JUDGMENT : Anant S. Dave, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 105/2006 is filed by appellant/State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'code 1973'), against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.06.2005, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. No. 2, Mahesana, in Sessions Case No. 223/2002 and Sessions Case No. 42/2004, which were tried together. The respondents herein came to be acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 302, 337, 427, 435, 436, 452, 504, 506(2) with Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. That Criminal Appeal No. 100/2006 under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, also arise out of Sessions Case No. 42 of 2004, vide judgment and order dated 14.06.2005, acquitting the accused-respondents of the offence, to which mention is made in earlier paragraph. 3. Both these appeals are heard finally. The genesis of the case of prosecution is in the complaint lodged by the complaint pursuant to widespread communal riots, which took place in the State of Gujarat pursuant to setting ablaze a train at Godhra Railway Station in the year 2002. The complaint at Exh. 47 dated 03.03.2002, lodged at camp Meda-Aadraj around 23:45, the complainant Dosumiyan Amirmiyan residing at the village Meda-Aadraj, Kumbhaar Vaas, Taluka: Kadi, is aged about 35 years, by caste Saiyeed-Muslim having occupation as a farm labourer stated as under: "On personally asking me I state the facts of my complaint that I am residing at the above mentioned address with my family and I am doing farm labour in Medaraj village, and we are total seven brothers and sisters, amongst us are five brothers and two sisters. The eldest brothers is Ismailbhai, and younger to him is sister Jeniben, younger to her is brother Kalubhai. Younger to him is myself, and younger to me is Sehumiya and younger to him is Mehsudmiya, and youngest is Amidaben. All of us brothers and sisters are married. All five brothers are living separate in Medadraj, and my sisters are living in their matrimonial house. Near to my house my elder brother Kalumiya is living with his family. Younger to him is myself, and younger to me is Sehumiya and younger to him is Mehsudmiya, and youngest is Amidaben. All of us brothers and sisters are married. All five brothers are living separate in Medadraj, and my sisters are living in their matrimonial house. Near to my house my elder brother Kalumiya is living with his family. Recently in Godhra the Kar Sevaks returning from Ayodhya were attacked by muslims and burnt the railway coaches and had killed many Hindus, such news was published in the newspapers and on the T.V. thus in our village with a view that there should not be any communal incidents take therefore police bandobast was made, and in our village there are 60 to 70 muslim families living, and is such atmosphere we were present in our vas, and on the corner of the vas there was police bandobast made, in the meanwhile today at night at about ten o'clock our village Patels and their other unknown persons almost about two hundred persons mob came carrying sickle, spear, sticks, pipes and etc weapons in our vas and shouting abuses and slogans to cut and kill and myself and my elder brother Kalumiya and daughter of Kalumiya Hasina @ Hasinaben aged 20 and my sister-in-law Madinabibi were present in their house and the mob was seen coming towards our house and amongst them were our village inhabitant Patel Girishbhai Ambalal carrying sickle, and Patel Mukeshbhai Somabhai carrying sickle and illegible bhai Rameshbhai Kantibhai carrying sickle. Illegible bhai Babubhai's elder son whom I know on seeing carrying spear, and patel Niles Naranbhai carrying pipe and Patel Ramabhai Baldevbhai's elder son whom I know on seeing carrying axe (kodadi) and Prafulbhai Sarpanch's son Bako carrying farsi and Mukesh Amratbhai Ramdas carrying sickle and Mukeshbhai Mahendrabhai carrying sickle, and Patel Dineshbhai Jashwantbhai carrying sickle, and Patel Ajitbhai Girdharbhai's elder son whose name I do not know carrying sickle, and Patel Somabhai Hirabhai's middle son whose name I do not know carrying axe, and Patel Kiritbhai Chandubhai carrying sickle and Patel Ghanshyam Atmarabhai's nephew whose name I do not remember, but I know him on seeing carrying steel danti, and Narendrabhai Chimanbhai Patel carrying sickle and other persons in the mob carrying sticks, pipes and etc. and I had seen them with my own eyes, therefore due to their fear my brother Kalumiya and my sister-in-law Madinabibi and their daughter Hasinaben ran out to hide, and so the above persons started to assault my brother Kalumiya using their weapons, and my brother had fallen down and my sister-in-law ran towards the Kumbharvas, and my niece had entered into the house of Prajapati Joitaram Ambalal to save herself, but the above named persons had broken the door of the said house and brought her out of the house and assaulted using weapons and killed her, and my brother Kalumiya was burnt after assaulting and other persons in the mob were carrying burning torches in their hands they had burnt my brother Kalumiya and my niece, I had witnessed this incident in the light of the lamp and after witnessing this incident I had run and went to the Gothni Vas and hid there, and the accused all persons were pelting stones on our Vas, therefore the policemen on the corner of our Vas came there and they had used tear gas and firing so these mob persons ran and fled and due