Judgment J.B. Pardiwala, J.—As all the three captioned appeals arise from a common judgment and order dated 12th May, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Deesa, in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2006, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The Criminal Appeal No. 1654 of 2008 is filed by the original Accused No. 4 Dahyabhai Jagmalbhai Harijan and the original Accused No. 6 Isabhai Shakrabhai Dabhi (Harijan). 3. The Criminal Appeal No. 1928 of 2008 has been filed by the original Accused No. 1 Popatbhai Mohanbhai Dabhi (Harijan), whereas the Criminal Appeal No. 2122 of 2008 has been filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the judgment and order passed by the trial Court acquitting the original Accused Nos. 2 to 7 of the offence under Section 302 read with Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. By filing the Criminal Appeal No. 1928 of 2008, the accused-appellant (original Accused No. 1) Popatbhai Mohanbhai seeks to challenge the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court sentenced the accused-appellant to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for one month has been imposed. 5. By filing the Criminal Appeal No. 1654 of 2008, the accused appellants (original Accused Nos. 4 and 6) seek to challenge the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court holding them guilty of the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has imposed simple imprisonment of six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 15 days has been imposed. I. Case of the Prosecution : 6. The accused persons were on inimical terms with the deceased and his family as there was a long standing dispute relating to a fence dividing their agricultural fields. On 29th November 2005 at around 8 O’clock in the morning, the accused persons are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and launched an attack on the deceased and his family members. 7. On 29th November 2005 at around 8 O’clock in the morning, the accused persons are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and launched an attack on the deceased and his family members. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that on the day of the incident, the P.W. 16 Kantaben Hirabhai Vihabhai, the complainant, was preparing tea for the guests in the morning at around 8 a.m. and at that point of time the P.W. 18 Takhabhai Vihabhai was watering the plants and Fulabhai, the deceased, had gone to the house of other family members. The deceased Fulabhai and the P.W. 18 Takhabhai had a quarrel with the original Accused No. 7, viz. Mohanbhai @ Bagu Javan Dabhi and his sons. 8. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused appellant Popatbhai hit a blow on the head of Fulabhai, the deceased, with a spade and the original Accused No. 7 Mohanbhai Dabhi (Harijan) hit a blow on the body of the P.W. 19 Hirabhai with a stick. It is also the case of the prosecution that the original Accused No. 2 Pradhanbhai and others were armed with sticks and sickle (dharia). The accused-appellant Dahyabhai Harijan, the original Accused No. 4, was armed with a sickle and he is alleged to have inflicted injury on the body of P.W. 19 Hirabhai. The P.W. 16 Kantaben lodged the First Information Report on 29th November 2005 Exh.119 at Agathara Police Station, stating that she was residing at the address stated in the complaint with her husband and children. The P.W. 16 has stated that they possessed an agricultural field. The complainant and her brother-in-law Takhabhai are residing near the field. Her mother-in-law, father-in-law, the deceased, and Ranabhai resided in a house situated in the field on one side with their respective families. The complainant has further stated that the adjoining field is owned by Mohanbhai @ Bagubhai, the original Accused No. 7, and Mohanbhai Dabhi (Harijan) and his sons resided in the said agricultural field. She has further stated that on the day of the incident at around 8 O’clock in the morning she was at her house and as few guests had come at her house she was preparing tea to be served to the guests. She has further stated