Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1141 (GUJ)

Dharmiben Premji Rava Koli v. State of Gujarat

2015-11-02

K.J.THAKER, M.R.SHAH

body2015
JUDGMENT M.R. Shah, J. 1. As all these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 5), Kutch at Bhuj (hereinafter referred to as the "learned trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2002 but by different accused who are convicted and one by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court acquitting some of the accused, all these appeals are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court convicting the original accused Nos. 3 to 6, 8 to 10, 14, 16 to 20, 23 to 25, 38 to 41 and 44 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324, 504, 506(2), 307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the aforesaid original accused have preferred present Criminal Appeal No. 1337 of 2008. 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court convicting the original accused Nos. 15, 25 and 40 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324, 307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the aforesaid original accused have preferred present Criminal Appeal No. 2792 of 2009. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court convicting the original accused No. 29 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324, 307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the aforesaid original accused has preferred present Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2009. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court passed in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2002, by which, the learned trial Court has acquitted the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33 to 37, 42, 43, 47 and 48, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 3.1. The complainant namely Laxmanbhai Karmanbhai Gadhvi (PW No. 5) was residing at Bhachau and his uncle is also residing at Bhachau. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 3.1. The complainant namely Laxmanbhai Karmanbhai Gadhvi (PW No. 5) was residing at Bhachau and his uncle is also residing at Bhachau. His grandfather Dhanabhai Dosabhai was having land admeasuring 244 acres of village Sarbavandh which was given to Koli Rava Pancha (Accused No. 6) on mortgage for a period of 40 years and the documents were also registered. The said land was demanded back by his uncle from the accused in the year 2001 as the mortgage/lease was over. Before the day of incident they talked to Reva Pancha but he had not answered. On 12.06.2001 his uncle Ratanbha received a message at Bhachau that there is rain in the village, so he along with six persons went to the village Nani Rav to see the land and to worship the Mataji. 3.2. On the next day 13.07.2001 at 8 O'clock in the morning he along with his uncle Devabha Dhanabha, Ratanbha Dhanabha, Rajbha Dhanabhai, Jethabha Dhanabha, Vishalbha Dhanabha, younger brother Naranbha Dhanabha, Rambha Kaarmanbha, cousin brother Devbha Sajanbha, brother Govindbha Sajanbhai and Rambha Labhabha and gone to see the land in village Surbhavandh and at 9 O' clock they reached in the field of Bhurabha Dhanabha. They saw that four Koli women were collecting the wooden sticks from the field. So his uncle told them not to collect the wooden stick from the field because they had not relations. Thereafter, they went to worship Mataji and returned after 15 to 20 minutes to the field of Bhurabha Dhanabha, at that time a mob of 40 to 50 persons of Koli community rushed towards them. The mob was having guns, sticks, Dharia, knives, axe, Gatar, Iron Rods etc. They were pelting stones and telling that no one should be left alive and all of them attacked on the complainant and other persons. Koli Sartan Dhana gave blow by spear on his left side of the waist so he hid himself behind the tree and he saw that the mob had attacked on the rest of persons by weapons in their hands and nine persons have been done to death on the spot. Thereafter, the accused persons left the place of incident. So he along with his cousin brother Devubha came out from behind the tree and saw that nine persons of his family were murdered. 3.3. Thereafter, the accused persons left the place of incident. So he along with his cousin brother Devubha came out from behind the tree and saw that nine persons of his family were murdered. 3.3. Immediately thereafter, PW No. 5 lodged the complaint at Rapar Police Station being CR-I-48 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147, 148, 149, 447, 324, 504, 506(2), 307 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(A) and 27 of the Arms Act. The aforesaid FIR was investigated by the Police Inspector of Rapar Police Station - PW No. 87 - Shri Piyush Parshotamdas Patel. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the concerned witness including Doctors, he also prepared panchnama of place of incident; panchnama of recovery/discovery of weapons and he also collected other documentary evidence such as report of the concerned deceased persons, FSL report etc. After conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against all the accused i.e. in all against 48 persons including 10 lady accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 148, 447,324, 504, 506(2), 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. That the Investigating Officer filed the aforesaid charge sheet against all the accused in the Court of learned JMFC, Rapar. As the case was exclusively triable by the learned Court of Sessions, the learned JMFC, Rapar committed the case to the learned Sessions Court, Kutch, Bhuch and subsequently was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kutch-Bhuj. That the learned trial Court framed the charge against all the accused at Exh. 1 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324, 504, 506(2), 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. All the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, they came to be tried by the learned trial Court for the aforesaid offences. 3.4. To prove the case against all the accused, prosecution examined as many as following 87 witnesses: Sr. No. Status of the witness Name of witness Exh. no. All the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, they came to be tried by the learned trial Court for the aforesaid offences. 