JUDGMENT : Anant S. Dave, J. Since all these appeals arise from the common judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2 For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status before the learned Sessions Judge as Accused-1 [Thakor Krishnaji @Krishnuji Lalsangji][A-1]; Accused-2 [Thakor Dashrathji Lalsangji] [A-2]; Accused No. 3 [Thakor Balvantji Pabaji][A-3]; Accused No. 4 [Thakor Bharaji @Bharatsang Lalsangji][A-4]; Accused No. 5 [Thakor Babraji Thakhuji][A-5]; Accused No. 6 [Thakor Bhailalji @Visnuji Lalsangji] [A-6] and Accused No. 7 [Thakor Lalsangji Balsangji][A-7]. 3 All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.04.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTDC No. 2, Patan in Sessions Case No. 28 of 2009. 3.1 Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2010 is preferred by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 against convicting and sentencing them for 6 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/- in default thereof to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and simple imprison for 1 year and fine of Rs.500 in default thereof simple imprisonment for 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. 3.2 Criminal Appeal No. 1007 of 2010 is filed by Accused No. 7 against convicting and sentencing him rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- in default simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences run concurrently and the said accused is given benefit of set off. 3.3 Criminal Appeal No. 1177 of 2010 is preferred by the State of Gujarat against the order of acquitting the accused Nos. All the sentences run concurrently and the said accused is given benefit of set off. 3.3 Criminal Appeal No. 1177 of 2010 is preferred by the State of Gujarat against the order of acquitting the accused Nos. 3 to 6 for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, accused No. 1 from the charges of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act and accused No. 2 from the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act and accused No. 7 from the charges of offences punishable under 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act. 4. The factual matrix of the prosecution case begins on the basis of complaint at Exh.72 lodged by Santuji Aduji - complainant. Santuji Aduji stated in the said complaint that he was working as a Mason and doing labour work. On 03.12.2008 he had gone for labour work at Mehsana and returned around 5:30 to 6:00 in the evening and on completion of dinner he was to leave for nearby shop for buying tea, his cousin - Vaghuba Baghaji and brother - Vijuji Navuji were complaining that Krishnaji Lalsang, son of Lalsang [Accused No. 7] was playing tape recorder very loudly, which was creating disturbance to the students in the neighbourhood. Though Balvantji Pabaji, uncle of Krishnaji was standing nearby he was not telling anything in this regard and, therefore, they have decided to apprise him of the same. Accordingly, Balvant Pabaji was told by Vijuji Navuji, that Krishnaji was not to play tape recorder loudly. In the meanwhile, Krishnaji Lalsang and his brother Dashrathji Lalsang rushed there and told them that they were playing tape recorder in their house for which they need not be reprimanded and started using abusive language and suddenly Balvantji Pabaji instigated and said who were they to ask them to stop playing the tape recorder. Thereafter, he again started abusing. In the meanwhile, Krishnaji Lalsang and his brother Dashrathji Lalsang rushed there and told them that they were playing tape recorder in their house for which they need not be reprimanded and started using abusive language and suddenly Balvantji Pabaji instigated and said who were they to ask them to stop playing the tape recorder. Thereafter, he again started abusing. Meanwhile, Bharaji Balsangji came with a wooden club, Dasharathji Lalsang with a scythe, Krishnaji Lalsang with a stick, Balvantji Pabaji with a sword and these accused persons started abusing. Babaraji Takhuji and Bhailalji Lalsang also rushed there and started abusing. As these six accused persons were asked not to abuse and as there was uproar, brothers of complainant viz. Hiraji Gagaji, Velaji Vijuji, Dansangji Galaji, Vikramji Dhanaji, Dhanaji Gagaji, Ganubha Sajaji came there and inquired why they were abusing. At this time, Bharaji Balsangji gave a club blow below knee on my right leg. As Thakor Tejaji Amrajti intervened, Dashrathji Lalsang gave a scythe blow on his head. As Maniben Amratji Mohanji