that on the day of the incident at around 8 O’clock in the morning she was at her house and as few guests had come at her house she was preparing tea to be served to the guests. The P.W. 16, the complainant, has stated that at that point of time her brother-in-law Takhabhai was watering the crops and Fulabhai, the deceased, had gone to the house of his other relatives. She has further stated that Mohanbhai Dabhi (Harijan) and his sons picked up a quarrel with Takhabhai and Fulabhai. She has stated that there was an altercation, as a result, her husband and her brother-in-law Ranabhai including her mother-in-law and father-in-law rushed at the spot where the accused persons were quarreling. She has stated that at that point of time the original Accused No. 7 Mohanbhai hit a blow with a stick on the hand of Fulabhai whereas Mohanbhai’s son, viz. Popatbhai hit a blow on the head of Fulabhai with a spade. She has further stated that Mohanbhai hit a blow on the head of her husband, viz. Hirabhai. According to her, the original Accused No. 2 Pradhanbhai had a stick in his hand and the others, viz. Dinabhai, Dahyabhai Jagmalbhai, Ramabhai Punjabhai and Isabhai Shakrabhai had sticks and sickles in their hands. She has stated that they all came marching towards them to lay an assault. She has further stated that despite persuading, the accused persons continued with the fight. She has further stated that the original Accused No. 2 Pradhanbhai hit a blow on the body of her brother-in-law Takhabhai. Due to lot of commotion the guests who had come at the house of the complainant also came running at the spot of occurrence. She has stated that thereafter as her brother-in-law Fulabhai, the deceased, had sustained serious injuries, he was taken to the dispensary in a jeep whereas she remained all alone at home. The complainant thereafter learnt that her brother-in-law Fulabhai had been taken to Ahmedabad for further treatment. 9. On the complaint Exh.119 being lodged at the Police Station, the investigation had commenced. It appears from the materials on record that the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 8th December 2005 at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The inquest panchnama of the dead body Exh.99 was drawn in presence of the panch-witnesses. 9. On the complaint Exh.119 being lodged at the Police Station, the investigation had commenced. It appears from the materials on record that the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 8th December 2005 at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The inquest panchnama of the dead body Exh.99 was drawn in presence of the panch-witnesses. The scene of offence panchnama Exh.113 was drawn in presence of the panch-witnesses. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination and the postmortem report Exh.78 revealed that the cause of death was cardiopulmonary failure as a result of complication due to the head injury. II. Oral Evidence on record: 10. The P.W. 1 Dr. Athar Hussain Wahidkhan, in his evidence Exh.12, has deposed that on 29th November 2005 he was on duty as a Medical Officer at the Deesa Civil Hospital. He has deposed that at that point of time one person, viz. Fulabhai Vihabhai Harijan was brought at the hospital by his relatives without the police yadi. The P.W. 1 has deposed that at that time, in the history, the relatives stated that someone had assaulted Fulabhai. The P.W. 1 has deposed that on examination, he found the patient was in an unconscious state and he was not responding in any manner. He has deposed that his pupils had dilated and the functioning of all his organs had become very slow. He has further deposed that there was a hematoma in his left eye and on all four sides of the eye the skin had become black. He has deposed that he noted the following injuries on the body of Fulabhai, the deceased : 1. CLW at the line of saggital suture situated posteriorly, active bleeding, irregular shape, size 4cm x 3cm up to bone. 2. CLW on left temporal bone, irregular shape, size 1cm x 1cm x ½ cm, active bleeding. 3. CLW on left parietal bone, irregular shape, size 2cm x 1cm x 1cm, active bleeding. 