3.4. To prove the case against all the accused, prosecution examined as many as following 87 witnesses: Sr. No. Status of the witness Name of witness Exh. no. 1 Doctor Chotelal Changaram Johnwal 56 2 Doctor Himatlal Govind Surani 61 3 Doctor Vimal Vaijnath Das 73 4 Doctor Rajiv Arvind Anjaria 85 5 Complainant Lakhmanbha Karmanbha Gadhvi 105 6 Witness Devabha Sajanbha Gadhvi 120 7 Panch Witness Anopsinh Hanubha Jadeja 123 8 Panch Witness Kishorbha Khimrajbha Gadhvi 125 9 Doctor Hemang Harischandra Vasvada 168 10 Witness Karmanbha Dhanabha Gadhvi 176 11 Witness Gelubha Aambaji Jadeja 185 12 Panch Witness Juvansinh Hetubha Jadeja 192 13 Panch Witness Imtiaz Ali Shaikh 204 14 Panch Witness Pravinsinh Dhirubha Jadeja 121 15 Panch Witness Kamlesh Ramji Rathod 218 16 Panch Witness Joga Aamba Rabari 228 17 Panch Witness Vela Mura Rabari 231 18 Panch Witness Hiralal Bhuralal Pandya 244 19 Panch Witness Kuvra Deshra Rabari 247 20 Panch Witness Narpatsinh Ranchhodsinh Jadeja 249 21 Panch Witness Devendrasinh Bahadursinh Jadeja 251 22 Panch Witness Visha Hari Gohil 253 23 Panch Witness Bachu Joitaram Raval 272 24 Panch Witness Mahipatsinh Hanubha Jadeja 277 25 Panch Witness Shivubha Bhurubha Jadeja 280 26 Panch Witness Amrutlal Bhikhalal Vanand 282 27 Panch Witness Natubha Mulji Jadeja 287 28 Panch Witness Amratsinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja 289 29 Panch Witness Meghubha Hathubha Jadeja 291 30 Panch Witness Mahipatsinh Dhirubha Jadeja 297 31 Panch Witness Godji Velji Bhatti 300 32 Panch Witness Siddhrajsinh Meghubha Jadeja 303 33 Panch Witness Vikramsinh Bahadursinh Jadeja 315 34 Panch Witness Bhurubha Meghubha Jadeja 319 35 Panch Witness Dilubha Lakhubha Jadeja 322 36 Panch Witness Dasubha Aambaji Jadeja 327 37 Panch Witness Khengarji Navaji 330 38 Panch Witness Karsan Pala Rabari 336 39 Panch Witness Kana Bhura Rabari 338 40 Panch Witness Prabhasinh Nagji Jadeja 341 41 Panch Witness Bahadursinh Nagji Jadeja 347 42 Panch Witness Nagji Sana Rabari 349 43 Panch Witness Kana Hira Rabari 351 44 Panch Witness Ganubha Hathubha Jadeja 354 45 Panch Witness Hukamsinh Amarsinh 360 46 Panch Witness Kiritsinh Nagubha Jadeja 363 47 Panch Witness Ravatsinh Natubha Jadeja 365 48 Panch Witness Hemubha Bharubha Gadhvi 368 49 Panch Witness Hira Jeram 373 50 Panch Witness Pravinsinh Kesubha Darbar 381 51 Panch Witness Hathubha Chanubha Sodha 388 52 Panch Witness Java Mala Rabari 393 53 Panch Witness Dana Vira 397 54 Panch Witness Parbat Dharamshi Patel 399 55 Panch Witness Bavu Haja Patel 402 56 Panch Witness Hira Akhai Patel 409 57 Panch Witness Devji Petha Patel 412 58 Panch Witness Hira Bhaga Patel 414 59 Panch Witness Noormamad Jetha Mahida 423 60 Panch Witness Parvin Gangaram Masuriya 425 61 Panch Witness Velji Teja Parmar 435 62 Panch Witness Chandulal Bhuralal Pandya 438 63 Witness Samratsinh Aalji Sodha 445 64 Witness Premji Bhula Maheshwari 448 65 Witness Anwar Alimamad Chaki 449 66 Witness Mahavirsinh Velubha Jadeja 450 67 Witness Ganubha Natubha Jadeja 451 68 Witness Vasant Madhavji Morabiya 452 69 Witness Ranchhod Ramji Makwana 453 70 Witness Laxman Mula Pateliya 457 71 Witness Vasantiben Shiva Parmar 466 72 Doctor Jagdishchandra Devraj Tank 467 73 Witness Vikramsinh Malsinh Rehvar 492 74 Witness Rahubha Dhirubha Jadeja 494 75 Witness Rajnath Hajarinath Solanki 496 76 Witness Gajendrasinh Pratapsinh 497 77 Witness Mansang Hari Makwana 503 78 Witness Vasantrav Gobji Patil 506 79 Witness Alku Nath Vala 508 80 Witness Mansukh Ramji Jeni 509 81 Witness Surajbhai Umravsinh Yadav 511 82 Witness Ghanshyamsinh Hathisinh Gohil 512 83 Witness Chandulal Nimji Hudda 513 84 Witness Harishchandra Ichchharam Trivedi 514 85 Witness Gajendrasinh Nirmalsinh Zala 518 86 Witness Bhupatsinh Raghubha Zala 523 87 Investigator Piyush Purshottamdas Patel 535 3.5. Through the aforesaid witnesses, prosecution brought on record the following documentary evidence: Sr. No. Detail of Document Exhibit No. 1 Medical Certi. Of Mark 50/2 57 2 Medical Certi. Of Mark 50/1 58 3 Medical Certificate 59 4 Medical Certificate 60 5 Postmortem Note of the deceased Jetha Dhanabhai Gadhavi 63 6 Postmortem Note of the deceased Visabha Dhanabha 64 7 Postmortem Note of the deceased Deva Dhanabhai 65 8 Xerox copy of Page No. 79 of Dr. C.K.Parikh’s Book relating to P.A. In India 66 9 Postmortem Note of the deceased Rambha Labhubha 74 10 Postmortem Note of the deceased Govindbha Sajanbha 75 11 Postmortem Note of the deceased Naranbha Devabha 76 12 Xerox Copy of Page No. 348 and 349 of 21 st Edition of Modi’s Jurisprudence 79 13 Xerox Copy of Page No. 338 of 21 st Edition of Modi’s Jurisprudence 80 14 Xerox Copy of Page No.357 of 21 st Edition of Modi’s Jurisprudence 81 15 Xerox Copy of Page No.89 of Parikh’s Medial Jurisprudence 82 16 Postmortem Note of the deceased Rambha Karmanbha 86 17 Postmortem Note of the deceased Rajbha Dhanabha 90 18 Postmortem Note of the deceased Ratanbha Dhanabha 91 19 Letter written by Rapar Police Station to the Medical Officer, Rapar Referral Hospital with regard to conduct the postmortem of the dead bodies through the P.M. Panel Doctor, dtd.13.06.2001 94 20 Inquest Panchnama of mark 70/1 124 21 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos.1 to 41 126 to 166 22 Medical Certificate of Mark s50/3 169 23 Xerox Copy of Page No. 410 of 22 nd Edition of Modi’s Jurisprudence 170 24 Case Paper regarding treatment given by Dr. Hemang Vasavada to Devubha Sajanbha 171 25 Panchnama of the scene of incident vide mark 70/2 172 26 Panchnama of the scene of incident vide mark 70/3 173 27 True copy of the Mortgage Deed of Rs.500/- executed in favour of Rava Pancha on 20.04.1961 178 28 True copy of the Mortgage Deed of Rs.1,500/- executed in favour of Pancha karamshi on 20.04.1961. 179 29 True copy of the Mortgage Deed of Rs.1,500/- executed in favour of Deva Pancha on 20.04.1961 180 30 True copy of the Mortgage Deed of Rs. 179 29 True copy of the Mortgage Deed of Rs.1,500/- executed in favour of Deva Pancha on 20.04.1961 180 30 True copy of the Mortgage Deed of Rs. 350/- executed in favour of Koli Harji Pancha in the year 1961 181 31 Panchnama in respect of seizing the clothes of the accused persons vide mark 70/5 193 32 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 74 and 75 194 33 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 77 195 34 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 78 and 84 196 35 Panchnama in respect of seizing the muddamal clothes vide mark 70/6 205 36 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 76 and 77 206 37 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 78 207 38 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 79 208 39 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 80 and 81 209 40 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 82 210 41 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 83 and 84 211 42 Panchnama in respect of seizing Video Cassette vide mark 70/7 213 43 Slips of Muddamal Article No. 85 214 44 Panchnama vide mark 70/11 219 45 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 88 to 95 220 to 227 46 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 86 and 87 229, 230 47 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 42, 43 and 44 232 48 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 45, 46 and 47 233 49 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 48, 49 and 50 234 50 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 51, 52 and 53 235 51 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 54, 55 and 56 236 52 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 57 and 58 237 53 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 59 and 60 238 54 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 61 and 62 239 55 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 63 and 64 240 56 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 54, 55 and 56 236 52 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 57 and 58 237 53 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 59 and 60 238 54 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 61 and 62 239 55 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 63 and 64 240 56 Slips of Muddamal Article Nos. 65 and 73 241 57 Panchnama of mark 70/4 242 58 Panchnama of mark 70/12 245 59 Panchnama of mark 70/18 248 60 Panchnama of mark 70/19 250 61 Panchnama of