JUDGMENT Z.K. Saiyed, J. 1. This Appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Code, 1973"), arises out of judgment and order dated 3.1.2011 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2009, whereby conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants - accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 114 and 294(kh) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant - accused No. 1 was ordered to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10000/-, in default of the same, to undergo further simple imprisonment of 6 months for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Section 294(kh) of the Indian Penal Code, he was ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, further to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Similarly, the appellant - accused No. 2 was ordered to suffer sentence for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10000/-, in default of the same, to undergo further simple imprisonment of 6 months for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The facts in short of the case of prosecution is such that the complainant Shamjibhai Shakrabhai Koli Patel, lodged the complainant before Sanand police on date 13.9.2008 that he was doing agriculture work at village Soyla and he cultivated paddy in kyari in three vighas land known as farm of Navadwala having ownership of Madhabhai Shankarbhai Koli Patel in the outskirts of his village and he was using water of pond of his village for irrigation. On date 13.9.2008, at eight O'clock in morning, he, his father Shakrabhai Mangabhai, his brother Rasikbhai Shakrabhai and his maternal uncle Matambhai Surabhai went to above farm, where, the water of pond was (flowing) continued. At about quarter to ten O'clock, the water was suddenly stopped, therefore, when they all four persons were going with checking the sloping water-course, on going near the farm of Narsinhbhai Atmaram appellant No. 1 herein of his village, Narsinhbhai Atmaram and Chandubhai Atmaram (appellant No. 2 herein) were present in Kyari of paddy situated in Lapaharwala pa (a kind of name) of his farm. The appellant No. 1 had a hoe and the appellant No. 2 had a shovel and they had stopped the water of sloping water-course going towards the farm of the complainant at near their farm by way of mound. As the complainant's father Shakrabhai Mangabhai stated ''why the water has been stopped'' to them, at that time, the appellant No. 1 got excited and was speaking abusive words. As father of the complainant, Shakrabhai Mangabhai stated for not to speak the abusive words, the appellant No. 1 got much excited and he had given blow of hoe on the head and on the tempor of his (complainant's) father Shakrabhai and his father had fallen down in bleeding condition. As the complainant's brother Rasikbhai and maternal uncle Matambhai intervened to get released, the appellant No. 2 had beaten shovel having with him on the head and on the mouth of Rasikbhai, therefore, he had fallen down in bleeding condition. Whereas, appellant No. 1 had inflicted blow of hoe in the head of Matambhai, therefore, he had also fallen down in bleeding condition. Therefore, the appellants tried to beat the complainant, he ran away due to fear and after going some far away, he talked with one Bahadurbhai Kashiram Patel of his village from his mobile phone. It was stated about to send his brother Pravin Shakrabhai by taking tractor in farm and he went towards village. Thereafter, his brother Pravinbhai Shakrabhai and Degabhai Jayrambhai of his village took his father, brother and maternal uncle to the Sanand Govt. hospital in the tractor. The complainant also reached to the Sanand Govt. hospital where, he knew that his father Shakrabhai Mangabhai and brother Rasikbhai Shakrabhai expired, whereas, his maternal uncle Matambhai has been taken to the V.S. hospital at Ahmedabad for further treatment. Therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint regarding the same before Sanand Police registered an offence vide First C.R. No. 214 of 2008 under sections 302, 307, 204(kh),114 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of the B.P. Act and conducted the investigation as per rules. 3. The police arrested the accused persons in the case of said offence on date 13.9.2008 and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class the accused persons were sent in judicial custody. 3. The police arrested the accused persons in the case of said offence on date 13.9.2008 and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class the accused persons were sent in judicial custody. As the bail applications of the accused persons were rejected by the competent court, the said accused persons are in the custody as under trial prisoners during judicial trial of the case. 4. After the investigation, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sanand, in exercise of power under Section209 of the Code, 1973, committed the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), where it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 3 of 2009 and later on, it was tried whereby the prosecution examined several evidence oral and documentary and finally statement of the accused also came to be recorded under Section 313of the Code, 1973, whereby charge was denied by the accused completely. 