11. The P.W. 1 has deposed that he issued the medico-legal certificate Exh.14 with regard to the injuries sustained by Fulabhai. He has also deposed that the patient was referred to the Government Hospital at Palanpur for further examination and treatment. He has deposed that the injuries sustained by Fulabhai can be caused if a blunt side of the spade is hit on the head. He has also deposed that the patient was referred to the Government Hospital at Palanpur for further examination and treatment. He has deposed that the injuries sustained by Fulabhai can be caused if a blunt side of the spade is hit on the head. He has also deposed that all the three injuries can be caused by a hard and blunt object like a stick. 12. P.W. 1 has deposed that on the same day one another person, viz. Takhabhai Vihabhai Parmar was also brought by his relatives at the hospital without the police yadi. In the history, the patient stated that someone had assaulted him and the patient complained of pain in his chest and stomach. The P.W. 1 noted the following injuries on the body of Takhabhai : 1. Contusion on left forearm, situated dorsally at the middle, reddish in color, size 3cm x 2cm. 13. The P.W. 1 has deposed that he issued the medico-legal certificate Exh.16 with regard to the injuries sustained by Takhabhai. 14. The P.W. 1 has also deposed that on the same day one Hirabhai Vihabhai Parmar was brought at the hospital by his relatives without the police yadi and in the history Hirabhai stated that someone had assaulted him. The P.W. 1 noted the following injuries on the body of Hirabhai : 1. CLW on right parietal bone, irregular shape, active bleeding, size 2cm x 2cm x 1cm. 2. Contusion on left wrist joint, dorsally, reddish in colour, size 2cm x 2cm. o/e tenderness and swelling present. 15. The P.W. 1 has deposed that he issued the medico-legal certificate Exh.18 with regard to the injuries sustained by Hirabhai. 16. The P.W. 1 has deposed that on the same day at around 12 O’clock in the afternoon a person by name Pradhanbhai Mohanbhai Harijan (A2) was brought at the hospital by his relatives and in the history Pradhabhai stated that someone had assaulted him. The P.W. 1 has deposed that he noted the following injuries on the body of Pradhanbhai Mohanbhai : 1. Contusion on right elbow, irregular shape, reddish in color, size 2cm x 1cm. 2. Contusion on left elbow, reddish in color, irregular shape, size 1cm x 1cm. 17. The P.W. 1 has deposed that he issued the medico-legal certificate Exh.20 with regard to the injuries sustained by Popatbhai Mohanbhai Dabhi. 18. Contusion on right elbow, irregular shape, reddish in color, size 2cm x 1cm. 2. Contusion on left elbow, reddish in color, irregular shape, size 1cm x 1cm. 17. The P.W. 1 has deposed that he issued the medico-legal certificate Exh.20 with regard to the injuries sustained by Popatbhai Mohanbhai Dabhi. 18. The P.W. 1 has further deposed that on the same day at around 12 O’clock in the afternoon one Mohanbhai Javabhai Harijan (A7) aged 65 years was brought at the hospital by his relatives and in the history it was stated that someone had assaulted him. The P.W. 1 has deposed that Mohanbhai was conscious and he noted the following injuries on the body of Mohanbhai : 1. CLW on left parietal bone, directed vertically, active bleeding, size 6cm x 4cm x 2cm. 2. Contusion on left forearm, situated 2" above wrist joint on dorsal aspect, size 2cm x 2cm o/e swelling and tenderness present. 3. Lacerated wound on right forearm, dorsally at middle, size 1cm x 1cm, irregular shape, reddish in color. 19. He has deposed that the injured Mohanbhai Harijan was referred to the Government Hospital, Palanpur, for x-ray and further treatment. He has deposed that he has issued the medico-legal certificate Exh.14 with regard to the injuries sustained by Mohanbhai. 