to the policemen coming the life of other persons were saved, and these persons in the mob were saying that today for assisting us from other villages vehicles are brought and illegible only two murders are committed, but now when we will get opportunity then we will kill everyone, they were issuing such threats and the persons in this mob were pelting stones at that time the other police also arrived and the said police had also resorted to firing and in the firing persons were injured. Therefore the above named persons and the other persons came there had formed unlawful assembly and had united and attacked our Vas and caused the death of my brother Kalumiya and niece Hasinaben and burnt and murdered them and blatantly pelted stones on our houses and caused injuries to inhabitants in our Vasa and abused and issued implied threats to kill and flee from there, therefore this is my complaint against them for taking legal action. The corpses of my brother and niece are lying near the house of Prajapati Joitaram Ambalal in the compound. I have witnessed this incident. The corpses of my brother and niece are lying near the house of Prajapati Joitaram Ambalal in the compound. I have witnessed this incident. Also, the other persons living in the neighbourhood have also witnessed it, at the time of incident the police had done firing and in this firing from amongst the mob Patel Dilipbhai Ranchhodbhai, Add. Thod, Taluka Kadi and Patel Rajubhai Ramabhai, Add. Thod, Taluka Kadi and Shah Devangbhai Shaileshbhai, Add. Medadraj sustained injuries. I came to know about these facts. Therefore this is my complaint against them for taking legal action. These are the facts of my complaint and as narrated by me are true and correct. Illegible Saiyed Dosumiya Amirmiya Left Hand Thum Impression Before me, Sd/- illegible Police Sub Inspector Bavlu Police Station Copy of the complaint is received LHT of Saiyed Dosumiyan Amirmiya." 4. At the end of investigation, charge sheet was filed and on committal of the case to the Court and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial judge passed the judgment and order of acquittal, to which reference is already made in earlier paragraph. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that voluminous record so produced by the prosecution and testimonies of all important witnesses along with the documentary evidence relied on by the prosecution fell into consideration before the learned trial judge. Before this Court, learned Special Public Prosecutor, as well learned counsel for the defense and learned counsel for the complainant extensively referred to PW-1 to PW-35 and other documentary evidence, for which their testimonies were recorded. While reading the testimonies of all the above prosecution witnesses, learned Special Public Prosecutor has taken us to relevant documents in support their case which include framing of charge Exh. 5 in Sessions Case No. 223 of 2002 and complaint Exh. 47, post mortem reports of both the deceased namely Kalumiya and Hasinabibi at Exh. 49 & 51, panchnama of scene of offence Exh. 64, Inquest Panchnama Exh. 65, along with Exh. 86 FSL Reports Exh. 90 various injuries certificates of both the deceased. Our attention was drawn to Exh. 5 in Sessions Case No. 223 of 2002 and complaint Exh. 47, post mortem reports of both the deceased namely Kalumiya and Hasinabibi at Exh. 49 & 51, panchnama of scene of offence Exh. 64, Inquest Panchnama Exh. 65, along with Exh. 86 FSL Reports Exh. 90 various injuries certificates of both the deceased. Our attention was drawn to Exh. 100 and 101 about bullet marks on the clothes of accused No. 24 of Sessions Case No. 223/2002 and accused No. 2 of Sessions Case No. 42/2002, other important exhibits which include documents supporting the case of the prosecution to which reference is made by learned trial judge in paragraph 8 of the judgment. While assailing the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial judge, Shri J.M. Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that the incidence in question for which the accused were put to trial based on evidence gathered by the investigating agency during the course of investigation needs to be considered in backdrop of wide scale communal riots which took place in the State of Gujarat pursuant to setting ablaze 'Sabarmati Express' train at Godhra Railway Station and in certain parts of the State of Gujarat, law and order situation had worsened or deteriorated and in some cases it was not possible for the existing Police Force to immediately control such worsened law and order situation and in spite of the best efforts put forth, some unfortunate incidences had taken place resulting into killing of persons of a particular community and even casualties for which investigation was carried out with sole purpose to bring the culprits to the book and to punish them in accordance with law. 5. For the incidence in question, it is submitted that around 9 p.m. of 03.03.2002, a mob consisting of 200 persons armed with Dhariya, Axe, Spears, pipes with burning rags/Kakadas with full of kerosene, entered into backyard (Vaada) of one Joitaram Prajapati and having noticed such members of unlawful assembly, who happened to be villagers of Meda-Aadraj apprehending danger to the lives family of Kalumiya rushed to the old house of one Joitaram Prajapati and Kalumiya and his daughter Hasinabibi closed the door of the said house. That mob had broke open the door and by inflicting various blows on body of both