5. The prosecution has examined following witnesses to prove the case against the appellants - accused: 1 Deposition of the complaints Shamjibhai Shskrshai Exh. 11 2 Deposition of the witness Dr. Kalpesh Kotariya Exh. 29 3 Deposition of the witness Dr. Paresh Prajapati. Exh. 34 4 Deposition of the Pancha Ghanshyam sinh Harisinh Exh.42 5 Deposition of the Pancha Gugabhai Shivabhai Exh.55 6 Deposition of the Pancha Prabhubhai Bhavubhai Exh.64 7 Deposition of the witness Pravin Shakarbhai Exh.69 8 Deposition of the witness Bahadurbhai Kashiram Exh.70 9 Deposition of the Pancha Khembhai Vashrambhai Exh.71 10 Deposition of the Pancha Bhupatbhai Vikrambhai Exh.73 11 Deposition of the pancha Dayaram merabhai Exh.74 12 Deposition of the Investigation officer M.J. Pancholi Exh.76 6. The documentary evidence as follows has been produced for additional corroboration of above oral evidence. (1) Original Complaints Exh. 12 (2) Inquest Panchnama Exh. 13-14 (3) Panchnama of place of offence Exh. 54 (4) Post-moterm Reports Exh. 30, 40, 41 (5) Panchnama of physical condition of the accused persons. Exh.72 (6) List (index) Exh.77 (7) Panchnama of seized clothes of deceased Exh.65, 74 (8) Discovery Panchnama Exh.57, 59 (9) Yadi and map for panchnama of the place of offence Exh. 15, 16 (10) Place examination report of F.S.L officer Exh.78 (11) Notification of weapon prohibition Exh.17 (12) F.S.L dispatch note(s). Exh.72 (6) List (index) Exh.77 (7) Panchnama of seized clothes of deceased Exh.65, 74 (8) Discovery Panchnama Exh.57, 59 (9) Yadi and map for panchnama of the place of offence Exh. 15, 16 (10) Place examination report of F.S.L officer Exh.78 (11) Notification of weapon prohibition Exh.17 (12) F.S.L dispatch note(s). Exh.18, 20 (13) F.S.L receipt(s) Exh.19, 21 (14) F.S.L analysis report(s) Exh.23, 24, 26 and 27 (15) Letters of F.S.L Exh.22, 25 (16) Slips having signatures of panchas with muddamal Exh.43 to 53, 56, 58 and 79 to 82 (17) Evidence closing purshish Exh.83 7. The defence side desired to examine following defence witnesses. (1) Deposition of witness leelaben Shakarbhai Exh. 88 (2) Deposition of witness Kashiram Surabhai Exh. 89 (3) Deposition of witness Madhabhai Shankarbhai Exh. 90 (4) Deposition of witness Dayaram merabhai Exh. 92 (5) Deposition of witness Ramanlal Galiji Exh. 95 (6) Deposition of witness Vilasben Rasikbhai Exh. 96 (7) Deposition of witness Kishor Aravindkumar Exh. 97 (8) Evidence Closing purshish Exh. 98 8. Besides above oral evidence, some documentary evidences have also been produced by the defence side below documentary evidence list vide Exh. 87 and 101. Out of those, the Exhibits 103 to 108 includes the letter of Ambulance service of dated 19.8.2010 and charge-sheets showing as to the pancha witness of this case Ghanshyam Harisinh is also as pancha witness in other police cases and copies of panchnama. Though, the defence side has not made any contrivance to prove the facts of documentary evidences produced below the list of Exh. - 87 but the said documents are 'public documents' like copies of registered documents and copies of revenue office, therefore, they are not improper to take into read in the evidence. Thereafter, the detailed arguments have been heard of learned Addi. P.P. Mr. S.B. Patel for the Govt. and the case has been adjourned for final decision after taking into read the written arguments produced for the accused persons. 9. At the end of trial, the conviction and sentence recorded earlier was imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the conviction and sentence so awarded, learned senior advocate Mr. and the case has been adjourned for final decision after taking into read the written arguments produced for the accused persons. 9. At the end of trial, the conviction and sentence recorded earlier was imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the conviction and sentence so awarded, learned senior advocate Mr. Anandjiwala for the appellants submitted that the imprisonment of sentence for rigorous life for offence alleged for which the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, such conviction and sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that the muddmal i.e. hoe and shovel, as weapons cited by the prosecution, but the said weapons are not deadly weapons but the instruments for agricultural work. He further submitted that the deceased persons found that the flow of water was stopped and they went to the place of incident, where the accused persons were present and hot exchange took place and due to sudden provocation, the offence as alleged took place. He further submitted that the event disclosed by the complainant P.W.1 Shamjibhai Shakrabhai examined at Exhibit 11, in his evidence is not reliable and trustworthy and he is not eye-witness to the incident. He drew the attention of the Court to the evidence of the complainant and panchnama and submitted that looking to the distance shown in the panchnama as well as event disclosed by the complainant, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was not present there and therefore, the version of the complainant cannot be said to be reliable and trustworthy. He read the evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Kalpesh Katoria and P.W. 3 Dr. Paresh Prajapati at Exhibit 29 and 34 respectively and submitted