20. The P.W. 2 Dr. Babulal Kantilal Solanki, in his evidence Exh.29, has deposed that he was serving as a Medical Officer past 9 years at the Civil Hospital, Palanpur. On 29th November 2005 while he was on duty, one Hirabhai Vihabhai Dabhi was referred by the Deesa Civil Hospital for treatment. He has deposed that an x-ray was taken of Hirabhai Vihabhai and the x-ray revealed that there was no fracture. The P.W. 2 has deposed that another x-ray of Hirabhai revealed fracture on the ring finger. After giving some treatment, Hirabhai was referred to the Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad. The P.W. 2 has deposed that the injury sustained in the ring finger was a grievous injury which can be caused by a hard and blunt object and would take around 6 to 8 weeks to heal. He has deposed that he issued a medical certificate Exh.30 with regard to the injuries noted on the body of Hirabhai Dabhi. The P.W. 2 has deposed that on the same day one Fulabhai Vihabhai Dabhi was also brought with a referred chit from the Deesa General Hospital. He has deposed that he issued a medical certificate Exh.30 with regard to the injuries noted on the body of Hirabhai Dabhi. The P.W. 2 has deposed that on the same day one Fulabhai Vihabhai Dabhi was also brought with a referred chit from the Deesa General Hospital. On examining Fulabhai, the P.W. 2 found him to be semi-conscious. The x-ray of the head revealed that there was a fracture in the frontal bone. He has deposed that the patient Fulabhai was sent to the Ahmedabad Civil Hospital with a referred chit as the injury sustained was of a grievous nature which can be caused by a hard and blunt object. He has deposed on being shown the muddamal article spade that if the reverse side of the spade is hit, then the injury sustained by Fulabhai can be caused. The P.W. 2 produced the two x-ray Exhs.39 and 40. The P.W. 2 has further deposed that on the same day one Takhabhai Vihabhai Parmar was referred by the Deesa General Hospital with a referred chit. He has deposed that the x-ray revealed that there was no fracture. On the request, the patient Takhabhai was referred to the Ahmedabad Civil Hospital with a referred chit. He has deposed that the injury sustained by Takhabhai can be caused by a hard and blunt object and would take about 8 to 10 days to heal. He has deposed that he issued a medical certificate Exh.41 regarding the treatment given to Takhabhai. The P.W. 2 was shown the muddamal article stick, and on seeing the same, he deposed that the injury sustained by Takhabhai can be caused by such a stick. In his cross-examination, the P.W. 2 has deposed that on 29th November 2005 at around 2 O’clock in the afternoon one Mohanbhai Javabhai Harijan (A7) was brought at the hospital with a referred chit issued by the Deesa Hospital. He has deposed that the patient Mohanbhai, in the history of assault, stated that he was beaten with sticks and sickle by one Fulabhai Vihabhai, Hirabhai Vihabhai, Takhabhai Vihabhai and others. The P.W. 2 has deposed that he noted the following injuries on the body of Mohanbhai : 1. Incised wound 3" x 1/4" x 1/8" on right middle of head vertical, bleeding present. 2. The P.W. 2 has deposed that he noted the following injuries on the body of Mohanbhai : 1. Incised wound 3" x 1/4" x 1/8" on right middle of head vertical, bleeding present. 2. CLW 3 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/8" on region 1/2" left lateral to Injury No. (1), clotted blood present. 3. Oedema 2" x 1/2" x 1/4" on left forearm back lower part, reddish. 21. The P.W. 2 has deposed that Mohanbhai was admitted in the hospital on 29th November 2005 and was discharged on 8th December 2005. He has deposed that the injuries sustained by Mohanbhai were grievous in nature. The Injury No. 1 can be caused by a sharp cutting weapon. The Injury Nos. 2 and 3 can be caused by a hard and blunt object. He has deposed that the Injury No. 1 sustained by Mohanbhai can be caused by a sickle, whereas the Injury Nos. 2 and 3 can be caused by sticks. The P.W. 2 has deposed that the x-ray No. 9175 of Mohanbhai revealed a probable fracture. The P.W. 2 has further deposed that on the same day in the afternoon at around 2 O’clock one Pradhanbhai Mohanbhai Harijan (A2) was referred by the Deesa General Hospital with a referred chit for treatment. The P.W. 2 noted the following injuries on the body of Pradhanbhai Harijan : 1. Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" on right elbow back lateral, bleeding present. 