intervened, Krishnaji Lalsangji gave a stick blow on her face. They sustained injuries and as they shouted, Lalsangji Balsangji came with a licenced gun and started firing on the mob wherein complainant sustained bullet injury on right side and rear part of head and Hiraji Gagaji sustained bullet injury on the nose. Due to this indiscriminate firing, Vaghuji Baghaji, son of brother, sustained bullet injury on his waist and fell down. His cousins Velaji Vijuji, Dansangji Galaji, Vikramji Dhanaji, Dhanaji Gagaji and Ganubha Sajaji sustained bullet injuries. As they shouted on sustaining injuries, other villages rushed there and aforesaid seven persons ran away. As Lalsangji Balsangi had fired indiscriminately, Velaji Vijuji sustained injuries on right side of his chest and right shoulder and as other persons also sustained injuries, they were taken to Lanva for treatment. The doctor gave treatment and referred them for further treatment and declared that his cousin Vaghuji Badhaji has died. This incident has taken place near the house of Thakor Tejaji Amratji at about 7-30/7-00 hours in the evening on 3/12/2008. 4.1 During the investigation, police recorded statement of witnesses, drawn necessary panchnama, recovered muddamal and as there was sufficient evidence connecting respondents with crime produced in this case, charge sheet was filed before the competent court having jurisdiction. This incident has taken place near the house of Thakor Tejaji Amratji at about 7-30/7-00 hours in the evening on 3/12/2008. 4.1 During the investigation, police recorded statement of witnesses, drawn necessary panchnama, recovered muddamal and as there was sufficient evidence connecting respondents with crime produced in this case, charge sheet was filed before the competent court having jurisdiction. The offences committed by respondents were absolutely triable by the court of learned Sessions Court, same was committed to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTDC No. 2, Patan and numbered as Sessions Case No. 28 of 2009. 4.2 In order to prove its case against the accused persons, the prosecution had inter alia examined the following important prosecution witnesses: PW Particulars Exh. PW-11 Sureshkumar Viswanath Dave Exh.62 PW-12 Vijuji Navuji Darbar Exh.64 PW-13 Chhanaji Gagaji Darbar Exh.65 PW-14 Tejaji Amaratji Darbar Exh.66 PW-15 Maliben Amaratji Mohanji Exh.67 PW-16 Hiraji Gagaji Darbar Exh.69 PW-17 Dansangji Galaji Darbar Exh.70 PW-18 Shantuji Haduji Darbar Exh.71 PW-19 Vikramji Dhanaji Darbar Exh.73 PW-20 Valsangji Vijuji Jhala Exh.74 PW-21 Priyesh Shivram Chauhan Exh.77 PW-22 Dr. Jayshreeben Khushaldas Patel Exh.81 PW-23 Dr. Ranbirsingh Sumerprasad Dohare Exh.97 PW-24 Mangubhai Kamjibhai Asari Exh.108 PW-25 PSO Kantibhai Bhagabhai Makvana Exh.111 PW-26 Investigating Officer Dhudabhai Ranchhodbhai Exh.113 PW-27 Investigating Officer Kacharbhai Prayagbhai Exh.114 PW-28 Dr. Rajesh Kantibhai Patel Exh.121 In order to prove its case against the accused persons, the prosecution had inter alia examined, the following important documentary evidence: Sr. Particulars Exh. 1 Inquest Panchnama Exh.30 2 Note sent to the Civil Hospital for conducting postmortem. Rajesh Kantibhai Patel Exh.121 In order to prove its case against the accused persons, the prosecution had inter alia examined, the following important documentary evidence: Sr. Particulars Exh. 1 Inquest Panchnama Exh.30 2 Note sent to the Civil Hospital for conducting postmortem. Exh.32 3 Discovery Panchnama Exh.60 4 Mobile F S L van report Exh.63 5 Complaint Exh.72 6 Postmortem Note Exh.79 7 Medical certificate of Dansangji Galaji Exh.82 8 Medical certificate of Valsangji Vijuji Exh.83 9 Medical certificate of Ganubha Sajaji Exh.84 10 Medical certificate of Vikramji Dhanaji Exh.86 11 Medical certificate of Hiraji Gagaji Exh.88 12 Medical certificate of the complainant-Shantuji Aduji Exh.90 13 Medical certificate of Chhanubha Gagaji Exh.92 14 Medical certificate of Tajaji Amratji Exh.94 15 Medical certificate of Maliben Amaratji Exh.95 16 Medical certificate of the complainant - Shantuji Aduji Exh.102 17 Medical certificate of Gelsangji Vijuji Exh.107 18 Map of scene of offence Exh.110 19 FSL Report Exh.117 20 Copy of gun licence of Lalsangji Balsangji Jhala Exh.120 21 Medical certificate of the complainant-Shantuji Aduji Jhala Exh.122 22 Medical certificate of Ganubha Sajaji Jhala Exh.123 23 Medical certificate of Hiraji Gagaji Jhala. Exh.124 5. The learned Judge, after considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the documentary as well as oral evidence in the form of depositions, various panchnamas, including postmortem notes and medical evidence, opinion given by the doctor and other medical records, cause of death and motive for crime and passed the impugned judgment and order dated 27.04.2010. 