the persons mercilessly killed Kalumiya and Hasinabibi and then poured kerosene over their bodies and set them ablaze. In an attempt to save the lives injured Hasinabibi jumped into nearby water tank (kundi) and so is the case of Kalumiya. But still, life was left in their bodies so noticed by the mob and members of the mob inflicted injuries with deadly weapons and completed the task of brutally killing both the above persons. It is submitted that the complainant had identified 16 accused having participated in the crime, who were armed with weapons and depose that accused Vasantbhai, Sureshkumar, Mukeshbhai, Kamleshbhai and another Vasantbhai Jashwantbhai were shouting "hack and kill muslims". All the above accused including 16 other were armed with deadly weapons. The complainant was also cross examined by the defense. But according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the trial judge erred in not believing him on the ground that his evidence was having full of discrepancies, omissions improvement and even material contradictions, if considered along with the testimonies of other Pws including that of the Police Personnel who reached admittedly immediately after the occurrence of the incidence in question. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has taken us to other eye witnesses namely PW-3, Exh. 54, Pirumiya Sardarmiya, who described the accused armed with weapons and how Kalumiya and Hasinabibi were killed. The above witness had seen the incidence from the window of his latrine, where he stayed for about 45 minutes. PW-4, Exh55 Madinabibi, she is wife of the deceased Kalumiya and mother of the deceased Hasinabibi. She has also supported the case of the prosecution. That another PW-5, Exh. 57 Sharifabibi Kalumiya Saiyeed, another daughter of the deceased Kalumiya and sister of Hasinabibi and PW-6, Exh 59 Imammiya Amirmiya Saiyeed, real brother of the deceased, PW-7, Exh 61, Mohammedkhan Sahebkhan Pathan, cousin brother of the deceased, PW-8, Exh. 63 Fakruddin Saiyeed, one of the pancha of the scene of offence, all of the above have supported the case of the prosecution. An emphasis was led that PW-8, being a member of pancha of scene of offence stood by his version. 63 Fakruddin Saiyeed, one of the pancha of the scene of offence, all of the above have supported the case of the prosecution. An emphasis was led that PW-8, being a member of pancha of scene of offence stood by his version. The above witness has stated that the complainant was present at the time of panchnama and description of the place where the crime had taken place and articles recovered to which mention was made in the panchnama. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has also referred to witnesses who have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and they include the owner of the house namely Joitaram Ambaram Prajapati, Exh. 92 and his own son Mukeshbhai at Exh. 94, where the deceased Kalumiya and Hasinabibi had taken shelter and were hacked to death. 6. Along with the above eye witnesses, strong reliance is placed by learned Special Public Prosecutor on testimonies of police personnel as witnesses and their version connect the accuse with the crime in question since they had reached at village Meda-Aadraj upon receiving wireless message. These police personnel’s include a team to control riots including those who are assigned the task of bursting of tear gas, firing bullets and Executive Magistrate/Mamlatdar, who would order firing about the manner in which firing is to take place to control the rioters consisting of violent mob. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would contend that the incident though happened around 9 p.m., there was enough street light nearby the scene of offence, where functional and operative electricity pole was situated i.e. nearby the house of Kalumiya and house of Joitaram Prajapati. It is submitted that what is actually doubted from their testimonies is the nature of frenzi mob, who refused to disperse in spite of initial warning, bursting of a tear gas and finally, when effective firing was ordered mob had dispersed from the place. It is submitted that what is actually doubted from their testimonies is the nature of frenzi mob, who refused to disperse in spite of initial warning, bursting of a tear gas and finally, when effective firing was ordered mob had dispersed from the place. The above police witnesses had also described vividly the state of scene of offence and surrounding areas, scattered and destroyed and burnt articles, ransacked houses and damage to properties etc., It is submitted that first and foremost attempt and duty of police force was to control the violent mob and to restore and maintain law and order situation vis-a-vis to protect the lives and properties of the people and in such circumstances if discrepancies of minor in nature occur, the same to be considered keeping in mind this fact. Likewise, the eye witnesses who had to run for their lives were petrified and seeking shelter for themselves and family. If while narrating events of the incidence in question contain little flaws and even inconsistencies are noticed in juxta position to testimonies of other witnesses, such inconsistencies need not affect core of the case of the prosecution. So is the case of so called improvement, omissions and contradictions etc., for which learned trial judge has placed heavy reliance in acquitting the accused. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the complain was filed within two hours of the incident, and therefore, there was no question of deliberation or any concoction and there was no animosity or any other reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused. It was reiterated that for certain omissions in the complaint which are even proved, this Court is to consider mental condition/status of those witnesses and close relatives of the deceased having seen dead bodies lying in pool of blood, uncertainty about their lives, properties being destroyed and even statements of independent witnesses were recorded within two days for which there is no delay. In absence of any enmity and any other ill motive on the part of such witnesses, their version is not only truthful but do inspire confidence and along with attending circumstances their evidence is most natural way of expressing and explaining circumstances and it is amply corroborated by circumstantial and medical evidence. In absence of any enmity and any other ill motive on the part of such witnesses, their version is not only truthful but do inspire confidence and along with attending circumstances their evidence is most natural way of expressing and explaining circumstances and it is amply corroborated by circumstantial and medical evidence. One of the important evidence is in the form of panchnama of scene of offence, well supported by FSL and the learned Special Public Prosecutor has taken us to samples drawn, collected and sent for FSL namely Mark M-Daanti recovered from accused No. 6 Mukeshbhai Kanubhai, article M/1-Dhariyu recovered from accused No. 2 Mukesh Amratbhai, muddamal article M/2 recovered from accused No. 4 Dinesh Jashwantbhai with blood stained having A blood group as mentioned with FSL Report at Exh. 153. 7. It is submitted that once presence is proved and it was an unlawful assembly, even no other contact is required to be proved and even single or solitary witness is sufficient to base conviction in a case like this. Having taken us to the record of the case extensively, the above submissions were made. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has taken us to reasoning’s, findings and conclusions drawn by the learned trial judge as reflected in paragraph 39 of the judgment and order of acquittal under challenge and submitted that such findings and conclusions are the result of improper way un-recognized by criminal jurisprudence, of ignoring vital and material piece of evidence produced and established by the prosecution on each count. It is submitted that disbelieving the eye witnesses on the ground of minor inconsistencies, discrepancies of insignificant in nature and little contradictions ought not to have made for ordering acquittal of the accused. It is submitted that aftermath of the incidence for which sufficient material exists in the form of panchnamas and testimonies of police witnesses including that of Executive Magistrate etc., leaves no room for any doubt and no room for giving any benefit of doubt to the accused when cogent and convincing material was available before the learned trial judge. 8. It is submitted that aftermath of the incidence for which sufficient material exists in the form of panchnamas and testimonies of police witnesses including that of Executive Magistrate etc., leaves no room for any doubt and no room for giving any benefit of doubt to the accused when cogent and convincing material was available before the learned trial judge. 8. On the aspect of Investigating Agency and its role in investigation, an Investigating Agency is expected to be fair and efficient, any lapse per se is not to throw out of the case of the prosecution and the learned Presiding Officer of the trial is to perform in a given case inquisitorial role as envisaged under Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Then, about unlawful assembly, its character and once a person participates and joins unlawful assembly, no overt act is necessary. Finally, the evidence of close relatives if contain minor discrepancies will not be sufficient to treat such evidence either improbable or untrustworthy. The following decisions are relied upon by Mr. J.M. Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor: 1. (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 323 in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Suvarnamma and another. 2. (2016) 4 Supreme Court Cases 371 in the case of Susanta Das and others Vs. State of Orissa and allied matter. 3. 2015 AIR SCW 3589 in the case of Jodhan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. 9. Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel for the complainant has adopted submissions made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and in addition to the above, filed written submissions in which reference is made especially to the complainant identifying almost all the accused from accused Nos. 2 to 22 and accused No. 25 with weapons attributed to them and/or shouting in the mob or instigating members of the mob. Likewise, testimonies of Pws-3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, who supported the case of the prosecution and in cross examination of above witnesses, no material contradictions or improvements were noticed. Inter-alia examination of Dr. Rajendrakumar Acharya, P.W. 2, at Exh. 48, who performed post mortem of Kalumiya and Hasinabibi, who supported the case of the prosecution and presence of carbon particles found in trachea that shows that the deceased persons were burnt alive. The