mark 70/16 252 62 Slip of Muddamal Article No. 96 254 63 Panchnama of mark 70/9 255 64 Slip of Muddamal Article No. 100 and 101 256 65 Slip of Muddamal Article No. 102 and 103 257 66 Panchnama of mark 70/10 258 67 Panchnama of mark 70/17 273 68 Slip on Muddamal Article No. 109 278 69 Panchnama of mark 70/20 279 70 Panchnama of mark 70/21 281 71 Panchnama of mark 70/13 283 72 Panchnama of mark 70/14 284 73 Panchnama of mark 70/15 285 74 Panchnama of mark 70/24 288 75 Panchnama of mark 70/22 290 76 Panchnama of mark 70/23 292 77 Slip on Muddamal Article No. 112 293 78 Slip on Muddamal Article No. 113 298 79 Panchnama of mark 70/25 299 80 Slip on Muddamal Article No. 114 301 81 Panchnama of mark 70/26 302 82 Slip on Muddamal Article No. 116 304 83 Slip on Muddamal Article No. 117 and 118 305 84 Panchnama of mark 70/27 306 85 Panchnama of mark 70/28 309 86 Panchnama of mark 70/29 310 87 Slip on Muddamal Article No. 119 316 88 Panchnama of mark 70/5 317 89 Slip on Muddamal Article No.120 320 90 Panchnama of mark 70/31 321 91 Slip on Muddamal Article No. 121 323 92 Panchnama of mark 70/32 324 93 Slip on Muddamal Article No. 124 328 94 Panchnama of mark 70/35 329 95 Slip of Muddamal article no. 122 331 96 Panchnama of mark 70/33 332 97 Panchnama of Mark 70/36 337 98 Slip of Muddamal article no. 125 339 99 Panchnama of Mark 70/37 340 100 Slip of Muddamal article no. 123 342 101 Panchnama of Mark 70/34 343 102 Panchnama of Mark 70/41 348 103 Panchnama of Mark 70/42 350 104 Slip of Muddamal article no. 126 352 105 Panchnama of Mark 70/38 353 106 Slip of Muddamal article no. 125 339 99 Panchnama of Mark 70/37 340 100 Slip of Muddamal article no. 123 342 101 Panchnama of Mark 70/34 343 102 Panchnama of Mark 70/41 348 103 Panchnama of Mark 70/42 350 104 Slip of Muddamal article no. 126 352 105 Panchnama of Mark 70/38 353 106 Slip of Muddamal article no. 127 355 107 Panchnama of Mark 70/39 356 108 Slip of Muddamal article no. 130 361 109 Panchnama of Mark 70/43 362 110 Panchnama of Mark 70/44 364 111 Slip of Muddamal article no. 132 366 112 Panchnama of Mark 70/45 367 113 Panchnama of Mark 70/46 369 114 Panchnama drawn in respect of arrest of seven accused persons on 2/7/2001 374 115 Slip of Muddamal article no. 144 375 116 Slip of Muddamal article no. 145 376 117 Slip of seized Muddamal Gaatar 382 118 Slip of Muddamal article no. 137 383 119 Slip of Muddamal article no. 138 384 120 Slip of seized Muddamal iron Gaatar 385 121 Slip of Muddamal article no. 140 386 122 Panchnama of Mark 70/47 387 123 Slip of Muddamal article no. 147 389 124 Panchnama of Mark 70/50 390 125 Panchnama of Mark 70/48 394 126 Panchnama of Mark 70/51 398 127 Slip of muddamal scythe seized from the accused Mala Lathal Koli 400 128 Panchnama of Mark 70/53 401 129 Slip of Muddamal article no. 147 403 130 Panchnama of Mark 70/52 404 131 Slip of muddamal country made gun with on barrel seized from the accused Momaya Natha Koli 410 132 Panchnama of Mark 70/54 411 133 Panchnama of Mark 70/55 413 134 Slip of muddamal scythe seized from the accused Soda Deva Koli 415 135 Slip of muddamal country made pistol having 12 bore seized from accused Soda Deva Koli 416 136 Slip of Muddamal article no. 156 417 137 Panchnama of Mark 70/56 418 138 Panchnama of Mark 70/58 drawn in respect of seizing evidences regarding the agricultural land 424 139 Panchanama of Mark 70/60 drawn in respect of seizing Muster roll of Teachers 426 140 Slip of Muddamal article no. 129 436 141 Panchnama of Mark 70/40 437 142 Slip of Muddamal article no. 156 417 137 Panchnama of Mark 70/56 418 138 Panchnama of Mark 70/58 drawn in respect of seizing evidences regarding the agricultural land 424 139 Panchanama of Mark 70/60 drawn in respect of seizing Muster roll of Teachers 426 140 Slip of Muddamal article no. 129 436 141 Panchnama of Mark 70/40 437 142 Slip of Muddamal article no. 161 439 143 Panchnama of Mark 70/57 440 144 Panchnama of Mark 70/59 441 145 Yadi written by the Police addressing Circle Inspector, Revenue Department, Rapar to draw map of local place 454 146 Map of local place of Mark 71/57 455 147 Extract of entry of rainfall in Rapar Taluka of Mark 71/56 recorded by the Mamlatdar, Rapar 456 148 Extract of village form no.7 and 12 and 8 (a) of the lands bearing Survey no. 17 to 19 from Mark 71/38 to 71/43 458 to 463 149 Extract copy of entry no. 81 of village Form no.-6 464 150 Extract copy of entry no. 83 of village Form no.-6 465 151 Copy of Medical Certificate of Mark 50/13 468 152 Copy of Medical Certificate of Mark 50/14 469 153 Copy of Medical Certificate of Mark 50/15 470 154 Copy of Medical Certificate of Mark 50/16 471 155 Copy of Medical Certificate of Mark 50/17 472 156 Copy of Medical Certificate of Mark 50/18 473 157 Copy of Medical Certificate of Mark 50/19 474 158 Copy of Medical Certificate of Mark 50/20 475 159 Copy of Medical Certificate of Mark 50/21 476 160 Copy of Medical Certificate of Mark 50/22 477 161 Copy of Medical Certificate of Mark 50/23 478 162 Copy of Medical Certificate of Mark 50/24 479 163 The Original case papers in respect of examination of Twelve injured persons 480 to 491 164 Order of Mark 71/58 granting permission to file chargesheet under the Arms Act 493 165 Original Complaint 507 166 Extract of Pradhyumannagar Station Diary of Entry no. 25/2001 dated 13.6.2001 522 167 True copy of Noteworthy entry no. 25/2001 dated 13.6.2001 522 167 True copy of Noteworthy entry no. 25/2001 of Rapar Police Station 524 168 True copy made from the note of original F.I.R. register 525 169 Receipts from Mark 71/59 to 71/64 regarding the receiving of Muddamal and correspondence made with F.S.L. 536 to 541 170 Reports of F.S.L. Office of Mark 71/65 to 71/70 regarding the Muddamal sent for examination 542 to 547 171 The yadis written by the Investigating officer and his Subordinate Police officers and the yadis written to him by his subordinate officers, wherein some are original and some are office copies vide Mark 71/3 to 71/36 548 to 581 172 The original report for obtaining the remand of the accused persons dated 18.6.2001 made by the Investigating Officer made before the learned Court of J.M.F.C., Rapar 598 173 Extract copy of Noteworthy Entry no 25/2001 of Rapar Police Station made at 12.30 hours on 13/6/2001 and the Station Diary Entry no. 11/2001 made at 12.30 hours. 599 3.6. After closure of the evidence by the prosecution, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded in which accused denied having committed any offence as alleged and they pleaded that they are innocent. 3.7. Thereafter on appreciation of evidence and after giving fullest opportunity to the prosecution as well as defence, by impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has held original accused Nos. 3 to 6, 8 to 10, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 25, 29 and 38 to 41 guilty for the offence punishable under Sections143, 147, 148, 447, 324, 307, 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and all of them are sentenced to undergo for the aforesaid offence and by impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has acquitted the aforesaid accused for the offences under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. Out of the aforesaid accused, learned trial Court has convicted the original accused No. 6 (Ravabhai Koli), original accused No. 17 (Khodabhai Koli), original accused No. 18 (Mahadevbhai Koli) and original accused No. 38 (Momaiya Koli) also for the offence under Sections 25(1) and 27 of the Arms Act. Out of the aforesaid accused, learned trial Court has convicted the original accused No. 6 (Ravabhai Koli), original accused No. 17 (Khodabhai Koli), original accused No. 18 (Mahadevbhai Koli) and original accused No. 38 (Momaiya Koli) also for the offence under Sections 25(1) and 27 of the Arms Act. That by impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has acquitted the original accused No. 