6. Learned counsel Mr. M.C. Barot for Mr. Tejas Barot appearing for accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2010 and accused No. 7 in Criminal Appeal No. 1007 of 2010 submits that the incident had taken place about 7:30 p.m. in the month of December and in absence of clear visibility to see each other and, therefore, the version of the prosecution witnesses is highly improbable, unreasonable and far from the truth. It is further submitted that the investigating agency had failed to examine independent witnesses and the witnesses examined were close relatives being family members of the complainant side whose evidence was unreliable. It is further submitted that there are major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses inasmuch as they have not deposed the truth before the trial court. It is further submitted that the investigating agency had failed to examine independent witnesses and the witnesses examined were close relatives being family members of the complainant side whose evidence was unreliable. It is further submitted that there are major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses inasmuch as they have not deposed the truth before the trial court. It is further submitted that there was previous enmity between the accused NO.7 and the complainant side and, therefore, accused No. 7 has been involved in the crime. 6.1 It is further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge ought to have given the benefit of probation to accused Nos. 1 and 2 and ought to have acquitted them for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC and the accused No. 7 also be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and under Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act. 7. Per contra, learned APP appearing for respondent - State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal Nos. 811 of 2010 and 1007 of 2010 and for appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1177 of 2010 submits that the PW-18 - complainant Shantuji Aduji Darbar was examined at Exh.71 and he has fully supported the case as narrated by him in FIR, which was produced at Exh.72. He has clearly mentioned how the incident occurred and what the accused did at the time of the incident, however, the learned Judge has discarded and disbelieved his evidence while coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons have committed the offence charged against them. It is next contended that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the inquest panchnama produced at Exh.30, cloth panchnama of witnesses Ganubha Sajjaji produced at Exh.41, cloth panchnama of injured witnesses produced at Exh.45, sword weapon recovery panchnama at Exh.52, cloth panchnama of witnesses Velsangji Vijuji produced at Exh.55, scene of offence panchnama produced at Exh.58, discovery panchnama produced at Exh.60, complaint produced at Exh.72 and FSL report produced at Exh.117. It is further submitted that in the light of the evidence of the Investigating Officer by the evidence of whom those documents have been proved, which were fully supported the case of the prosecution, however, the learned Judge committed grave error in not properly appreciating the material available on record. 7.1 It is further submitted that the prosecution has produced evidence of PW-21 Priyesh Shivram Chauhan at Exh.77, PW:22 Dr. Jayshreeben Khushaldas Patel at Exh.81, PW:23 Dr. Ranbirsingh Sumerprasad Dohare at Exh.97 and PW 28 Dr. Rajesh Kantibhai Patel Exh.121 and they have produced medical certificate of Dansangji Galaji at Exh.82, medical certificate of Valsangji Vijuji at Exh.83, medical certificate of Ganubha Sajaji at Exh.84, medical certificate of Vikramji Dhanaji at Exh.86, medical certificate of Hiraji Gagaji at Exh.88, medical certificate of the complainant-Shantuji Aduji at Exh.90, medical certificate of Chhanubha Gagaji at Exh.92, medical certificate of Tajaji Amratji at Exh.94, medical certificate of Maliben Amaratji at Exh.95, medical certificate of the complainant - Shantuji Aduji at Exh.102, medical certificate of Gelsangji Vijuji at Exh.107, medical certificate of the complainant Shantuji Aduji Jhala at Exh.122, medical certificate of Ganubha Sajaji Jhala at Exh.123 and medical certificate of Hiraji Gagaji Jhala at Exh.124. The nature of injuries mentioned by them in their evidence and the postmortem note fully corroborates the case of the prosecution as narrated by the complainant in his complaint. They have also specifically stated that such injuries are possible by weapons like pistol, sword, stick, dhariya, etc. It is further submitted that the above evidence clearly supported the case of the prosecution and in spite of the same, the learned Judge has not adequately sentenced the accused persons. 