the legitimate inference from the incriminating facts and the added circumstantial fact of failure or refusal to offer an explanation for the incriminating facts because it is not reasonable or rational to say that the accused would fail or refuse to offer an explanation consistent with his innocence if he could. It is immaterial in such a case whether the Court can imagine an explanation or not. (3) If the inference of guilt from the proved incriminating facts is a less natural or probable hypothesis than the other, the Court cannot draw it and the accused must be acquitted whether he offers any explanation or not. (4) If the inference of guilt from the proved incriminating facts is as much a natural or probable hypothesis as any other, the accused may be called upon to explain and if he fails or refuses, the Court may treat it as an additional circumstantial fact and infer his guilt. Or it may take judicial notice of the other hypothesis even without any explanation by the accused and acquit him. The instant case falls under proposition (2)." 14. Applying the aforesaid principles of appreciation of circumstantial evidence, we first propose to consider whether there is any evidence as regards the motive to commit the crime. 15. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No. 1 and the deceased were cultivating the agricultural lands on partnership basis and in connection with the same a dispute had arisen between the two as a result of which both were at inimical terms. To establish motive the prosecution has relied on the evidence of the P.W. 2-Thobanbhai, Exh. 24, the P.W. 14-Rameshbhai Parshottambhai Saparia, the P.W. 17-Pravinbhai Karsanbhai, Exh. 74, the P.W. 20, Savitaben Dineshbhai, Exh. 88 (wife of the deceased) and the P.W. 23, the Investigating Officer, Exh. 115. To establish motive the prosecution has relied on the evidence of the P.W. 2-Thobanbhai, Exh. 24, the P.W. 14-Rameshbhai Parshottambhai Saparia, the P.W. 17-Pravinbhai Karsanbhai, Exh. 74, the P.W. 20, Savitaben Dineshbhai, Exh. 88 (wife of the deceased) and the P.W. 23, the Investigating Officer, Exh. 115. The P.W. 2, Thobanbhai, in his evidence has made it very clear that he had no knowledge as regards the terms and conditions of the partnership between the accused No. 1 and the deceased. The P.W. 2 has also deposed that he had no idea even regarding the exact amount which the accused No. 1 owed to the deceased. 16. So far as the P.W. 14, Rameshbhai Saparia, is concerned, in his evidence also he has deposed in clear terms that he had no idea regarding the partnership between the accused No. 1 and the deceased. He has deposed that he had no knowledge whether the partnership was in writing or the same was oral. In the same manner, the P.W. 17, Pravinbhai has also deposed that he had no knowledge regarding the terms and conditions of the partnership. All that he has deposed is that he had perused the note of accounts at the time of settlement in the meeting which was convened on 21st November, 2004. He has also deposed that when the mediators arrived at the conclusion that the accused No. 1 had to pay Rs. 2 lac to the deceased, at that point of time neither the accused No. 1 was present nor the deceased was present. In the same manner, we do not find anything from the evidence of the P.W. 20, Savitaben, the wife of the deceased, regarding the business carried on by the accused No. 1 and the deceased in partnership. Even the Investigating Officer, the P.W. 23, in his evidence has stated that in the course of investigation no names of any mediators or other persons, who had resolved the controversy were disclosed. 17. From the above it is clear that there is not a single witness who has deposed anything reliable or concrete about the partnership between the accused and the deceased. There is no evidence as to at what point of time the partnership had commenced, what was the initial investment of the partners and what type of work was being performed by the partners. 18. There is no evidence as to at what point of time the partnership had commenced, what was the initial investment of the partners and what type of work was being performed by the partners. 18. The most important and vital aspect so far as motive is concerned is that although the witnesses have submitted about notes and other documents yet we find that not a single note or any document has been produced on record. Even the P.W. 20, Savitaben has deposed about the documents in writing but nothing has come on record. What does it suggest? If there are documents relating to the partnership as asserted by the witnesses but are not produced at any stage of the trial then it necessarily implies that no such document exists and if such documents would have been produced then the same would have gone against the prosecution. 19. On the contrary, we find this version of the prosecution witnesses regarding partnership between the accused No. 1 and the deceased very doubtful as the deceased was a Government servant. It is not in dispute that at the time of the incident he was serving in the telecom department at the Samana Radar Station. It is also the case of the prosecution that the mediators including an M.L.A. had perused the records of partnership and the mediators reached to the conclusion that the accused No. 1 had to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lac to the deceased but none of those mediators have been examined during the course of the trial. It appears from the evidence of the P.W. 23, the Investigating Officer, that no statements were recorded of those persons, who had performed the role of the mediators. Again there is a discrepancy as regards the exact amount which was to be paid to the deceased. The brother of the deceased has deposed that the accused No. 1 had to pay Rs. 2 lac whereas the P.W. 20, Savitaben, the wife of the deceased has deposed that the accused No. 1 had to pay Rs. 3 lac to the deceased. 