2. Pain – contusion 1" x 1/2 “ left knee medially. 3. Oedema right little finger at root with abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" at wab–side, 22. The P.W. 2 has deposed that the patient Pradhanbhai Mohanbhai Harijan (A2) was admitted in the hospital on 29th November 2005 as an indoor patient and was discharged on 5th December 2005. He has deposed that the injuries sustained by Pradhanbhai were simple in nature and the Injury No. 1 can be caused by a sharp cutting weapon, whereas the Injury Nos. 2 and 3 can be caused by a hard and blunt object. He has deposed that the Injury No. 1 can be caused by weapon like a sickle, whereas Injury Nos. 2 and 3 can be caused by a handle of the sickle as well as with a stick. 23. The P.W. 3 Dr. 2 and 3 can be caused by a hard and blunt object. He has deposed that the Injury No. 1 can be caused by weapon like a sickle, whereas Injury Nos. 2 and 3 can be caused by a handle of the sickle as well as with a stick. 23. The P.W. 3 Dr. Arvind Kantilal Kapadia, in his evidence Exh.52, has deposed that on 29th November 2005 the patients named Fulabhai Vihabhai Dabhi, Hirabhai Vihabhai Parmar and Takhabhai Vihabhai Parmar were referred by the Palanpur Civil Hospital with a referred chit for further treatment. The P.W. 3 has deposed that Fulabhai Vihabhai was unconscious and his condition was serious. He has further deposed that Fulabhai Vihabhai was admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient. He has deposed that on examination it was found that the parietal bone was fractured on the temporal region and a hair line fracture was also found. He has deposed that there were hematoma on the temporal region as well as on the frontal part. He has further deposed that on the same day one Takhabhai Vihabhai was referred by the Palanpur Civil Hospital with a referred chit and the examination of Takhabhai Vihabhai revealed the following injuries: 1. Abrasion on right little finger on hand. 2. Abrasion on right forearm lower 1/3 2cm x 1cm 3. Abrasion on right lower humerus 1cm x 1cm 24. He has deposed that he issued a medical certificate Exh.57 with regard to the injuries and the treatment of Takhabhai Vihabhai. The P.W. 3 has further deposed that on the same day one Hirabhai Vihabhai Parmar was referred by the Palanpur Civil Hospital with a referred chit. The P.W. 3 noted the following injuries on Hirabhai Vihabhai Parmar : Blackening of the left eye. Swelling at mandible region Stitched wound on mid parieto occipital region 25. He has further deposed that the x-ray of the left hand revealed a fracture in the fourth and the fifth finger. The second x-ray revealed a fracture in the shaft of radius, fracture by styloid process ulna was also found. The P.W. 3 produced the x-ray plates Exhs.59, 60 and 61. 26. The P.W. 4 Dr. Pulkit Sureshbhai Modi, in his evidence Exh.69, has deposed that on 29th November 2005 he was on duty in the Emergency Orthopeadic Center of the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The P.W. 3 produced the x-ray plates Exhs.59, 60 and 61. 26. The P.W. 4 Dr. Pulkit Sureshbhai Modi, in his evidence Exh.69, has deposed that on 29th November 2005 he was on duty in the Emergency Orthopeadic Center of the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. He has deposed that at around 10:40 in the night one Hirabhai Vihabhai Parmar was referred by the Palanpur Civil Hospital with a referred chit. He has deposed that preliminary treatment was given to Hirabhai and the x-ray revealed fracture of the left hand elbow including fracture in the fourth and the fifth finger of the left hand. He has deposed that a surgery was performed on Hirabhai Vihabhai Parmar. On 4th December 2005, Hirabhai Vihabhai was discharged from the hospital. He produced the case-papers of the treatment given to Hirabhai Vihabhai. He has deposed that the injuries sustained were grievous in nature. 