JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. As per the jail remarks which have been placed on record by learned APP, it is borne out that appellant no. 1 - original accused no. 1 expired on 08.09.2008 and therefore this appeal abates qua appellant no. 1 - original accused no. 1. Appeal is therefore taken up for hearing only qua appellants no. 2 to 4 - original accused nos. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants'). 1.1 The appellants were interalia sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months by impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Banaskantha at Deesa in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2003 for the offence punishable under sections 302 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The appellants were however acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 135 of B.P. Act. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 05.04.2003 one Lasuben - complainant lodged a complaint against the appellants alleging therein that in the morning at around 07.00 am when her son - deceased left for answering natural call, the appellants came there. It is the case of the complainant that appellant no. 1 was armed with scythe, appellant no. 2 & 3 were armed with stick and appellant no. 4 was armed with iron pipe and they ran after her son and thereafter caught him. The complainant has further stated in the complaint that the appellants dragged him to Dens Valley (Kotar) and that she had gone after them but she was driven away and she therefore came back home and informed her daughter. Thereafter she sent three persons namely Somaji, Narsing and Prakash to see as to what had happened. It is the case of the complainant in the complaint that these three persons returned and informed that the son of the complainant was killed by slitting his throat. A complaint in this regard was registered. 2.1 Thereafter, panchnamas were drawn and investigation was carried out and during the course of investigation, the appellants were apprehended. A charge sheet was submitted against the appellants. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court. A complaint in this regard was registered. 2.1 Thereafter, panchnamas were drawn and investigation was carried out and during the course of investigation, the appellants were apprehended. A charge sheet was submitted against the appellants. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court. 2.2 The trial was initiated against the appellants and during the course of trial the prosecution examined following witnesses whose evidence have been read before us: P.W. No. Name of Witness Exhibit No. 1 Ramanlal Joshi 14 2 Baldev Beldar 19 3 Nagraji Bhanaji 21 4 Dr. Bhikhubhai Aakediwala 23 5 Amthaji Thakore 27 6 Lasuben Shambhuji 31 7 Lakhmanji Bhikhji 32 8 Mafabhai Galbaji 35 9 Madhuben Mafaji 37 10 Somaji Vanvirji 38 11 Shambhuji Chhaganji 39 12 Cyrusbhai Parsi 40 13 Bhepaji Galbaji 41 14 Kosing Karansing 43 15 Kesarsinh Rajput 45 16 K.R. Parmar 49 2.3 The prosecution also relied upon the following documents as documentary evidences which have been perused by us: Sr. No. Name of Document Exhibit No. 1 Map 15 2 Yadi 16 3 Notification 20 4 Inquest panchnama 22 5 Yadi 24 6 P.M. Report 25 7 Cause of death certificate 26 8 Panchnama 28 9 Slip of panchas 29 10 Slip of panchas 30 11 Arrest & seizure of weapon Panchnama 33 12 Slip of panchas 34 13 Panchnama of seizure of clothes of deceased 36 14 Arrest & seizure of weapon Panchnama 42 15 Receipt of handing over dead body 44 16 FIR 46 17 Index 47 18 Yadi 48 19 Complaint 50 20 Death form 51 21 Dispatch note 52 22 FSL report 53 23 FSL receipt 54 24 FSL report 55 25 Serological report 56 26 Copy of FIR 57 2.4 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants of the charges levelled against them by the impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. Mr. M.C Barot, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that the accused are involved in this case except the complaint and the evidence of so called eye witnesses. 3. Mr. M.C Barot, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that the accused are involved in this case except the complaint and the evidence of so called eye witnesses. He submitted that the complaint was lodged after about three hours. He submitted that the conduct and behaviour of the complainant who is the stepmother of the deceased was totally unnatural and very much suspicious. He submitted that the complaint was filed only with an intention to take revenge against the appellants because of an earlier complaint filed by the appellants. 3.1 Mr. Barot submitted that there was no motive on the part of the appellants to do away with the boy aged around 12 years and it cannot be believed that because of a minor scuffle which had taken place earlier, in respect of which earlier complaint was lodged, the appellants could have killed the minor boy. 3.2 Mr. Barot submitted that the trial court ought to have appreciated that the deceased was found killed at around 07.30 am on 05.04.2003 but as per the opinion of the doctor the death of the deceased had taken place between 01 and 02 am. He submitted that the evidence of the doctor who performed post mortem clearly goes to show that as per the say of the complainant even if the deceased was dragged to the Kotar by the appellants at 07.00 am, then also the victim was not killed in the morning. He submitted that thus the evidence of the doctor clearly goes against the complainant and the prosecution case in turn. 3.3 Mr. Barot submitted that the trial court committed grave error in convicting the appellants relying upon the evidence of the witnesses who were interested and related to the complainant. He submitted that all the witnesses were interested in getting the appellants convicted as they were having enmity with the appellants. He submitted that before the incident in question, son of appellant no. 4 had lodged an FIR against the husband of the complainant and her brother-in-law and they were in jail because of the said complaint. He submitted that therefore the complainant was searching an opportunity to implicate the appellants. 3.4 Mr. Barot further contended that there are serious contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses and the complainant. 4 had lodged an FIR against the husband of the complainant and her brother-in-law and they were in jail because of the said complaint. He submitted that therefore the complainant was searching an opportunity to implicate the appellants. 