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33 to 37, 42, 43, 47 and 48 for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324, 504, 506(2), 307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 23(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. That against the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court original accused who are convicted have preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 1337 of 2008, 2792 of 2009 and 42 of 2009 and against the order of acquittal acquitting the aforesaid accused, State has preferred Acquittal Appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008. 4. Shri Raval, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respective appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1337 of 2008 i.e. original accused Nos. 3 to 6, 8 to 10, 14, 16 to 20, 23 to 25, 38 to 41 and 44. Shri Y.J. Thakore, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respective appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2792 of 2008 and 42 of 2009 i.e. original accused Nos. 15, 25, 40 and 29. Shri Barot, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respective respondents-i.e. original accused who are acquitted in Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008 preferred by the State. Shri H.K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf the State in respective Appeals filed by the original accused as well as appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008. 4.1. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective convicted accused have vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324, 504, 506(2), 307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 4.2. 4.1. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective convicted accused have vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324, 504, 506(2), 307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 4.2. It is vehemently submitted by learned advocates for the appellants - convict accused that the learned trial Court has materially erred in relying upon the testimony of injured complainant i.e. his cousin brother Devubha who has seen the incident from behind the tree which is highly improbable in view of the fact in the manner in which fight took place with the deadly weapon and they have been left to witnesses against the accused. It is submitted that as such PW Nos. 5, 6 and 11 have not seen the incident and PW Nos. 5 and 6 reached the hospital for the treatment rather than to go to the village to inform them about the incident. 4.3. It is further submitted by learned advocates for the accused that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the fact that there was a delay in lodging the complaint by original complainant and that no reasonable explanation has been given by the original complainant. It is submitted that complaint has been recorded after 7 hours and that too and after seeing injuries on the dead body and bodies of 9 persons. 4.4. It is further submitted by learned advocates appearing on behalf of the original accused that the learned trial Court has materially erred in not appreciating the fact that there was a free fight and 11 persons on the side of the accused also sustained injuries and there was a cross case. It is submitted that therefore, the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that as such there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder 9 persons, who died. 4.5. It is submitted that 11 persons on the accused side also sustained injuries in the scuffle and prosecution has not explained the injuries on the persons of the accused. It is submitted that therefore, genesis of the incident is doubtful and the prosecution has not come out with a true version as to how the incident happened and therefore, testimony of the complainant and the injured Devubha ought to have been discarded. It is submitted that therefore, genesis of the incident is doubtful and the prosecution has not come out with a true version as to how the incident happened and therefore, testimony of the complainant and the injured Devubha ought to have been discarded. 4.6. It is further submitted by learned advocates for the original accused that looking to the deposition/evidence of the PW No. 5, he has not seen the incident and he has tried to rope the accused persons. It is further submitted that as such there are material contradiction in the deposition of PW Nos. 5 and 6. It is further submitted that learned trial Court has materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that there was free fight between two communities i.e. Darbar and Koli and whereby the accused though filed the complaint, their complaint was not registered. However, Janvajog entry was made and thus there was complaint filed by both the sides and that there was no ulterior object and/or motive to commit the murder. 4.7. It is further submitted by learned advocates appearing on behalf of the accused that learned trial Court has materially erred in holding that there was unlawful assembly formed by the accused with a common a object of committing murder of deceased persons and thereby convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324, 504, 506(2), 307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 4.8. It is further submitted by Shri Raval, learned advocate for the lady accused i.e. original accused Nos. 3 to 5 that in any case learned trial Court has materially erred in holding those lady accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in holding that they were also part of the mob and/or part of the unlawful assembly having a common object to kill the deceased persons. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Raval, learned advocate for those lady accused that their presence at the time of second incident is not established by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence and/or beyond doubt. It is submitted that there are general and vague allegations against the lady accused that they were part of the mob and that they were pelting stone. It is submitted that there are general and vague allegations against the lady accused that they were part of the mob and that they were pelting stone. It is further submitted that however there is no positive evidence against those lady accused that in the second incident which took place, in which, 9 persons died they were also part of the mob and/or there is no specific overt act alleged against them. It is submitted that as such the very learned Judge has acquitted the original accused No. 47-Badhiben Khoda by giving benefit of doubt. It is submitted that therefore, similar benefit doubt ought to have been given to the original accused Nos. 3 to 5 who are convicted by the learned trial Court and thereby learned trial Court ought to have acquitted at least those lady accused by giving them benefit of doubt also. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Criminal Appeals filed by the accused who are convicted. 5. Shri H.K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeals preferred by the respective convict accused. It is submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding the convict accused guilty for the offences, for which, they are convicted is on appreciation of evidence, more particularly, deposition of PW Nos. 5, 6, 10 and 11 who are the eyewitnesses. 5.1. It is further submitted that as such no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in relying upon the deposition of PW Nos. 5, 6, 10 and 11 who are the eyewitnesses to the incident. 5.2. It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that even according to the accused there was a free fight and 11 to 12 persons sustained injuries on the side of the accused meaning thereby presence of the accused has been established and proved. It is submitted that in the further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused have not stated correct facts and in fact they never come out with a case that it was a free fight between two groups and that on their side also, some persons were sustained injuries. It is submitted that in the further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the accused denied having present at the time of incident. 5.3. It is submitted that in the further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the accused denied having present at the time of incident. 5.3. It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that all those accused who are convicted, are specifically named by the prosecution witnesses in their deposition i.e. PW Nos. 5, 6, 9 and 10 and therefore, their identity have been established beyond doubt. It is submitted that as the accused were known to the witnesses by name, even in absence of TI Parade and all those accused are specifically name with weapon by the prosecution witnesses whose presence at the time of incident is natural, no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in holding the accused guilty including the lady accused. Now, so far as submission on behalf of the lady accused i.e. original accused Nos. 3 to 5 who are convicted by the learned trial Court that on the similar set of facts and circumstances and the evidence the learned trial Court has acquitted the original accused Nos. 47-Badhiben Khodabhai Koli by giving benefit of doubt and therefore, the original accused Nos. 3 to 5 were also required to be acquitted by the learned trial Court by giving benefit of doubt is concerned, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Patel, learned APP that the State has preferred appeal against the acquittal of the said Badhiben-original accused No. 47. It is submitted that as such original accused No. 47 is wrongly acquitted by the learned trial Court by giving her benefit of doubt. It is vehemently submitted that all the accused were part of the unlawful assembly and all of them attacked with deadly weapon and actually participated in commission of offence, in which, 9 persons died, the learned trial Court has rightly held all the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,447, 324, 504, 506(2), 307, 302 with aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 5.4. Shri H.K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant - State in Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008, in which, the State has challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the original accused Nos. 5.4. Shri H.K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant - State in Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008, in which, the State has challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33 to 27, 42, 43, 47 and 48 has vehemently submitted that learned trial Court has materially erred in acquitting the aforesaid accused. 5.5. It is submitted that all those accused were part of the unlawful assembly and actually participated in commission of offences, in which, 9 persons died and therefore, learned trial Court ought to have acquitted all the accused with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 5.6. It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that learned trial Court has materially erred in acquitting original accused No. 1 Ramiben, though the prosecution has been successful in proving that even the said Ramiben was found in injured conditions, it is proved by the medical certificate produced at Exh. 477. It is submitted that therefore, presence of the said Ramiben came to be established and proved by the prosecution and therefore, she being part of the unlawful assembly, the learned trial Court ought to have convicted her with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has acquitted the said original accused No. 1 by giving benefit of doubt solely on the ground that PW No. 6 did not said that any weapon was in possession of the accused No. 1. It is submitted that when the presence of the accused No. 1 has been established at the time of incident and she also sustained injuries, she being member of the unlawful assembly, any further overt act was not required to be proved by the prosecution and therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have convicted the said original accused No. 1 also. 5.7. It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned APP that even learned trial Court has materially erred in acquitting the original accused No. 47-Badhiben by giving her benefit of doubt. It is submitted that the PW Nos. 5.7. It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned APP that even learned trial Court has materially erred in acquitting the original accused No. 47-Badhiben by giving her benefit of doubt. It is submitted that the PW Nos. 5, 6 and 10 have been categorically named the said accused and stated that she was also present at the time of incident and was member of the unlawful assembly and she along with other lady accused was pelting stones. It is submitted that therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the original accused No. 47 - Badhiben is perverse and the contrary to the evidence on record and that resulted into mis-carriage of justice. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008 preferred by the State and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and has requested to convict the other accused also who are acquitted by the learned trial Court. 6. Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008 preferred by the State against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal acquitting some of the accused is opposed by Shri Mrudul Barot, learned advocate for those acquitted accused. 6.1. It is submitted that on appreciation of evidence when the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused by giving them benefit of doubt by giving cogent reasons, same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction against the order of acquittal. 6.2. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate for those acquitted accused that this being the appeal against the acquittal unless it is found that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse and/or absolutely contrary to the evidence on record, the Appellate Court would be very slow to interfere with the order of acquittal. It is submitted that even in a cases where two views are plausible on appreciation of evidence and the learned trial Court has accepted one plausible view and on re-appreciation of evidence Appellate Court is of the view that there could have been second view in that case also, the Appellate Court is not justified in reversing the order of acquittal. In support of his above submissions, he has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (1). in the case of Raj Singh Vs. In support of his above submissions, he has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (1). in the case of Raj Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 6 SCC 268 . (2). In the case of Golbar Hussain & Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Anr reported in (2015) AIR SCW 3248. 6.3. It is further submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate for the acquitted accused that in the present case though it was case on behalf of the prosecution that all the accused were known to prosecution witnesses even by name and despite the same, prosecution witness did not specifically named those acquitted accused and did not show anything with respect to any weapon armed with any of the acquitted accused and there being no specific role attributed to them, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused by giving benefit of doubt. It is submitted that those accused who are specifically named with particular weapons and with specific role attributed to them are convicted by the learned trial Court. It is submitted that therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused who are acquitted is not required to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the appeal preferred by the State. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. This Court has re-appreciated the entire evidence on record oral as well as documentary evidence. 8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case 9 persons died on the spot. As per the case of the prosecution about 40 to 50 persons may be attacked them including lady accused and used the deadly weapon. That out of 11 persons, two persons who can save themselves who took shelter behind the trees are the eyewitnesses, who are PW Nos. 5 and 6. PW No. 5 is the original complainant. Thus, in this regard, as such, there are four eyewitnesses i.e. PW Nos. 5, 6, 10 and 11 relying upon whose depositions, learned trial Court has convicted the accused and learned trial Court has convicted only those accused who are specifically named with specific weapon and overt act and those who are not specifically named, the learned trial Court has acquitted them by giving benefit of doubt. 8.1. 5, 6, 10 and 11 relying upon whose depositions, learned trial Court has convicted the accused and learned trial Court has convicted only those accused who are specifically named with specific weapon and overt act and those who are not specifically named, the learned trial Court has acquitted them by giving benefit of doubt. 8.1. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined one Laxmanbhai Karmanbhai Gadhvi - PW No. 5 at Exh. 105; one Devabha Sajanbha Gadhvi - PW No. 6 at Exh. 120; Karmanbha Dhanabha Gadhvi - PW No. 10 at Exh. 176 and Gelubha Aambaji Jadeja - PW No. 11 at Exh. 185. On considering the depositions of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, it appears that they are trustworthiness and reliable. From the cross examination, the defence has failed to establish and/or create anything against the said witnesses, on the basis of which, there can be a doubt about their creditworthiness and/or trustworthiness. Prosecution has been successful in proving the presence of PW Nos. 5 and 6 at the time of incident. They are the persons who were as such along with other 9 persons who went to the temple and while returning from temple, the mob of 40 to 50 persons attacked all of them and on seeing them, two persons took shelter behind the tree, therefore, they could be saved and therefore, as such they are the eyewitnesses to the incident. PW Nos. 5 and 6 have specifically given the names of those accused with weapons, who are convicted by the learned trial Court. All of them are consistent in their case and the depositions. From the depositions of PW Nos. 5 and 6, the incident can be bifurcated in two parts. First incident at about 9 a.m. in the morning and when those 11 persons went to the field of Bhurabhai Dhanabha, four ladies of Koli community were collecting wooden logs. According to the said witnesses, there were Badhiben Khoda (Accused No. 47), Gangaben Deva (Accused No. 5), Dharmiben Premji Koli (Accused No. 3) and Samaben Raymal Deva (Accused No. 4) and at that time one Virsangbhai uncle of Laxmanbha (PW No. 5) told them not to collect wooden logs from the field. According to the said witnesses, there were Badhiben Khoda (Accused No. 47), Gangaben Deva (Accused No. 5), Dharmiben Premji Koli (Accused No. 3) and Samaben Raymal Deva (Accused No. 4) and at that time one Virsangbhai uncle of Laxmanbha (PW No. 5) told them not to collect wooden logs from the field. That thereafter, they went to temple for worshiping and after worshiping when they were returning at about 10 a.m. second incident took place, in which, a mob of approximately 40 to 50 persons of one community (Koli) including ladies and gents attacked them by using abusive and filthy language, out of aforesaid 40 to 50 persons some where having deadly weapon like Gun, Tamancha, Sticks, Dhariya, Knife, Axe etc. They started pelting stones and as per the said witness, all of them were telling that nobody should be spared. He has specifically stated that he knows all the accused by name and by face. He has specifically given the names of some of the accused with weapons (who are convicted). He has identified those accused in the Court. He has also identified those aforesaid lady accused who were member of the mob also and who were present at the time of first incident. From the said witnesses, he along with injured Devubha thereafter went to Bhachau Hospital at about 3 p.m. and thereafter police came to be hospital and recorded his complaint. The said witnesses has been fully and thoroughly cross examined by the defence. In the cross examination, the defence could bring only one thing that he could not state that which accused used which weapon. From the deposition of the said witness read as a whole his presence at the time of incident has been established and proved and he is reliable and trustworthy witness. 8.2. That the prosecution has examined PW No. 6 - Devabha Sajanbha Gadhvi at Exh. 120. He has fully corroborated the deposition of PW No. 5. Prosecution Witness No. 6 along with PW No. 5 and other 11 persons had gone to temple for worship and while returning mob of approximately 40 to 50 persons attacked all of them. 8.2. That the prosecution has examined PW No. 6 - Devabha Sajanbha Gadhvi at Exh. 120. He has fully corroborated the deposition of PW No. 5. Prosecution Witness No. 6 along with PW No. 5 and other 11 persons had gone to temple for worship and while returning mob of approximately 40 to 50 persons attacked all of them. In his deposition, he has specifically that all the four ladies who were even at the time of first incident i.e. collecting fire logs at about 9 a.m. were also member of unlawful assembly and part of the mob of 40 to 50 persons. He has specifically stated that ladies were pelting stone. In para 6, he has specifically named Badhiben Khoda (Accused No. 47) and Gangaben Deva (Accused No. 5). The said witnesses has been fully cross examined by the defence, however defence has not been brought out anything against the said witnesses, by which, their depositions is required to be discarded. At this stage, it is required to be noted that both the witnesses i.e. PW Nos. 5 and 6 also sustained injuries and they took treatment at Bhachau Hospital and thereafter Rajkot Hospital, prosecution has been able to prove their presence at the time of incident. 