27. The P.W. 5 Dr. Avdhesh Pramodbhai Shukla, in his evidence Exh.71, has deposed that he was serving as a Resident Neurosurgeon at the Ahmedabad Civil Hospital. On 29th November, 2005 while he was on duty, a person named Fulabhai Vihabhai Dabhi, deceased, was admitted as an indoor patient in the Neurosurgery Unit. He has deposed that the CT Scan report revealed the following injuries : (i) There was loss of excessive blood on the left hand side of the head. There was an extra dural hemorrhage and pressure on the brain. (ii) There was loss of blood near the ear, front of right side of the head and there was clotting of blood. (iii) On the right hand side of the head inside the brain there was swelling due to shock. (iv) There was subarachnoid hemorrhage. (v) In both the parietal bones there was a comminuted fracture. In both the temporal bones there was linear fracture. (vi) Inside the brain pneumocrania (air inside the brain) was found. 28. He has further deposed that on 30th November 2005 surgery was performed and the extradural hemorrhage which was found in the left temporal and parietal bone was removed. The internal bleeding in the brain was arrested. After the surgery, there was no improvement in his overall health. He has deposed that on 30th November 2005 once again surgery had to be performed. The dura mater inside the brain had to be opened and the clotted blood was removed. The internal bleeding in the brain was arrested. After the surgery, there was no improvement in his overall health. He has deposed that on 30th November 2005 once again surgery had to be performed. The dura mater inside the brain had to be opened and the clotted blood was removed. On 4th December 2005, third surgery had to be performed of the head. The same was of the occipital bone. A part of the occipital bone was removed. The P.W. 5 produced the x-rays Exh.72 and 74. 29. The P.W. 6 Dr. Manishbhai Chimanbhai Sutaria, in his evidence Exh.76, has deposed that he was serving with the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad past 2 years. On 8th December 2005, a dead body of one Fulabhai Vihabhai Dabhi was brought from the Civil Hospital, Shahibaug, for the purpose of postmortem. The P.W. 6 has deposed that the postmortem examination revealed the following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased : 1. Bedsore on sacral region 6 cm x 5 cm infected. 2. Bedsore on mid-thoracic vertebrae 2 cm x 1 cm. 3. Bedsore on left elbow joint posteriorly 3 cm x 1 cm. 4. Bedsore on right elbow joint posteriorly 3 cm x 3 cm. 5. Stitch wound on back of neck from occipital region upto C2 vertebrae 14 cm long. 6. Tracheostomy wound over neck 3 cm x 2 cm deep in trachea 7. Abrasion on left shoulder posteriorly 2 x 6 cm and 1 x 1 cm. 8. Contusion on occipital region 4 cm x 3cm. 9. Contusion and blackening of left eye 10. Abrasion on left cheek near mouth corner 1 x 1 cm. 11. Contusion on left side face near corner of mouth 1cm x 1cm 12. Stitch wound on head C shape start from left ear going upwards and backward and downwards total length 29 cm. He has deposed that he noted the following internal injuries: 1. hematoma under scalp (whole scalp) 2. craniotomy done, surgically bone removed on left parietal region 12 x 10 cm., bulging of brain matter from this gap of bone fracture of left and right parietal bone transverse, 6cm long in mid point depressed and compound fracture of left parietal and left occipital bone clotted blood between dura mater and scalp bone contusion on both side of hemisphere. Intra-cranial haemorrhage. 30. Intra-cranial haemorrhage. 30. He has further deposed that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to complications as a result of the head injury. 31. The P.W. 7 Hansaji Khanaji Harijan is one of the panch-witnesses examined by the prosecution. However, the P.W. 7 in her evidence Exh.81, failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. Nothing turns around on the evidence of the P.W. 7. 32. The P.W. 8 Narsinhbhai Vanaji Patel has been examined as one of the panch-witnesses of the scene of offence panchnama. However, the P.W. 8 in his evidence Exh.86, has failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. 33. The P.W. 9 Nanjibhai Bhanabhai Parmar has been examined by the prosecution as one of the panch-witnesses to the inquest panchnama of the dead body of the deceased including the panchnama of the person of the two injured persons, viz. Takhabhai Vihabhai and Hirabhai Vihabhai. The P.W. 9, in his evidence Exh.87, has deposed regarding the drawing of panchnama Exh.88. 