3.4 Mr. Barot further contended that there are serious contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses and the complainant. He submitted that the evidence of the complainant is not trust worthy and suffers from various contradictions so far as the complaint and her deposition is concerned. He submitted that the evidence of Somaji also raises serious doubt about the trustworthiness of the evidence of the complainant. He submitted that the complainant in her complaint has stated that she had seen the appellants dragging her son - deceased to Kotar but she did not mention about the names of the appellants to Somaji or to Cyrus. 4. Ms. CM Shah, learned APP, however, submitted that the trial court has given cogent reasons for sustaining the conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and this court may not interfere in this appeal. She stated that the trial court has based the conviction not only on the evidence of witnesses but also considered entire circumstances of the case and the facts which are proved by cogent evidence. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the statements of P.W. 9, P.W. 10 & P.W. 12 who have supported the contents of the FIR and the conduct of the accused persons. She has submitted that in view of the post mortem report and the cause of death, the possibility of accidental death is clearly ruled out. 4.1 Ms. Shah contended that the complainant has categorically explained the turn of events in the complaint and her deposition. She submitted that there may be minor variations in the evidence of the complainant who is a villager but the main ingredients and the substance is the same. She submitted that it is borne out that even P.W. 9 who is a minor witness has supported the case of the prosecution. She submitted that the complainant after returning home informed P.W. 9 about the incident. Thereafter P.W. 10 was informed and they both went to P.W. 12 who was a respected person in the village. 4.2 Ms. Shah further submitted that the medical evidence has given the approximate time of the death of the deceased. She submitted that the complainant after returning home informed P.W. 9 about the incident. Thereafter P.W. 10 was informed and they both went to P.W. 12 who was a respected person in the village. 4.2 Ms. Shah further submitted that the medical evidence has given the approximate time of the death of the deceased. She submitted that considering the medical evidence it is clear that the death was homicidal and looking to the other evidence on record, the case against the appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 5. We have perused the records of the case. As per the latest decision of the Apex Court, we have appreciated, re-appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence led before the trial court in its entirety but we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a different view than the one taken by the trial court. In the present case, the testimonies of two witnesses viz. P.W. 10 - Somaji Vanvirji Gulabsinh Jhala and P.W. 12 - Cyrus Parsi are very important. Let us go through the evidence of these witnesses at the outset. 6. P.W. 10 - Somaji Vanvirji has been examined by the prosecution vide Ex. 38. This witness has stated that at around 07.00 am, the complainant came running to him and informed him that her son Tena @ Mansung had been taken away and that three Bhil and a Rabari were involved in this incident. This witness has stated that it was also been said by the complainant that these persons who took them away had scythe, stick and pipe. He has stated that the complainant came and said that Tena had been taken in a rivulet (by them). Thereafter, this witness and Narsinh and Prakash all three of them went to see and that all the three had gone on foot. There they saw that Tena was lying there with his neck slain and he told everything to his mother-in-law. Thereafter, his mother-in-law and other people went to lodge a complaint. 6.1 P.W. 12 - Cyrusbhai Parsi has been examined at Ex. 40. this witness has stated that the incident occurred about ten months ago. At that time he was at his farm. At that time Prahladji Maganji, Lasuben, Rajiben, three of them came to his farm and Prahladji told him that son of Shambhuji named Tena alias Mansung has been slain. 40. this witness has stated that the incident occurred about ten months ago. At that time he was at his farm. At that time Prahladji Maganji, Lasuben, Rajiben, three of them came to his farm and Prahladji told him that son of Shambhuji named Tena alias Mansung has been slain. He has stated that it was also informed to him that the dead body was lying about one kilometer from his farm. During that time Lasuben and Rajiben also came and told that their son had been killed and that the dead body was lying near the farm of Puthu Ruva. This witness has stated that it was told at that time that the four accused were involved in the killing. This witness has further stated that he told them to go to the Police Station to register complaint. 6.2 P.W. 12 has further stated that the reason of the incident was that before five to six days, Shambhuji took goats for grazing, there his goat suffered the restlessness caused by overeating, therefore, Shambhuji brought that goat to home. Thereafter, Shiva, the Son of Shanti, slaughtered that goat at the house of Shambhuji and distributed in the Village. Therefore, Pradhanji had beaten Shiva with stick. Thereafter, Shantiji Mikaji came to this witness in the night and P.W. 12 told him not to approach the Police Department; that P.W. 12 shall give him the money for treatment (bandage). Thereafter, P.W. 12 called the father of Pradhan and issue was compromised. Thereafter, Shanti Moka felt that Shambhuji and others may lodge a complaint in respect to the goat and therefore, out of such fear, along with Sambhuji, a false complaint of Atrocity was lodged. Shambhuji and Kapurji were in jail at the time of incident. 