20. Thus, from the above, we have reached to the conclusion that the motive for the alleged murder is as weak as it sounds illogical to us. 2 lac whereas the P.W. 20, Savitaben, the wife of the deceased has deposed that the accused No. 1 had to pay Rs. 3 lac to the deceased. 20. Thus, from the above, we have reached to the conclusion that the motive for the alleged murder is as weak as it sounds illogical to us. It is well settled that while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on the eye-witness account of the incident, it assumes importance in cases that rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. Absence of strong motive in the present case, therefore, is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside [See Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (7) SCC 502 ]. 21. It is equally well settled that proof of motive, by itself, may not be a ground to hold the accused guilty. Enmity, as is well known is a double-edged weapon. Whereas existence of a motive on the part of the accused may be held to be the reason for committing a crime, the same may also lead to false implication. Suspicion against the accused on the basis of their motive to commit the crime cannot, by itself, lead to a judgment of conviction. [See Ramesh Baburao Devaskar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC (Suppl.) 1606]. 22. The above takes us to consider the second circumstance sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the accused-appellants. 23. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26th April, 2005 the deceased was called by the accused No. 1 at his farm in the morning hours and was murdered at the said farm. According to the prosecution, the recovery of the dead body of the deceased next to the godown of onions at the farm of the accused No. 1 itself is an incriminating piece of circumstance pointing towards the guilty of the accused. In this connection, the first question that deserves consideration is as to whether there is any evidence on record to indicate that the farm i.e. the place of occurrence is of the ownership and possession of the accused No. 1. On the contrary, the documentary evidence in the form of record of rights, Exh. 63, would suggest that the place of occurrence i.e. the farm is of the ownership of the elder brother of the accused No. 1, namely, Ashokbhai. On the contrary, the documentary evidence in the form of record of rights, Exh. 63, would suggest that the place of occurrence i.e. the farm is of the ownership of the elder brother of the accused No. 1, namely, Ashokbhai. The P.W. 2, Thobanbhai, in his evidence Exh. 24, has deposed that he had not seen the place of occurrence at any time before the incident. The Circle Inspector, the P.W. 3, in his evidence, Exh. 25, has deposed that he had prepared a map of the place of occurrence but was not able to state as to who is the owner or possessor of the said survey number. The P.W. 14, Rameshbhai, in his evidence, Exh. 71 has deposed that he had not seen the accused No. 1 cultivating the farm in question. The documentary evidence, Exh. 65, would indicate that the farm of the accused No. 1 is adjoining the farm where the incident occurred. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the farm, as noted in Exh. 65, belongs to the elder brother of the accused No. 1, but in fact, it is the accused No. 1 who is in possession of the same. No statement of any of the witnesses residing in the vicinity of the farm have been recorded to establish the ownership of the place of occurrence. 24. Thus, from the above, we are of the view that even the second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is in no manner incriminating the accused persons in the crime. 25. In connection with the above circumstance the prosecution has tried to take support from the evidence of the P.W. 20, Savitaben, the wife of the deceased. According to the P.W. 20, Savitaben, on the day of the incident in the morning the accused No. 2 working with the accused No. 1 had come to her house to convey a message sent by the accused No. 1 for her husband that the deceased should come at the farm for the purpose of settlement, and therefore, the deceased had left on his motorcycle for the farm of the accused No. 1 for the purpose of settlement. The prosecution has tried to connect this circumstance with the recovery of the body of the deceased at the farm of the accused No. 1. The prosecution has tried to connect this circumstance with the recovery of the body of the deceased at the farm of the accused No. 1. We have minutely gone through the evidence of the P.W. 20, wife of the deceased, and are of the opinion that the P.W. 20 has not disclosed the true facts. Her unnatural conduct itself casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the P.W. 20. We are not prepared to believe that the P.W. 20 came to learn about the murder of her husband at 8-00 O'clock in the night on the day of the incident and that too when the dead body of the deceased was brought at her house after the postmortem was performed. If the husband had gone missing in the morning and if it is the case of the P.W. 20 that she had called up the P.W. 2 to inquire about her husband then it is really surprising to note that she did not come to know about the murder