34. The P.W. 10 Jesungbhai Rajabhai has been examined as one of the panch-witnesses. The P.W. 10, in his evidence Exh.90, has failed to support the case of the prosecution and has been declared as a hostile witness. The P.W. 10 admitted his signature on the panchnama, however, he deposed that he had put his signature on a readymade panchnama Exh.91. 35. The P.W. 11 Popatbhai Dharmabhai has also been examined as one of the panch-witnesses. The P.W. 11, in his evidence Exh.93, has failed to support the case of the prosecution and has been declared as a hostile witness. 36. The P.W. 12 Shankarji Viraji Prajapati has also been examined as one of the panch-witnesses. The P.W. 12, in his evidence Exh.94, has failed to support the case of the prosecution and has been declared as a hostile witness. 37. The P.W. 13 Haribhai Sagthabhai has also been examined as one of the panch-witnesses by the prosecution. The P.W. 13, in his evidence Exh.95, failed to support the case of the prosecution and has been declared as a hostile witness. 38. The P.W. 14 Chhaganlal Uttamchand Shah has also been examined as one of the panch-witnesses. 37. The P.W. 13 Haribhai Sagthabhai has also been examined as one of the panch-witnesses by the prosecution. The P.W. 13, in his evidence Exh.95, failed to support the case of the prosecution and has been declared as a hostile witness. 38. The P.W. 14 Chhaganlal Uttamchand Shah has also been examined as one of the panch-witnesses. However, this witness also in his evidence Exh.97 failed to support the case of the prosecution and has been declared as a hostile witness. 39. The P.W. 15 Madhabhai Mohanbhai Parmar has been examined as one of the panch-witnesses of the inquest panchnama Exh.99. The P.W. 15 proved the inquest panchnama Exh.99. 40. The P.W. 16 Kantaben Hirabhai Vihabhai is an important witness for the prosecution. The P.W. 16 is the wife of the P.W. 19 Hirabhai and the original first informant. The P.W. 16 has deposed that her husband Hirabhai has three brothers. The eldest viz. Ranabhai and thereafter Fulabhai, the deceased. The youngest is Takhabhai. At the time of the incident, they were residing in the field. She has also deposed that the other brothers of her husband were also residing in the field, whereas her father-in-law and mother-in-law were residing with Takhabhai, the youngest brother of her husband Hirabhai. She has deposed that the field in which they were residing was known as ‘Delawaru khetar’. According to her, on the date of the incident at around 8 O’ [clock in the morning she was at her house. As few guests had come to her house, she was preparing tea to be served to the guests. She has deposed that as guests had come to her house, the deceased Fulabhai had gone to the house of their other relatives to call them, and Takhabhai, at that point of time, was watering the field. She has deposed that Fulabhai, the deceased, after informing the other relatives, was returning and at that point of time, Fulabhai and Takhabhai had an altercation with Mohan Java (A7) and his sons. At that point of time, Pradhanbhai Mohanbhai (A2), Dinabhai Mohanbhai (A3), Popatbhai Mohanbhai (A1), Ramabhai Punjabhai (A5), Isabhai Shakrabhai (A6) and Dahyabhai Jagmalbhai (A4) were also quarreling. On hearing the commotion of the quarrel, her father-in-law, her mother-in-law and her husband Hirabhai also reached the place where the altercation was going on. At that point of time, Pradhanbhai Mohanbhai (A2), Dinabhai Mohanbhai (A3), Popatbhai Mohanbhai (A1), Ramabhai Punjabhai (A5), Isabhai Shakrabhai (A6) and Dahyabhai Jagmalbhai (A4) were also quarreling. On hearing the commotion of the quarrel, her father-in-law, her mother-in-law and her husband Hirabhai also reached the place where the altercation was going on. She has deposed that by that time her sister-in-law Manguben and her other sister-in-law Sauramben also arrived at the place of the incident. She has deposed that Popatbhai Mohanbhai (A1) had a spade in his hand and he inflicted injury on the head of Fulabhai, the