7.2 It is next contended that the learned Judge has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of Investigation Officer, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution. He has drawn the scene of offence panchnama in presence of panchas; seized muddamal pistol and sword used by the accused and he has supported the case of the prosecution to prove the offence committed by the accused persons. However the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence. He has drawn the scene of offence panchnama in presence of panchas; seized muddamal pistol and sword used by the accused and he has supported the case of the prosecution to prove the offence committed by the accused persons. However the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence. 7.3 It is next contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciate the evidences of PW-1 Bhopaji Kantharaji Thakor at Exh.40, PW-2 Sureshji Balsangji Darbar at Exh.33, PW-3 Jitubha Balvantsing Jhala at Exh.49, PW-4 injured witness Ganubha Sajaji Darbar at Exh.50, PW-6 Mujadkhan Husenmiya Solanki at Exh.53, PW-7 Vishnuji Chamanji Thakor at Exh.54, PW-8 Dhudaji Pratapji Darmar at Exh.57, PW-11 Sureshkumar Viswanath Dave at Exh.62, PW-12 eye witness Vijuji Navuji Darbar at Exh.64, PW-13 Chhanaji Gagaji Darbar at Exh.65, PW-14 injured witness Tejaji Amaratji Darbar at Exh.66, PW-15 injured witness Maliben Amaratji Mohanji at Exh.67, PW-16 injured witness Hiraji Gagaji Darbar at Exh.69, PW-17 injured witness Dansangji Galaji Darbar at Exh.70, PW-19 injured witness Vikramji Dhanaji Darbar at Exh.73, PW-20 injured witness Valsangji Vijuji Jhala at Exh.74, PW- 24 Mangubhai Kamjibhai Asari at Exh.108, PW-25 PSO Kantibhai Bhagabhai Makvana at Exh.111 and PW-26 Investigating Officer Dhudabhai Ranchhodbhai at Exh.113 and PW-27 Investigating Officer Kacharbhai Prayagbhai at Exh.114. They have fully supported the case of the prosecution, however, the learned Judge without properly appreciating the evidence of these witnesses had committed grave error in disbelieving and discarding the evidence of these witnesses. 7.4 It is next contended that 7 accused persons gathered at the scene of offence with common intention and motive to commit offence and as such caused injuries to the deceased and other injured witnesses. It is further submitted that the accused persons have formed unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common intention in conspiracy to commit offence. 7.5 It is next contended that the learned Judge failed to properly appreciate the depositions of the eye witnesses and injured witnesses and thereby committed grave error in acquitting the accused Nos. It is further submitted that the accused persons have formed unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common intention in conspiracy to commit offence. 7.5 It is next contended that the learned Judge failed to properly appreciate the depositions of the eye witnesses and injured witnesses and thereby committed grave error in acquitting the accused Nos. 3 to 6 for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, accused No. 1 from the charges of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act and accused No. 2 from the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act and accused No. 7 from the charges of offences punishable under 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act. 8. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the case. From the record, it clearly appears that the prosecution had examined 28 witnesses including 4 qualified doctors viz. [i] Dr. Priyesh Shivram Chauhan PW-21 Exh.77; [ii] Dr. Jayshriben Khushaldas Patel PW-22 Exh.81; [iii] Dr. Ranbirsinh Sumerprasad Dohari PW-23 Exh.97 and [iv] Dr. Rajesh Kantibhai Patel PW-28 Exh.121, who performed their duties at Lanva Community Health Centre, Government Hospital, Mehsana and Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad respectively. 