of her husband till 8-00 O'clock in the night. The reason why we are hesitant to believe the version of the P.W. 20 is that she had not disclosed to the P.W. 2, Thobanbhai, in the morning while talking with him on telephone that the deceased had gone at the farm of the accused No. 1 as he had been called there for the purpose of settlement. Now, this part of the prosecution case itself is at variance. If the settlement had already taken place and it was decided by the mediators that the accused No. 1 had to pay Rs. 2 lac to the deceased then there was no question thereafter to once again call the deceased at the farm for the purpose of settlement. Besides this the deceased had a mobile with him and there was no necessity as such to send the accused No. 2 at the house of the deceased to convey the message travelling a long distance. On the contrary, we find from the evidence on record that the P.W. 20, the wife of the deceased, had other doubts in mind regarding the murder of her husband. Such fact is evident from the application filed by her, Exhs. 90 to 100. On the contrary, we find from the evidence on record that the P.W. 20, the wife of the deceased, had other doubts in mind regarding the murder of her husband. Such fact is evident from the application filed by her, Exhs. 90 to 100. It appears that few representations were preferred by the P.W. 20 to the various higher authorities like District Superintendent Police, the Chief Minister of the State, stating that the investigation should be handed over to an agency like C.I.D. (Crime) as she had doubts that some anti-national forces might have committed the murder of her husband as her husband was working in the Telephone Department at a Radar Station, being a very sensitive post concerning the defence of the country. It is no doubt true that in the said representations the P.W. 20 has also levelled allegations against the accused-appellants but at the same time she had also expressed her apprehension as stated above. 26. There is one more reason why we are reluctant to believe the version of the P.W. 20 that her husband had left in the morning for the farm of the accused No. 1 because even according to the P.W. 27, Pravinbhai, the brother of the deceased, serious threats were administered on telephone to him while he was at Mount Abu. If threats to kill were administered then it is very unnatural for any person to go at the place suggested by the accused. We have noticed that even the P.W. 17, the brother of the deceased, in his deposition has tried to improve his version at every stage and many contradictions in the form of material omissions have been brought in his evidence. 27. We shall now deal with the circumstance of the blood being detected on the shirt and the pant of the accused No. 1 whereas on the pant of the accused No. 2 matching with the blood group of the deceased. It appears that after the arrest of the accused persons and while drawing the arrest panchnama the clothes worn by the accused-appellants were collected and were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the chemical analysis. Relying on the serological test report, Exh. It appears that after the arrest of the accused persons and while drawing the arrest panchnama the clothes worn by the accused-appellants were collected and were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the chemical analysis. Relying on the serological test report, Exh. 146, the prosecution wants to establish that at the time of the incident the clothes of the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2 were stained with blood matching with the blood group of the deceased. According to the prosecution, it is one of the circumstances connecting the accused with the crime. It is no doubt true that the serological test report, Exh. 146, reveals that the human blood was detected on the shirt and the pant of the accused No. 1 whereas on the pant of the accused No. 2. This circumstance also, in our opinion, is hardly of any consequence for more than one reason. First all the panch witnesses have turned hostile. Even the panchnama of the collection of the clothes of the accused persons at the time of their arrest has not been proved in accordance with law. However, even assuming for the moment that such clothes were collected and were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis and the report indicates presence of human blood on the clothes, even then it cannot be considered as one of the incriminating circumstances against the accused for the reason that such circumstance was not put to the accused persons by the trial Court while recording their further statement under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code so as to give an opportunity to the accused-appellants to explain such incriminating circumstance. Mr. Naik, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the accused- appellants has taken us through the further statement of the accused persons recorded under Sec.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and we find that no question was put in this regard to the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2. What will be the implication of such an omission on the part of the trial Court is the mute question. If such circumstance was not put to the appellants in their further statement recorded under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code then they must be completely exonerated from consideration because the appellants did not have any chance to explain them. If such circumstance was not put to the appellants in their further statement recorded under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code then they must be completely exonerated from consideration because the appellants did not have any chance to explain them. This has been consistently held by the Supreme Court as far back as in 1953 where in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1953 SC 468 , the Supreme Court held that in circumstance in respect of which an accused was not examined under Sec. 