JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. Since both the appeals arise from a common order of conviction and sentence dated 14th July, 2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham, Kutch, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2008, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. These two appeals are at the instance of four convicted-accused persons of offence under Sections 302 and 324, read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and are directed against the order of conviction and consequent sentence dated 14th July, 2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham, Kutch, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2008. By the aforesaid order of conviction, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000 each, with a further stipulation that in default of payment of fine, the appellants shall suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The appellants have also been sentenced to suffer further simple imprisonment of six months with fine of Rs. 300 each for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the appellants were ordered to be acquitted of the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution: On 9th March, 2008, the brother of the deceased, namely Mohanbhai Alabhai Dafda lodged a first information report Exh.77/C at the Bhachau Police Station, inter alia stating that on 9th March, 2008, at around 2.15 in the afternoon, he was at his house. His two brothers, Melabhai Meghabhai Alabhai and Hari Alabhai had gone out for business, whereas his mother Hemabai had gone to the village to buy few household articles. While the first informant was at his house, his other brother Kana Ala i.e. the deceased, went out to answer nature's call. At around 2.15 hours in the afternoon, the first informant heard a sound of quarrel, coming from the house of his cousin brother, Khimabhai Devjibhai (the original accused No.4). While the first informant was at his house, his other brother Kana Ala i.e. the deceased, went out to answer nature's call. At around 2.15 hours in the afternoon, the first informant heard a sound of quarrel, coming from the house of his cousin brother, Khimabhai Devjibhai (the original accused No.4). Having felt so, the first informant went near the house of Khimabhai (the original accused No.4) and saw that his brother Kana Ala had been caught by Khima Devji's wife, namely, Khimibai (the original accused No.2) and Khimabhai Devjibhai's mother, namely, Varjuben (the original accused No.1) and Khima Devji (the original accused No.4) along with Ramu Devji (the original accused No.3) were standing next to Kana Ala. It is stated in the FIR that Khima Devji (A/4) and Ramu Devji (A/3) were armed with sickle in their hands and were uttering bad words. It is further stated that while the first informant tried to save his brother Kana, then Khima Devji (A/4) hit a blow with a sickle on the head of Kana Ala, as a result, Kana Ala fell down and collapsed. It is further stated that Ramu Devji (A/3) also attempted to hit a blow on Kana, but as the first informant intervened, the blow could not be executed but in the process, the first informant injured himself on his hand, palms and shoulders. The first informant raised hue and cry, due to which all the accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence. In the meantime, the two brothers of the first informant, Magabhai and Haribhai, along with Chhotibai (the wife of the deceased) came running at the place of the occurrence. It is stated that they found Kana lying unconscious in a pool of blood. In the meantime, other persons residing in the village also arrived at the place of occurrence. It has been stated in the first information report that the motive behind the commission of the crime was that Khima Devji (A/4) had illicit relations with one Rasilaben. Rasilaben happens to be the wife of one Govind, and Govind happens to be the son of the cousin brother, namely Manjibhai, of the first informant and the deceased. In this connection, the deceased had reprimanded Khima Devji and had also asked him not to indulge in such an immoral act. Rasilaben happens to be the wife of one Govind, and Govind happens to be the son of the cousin brother, namely Manjibhai, of the first informant and the deceased. In this connection, the deceased had reprimanded Khima Devji and had also asked him not to indulge in such an immoral act. Keeping such spite in mind, on the date of the incident, Khima Devji (A/4) inflicted serious injuries on the head of the deceased, resulting in his death. 4. On complaint being lodged by the brother of the deceased, the investigation had started. The inquest panchnama, Exh.29 of the dead-body of the deceased was drawn in presence of the panch witnesses. The scene of offence panchnama, Exh.26 was drawn in presence of the panch witnesses. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination and the postmortem report, Exh.49/C noted that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to neurogenic shock as a result of cut injury on the brain tissues. The blood-stained clothes of the deceased worn at the time of the incident were collected by drawing a panchnama, Exh.36 in presence of the panch witnesses. The accused No.3, Ramu Devji was arrested on 15th March, 2008 and his arrest panchnama, Exh.31 was drawn in presence of the panch witnesses. The clothes worn by Ramu Devji (A/3) were collected by drawing a panchnama, Exh.33 in persons of the panch witnesses. The other accused persons were also arrested and their arrest panchnamas were drawn in presence of the panch witnesses. The discovery panchnama of the weapon of offence, Exh.39, at the instance of Ramu Devji (A/3) was drawn in presence of the panch witnesses. The second discovery panchnama of the weapon of offence, Exh.45, at the instance of Khima Devji (A/4) was drawn in presence of the panch witnesses. Ultimately, a charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhachau-Kutch. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhachau, committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The Sessions Court framed charges Exh.10 against the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded "not guilty" and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution examined the following witnesses in support of its case. 5. The Sessions Court framed charges Exh.10 against the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded "not guilty" and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution examined the following witnesses in support of its case. P.W 1 Hari Meraman Ahir Exh.25 P.W 2 Meraman Dosa 27 P.W 3 Karshan Kana Makwana 28 P.W 4 Mayursinh Jayendrasinh Jadeja 30 P.W 5 Janmamad Allarakha 32 P.W 6 Jagdipsinh Mahipatsinh Jadeja 34 P.W 7 Umar Jiva 35 P.W 8 Jasha Bachu 37 P.W 9 Ranchhod Khima 38 P.W 10 Hiteshgiri Mohangiri 40 P.W 11 Bhikha Vaja 41 P.W 12 Rava Ganesh 43 P.W 13 Naran Sambhu 44 P.W 14 Pachan Nagdan 46 P.W 15 Dr. Sujitkumar Satyendra 48 P.W 16 Narendra Chanaram Kapdi 52 P.W 17 Kanak Dhirajlal Dodiya 54 P.W 18 Dharmendrasinh Jambha Zala 55 P.W 19 Mohan Ala Dafda 56 P.W 20 Chotiben Kana Dafda 63 P.W 21 Megha Ala Dafda 64 P.W 22 Rasila Govind 65 P.W 23 Bhupendra Bachu Lakhtariya 69 P.W 24 Narendrasinh Bahadursinh Jadeja 72 P.W 25 Ranchhod Soma Ninama 76 P.W 26 Jayendrasinh Gumansinh Zala 79 7. The prosecution also produced the following pieces of documentary evidence: Particulars Mark Exh.No. Panchnama of scene of occurrence 16/3 26 Inquest Panchnama 16/2 29 Panchnama 16/6 31 Panchnama 16/7 33 Panchnama 16/8 36 Panchnama 16/9 39 Panchnama 16/10 42 Panchna 16/11 45 P.M. Note 16/12 49 Case paper of CHC, Bhachau - 51 Panchnama 16/5 53 Affidavit of Mohan Dafda - 59 Affidavit of Chothiben Kana - 60 Map 70 List of documents - 71 Yadi of PSI, Bhachau 71/1 73 Yadi of PSI Bhachau 71/3 74 Janvajog No. 43/08 16/1 75 FIR (Original complaint) - 77 Yadi of PSO, Bhachau Police Station 71/2 78 Panchnama 16/4 80 Letter of FSL with statement of muddamal & questionnaire 16/13 81 Certificate 16/14 82 Receipt of FSL 16/15 83 Notification 16/16 84 Letter of PSI, Bhachau 21/1 85 Purshis - 94 Analysis report of FSL - Letter of FSL 21/2 86 8. The accused persons denied the allegations levelled against them by the evidence adduced by the prosecution under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and asserted that they were innocent. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge however, found the appellants guilty, convicted them and consequently awarded the sentence as stated above. 10. Being dissatisfied, the convicts have come up with the present two appeals. 11. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge however, found the appellants guilty, convicted them and consequently awarded the sentence as stated above. 10. Being dissatisfied, the convicts have come up with the present two appeals. 11. Submissions on behalf of the appellants: Ms. Lopa M. Bhatt, the learned Advocate appearing for Mr. A.D. Desai, vehemently submitted that the trial Court committed a serious error in finding the accused-appellants guilty of the offence of murder. Ms. Bhatt submitted that the entire case hinges on the evidence of a solitary eyewitness i.e. the brother of the deceased. Ms. Bhatt further submitted that from the evidence of the solitary eyewitness, it cannot be said that he is a wholly reliable witness. Ms. Bhatt further submitted that the ocular version of the solitary eyewitness is in conflict with the medical evidence on record. Ms. Bhatt also submitted that so far as the two female convicts are concerned, no case has been made out of abetting the commission of the crime. According to Ms. Bhatt, the conviction of Varjuben (A/1) and Khimiben (A/2) for the offence of murder is not tenable in law. In such circumstances referred to above, Ms. Bhatt prays that there being merit in these appeals, the same may be allowed and the accused-appellants be acquitted of all the charges. 12. Submissions on behalf of the State: Mr. K.P. Raval, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed these appeals and has submitted that the trial Court committed no error in finding the accused persons guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302, read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Raval submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the solitary eyewitness to the incident because he himself is an injured witness. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Raval prays that there being no merit in the appeals, they deserve to be dismissed. 13. It appears from the materials on record that in course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses and out of those, the P.W 1, P.W 4, P.W 5, P.W 6, P.W 7, P.W 8, P.W 9, P.W 10, P.W 11, P.W 12, P.W 13, P.W 14, P.W 16, P.W 17, P.W 18 and P.W 22 were declared as hostile witnesses as they failed to support the case of the prosecution. We have gone through the evidence of all these witnesses and their evidence is in no manner helpful to the prosecution. In such circumstances, we are not discussing the evidence in details. 14. We, however, proceed to consider the oral evidence of those witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution and on which the trial Court has placed reliance. (i) The P.W 2, Meraman Dosa in his evidence, Exh.27 has deposed that Police had called him at village Kadol Harijanvas to act as a panch witness. He has deposed that on examination of the place of occurrence, he could see some blood stains. Nothing else noticeable was found at the place of the occurrence. He has deposed that first the Police prepared the panchnama in writing and thereafter, had obtained his signature. He has deposed that the Police was dictating the contents of the panchnama, whereas the writer was reducing the same in writing. The P.W 2 has further deposed that he had no idea as to what the Police was writing. He had put his signature on the panchnama, Exh.26 as asked by the Police. (ii) The P.W 3, Karshan Kana Makwana, in his evidence Exh.28 has deposed that he was called by the Police at the Bhachau Government Hospital to act as a panch witness. At the hospital, the dead-body of Kanabhai was lying on a bed and he could notice an injury on the rear part of the head. He has deposed that the injury had been caused by a sickle. He has deposed that the clothes on the body of the deceased were stained with blood. (iii) The P.W 15, Dr. Surjitkumar Satyendra, in his evidence Exh.48 has deposed that on 9th March, 2008, he was on duty as a Medical Officer at the Government Hospital, Bhachau. At that time, one Mohan Ala Dafda came with the dead-body of his brother Kana Ala. The P.W 15 has deposed that he informed the Police that a dead-body had come for postmortem. After some time, the Police arrived at the Government Hospital and handed over the body after drawing the inquest panchnama. The P.W 15 has deposed that the postmortem examination revealed the following external injuries as noted in column No.17 of the postmortem report Exh.49. After some time, the Police arrived at the Government Hospital and handed over the body after drawing the inquest panchnama. The P.W 15 has deposed that the postmortem examination revealed the following external injuries as noted in column No.17 of the postmortem report Exh.49. a. Laceration on left hand 2 x 0.1 x 0.1 cm on dorsal aspect of right wrist b. Abrasion on right upper ? of thigh 8 x 0.1 cm c. Sharp cut injury on mid at bi-parietal region to mid of occipital region. In this injury skin and muscle cut done and brain tissue cut in one plane 16 cm x 3 cm x 1.5 cm. Note: In this injury mid of injury depth 3 cm x rest area depth is 1.5 cm). d. Sharp bone cut on occipital region 16cm long. The P.W 15 has further deposed that the bone and the brain tissues were cut. He has further deposed that the injury sustained was 3cm deep in the middle part and the depth of the surrounding part of the injury was 1.5cm. He has deposed that the bone had got cut by a sharp edged weapon and the measurement thereof was 16cm wide. He has further deposed that the examination of the brain revealed swelling on the lower part of the skin and blood had clotted. There was an injury on the brain measuring 10.5cm. The skull was cut and divided in two parts due to a blow by a sharp edged weapon. He has deposed that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest and neurogenic shock as a result of profuse bleeding. The P.W 15 had deposed that on the same day, Mohan Ala was also examined by him. He has deposed that Mohan Ala had sustained a cut wound on the left hand measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cm. The injury was simple in nature and can be caused by a blunt object. The second injury which was found on the body of Mohan Ala was in the form of an abrasion and swelling between the first and the second finger on the backside of the palm of left hand measuring 1 cm x 1cm with a swelling of 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm. The second injury which was found on the body of Mohan Ala was in the form of an abrasion and swelling between the first and the second finger on the backside of the palm of left hand measuring 1 cm x 1cm with a swelling of 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm. The P.W 15 has deposed that in the history of assault narrated by Mohan Ala, he had stated that he sustained the injury while trying to save his brother Kana Ala. He has deposed that he issued a certificate of examination of Mohan Ala, which was produced and admitted in evidence vide Exh.50. In his cross-examination, the