that the injuries observed by the said Doctors, are possible by only sharp edged weapons and in the present case, the muddamal i.e. the weapons recovered are agricultural instruments, but not deadly weapons. He further submitted that looking to the injuries found from the body of the deceased persons, which were caused by sharp deadly weapons and the recovered muddamal i.e. hoe and shovel cannot be considered as deadly weapons, but they are simply agriculture instruments. He further submitted that looking to the allegations made against both the appellants, the motive or intention to kill the deceased is not established. He further submitted that looking to the allegations made against both the appellants, the motive or intention to kill the deceased is not established. He submitted that the list at Exhibit 87, list of documents, is produced, but those documents were not exhibited, therefore, the learned trial Judge has not considered the same while deciding the case of the appellants. He also submitted that it is the duty of the learned trial Judge to consider the same as defence version, but the learned trial Judge has not considered the same and thereby committed grave error by not considering the same as per the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He also submitted that the discovery which was made through the appellants accused is not also proved by the prosecution. He further submitted that from the injuries shown on the persons of the deceased, the prosecution could not establish that both the appellants accused assaulted on the vital part of the deceased. He further read the evidence of the complainant P.W. 1 and submitted that as per the say of the complainant, it is admitted by him that he ran away from the place of incident and therefore, the conduct of the complainant creates doubt and therefore, the evidence of the complainant is not trustworthy and reliable. He further submitted that as per the evidence of P.W.2 - Doctor, the injury No. 1 is shown as surgical stitch wound and that injury was not verified and explained and from the operation wound, how real injury can be disclosed through this witness. He further submitted that multiple abrasions as stated, are only possible by sharp edged weapon. He read the report of the FSL and submitted that from the serological report of FSL, no bloodstain was found on the shovel and four weapons are seized. He also submitted that the edge of pickax was sharp, but there is no evidence to disclose that front part of pickax was used and injuries are found to be possible by stick. He also submitted that the as per the evidence of prosecution case, the incident took place due to all of sudden quarrel took place and injuries found on the persons of the deceased are not possible by said alleged weapons. He also submitted that the as per the evidence of prosecution case, the incident took place due to all of sudden quarrel took place and injuries found on the persons of the deceased are not possible by said alleged weapons. He further submitted that from the evidence of witness, specifically the important witness i.e. P.W.1 complainant, it is established by the defence that the incident was happened due to hot exchange took place, but the blow was not given in a cruel manner by the accused. He prayed that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and case is proved by the prosecution is covered within the meaning of provisions of Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code. He further argued that against the appellant No. 2, no role is disclosed by the P.W. 1, complainant and as per the evidence led by the prosecution, both the appellants - accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. He further submitted that the facts of the incident were surfaced by the prosecution witnesses and the weapon hoe was received from the deceased Matambhai. He drew the attention from the serological report and submitted that blood group of Rasikbhai and Shakrabhai is "A" and "B" group. He also submitted that the incident in question was happened due to hot exchange took place between the deceased and the appellants accused and the deceased persons assaulted with the weapons upon the appellants and in result, for self defence, the accused tried to protect themselves and therefore, the offence took place. He, therefore, prayed to allow present appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court and acquitted the accused for the charges levelled against them. 11. Learned senior advocate Mr. Anandjiwala relied upon the decisions namely (1) 1993(1) GLH 382 in the case of Hardev Bhanji Joshi Vs. State of Gujarat and (2) 2009(17) Supreme Court Cases 724 in the case of Satish Narayan Sawant Vs. State of Goa, more particularly paras 40 and 41. 12. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent State submitted that the learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record, held the accused guilty and therefore, learned trial Judge has rightly passed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, which does not require any interference from this Court. 12. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent State submitted that the learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record, held the accused guilty and therefore, learned trial Judge has rightly passed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, which does not require any interference from this Court. She further submitted that this is a case of triple murder committed by the appellants accused and therefore, no lenient view is required to be considered in favour of the appellants - accused. She also submitted that from the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution, more particularly, P.W.1, complainant, the case is established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. She also submitted that in the present case, the appellants - accused have examined defence witnesses and produced documentary evidence in support of their case, which was afterthought. She also submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the complainant - P.W.1 was very well present at the scene of offence and he disclosed the real scene of offence on oath and role attributed on the part of the appellants accused in committing the offence alleged. She further submitted that even the defence has failed to establish that this is a case of sudden provocation by any cogent evidence. She read the injuries of the deceased persons from the evidence of medical expert and submitted that looking to the size of injuries disclosed by the expert, it is proved that the said injuries are possible by the discovered weapons (agriculture instruments). She submitted that the defence side argued that the assault made by the appellants was in their self defence, but the same is not proved by the defence through cross-examination of the defence witness or by any cogent evidence. She also submitted that the accused made brutal murder of three persons by giving the forced blow of deadly weapons upon the deceased persons and thereby committed triple murder. She also submitted that even the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defence could not disclosed their defence version and only by applying second thought, they examined defence witnesses and thereby, they could not establish their innocence and therefore, learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the alleged offence. She therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge. 13. In light of the aforesaid submissions of the learned advocates for the parties, we have given our in-depth consideration to the facts of the present. The starting point of the incident in question as indicated in the evidence on record is the closure of the water coming to the channel leading to the field of the deceased persons as well as complainant and therefore, the deceased persons along with the complainant went for checking purpose near the farm of accused persons. Upon asking by the complainant to the accused for stopping of the water, the appellant No. 1 got exited and abused and therefore, the father of the complainant told said appellant not to abuse and so, the appellant No. 1 got again exited and inflicted the blow of pick-axe on the head of the father of the complainant and therefore, he had fallen down. Thereafter, on intervening by the brother named Rasikbhai and maternal uncle Matambhai of the complainant, the appellant No. 2 gave blow of spade on the head and mouth on both the aforesaid persons and again, the appellant No. 1 gave also inflicted blow of pick-axe on head of maternal uncle of the complainant. 14. We have perused the documents produced by the defendants vide list Exhibit 87 and same are not exhibited and on careful perusal of the same, we have not found the said documents produced on record, are the substantial piece of evidence. It is true that the defence tried to show those evidence as corroborative evidence, but the contents of the said documents are not proved and therefore, defence version cannot be considered in favour of the appellants - accused. We have perused discovery panchnama, in which it is disclosed by the appellants accused before the witness whereabout the weapons and thereby, the team of investigation went to the place of incident and the muddamal weapons were recovered. We have minutely perused the discovery panchama and evidence of panchas and Investigating Officer. We found that the contents of discovery panchnama, which is disclosed by the appellants is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 15. We perused the evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Katoriya Exhibit 29 and injuries found on the persons of all three deceased and P.W.3 Dr. We have minutely perused the discovery panchama and evidence of panchas and Investigating Officer. We found that the contents of discovery panchnama, which is disclosed by the appellants is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 15. We perused the evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Katoriya Exhibit 29 and injuries found on the persons of all three deceased and P.W.3 Dr. Prajapati examined at Exhibit 34 along with P.M. note and injury certificate produced on record. We have also perused the evidence of P.W.1 complainant, who is eyewitness through whom actual role of both the appellants in the commission of the offence is disclosed. It also appears that the blows inflicted by the appellants on all three deceased persons were resulted into fatal injury and same is proved through the oral versions of both the Doctor witnesses. As per the submissions the