6.3 P.W. 6 - Lasuben Shambhuji is the mother (stepmother) of the deceased. This witness has stated that she knew Raja Deva, Para Reva, Rama Hakma and Shantiji Mokaji. The witness identifies the accused persons in court. P.W. 6 has stated that before four days of the incident, Shiva Shanti and Shanti Moka lodged a complaint against her husband and brother-in-law. Policemen arrested her husband and brother-in-law. Her mother-in-law, Daliben, Madhuben, Rajiben, her nephew Narsinh, her young nephew Prakash and Somaji Vanvirji were present at home at the time of the incident. As Daliben w/o Somaji was at her house, Somaji came to meet them. Policemen arrested her husband and brother-in-law. Her mother-in-law, Daliben, Madhuben, Rajiben, her nephew Narsinh, her young nephew Prakash and Somaji Vanvirji were present at home at the time of the incident. As Daliben w/o Somaji was at her house, Somaji came to meet them. P.W. 6 has stated that her son Mansing left to attend nature's call at 6-00 hours in the morning and he left towards ravine to attend nature's call. At that time, Rajabhai Devabhai equipped with scythe, Shantiji Mokaji equipped with iron pipe, Pathu Reva with a stick and Rama Hakma also with a stick in his hand -all these four dragged her son Mansing. As she went after them running, all these four started beating her. Therefore, she returned home shouting. 6.4 P.W. 6 further stated that then, she came home and informed the same to her jethani (wife of elder brother-in-law) Rajiben and sent Somaji Vanvirji, Narsinh Makaji and Prakashji Parbatji after them to see. These three returned and told her that a boy is lying in dead condition. As these people returned, she ran back shouting, but returned after some distance. P.W. 6 has further stated that she talked with Cyrusbhai pursuant to which he told them to go to police station to file a complaint. She has further stated that the reason of killing her son was their prior animosity with the accused persons. Shiva Shanti, Shanti Moka, Raja Deva, Pathu Reva slaughtered her goat and ate it up. 7. The injuries sustained by the deceased as per the post mortem report are as under: "Large size incised wound on neck anterior only at the level of thyroid, transverse in direction. Size 12x3x6 cms. All structures are cut & seen. Skin, thyroid cartilage & gland, the trachea, esophagus, carotid vessels, nerves etc are cut." 7.1 P.W. 4, Dr. Bhikhubhai Akediwala (Ex. 23) is the medical officer who performed the autopsy on the dead body. He has stated that there was injury on the neck of the deceased. He has stated that the cause of death was traumatic and haemorrhagic shock due to neck injury by sharp cutting object. He also stated that such injury was possible when the deceased would have been assaulted with the muddamal weapon and the injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 8. He has stated that the cause of death was traumatic and haemorrhagic shock due to neck injury by sharp cutting object. He also stated that such injury was possible when the deceased would have been assaulted with the muddamal weapon and the injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 8. Moreover, the FSL report also does not suggest that the death of the deceased was accidental. The blood collected from the muddamal dhariya shows the blood group to be that of the deceased. The evidences on record clinchingly prove the guilt of the accused are concerned and the same are even reiterated in the judgment of the trial court. In the present case, considering the evidence of witnesses as well as the medical evidence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the fact that the deceased died a homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt. Learned advocate for the appellant is not in a position to point out any cogent evidence or circumstance so as to enable this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by the trial court. The factum of accidental death is also ruled out considering the FSL reports and the panchnamas on record. The trial court has considering all these facts convicted the accused under section 302 of Indian Penal Code which is just and proper. We, therefore, do not see any reason for interference in the appeal. 8.1 However, in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah v. State of Assam reported in JT 2013 (10) SC 373 has held as under: "15. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that life imprisonment means imprisonment for whole of life subject to the remission power granted under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India. [Vide Life Convict @ Khoka Prasanta Sen v. B.K. Srivastava & Ors. (2013) 3 SCC 425 , Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 3 SCC 294 , Sangeet and Anr. v. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452 , Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State of Gujarat (2011) 2 SCC 764 , Chhote Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 8 SCR 239 , Mulla and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 508, Maru Ram v. Union of India & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452 , Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State of Gujarat (2011) 2 SCC 764 , Chhote Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 8 SCR 239 , Mulla and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 508, Maru Ram v. Union of India & Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 107 , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh & Others (1976) 3 SCC 470 and Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 600 ]. 16. In view of the clear decisions over decades, the argument of learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused is unsustainable, at the same time, we are not restricting the power of executive as provided in the Constitution of India. For adequate reasons, it is for the said authorities to exercise their power in an appropriate case." 9. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is hereby disposed of as having been abated qua original accused no. 1. So far as original accused nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, appeal stands dismissed. The judgment and order dated 16.07.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Banaskantha at Deesa in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2003 is confirmed. However, life imprisonment as awarded by the trial court would not be till last breath and the case of the appellants - accused may be reviewed by the appropriate authority considering the decision of Apex Court in the case of Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah (supra). The period of sentence already undergone shall be considered for remission and set off in accordance with law. As the accused are on bail, they shall surrender within a period of ten weeks from today before the jail authorities failing which their bail bond shall stand cancelled. R & P to be sent back forthwith. Direct service is permitted. Appeal Dismissed.