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (old Code) cannot be used against him. Ever since this decision, there is a catena of authorities of the Supreme Court uniformly taking the view that unless the circumstance appearing against an accused is put to him in his examination under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the same cannot be used against him. 28. To the same effect is another decision of the Supreme Court in Harijan Megha Jesha v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1566 , wherein the following observations were made. "In the first place, he stated that on the personal search of the appellant, a chadi was found which was bloodstained and according to the report of the serologist, it contained human blood. Unfortunately, however, as this circumstance was not put to the accused in his statement under Sec. 342, the prosecution cannot be permitted to rely on this statement in order to convict the appellant." 29. In a very recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013 (5) SCC 722 , the Supreme Court made the following observations which are relevant for our purpose: "In a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused person under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. This means that the accused may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take note of such explanation. In such a case of circumstantial evidence, the same is essential to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. This means that the accused may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take note of such explanation. In such a case of circumstantial evidence, the same is essential to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. No matter how weak the evidence of the prosecution may be, it is the duty of the Court to examine the accused, and to seek his explanation as regards the incriminating material that has surfaced against him. The circumstances which are not put to the accused in his examination under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., cannot be used against him and have to be excluded from consideration." 30. It is not necessary for us to multiply the authorities on this point as this question now stands concluded by several decisions of the Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, the circumstances which were not put to the appellants in their examination under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code have to be completely excluded from consideration. 31. The above takes us to consider the circumstance of the accused No. 3 handing over the weapon of offence to the Investigating Officer at the time of drawing of his arrest panchnama, Exh. 62. It has been vociferously argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State that the said circumstance cannot be excluded from consideration as the defence admitted the arrest panchnama, Exh. 62. In view of such admission of the document itself, according to Ms. Shah, the learned A.P.P., the contents of such document also stands proved, and therefore, it is a circumstance which points towards the guilt of the accused No. 3. 32. We are afraid we are unable to accept the submission of Ms. Shah, once again for the same reason that the circumstance was not put to the accused No. 3 by the trial Court in his further statement recorded under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a view to give him an opportunity to explain such circumstance. We have dealt with this aspect of the matter, as stated above exhaustively. However, there is one another important aspect which we would like to highlight at this stage because it has been argued by Ms. Shah that as the defence admitted the document, Exh. We have dealt with this aspect of the matter, as stated above exhaustively. However, there is one another important aspect which we would like to highlight at this stage because it has been argued by Ms. Shah that as the defence admitted the document, Exh. 62, and the same was exhibited perhaps the trial Court might not have thought fit thereafter to put such a circumstance to the accused No. 3 with a view to giving him an opportunity to explain. We are afraid if that be so then it is a serious error on the part of the trial Court. 33. Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in the following terms: "294. No formal proof of certain documents:--(1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved." 34. Section 294 is totally a new Section inserted for the first time in the Code of 1974. A proper reading of the said Section persuade us to hold that it is meant to cover those documents which require only formal proof. It has been introduced for me purpose of accelerating the pace of criminal trial by dispensing with the formal proof of certain documents. Where the contents of a document are to be proved by examining the author of that document, the provisions of Sec. 294 of the Code cannot come into play. Where the relevance of a document depends entirely on its genuineness, the procedure prescribed under Sec. 294 of the Code can be followed and once the genuineness is admitted, then that document itself may be read in evidence. 