8.1 Injuries on deceased in Col.17 of the autopsy report Exh.79 reveal that one entry would 4.5 x 4 cms. x Muscle deep at front part of left thigh 68.5 cm above the heel and 19 cms. lower from anterior superior iliac spine. Second injury [a] an exit wound of 12 x 6 cms. x muscle deep on the posterior part of left thigh, which was 57 cm above heel and 90 cms below pubic symphysis; [b] 1 x 1 cm x muscle deep wound over backside of the thigh, 3 cms below lower glue-teal fold; [c] 2 x 1 x muscle deep wound which was 8 cms below lower glue-teal fold; [d] 1 x 0.5 cm x muscle deep wound 10 cm below lower glue-teal fold. Third injury being CLW of the size 3 x 1 x 0.5 cm present over frontal part of scalp, 8 cms above left orbital bridge. Fourth injury also being CLW of the size 1.5 x 1 x 1 cms left side of lower lip. All injuries were ante-mortem. The cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to external hemorrhage by fire arm injury. The doctor who performed postmortem report confirmed the injuries and cause of death that injuries 1 and 2 were fatal. 8.2 That other injured witnesses so treated by Dr. Jayshriben Khushaldas Patel, [PW-22 Exh.81] incharge at General Hospital at Mehsana narrated in detail injuries on Dansangji Galaji Jhala, which are [i] a punctured wound of 0.5 cms on right thigh; [ii] multiple punctured wounds on left and right hands; [iii] multiple punctured wounds on right side chest. 2nd injured witness - Velsangji Vinuji Jhala had injuries being [i] one punctured wound having 0.5 cms diameter on right chest in third inter-coastal space; [ii] punctured would on right chest fourth intercoastal space and ; [iii] punctured wound having 0.5 cms diameter on backside of right shoulder. 3rd injured witness - Ganubha Sajaji Jhala had 8 punctured wounds on left side of chest. 4th injured witness - Vikram Dhanaji Jhala had injuries being [I] crushed wound of 2 x 4 cms in popletian region on left side of knee; [ii] had fractures of patella bone; and [iii] injury of common parolian on nerves. 5th injured witness - Hiraji Gagaji Jhala had punctured wound of 0.5 cm. diameters on left side of nose. 6th injured witness - Shantuji Aduji Jhala had punctured wound of 0.5 x 0.5 cm diameter on right forehead. 7th injured witness - Chhanubha Gagaji Jhala had received four punctured wounds of the 0.5 cm diameter on his right leg and six punctured wounds of 0.5 cms diameter on left leg. 8th injured witness - Tejaji Amratji Jhala had an incised wound of 3 x 0.5 cms on left parietal region. 9th injured witness - Maniben Amratji Jhala had CLW injury of 2 x 0.5 cm on her left cheek. X-ray reports confirmed the metal parts in the bodies of the injured witnesses. 8.3 Further, FSL report Exh.114 clearly reveals that a box of cartridges of Indian made from which shot was fired and seized and sent for FSL. 9th injured witness - Maniben Amratji Jhala had CLW injury of 2 x 0.5 cm on her left cheek. X-ray reports confirmed the metal parts in the bodies of the injured witnesses. 8.3 Further, FSL report Exh.114 clearly reveals that a box of cartridges of Indian made from which shot was fired and seized and sent for FSL. Sample A- 1 reveals firing pins marks on percussion cap and further reveal the shot was fired from sample-E viz. Double Barrel Shotgun. Likewise, sample Nos. A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 had similar percussion cap firing min marks and were fired from sample E viz. Double Barrel Breach Loading 12 Bore Shotgun manufactured by Khurmi Gun Works establishes that the above shot gun was used for firing before acceptance by lab, which was functional and total 10 cartridges were fired. The clothes sent for FSL C-1, C-2, D, D-11, F put on by injured and deceased also reveal whole marks due to shorts fired from fire arms. So is the case of Sample No. G-9A, G-8B and G-9B. Even biological and serological reports about presence of blood stains confirm injuries on deceased and injured. Thus, ocular as well as medical evidence viz. injuries inflicted in Column 17 of autopsy report of the deceased, depositions of medical officers of Community Health Centre, Lanva, General Hospital at Mehsana and Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad, who have treated the injured witnesses and carried out postmortem, report of ballistic expert, etc. conclusively prove guilt of the accused - convict beyond reasonable doubt. 