8.3. The prosecution has also examined PW Nos. 10 and 11 who also can be said to be eyewitnesses of the mob. He has also identified and/or named some of the accused, more particularly those accused who are convicted by the learned trial Court. He has also specifically named Badhiben Khoda (Accused No. 47), Gangaben Deva (Accused No. 5), Dharmiben Premji Koli (Accused No. 3) and Samaben Raymal Deva (Accused No. 4) and he stated that they were also member of the mob. The aforesaid two witnesses - PW Nos. 10 and 11 also fully cross examined by the defence however defence has been unsuccessful in proving anything in the cross examination against the case of the prosecution. 8.4. In view of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence in the form of deposition of PW Nos. 5, 6, 10 and 11 who are eyewitnesses and as observed herein above, who are reliable and trustworthy, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellants - accused. 9. 8.4. In view of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence in the form of deposition of PW Nos. 5, 6, 10 and 11 who are eyewitnesses and as observed herein above, who are reliable and trustworthy, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellants - accused. 9. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even according to the case of the defence, on their side 11 persons sustained injuries and therefore, there was a free fight. Meaning thereby, the presence of the injured on the side of the accused have been established and proved. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in their further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such, the accused had not stated anything with respect to free fight and/or any injuries sustained on the side of the accused and/or they have not pleaded and/or come out a with a self defence. It is required to be noted that there was a cross case which was culminated into Special Case No. 32 of 2002, in which, PW Nos. 5, 6 and 10 were also shown as accused and they were tried for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is required to be noted that in the said case Ravabhai Panchabhai Makwana (Koli)- was complainant i.e. (original accused No. 6 in the present case). That in the said cross case, the learned Special Court has acquitted all the accused, more particularly, PW Nos. 5, 6 and 10 of the present case. The judgment and order passed by the learned Special Court in Special Case No. 32 of 2002 is placed on record. That in the said cross case, the learned Special Court has acquitted all the accused, more particularly, PW Nos. 5, 6 and 10 of the present case. The judgment and order passed by the learned Special Court in Special Case No. 32 of 2002 is placed on record. From the aforesaid, it appears that according to the case on behalf of the accused that in the very incident in question one Karshan Ravabhai Koli (Original accused No. 23 in the present case), Narshibhai Devabhai Koli (original accused No. 24 in the present case), Deva Pancha Koli (original accused No. 9 in the present case), Mohan Deva (original accused No. 14 herein), Shartanbhai Dana (original accused No. 15 herein), Raymal Deva (original accused No. 10 herein), Rava Pachanbhai (original accused No. 6 herein), Gangaben Deva Pancha (original accused No. 5 herein), Ramiben Khoda (original accused No. 1 herein), Dharmiben Premji (original accused No. 3 herein) and Samaben Raymal (original accused No. 4 herein) sustained injuries. Thus, the presence of the aforesaid accused who according to the defence were also injured, their presence is established and proved. Out of the aforesaid accused, original accused No. 1 - Ramiben has been acquitted by the learned trial Court despite her presence established and proved and she being member of the unlawful assembly and having participated in committing offence. As observed herein above, though, the learned advocates for the accused who are convicted have vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that there was free fight on the side of the accused, some 11 persons sustained injuries, the learned Judge has materially erred in holding that all the accused were member of unlawful assembly and/or there was any intention on the part of the accused to commit murder of 9 persons, nothing has been stated by the accused in their further statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They have not even pleaded self defence. From the deposition of PW Nos. 5 and 6 who are injured eyewitnesses, it has been established and proved that mob of 40 to 50 persons attacked with deadly weapons thereby 9 persons died on the spot. Presence of the accused at the time of incident has been established and proved by the prosecution beyond doubt. From the deposition of PW Nos. 5 and 6 who are injured eyewitnesses, it has been established and proved that mob of 40 to 50 persons attacked with deadly weapons thereby 9 persons died on the spot. Presence of the accused at the time of incident has been established and proved by the prosecution beyond doubt. All those who are named with the weapon and member of the unlawful assembly are convicted by the learned trial Court including three ladies i.e. original accused Nos. 3 to 5. 10. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the original accused Nos. 3 to 5 lady accused that as original accused No. 47-Badhiben has been given benefit of doubt and has been acquitted and therefore, similarly they ought to have been acquitted by the learned trial Court by giving benefit of doubt is concerned, considering the deposition of PW Nos. 5, 6 and 10 and that they are specifically named by those witnesses and their presence at the time of incident being a member of unlawful has been established and proved it cannot be said that learned trial Court has committed any error in convicting them. So far as acquittal of original accused No. 47 Badhiben is concerned, the same shall be dealt with hereinafter while considering the appeal preferred by the State being Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008. As observed herein above, even according to the accused and their cross case original accused Nos. 3 to 5 also sustained injuries. Therefore, even otherwise the presence at the time of incident and they being member of the unlawful assembly has been established and proved. They were pelting stones and therefore, they have actively participated in commission of offence. As they being member of the unlawful assembly, they can safely be convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and they can also be held liable for the death of 9 persons being member of unlawful assembly. Once it is held and proved that they were also part of unlawful assembly and mob of 40 to 50 who attacked 11 persons in which, 9 persons died, the prosecution is not required to specifically prove their overt act and they can be held liable for the act done by other members of unlawful assembly. Once it is held and proved that they were also part of unlawful assembly and mob of 40 to 50 who attacked 11 persons in which, 9 persons died, the prosecution is not required to specifically prove their overt act and they can be held liable for the act done by other members of unlawful assembly. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting the accused Nos. 3 to 5 - lady accused also. 11. Under the circumstances, the appeals preferred by the original convict accused being Nos. 3 to 6, 8 to 10, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 25, 29 and 38 to 41 deserves to be dismissed by confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 12. Now, that takes us to Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008 preferred by the State against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court acquitting original accused No. 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33 to 37, 42, 43, 47 and 48 respondents in Appeal. 13. Having heard the learned advocates for the and reasoning given by the learned trial Court while acquitting aforesaid accused vis-a-vis the evidence on record, it appears that learned trial Court has acquitted all of them by giving benefit of doubt on the ground that either they are not specifically named by the Prosecution Witnesses, though according to the witnesses all of them were known to them by name and by face and/or no IT parade has been held with respect to those who are not named by them or on the ground that the prosecution witnesses have not stated anything that they have having weapon and/or any overt act by them. Therefore, this being Criminal Appeal against order of acquittal and when the view taken by the learned trial Court is plausible, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused No. 47 is not required to be interfered with by this Court except acquitting original accused No. 1 Ramiben. As observed herein above, so far as original accused No. 1 Ramiben is concerned, even according to the accused side, she sustained injuries. Her medical certificate has been produced at Exh. 477 in the present case and Exh. 26 in the Special Case No. 32 of 2002. As observed herein above, so far as original accused No. 1 Ramiben is concerned, even according to the accused side, she sustained injuries. Her medical certificate has been produced at Exh. 477 in the present case and Exh. 26 in the Special Case No. 32 of 2002. Therefore, as such her presence at the time of incident is established and proved. She being member of the unlawful assembly and mob of 40 to 50 persons has been established and proved. Despite the above, learned trial Court has acquitted original accused No. 1 Ramiben by giving benefit of doubt, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court while acquitting original accused No. 1 Ramiben and giving benefit of doubt to her is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Once her presence at the time of incident along with mob of 40 to 50 persons and being member of the unlawful assembly has been established and proved, she is also required to be convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code along with other accused persons including for the offence under Section 143 and other offences for which other accused are convicted. Now, so far as other accused who are acquitted are concerned, the learned trial Court has acquitted them by giving benefit of doubt by observing that either they are not named by the prosecution witnesses, though according to the prosecution witnesses all of them were known to them by name and by face and either they are not named and/or TI parade is not held and they are not specifically identified in the Court and nothing has been stated by the prosecution witnesses in respect of the said accused who are acquitted and considering the above when the learned trial Court was acquitted, the said accused (except original accused No. 1) and the view taken by the learned trial Court while acquitting those accused persons who are acquitted (except original accused No. 1) is plausible, this Court will not be justified in reversing the order of acquittal. As such, no error has been committed by the learned trial Court while acquitting those accused persons who are acquitted by giving benefit of doubt (Except original accused No. 1). 13.1 Under the circumstances Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008 preferred by the State acquitting original accused Nos. As such, no error has been committed by the learned trial Court while acquitting those accused persons who are acquitted by giving benefit of doubt (Except original accused No. 1). 13.1 Under the circumstances Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008 preferred by the State acquitting original accused Nos. 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33 to 37, 42, 43, 47 and 48 deserved to be dismissed (except original accused No. 1 - Ramiben). To the aforesaid extent i.e. qua original accused No. 1 Ramiben Koli Criminal Appeal preferred by the State is required to be allowed by convicting original accused No. 1 also with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324, 504, 506(2), 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Net result of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated above, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1337 of 2008, 2792 of 2008 and 42 of 2009 preferred by the original accused Nos. 3 to 6, 8 to 10, 14, 15, 16 to 20, 23 to 25, 29, 38 to 41 and 44 are hereby dismissed and their conviction is hereby confirmed. Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008 preferred by the State is hereby dismissed except original accused No. 1-Ramiben Khoda Natha Koli and acquitting respondents-original accused in Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2008 is hereby confirmed except accused No. 1-Ramiben Koli. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court acquitting original accused No. 1-Ramiben Koli is hereby quashed and set aside and original accused No. 1 Ramiben is held guilty for the offence under Sections143, 147, 148, 447, 324, 504, 506(2), 307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and she is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo one month SI. As it is reported that original accused Nos. 3 to 5 are on bail, their bail bond stand cancelled. Time to surrender to the original accused Nos. 1, 3 to 5 is hereby granted upto 2.1.2016 and all of them i.e. original accused Nos. 1, 3 to 5 are granted time upto 2.1.2016 to surrender before the concerned jail authority, failing which concerned Jail Authority to take steps to arrest them. Time to surrender to the original accused Nos. 1, 3 to 5 is hereby granted upto 2.1.2016 and all of them i.e. original accused Nos. 1, 3 to 5 are granted time upto 2.1.2016 to surrender before the concerned jail authority, failing which concerned Jail Authority to take steps to arrest them. It goes without saying that all the accused shall be entitled to set off, of the sentence already undergone in accordance with law.