35. Where the relevance of a document depends entirely on its genuineness, the procedure prescribed under Sec. 294 of the Code can be followed and once the genuineness is admitted, then that document itself may be read in evidence. 35. In our opinion, me provisions of Sec. 294 are not meant for circumventing the provisions of the Evidence Act and in particular the provisions relating to the proof of certain facts which can only be done by examining the witnesses though those facts might have been mentioned in a document. Conceivably, Sec. 294 of the Code may cover letters written, photographs taken and it may also cover specimen handwriting and fingerprints. It is not necessary for our purpose to enumerate the documents which are conceivably covered by Sec. 294 of me Code. It is enough to mention that documents like memorandum of the post-mortem examination, scene of offence panchnama, panchnama of the recovery of clothes of the accused at the time of arrest, are not such documents, the proof of which can be dispensed with by resorting to the provisions of Sec. 294 of me Code. The contents of such documents would not prove by itself. As we have already mentioned earlier, a document which is not a substantive evidence by itself and the contents of which have to be deposed to, by a witness, can never be tendered in evidence by following the procedure mentioned in Sec. 294 of the Code. 36. In this regard, Division Bench of this High Court in Kalu Raghav v. State of Gujarat, 1976 GLR 988 , had sounded a note of caution 35 years back wherein it has been pointed out that the Legislature while enacting Sec. 294 in the Code must not have thought that this salutary provision would be abused in actual practise and the person in-charge of the prosecution or defence would make it a handle of their inaction or indifference. It has been further pointed out that the underlying idea of Sec. 294 seems to be that the formality of proving of some document may not unnecessarily hamper the smooth flow of the trial. It has been further pointed out that the underlying idea of Sec. 294 seems to be that the formality of proving of some document may not unnecessarily hamper the smooth flow of the trial. Proceeding further, the Division Bench pointed out as follows: "It is true that under Sec. 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 a provision has been inserted for the avoidance of unnecessary delay that where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the contents thereof may be admitted by the other side and if such documents are admitted, genuineness of such documents thereafter cannot be called in question. However, the legislature while enacting this provision must not have thought that this salutary provision would be abused in Actual practice and the persons in-charge of the prosecution or the defence would make it the handle of their inaction or indifference, Sec. 296 of the code in this connection deserves to be read and it shows that the evidence of any person if it is only of formal character may be given by an affidavit and subject to all just exceptions, to would be read in any enquiry or trial under this Code. The underlying idea seems to be that the formality of proof of some documents may not unnecessarily hamper the smooth flow of the trial. But it could not have been envisaged that important witnesses like a doctor who has examined patients would also be dispensed with by resort to this provision of Sec. 294. We, therefore, emphasize the importance of medical evidence in such cases involving injuries, and particularly fatal injuries, and we insist that in all such cases, the persons in-charge of prosecution or the defence would not tinker with the problem and leave the Court to decide the important questions by resorting to only surmises or conjectures on a technical subject like medical science. The Judges trying such cases have an important duty to perform and if they allow such shortcuts to be resorted to, they would obviously be remiss in their judicial duties. The other day, before us a case ended in conviction under Sec. 304 Part II because there was no medical evidence showing that the injury in question was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The other day, before us a case ended in conviction under Sec. 304 Part II because there was no medical evidence showing that the injury in question was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is to be noted that even the Advocates in-charge of defence also have an important role to play in such trials. They cannot do away with the necessary pains of examining such witnesses by giving consent to admission of such documents without the important witnesses being examined. In the case on hand, the learned Advocates, who were defending the accused also were remiss in their duties when they adopted the short cut method in this way, and agreed to get the certificates of injuries and post-mortem notes admitted into evidence forthwith without exploring the pros and cons of the medical evidence. The panchnama of the scene of offence also was admitted into evidence with the consent of the other side without the panch having come to be examined. The said panchnama is Exh. 28 on the record. What we have observed with respect to medical evidence would apply to such important evidence like the panchnama of the scene of offence also and such panchnamas and the evidence of the panch would have a material bearing in some cases, particularly like the one before us." We once again emphasize that the trial Courts are expected to be much more vigilant and should not permit Public Prosecutors or the defence to resort to the provisions of Sec. 294 of the Code in a slipshod manner. A proper understanding of the scope of Sec. 294 will, we hope, prevail keeping in mind the Division Bench judgment of this very High Court in the case of Kalu Raghav (supra). 