learned senior advocate for the appellants, the presence of the complainant at the scene of offence, creates doubt. But we have minutely perused the evidence of the complainant, in which he has disclosed that the appellants accused tried to make assault upon him and therefore, just to protect him from the assault and due to fear, he ran away from the place of offence. So from the oral as well as documentary evidence i.e. the complaint given by the P.W.1 complainant and also from the cross-examination of P.W.1, made by the defence, the defence could not establish the version of self defence of the accused. We have minutely perused the observations made by the learned Judge as well as evidence of the prosecution and we have not found that under which circumstances, both the appellants were provoked by the deceased persons and the complainant and therefore, incident of triple murder took place. As per the submission made by learned senior advocate Mr. Anandjiwala, due to hot exchange took place with the deceased persons, the assaults were made by them for their self protection and therefore, the incident took place due to sudden provocation. But looking to the provisions of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, the defence could not establish that said incident took place due to sudden provocation. We have also carefully perused the cases cited by the learned senior advocate Mr. Anandjiwala, but they are not helpful to the appellants. 16. But looking to the provisions of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, the defence could not establish that said incident took place due to sudden provocation. We have also carefully perused the cases cited by the learned senior advocate Mr. Anandjiwala, but they are not helpful to the appellants. 16. We are of the opinion that from the evidence of prosecution, it becomes clear that both the appellants committed triple murder and therefore, ingredients of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code are clearly proved by the prosecution. We have also found that at the time of incident, both the appellants tried to beat the complainant, but the complainant succeeded in running away from the place of incident. Learned trial Judge observed in the judgment and order that the complainant stated in his deposition that "as Narsinhbhai (appellant No. 1) and Chandubhai (appellant No. 2) both the persons ran to beat the complainant, the complainant ran away due to fear." Learned trial Judge further observed in the judgment at para 29 as under: "Many meanings can be made of the word ''ran to beat'' in this statement of the complainant. In reality, the accused persons tries to beat by running with an intention to commit murder of the complainant, then, it is certainly 'try of murder'. But, the meaning of ''ran to beat'' can also be to cause common injury. If any person runs with an intention to beat only slap, then, it is not 'try of murder'. But, it is only ''preparation''. Try means - Considering the difference between ''try'' and ''preparation'', only on the base of the word ''ran to beat'', it is not legally proper to connect the accused persons with the offence of ''try of murder'' of complainant and therefore, the accusation of the section 307 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons is not tenable." 17. It also appears from the records that the appellants tried to beat the complainant with an intention to commit murder of the complainant as the accused persons made assault on three deceased persons. It also appears that both the appellants have chosen vital parts of the body of the deceased and they made assault with force and injuries which are found from the persons of deceased clearly disclosed in P.M. Note as well as evidence of Doctors examined by the prosecution. It also appears that both the appellants have chosen vital parts of the body of the deceased and they made assault with force and injuries which are found from the persons of deceased clearly disclosed in P.M. Note as well as evidence of Doctors examined by the prosecution. From the injuries found on the persons of three deceased, it appears that the appellants had inflicted fatal blows upon the three deceased persons with an intention to kill them. Therefore, it can be said the blows were given by the appellants with knowledge and intention to cause death of deceased persons. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned senior advocate Mr. Anandjiwala that in result of sudden provocation and with view to self defence, the incident in question took place. Even the appellant No. 2 made assault on the head of the deceased Rasikbhai and deceased Matambhai, therefore, it appears that the appellant No. 2 intentionally made assault with view to kill the said persons. We have also considered the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel and we have not found any substance to consider that the present case is covered within the meaning of provisions of Section 304, Part II, of the Indian Penal Code. In absence of merit, the appeal is dismissed. 18. In the result, present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 3.1.2011 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2009 is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, to be sent back to the concerned trial court forthwith.