9. In the case of Sheesh Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014)3 SCC 689 , the Apex Court in para 10 held as under: "10. PW-2 Khushiram, PW-3 Rameshwar and PW-4 Yadram have corroborated this witness. It is submitted that all these witnesses are related and therefore their evidence cannot be relied upon. Assuming they are related to each other and, hence, interested witnesses, it is well settled that the evidence of interested witnesses is not always suspect. It has to be scrutinised with caution and can be accepted if it is found reliable. Presence of PW-5 Bhagwan Singh at the scene of offence can hardly be disputed since he is an injured witness. His evidence has strengthened the prosecution case. Evidence of PWs-3, 4 and 5 also inspires confidence. It has to be scrutinised with caution and can be accepted if it is found reliable. Presence of PW-5 Bhagwan Singh at the scene of offence can hardly be disputed since he is an injured witness. His evidence has strengthened the prosecution case. Evidence of PWs-3, 4 and 5 also inspires confidence. So far as the acquitted accused are concerned, the evidence of these witnesses qua them is found to be exaggerated. But, on account of that, their entire evidence cannot be discarded. All these witnesses stated that the acquitted accused had lathis and they dealt lathi blows on PW-5 Bhagwan Singh. This part of their evidence is disbelieved. It is true that these witnesses have improved the prosecution story to some extent. But, that improvement or that exaggerated version can be safely separated from the main case of the prosecution. So far as the main prosecution case is concerned, all the witnesses are consistent. This is not a case where truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed up. Witnesses tend to exaggerate the prosecution story. If the exaggeration does not change the prosecution story or convert it into an altogether new story, allowance can be made for it. If evidence of a witness is to be disbelieved merely because he has made some improvement in his evidence, there would hardly be any witness on whom reliance can be placed by the courts." 9.1 In the case of Vinigiri Motigiri v. State of Gujarat reported in 2002(1) GLH 176 , the Apex Court held that minor inconsistency with reference to possibilities suggested to the medical export and where the evidence of eye-witness is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. The opinion of the doctor as to how an injury was caused cannot overrule unimpeachable testimony of eye-witnesses. 10. In view of the above, Mr. M.C. Barot, learned counsel for the accused persons failed to point out any lacuna on the part of the prosecution in leading evidence and establishing the guilt of the accused persons. The accused and complainant and other witnesses were neighbours and in the street sufficient visibility was there when the incident took place after 6:00 pm, therefore, identification of accused, usage of weapons and firing shots from fire arms is established conclusively. The accused and complainant and other witnesses were neighbours and in the street sufficient visibility was there when the incident took place after 6:00 pm, therefore, identification of accused, usage of weapons and firing shots from fire arms is established conclusively. However, nature of injuries caused on other injured persons by those accused ordered to undergo conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC do not require any interference on the grounds contended by the learned APP. From the record, it clearly appears that even minor contradictions, omissions, discrepancies or any kind of improvements are not noticed by us. Further, no error appears on record in appreciating the evidence oral as well as documentary, findings and conclusions arrived by the learned Judge in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence as well as acquitting the accused persons respectively. The learned trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence oral as well as documentary and no interference is called for by this Court either in exercise of powers under Section 374 or 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by this Court. Accordingly, all these appeals are dismissed. 11. At this stage, it is reported by learned counsels for the parties that Thakor Krishnaji @Krishnuji Lalsangji - accused No. 1 and Thakor Dashrathji Lalsangji - accused No. 2, appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2010 are on bail. Therefore, their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are hereby directed to surrender before the jail authority within a period of 8 weeks from today to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial Judge. The period of sentence already undergone shall be considered for remission of sentence qua accused Nos. 1 and 2. Appeal dismissed.