P.W 15 has deposed that he had carried out the postmortem in accordance with the inquest report. Nothing substantial could be elicited through the cross-examination of the P.W 15. (iv) The P.W 19, Mohan Ala Dafda is the injured brother of the deceased. He is also the original first informant. In his evidence Exh.56, he has deposed that the incident had occurred on 9th March, 2008 at around 2.15 hours in the afternoon near the gate of the house of Khima Devji (A/3). He has deposed that at that time his sister-in-law Chhotibai and his brother Kana were present at the house. He has deposed that his brother Kana went outside the house to answer the nature's call. After some time, the P.W 19 heard a sound of quarrel going on and due to which he came out of the house. He has deposed that on walking a little ahead, he saw that his brother Kana Ala had been caught from his hands by Khimibai (A/2), and Varjuben (A/1), and Khima Devji and Ramu Devji were standing next to them with sickle in their hands. He has deposed that Khima Devji and Ramu Devji were uttering bad words. He has further deposed that before he could run and reach near his brother Kana, Khima Devji hit a blow with a sickle on the head of his brother Kana, as a result Kana fell down. He has deposed that thereafter when he intervened, Ramu Devji also tried to hit a blow, but because of his intervention, he sustained the injury. He has deposed that Ramu Devji inflicted injuries on his hand with a sickle. He has deposed that thereafter when he intervened, Ramu Devji also tried to hit a blow, but because of his intervention, he sustained the injury. He has deposed that Ramu Devji inflicted injuries on his hand with a sickle. He has deposed that he sustained injuries on his left foream, left elbow and left dorsal aspect of the hand. The P.W 19 has further deposed that on raising hue and cry, the accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence. He has deposed that thereafter, his other two brothers Megha Ala and Haribhai along with his sister-in-law Chhotibai i.e. the wife of the deceased, arrived at the place of occurrence. In the meantime, other people of the village also gathered at the place of occurrence. He has deposed that the motive behind the commission of the crime was that the deceased had reprimanded Khima, as Khima was maintaining illicit relations with one Rasilaben, who happens to be the wife of Govind i.e. cousin-brother of the P.W 19. Keeping such a spite in mind, Khima Devji and the other co-accused inflicted injuries on the deceased. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that his house is bank opposite the house of the accused persons. He has deposed that if one wants to visit the house of the accused persons, then one would have to reach after taking a turn from his house. He has deposed that next to the house of the accused persons is a public road and many people pass through that road. On the date of the incident, there was none who was passing through that public road. He has also deposed that on the date of the incident, his brother Kana had gone to attend a marriage. However, he denied the suggestion given to him that Kana was to have food at the place of marriage. He has deposed that after attending the marriage, Kana had returned to home at around 12'O Clock in the afternoon. He has deposed that Kana had yet to have his food. He has deposed that his brother left for the jungle at around 2'O Clock in the afternoon. He has further deposed that he had no idea whether his brother had answered the nature's call or he was yet to answer the nature's call when he left the house. He has deposed that Kana had yet to have his food. He has deposed that his brother left for the jungle at around 2'O Clock in the afternoon. He has further deposed that he had no idea whether his brother had answered the nature's call or he was yet to answer the nature's call when he left the house. He deposed that it takes 20 minutes to reach the jungle and thereafter, he immediately changed his version and deposed that it takes around 5 to 10 minutes to reach the jungle. He has deposed that he just left the house when the incident had occurred. The incident occurred on the P.W 19 reaching the place of occurrence. He could see the assault while he was at a distance of about 25 footsteps. He has deposed that when the first blow was hit, he was at a distance of 25 footsteps. The incident lasted for 2-3 minutes. He has deposed that before the incident actually occurred, he could hear the sound of a quarrel before 5 minutes. He has further deposed that no sooner had the first blow hit on his brother, than he fell down. The second blow was also hit immediately. He has deposed that he flung himself on the dead-body and tried to resist. He has deposed that the second blow was hit by Ramu Devji, but that particular blow landed up on his body. He has deposed that at the time of the incident, he had raised a lot of hue and cry, but none came at the place of the occurrence. After about ten minutes, his other brother Megha Ala came at the spot, followed by Chhotibai. He has further deposed that he did not seek help of the neighbours. In his cross-examination, he has further deposed that