37. The position of law, as stated above, makes it very clear that even if a document like arrest panchnama is exhibited with the consent of the defence, then at the best all that could be said to have been established is that such an arrest panchnama was drawn and nothing more than that. 37. The position of law, as stated above, makes it very clear that even if a document like arrest panchnama is exhibited with the consent of the defence, then at the best all that could be said to have been established is that such an arrest panchnama was drawn and nothing more than that. Therefore, in such circumstances, even if the document is exhibited with the consent of the defence, and if it gives rise to an incriminating circumstance going against the accused then the trial Court owes a duty to put such an incriminating circumstance to the accused in his further statement under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and seek his explanation in that regard. 38. Ms. Shah also brought to our notice that after the incident, the accused-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were absconding. Ms. Shah submitted that after the incident the house of the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2 were searched by drawing panchnamas, Exhs. 59 and 60. According to Ms. Shah, at that time of search, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not found at their house and were reported to be absconding. Such circumstance, according to Ms. Shah, again is one of the incriminating circumstances which should be taken into consideration against the accused-appellants. This issue of abscondance is also no longer res integra. Absconding, by itself, is not conclusive either of guilt or of a guilty conscience. For, a person may abscond on account of fear of being involved in the offence or for any other allied reason. [See Rehman v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1975 Cri.L.J. 23]. It is settled principle of law that absconding may lend weight to the other evidence establishing the guilt of the accused, but, by itself, is hardly any evidence of the guilt. Absconding is a weak link in the chain of circumstances. Even assuming that the circumstance of absconding has been established by the prosecution, it cannot be held that the appellants were author of the crime in absence of evidence pointing to their guilt. 39. There is one more hurdle coming in the way of the prosecution so far as the circumstance of absconding is concerned. Even assuming that the circumstance of absconding has been established by the prosecution, it cannot be held that the appellants were author of the crime in absence of evidence pointing to their guilt. 39. There is one more hurdle coming in the way of the prosecution so far as the circumstance of absconding is concerned. It appears that such circumstance has not been put by the trial Court in the further statement of the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2 recorded under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is a direct decision of the Supreme Court on this issue. In Shamu Balu Chaugule v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1976 (1) SCC 438 , the Supreme Court held thus: "The fact that the appellant was said to be absconding, not having been put to him under Sec. 342, Criminal Procedure Code, could not be used against him." 40. The discovery of me motorcycle of the accused No. 1 at his instance, vide panchnama, Exh. 134, is also hardly of any consequence. In the same manner, the discovery of the vehicle of the accused No. 2 by way of a discovery panchnama, Exh. 119, is also hardly of any consequence. The reason why no evidentiary value could be attached to the panchnamas, Exh. 119 and Exh. 134, is that me panch witnesses of both the panchnamas failed to support me case of the prosecution and were declared as hostile witnesses. Although the Investigating Officer in his deposition has deposed about two panchnamas, Exh. 119 and Exh. 134, yet that would hardly help the prosecution because even the Investigating Officer failed to prove the contents of both such panchnamas in accordance with law. Even otherwise, the discovery evidence, by itself, is subsidiary and cannot sustain a conviction but where there is plenty of other evidence to sustain the prosecution case, the discovery evidence could be treated as a valuable piece of corroborative evidence. 41. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case against me accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt and thus, they become entitled for the benefit of doubt. Thus, both these appeals succeed and are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused-appellants are set aside. 41. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case against me accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt and thus, they become entitled for the benefit of doubt. Thus, both these appeals succeed and are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused-appellants are set aside. The accused-appellant No.1, Arvind @ Vinod Bhagvanji Patel of Criminal Appeal No. 978 of 2008 is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. As the accused-appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 977 of 2008 are on bail pending disposal of their appeal, their bail-bonds stand discharged. Appeal dismissed.