deceased. She has deposed that Pradhanbhai Mohanbhai (A2) had a stick in his hand and Pradhanbhai Mohanbhai (A2) hit a blow with a stick on Takhabhai’s head. She has deposed that Dahyabhai Jagmalbhai (A4) had a sickle in his hand and with the same he inflicted an injury on the hand of her husband Hirabhai. She has deposed that the others had stick in their hands. She has deposed that Mohan Java (A7) hit a blow on the body of her husband Hirabhai with a stick. She has deposed that due to the injury sustained by Fulabhai he was not able to get up. She has also deposed that they all pleaded for mercy before the assailants and, therefore, all the assailants thereafter went away with the weapons in their hand. She has deposed that thereafter her brother-in-law Fulabhai was taken to the hospital in a jeep. The other injured persons were also taken to the Deesa Government Hospital. She has deposed that the motive behind the incident is the long standing dispute between the two families regarding a fence dividing their respective fields. 41. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion given to her that Mohan Java (A7) was all alone in his field and at that point of time her family members broke open the fence and entered the agricultural field of Mohan Java (A7) and attacked Mohanbhai. She also denied the suggestion that Mohanbhai sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body. She also denied the suggestion that Mohanbhai (A7) fell down due to assault on him and started bleeding profusely. She denied the suggestion that on shouts being raised by Mohanbhai (A7), his son Popatbhai (A1) came at the place of occurrence all alone. She also denied the suggestion that Mohanbhai (A7) fell down due to assault on him and started bleeding profusely. She denied the suggestion that on shouts being raised by Mohanbhai (A7), his son Popatbhai (A1) came at the place of occurrence all alone. She also denied the suggestion that when Fulabhai, the deceased, was on the verge of hitting a second blow on Mohanbhai (A7) with a sickle, at that point of time, with a view to save the life of Mohanbhai, Popatbhai (A1) had to hit a blow on Fulabhai, the deceased. 42. The P.W. 17 Babuji Jethaji Prajapati has been examined as one of the panch-witnesses. However, the P.W. 17 in his evidence Exh.101 failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. 43. The P.W. 18 Takhabhai Vihabhai has been examined as one of the eye-witnesses to the incident being the brother of the deceased Fulabhai. The P.W. 18 in his evidence Exh.104 has deposed on the same line with that of the P.W. 16 Kantaben. 44. The same suggestions those which were given to the P.W. 16 Kantaben were given to this witness also regarding the assault first on Mohanbhai (A7) and thereafter Popatbhai (A1) hitting a blow on the body of the deceased. However, such suggestions were denied by the P.W. 18. 45. The P.W. 19 Hirabhai Vihabhai has also been examined as one of the eye-witnesses to the incident. The P.W. 19 in his evidence has also deposed on the same line with that of the P.W. 16 and the P.W. 18. The P.W. 19 was also given the same suggestions like those which were given to the P.W. 16 and the P.W. 18 and the same were denied. 46. The P.W. 19 in his evidence has deposed that the accused persons had also lodged a complaint against him and his brothers for assaulting the accused persons and the said complaint culminated in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2006. Thus, this witness i.e. the P.W. 19 admitted about the cross-case which was filed against him and his brothers. 47. The P.W. 20 Manjulaben Natvarbhai has been examined by the prosecution as one of the eye-witnesses. The P.W. 20 happens to be the sister of the wife of the deceased. Thus, this witness i.e. the P.W. 19 admitted about the cross-case which was filed against him and his brothers. 47. The P.W. 20 Manjulaben Natvarbhai has been examined by the prosecution as one of the eye-witnesses. The P.W. 20 happens to be the sister of the wife of the deceased. The P.W. 20 in her evidence Exh.106 has also deposed practically on the same line with that of the other eye-witnesses.