it was true that when the altercation took place between the accused persons and his brother Kana, at that time, he was at his house. What was the exact altercation was not known to him. He has deposed that by the time he could reach, his brother had already collapsed. He has deposed that the motive which he had alleged was on a mere assumption. (v) The P.W 20, Chhotibai is the wife of the deceased. What was the exact altercation was not known to him. He has deposed that by the time he could reach, his brother had already collapsed. He has deposed that the motive which he had alleged was on a mere assumption. (v) The P.W 20, Chhotibai is the wife of the deceased. In her evidence Exh.63, she has deposed that on 9th March, 2008, at around 2'O Clock in the afternoon, she was at her house along with her husband and her brother-in-law Mohan. She has deposed that at that time, her husband left to answer the nature's call. In the meantime, her brother-in-law heard a sound of quarrel going on outside, and therefore, her brother-in-law went outside. She has deposed that thereafter she also went outside. The P.W 20 has deposed that she saw her brother-in-law standing and her husband was bleeding profusely from his head. Her brother-in-law had also sustained injuries on his hand. On inquiring with his brother-in-law Mohanbhai, as to what had happened, she was informed by him that Varjuben and Khimiben had caught hold of Kana and Khima Devji hit a blow with a sickle on the head of Kana. She has deposed that thereafter, she raised cries and after some time, her other two brother-in-law also reached the spot of occurrence. She has deposed that the motive for the incident was that her husband Kana had reprimanded Khima, as Khima was maintaining illicit relations with one Rasilaben, wife of Govind, and Govind happens to be the cousin-brother of the deceased. She has deposed in her cross-examination that when hue and cry was raised, at that time she was at her house. The Police arrived at the place of occurrence within 15 minutes. (vi) The P.W 21, Meghabhai is the brother of the deceased. In his evidence, Exh.64, he has deposed that on 9th March, 2008, he had left in the morning for some work. He returned to the village at around 3'O Clock in the afternoon. On the way, he met his other brother, namely Hari. He has deposed that his brother Mohan Ala was crying aloud in the locality and he and his brother Hari rushed at the place where Mohan was wailing. He has deposed that he saw the dead-body of his brother Kana near the house of Khima Devji, lying in a pool of blood. He has deposed that his brother Mohan Ala was crying aloud in the locality and he and his brother Hari rushed at the place where Mohan was wailing. He has deposed that he saw the dead-body of his brother Kana near the house of Khima Devji, lying in a pool of blood. In the meantime, the Police of Chobari reached at the spot of occurrence, and told the family members to take Kana to Bhachau. The dead-body of Kana was put in a tempo and was taken to the Bhachau Government Hospital. On reaching the Government Hospital, the doctor declared Kana as 'brought dead'. After the postmortem was performed, the dead-body was handed over to the family members. After the dead-body was brought at home, the same was buried. The P.W 21 has deposed that after the burial, he enquired with his brother Mohan as to what had happened, and in reply, he was informed by Mohan and his sister-in-law Chhotibai that Kana had gone to answer nature's call and in the meantime, they heard sound of a fight due to which Mohan came out of the house and saw that Kana had been caught hold of by Varjuben and Khimiben near their house, Khima Devji had a sickle in his hand and Ramu Devji also had a sickle in his hand, and thereafter, Khima Devji hit the blow on the head of Kana. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that when he himself along with his brother Hari reached near the dead-body of Kana, at that time his brother Mohan and his sister-in-law Chhotibai were present, whereas other people were standing at a little far off place. (vii) The P.W 25, Ranchhodbhai Ninama is the first investigating officer. In his evidence Exh.76, he has deposed that on 9th March, 2008, the P.S.O of the Bhachau Police Station, namely Narendrasinh Jadeja had handed over the investigation of Janvajog entry No. 43/08. He has deposed that he reached the Bhachau Government Hospital and carried out the inquest panchnama of the dead-body of Kana. Thereafter, he recorded the complaint lodged by Mohan Ala, which was registered as C.R No. I-33/08. On the next day at around 7.30 in the morning, the panchnama of the scene of offence was drawn. In the meantime, P.S.I Shri Zala of the Bhachau Police Station, who was on leave, resumed, and accordingly, took over the investigation. Thereafter, he recorded the complaint lodged by Mohan Ala, which was registered as C.R No. I-33/08. On the next day at around 7.30 in the morning, the panchnama of the scene of offence was drawn. In the meantime, P.S.I Shri Zala of the Bhachau Police Station, who was on leave, resumed, and accordingly, took over the investigation. (viii) The P.W 26, Jayendrasinh Zala is the second investigating officer. In his evidence Exh.79, he has deposed that on resuming the duty on 10th March, 2008, he took over the investigation from P.S.I Shri Ninama. He has deposed that the statements of various witnesses were recorded and the accused persons were arrested and their arrest panchnamas were drawn. The weapons of offence used in the commission of the crime were discovered at the instance of Ramu Devji and Khima Devji. He has explained the various other steps which were taken to complete the investigation. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that in the course of the investigation, he had recorded the statements of Parsottam Balakdas Sadhu, Mahadeva Ahir, Jettibhai Danda, and Laljibhai Veerabhai. He has deposed that in the statement of Parsottam Balakdas Sadhu, recorded on 10th March, 2008, he stated that he had no idea as to how Kana Ala was murdered and who were the persons responsible in causing the death of Kana Ala. In the same manner, from the statements of the other witnesses, no clue could be gathered as to how the incident had occurred and who were the assailants. 15. 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 these appeals is whether the trial Court committed any error in holding the accused-appellants guilty of the offence of murder. 16. The picture that emerges on the cumulative assessment of the materials on record is that the entire case hinges on the evidence of a solitary injured eyewitness i.e. the P.W 19, Mohanbhai Ala. The P.W 19, Mohanbhai Ala was also medically examined by the P.W 15, Dr. Surjitkumar Satyendra on 9th March, 2008. 16. The picture that emerges on the cumulative assessment of the materials on record is that the entire case hinges on the evidence of a solitary injured eyewitness i.e. the P.W 19, Mohanbhai Ala. The P.W 19, Mohanbhai Ala was also medically examined by the P.W 15, Dr. Surjitkumar Satyendra on 9th March, 2008. It appears from the medical certificate Exh.50 issued by the P.W 15 that the P.W 19, Mohan Ala had sustained three injuries, one on the left forearm, the second in the form of an abrasion and swelling between the first and the second finger on the backside of the palm of left hand measuring 1 cm x 1 cm with a swelling of 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm and the third on the dorsal aspect of the hand. All the injuries were simple in nature. In the medical certificate Exh. 50, it has been stated that the injuries can be caused by a blunt object. It also appears that the P.W 19, Mohan Ala, at the time of his medical examination, gave history of assault before the doctor stating that he had sustained the injuries while trying to save his brother Kana Ala. 17. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:- I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. II. II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. III. When eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to mount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness. [See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : ( AIR 1983 SC 753 ) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP ( AIR 1959 SC 1012 )]. 18. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:- (a) The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. 18. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:- (a) The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded. 19. We are really taken by surprise that although the incident occurred on a public road passing through a locality of houses, yet not a single independent witness came forward to state before the Police regarding the incident. In such circumstances, we are left with no other option but to consider the evidence of the P.W 19 Mohanbhai. The P.W 19 Mohanbhai, in his evidence has deposed regarding the assault by Khima Devji (A/4). It appears that Khima Devji (A/4) had some axe to grind against the deceased as he was reprimanded by the deceased on account of his illicit relations with Rasilaben. At least one thing is very clear that it was not a preplanned or a premeditated act. Something went wrong on the date of the incident, but exactly what had transpired remains a mystery. We do not find any good reason to disbelieve the evidence of the P.W 19 Mohanbhai, so far as Khima Devji (A/4) inflicting injuries on the head of the deceased with a sickle is concerned. The ocular version of the P.W 19 is well corroborated by the medical evidence on record. We are not impressed by the submission of Ms. We do not find any good reason to disbelieve the evidence of the P.W 19 Mohanbhai, so far as Khima Devji (A/4) inflicting injuries on the head of the deceased with a sickle is concerned. The ocular version of the P.W 19 is well corroborated by the medical evidence on record. We are not impressed by the submission of Ms. Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution case should fail on the ground that in the course of the examination of the P.W 15, Dr. Sujitkumar Satyendrakumar, the sickle i.e. the weapon of offence, was not shown to him so as to seek his opinion whether the injury sustained by the deceased can be caused by such a weapon or not. By the very nature of the weapon, the injury, which the deceased had sustained on his head, could have been caused. Therefore, it could be said that the accused No. 4, Khima Devji had some motive to commit the crime and it appears that some altercation might have taken place at the time of the incident. It also appears that the version of the P.W 19 that Kana had left the house to answer the nature's call is corroborated by the medical evidence on record. The postmortem report suggests that before the deceased could defecate, the incident occurred, and therefore, in the postmortem report, faecal material was found in the large intestine and the small intestine contained digested food particles. 20. In the overall view of the matter, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the trial Court committed no error in finding the accused No.4. Khima Devji guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. The above takes us to answer the second question whether the trial Court is justified in holding the accused No.3, Ramu Devji also guilty of murder with the aid of Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It deserves to be noted at this stage that in the evidence of the P.W 20, Chhotiben Kanabhai, Exh.63, there is no reference of the accused No.3, Ramu Devji. It deserves to be noted at this stage that in the evidence of the P.W 20, Chhotiben Kanabhai, Exh.63, there is no reference of the accused No.3, Ramu Devji. The P.W 20, in her evidence has deposed that on reaching the place of occurrence, when she enquired with the P.W 19 as to what had happened, the P.W 20 was informed that the accused No.4, Khima Devji hit a blow on the head of the deceased, whereas the accused No.1 and the accused No.2 had caught hold of the deceased. In the same manner, if we peruse the evidence of the P.W 21, Meghabhai, Exh.64, in his evidence also there is no reference of the accused No.3 Ramu Devji. The P.W 21, Meghabhai, in his evidence has deposed that on enquiring with the P.W 19 regarding the incident, he was informed that Varjuben and Khimiben had caught hold of Kana, and Khima Devji hit a blow with a sickle on the head of the deceased Kana. The P.W 21 has deposed that Ramu Devji had a sickle in his hand, but there is nothing in the evidence of the P.W 21 regarding any overt act attributed to Ramu Devji by the P.W 19, Mohanbhai. However, the fact remains that the P.W 19, Mohanbhai, in his evidence has deposed that he sustained injuries on his hand on account of the blows hit by the accused No.3 while he was trying to save the deceased. 22. We are of the view, having regard to the manner in which the incident occurred, and also considering the fact that the accused No.3 had no enmity with the deceased, even if we believe the presence of the accused No.3 at the place of occurrence as alleged by the P.W 19, then in such circumstances, the accused No.3 could be held guilty of the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, but at least not for the offence of murder with the aid of Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, to this extent, we are inclined to partly allow the appeal so far as the accused No.3, Ramu Devji is concerned. 23. We are now left with the role played by the accused No. 1, Varjuben and the accused No. 2, Khimiben. Therefore, to this extent, we are inclined to partly allow the appeal so far as the accused No.3, Ramu Devji is concerned. 23. We are now left with the role played by the accused No. 1, Varjuben and the accused No. 2, Khimiben. The accused No.1, Varjuben is the mother of the accused No. 3 and the accused No. 4, whereas the accused No. 2 Khimiben is the wife of the accused No. 4, Khima. It is not in dispute that the incident occurred near the gate of the house of the accused persons, and therefore, the presence of the two ladies the accused No.1 and the accused No. 2 was quite natural. However, considering the role attributed to the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2, could it be said that they abetted the commission of the principal offence i.e. murder, so as to hold them guilty for the same with the aid of Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 24. According to the P.W 19, the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2 had caught hold of the deceased and that the altercation had lasted for more than five minutes. At the end of it, all of a sudden, the accused No. 4, Khima hit a blow on the head of the deceased. (i) To abet is to countenance, assist; to give aid. (ii) "Aid" and "abet" comprehend all assistance rendered by words, acts, encouragement, support, or presence, actual or constructive, to render assistance, if necessary. (iii) To "aid" and "abet means to help, assist, or facilitate the commission of a crime, or to promote the accomplishment thereof, or to help in advancing or bringing it about, or to encourage, counsel, or incite as to its commission. (iv) The word "abet" includes knowledge of the wrongful purpose of the perpetrator and counsel and encouragement in the crime. (v) The words "aid" and "abet" are not synonymous. To abet is to encourage, counsel, incite, or instigate the commission of a crime. The word indicates an act of an accessory before the fact. (vi) Abetting and commission of an offence involves the idea of the use of force, physical or moral, joined with that of the actual perpetrator in producing it. To abet is to encourage, counsel, incite, or instigate the commission of a crime. The word indicates an act of an accessory before the fact. (vi) Abetting and commission of an offence involves the idea of the use of force, physical or moral, joined with that of the actual perpetrator in producing it. The question which then arises for our consideration, to which the trial Court has not paid enough attention, is whether on the sole inference which arises from the fact that the accused No.1 and the accused No.2 had caught hold of the deceased, they intended to facilitate the murder of Kana. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines abetment provides to the extent material that a person abets the doing of a thing who "intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing". Explanation 2 to the Section says that "whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act". 25. Thus, in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. If abruptly an altercation takes place and one of the persons catches hold of the other person, that may perhaps facilitate the murder of that person by the second person, but unless catching-hold of that person is with the intent to facilitate the commission of the murder, the person catching-hold of the deceased cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime. Intentional aiding and therefore, active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107. 26. If we peruse the entire FIR as well as the deposition of the P.W 19, than all that has been alleged is that the accused No.1 and the accused No.2 had caught hold of the deceased. Intentional aiding and therefore, active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107. 26. If we peruse the entire FIR as well as the deposition of the P.W 19, than all that has been alleged is that the accused No.1 and the accused No.2 had caught hold of the deceased. How the accused No.1 and the accused No.2 had caught hold of the deceased, and from which part of the body he was caught hold of, is not made clear. The P.W 19 has not deposed that the accused No.1 and the accused No.2 had caught hold of the deceased for the purpose of aiding the accused No.3 and the accused No.4 in committing murder. Thus, in our opinion, there is no reliable evidence to show the participation of the accused No.1 and the accused No.2 in the assault on the deceased, and in such circumstances, therefore, Section 114 would have no application. If the altercation had lasted for five minutes as deposed by the P.W 19, then it is very difficult even to attribute knowledge to the other accused persons that the accused No. 3, Khima, all of a sudden, would hit a blow on the head of the deceased. 27. The contention of Mr. Raval, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State that the accused No. 3 and the accused No. 4 had sickle in their hands, and therefore, the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2 would know that they had all gathered to commit the murder, is not a fair inference. 28. As stated above, all that we have in the present appeals is the oral evidence of the P.W 19, who is the solitary eyewitness and the P.W 20 Chhotiben, the wife of the deceased, who was informed about the incident at the earliest by the P.W 19. As none of the panch witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the other evidence like discovery panchnama etc. have not been proved in accordance with law. 29. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No. 1405 of 2009 is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence so far as Varjuben Dafda, the accused No. 1 and Khimiben Dafda, the accused No. 2 is concerned, are set aside. have not been proved in accordance with law. 29. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No. 1405 of 2009 is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence so far as Varjuben Dafda, the accused No. 1 and Khimiben Dafda, the accused No. 2 is concerned, are set aside. The accused No. 1 Varjuben Dafda, and the accused No. 2, Khimiben Dafda are acquitted of all the charges. Since they have been released on bail pending this appeal, their bail bonds stand discharged. 30. The Criminal Appeal No. 1648 of 2009 is partly allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court so far as Khima Devji, the accused No. 4 is concerned, is hereby confirmed. So far as Ramu Devji, the accused No. 3 is concerned, the order of conviction and sentence for the offence of murder, is hereby set aside. Ramu Devji, the accused No. 3, is acquitted of the offence of murder. However, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused No. 3, Ramu Devji, so far as the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, stands confirmed. The accused No. 3, Ramu Devji by now has already undergone five years of imprisonment, and therefore, he has already undergone the sentence of six months imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, Ramu Devji, the accused No. 3 is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal No. 1405 of 2009 allowed. Appeal No. 1648 of 2009 partly allowed.