above aspect was highlighted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Inter-alia examination of Dr. Rajendrakumar Acharya, P.W. 2, at Exh. 48, who performed post mortem of Kalumiya and Hasinabibi, who supported the case of the prosecution and presence of carbon particles found in trachea that shows that the deceased persons were burnt alive. The above aspect was highlighted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Also other aspects are about discrepancy of the scene of offence by one of the pancha witness P.W. 8 at Exh. 63, to which reference is already made earlier, who also found mob attacking with weapons on Kalumiya and Hasinabibi. That blood samples and soil samples with kerosene and other articles found from house No. 140 of Joitaram Prajapati and samples collected from water tank, which includes blood, kerosene and soil etc., Even, PW-14, son of Prajapati Joitaram namely Prajapati Mukesh Joitaram Exh. 94, though, declared hostile has admitted in his cross examination about mob attacking Kalumiya Amirmiya and family members of Kalumiya entering in their compound (Vaada), and thereafter, father and daughter entered into their house who closed the door and the furious mob broke open the door by using force and the above fact remain unchallenged. That Joitaram Prajapati and his son Mukesh were found injured for which testimony of Dr. Upendrakumar Patel, P.W. 16 at Exh. 19 was relied on. In continuity FSL mobile van collected samples from the scene of offence and police witnesses described in the scene of offence. However, emphasis was on the recovery of blood stained articles from the accused No. 2 Mukeshbhai Amratlal namely Dhariya and blood stained Dhariya from accused No. 4, Dineshkumar Jashwantlal Patel, and from accused No. 6, Patel Mukesh Kanubhai, Daanti was recovered, consisting human blood of 'A' group which was matching with the blood group of the deceased. Learned counsel for the complainant has specifically relied on the following forensic evidences: 1. That the investigating officer has recovered incriminating articles and samples of soils, water and other articles from the scene of offence and they were sent to the FSL. The prosecution has produced forwarding letter of recovered articles from the scene of offence to the FSL with Exh. 141 on page No. 584 of paper book and FSL report with Exh. 153 at page No. 631. In the FSL report articles mark A, B, C, E, F, H, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 110, contains A blood group. 2. The prosecution has produced forwarding letter of recovered articles from the scene of offence to the FSL with Exh. 141 on page No. 584 of paper book and FSL report with Exh. 153 at page No. 631. In the FSL report articles mark A, B, C, E, F, H, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 110, contains A blood group. 2. The investigating officer has collected PM blood from the body of Hasinabibi-Mark R and mark R1 from the body of deceased Kalumiya Saiyad mentioned on page No. 592/2 which contain A blood group. The muddamal article M. Daanti recovered from accused No. 6 Mukeshbhai Kanubhai, article M/1-Dhariyu recovered from accused No. 2 Mukesh Amratbhai, muddamal article M/2 recovered from accused No. 4 Dinesh Jashwantbhai with blood stained having A blood group as mentioned with FSL Report at Exh. 153 on page 631-632. These articles are mentioned in the forwarding letter at page No. 589,590 of Exh.-141. 3. The investigation officer has collected articles from scene of offence and produced the FSL report of the articles J.J1, J1A, J1B, J2, J3, J4 is having carbon hydroxide, proves presence of kerosene at Exh. 145. 4. FSL report at Exh. 154 at page No. 623-624 article S/7 Dhariyu which is recovered from accused No. 18 Mukesh Mahendrabhai is also having A blood group matched with the blood group of deceased persons." Learned counsel for the complainant has also submitted the manner in which findings and conclusions were drawn by the learned trial judge in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the judgment and order of the trial Court. 10. As a counter to above, the learned counsel for respondents/original accused has strongly relied on discrepancies, omissions, improvements, inconsistencies and material and vital contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses including police personnel, who reached at the scene of offence. She has read out the complaint Exh. 47 and testimonies of the complainant and other PWs and submitted that presence of the complainant and other eye witnesses at the scene of offence is not natural and in fact they are not the eye witnesses. Learned counsel for the defense has challenged the very root of theory of prosecution about the manner in which accused are involved in the crime by including or terming them as members of unlawful assembly. Learned counsel for the defense has challenged the very root of theory of prosecution about the manner in which accused are involved in the crime by including or terming them as members of unlawful assembly. According to her, no evidence much less cogent or convincing appears on record about the involvement of the accused of being a member of unlawful assembly and commit crime with deadly weapons at the time and on the date on which the incidence is alleged to have taken place. She has also challenged timings of lodging of complaint and testimonies of Dosumiya-the complainant, where he has made lots of improvements in his testimonies. Likewise, arguments are canvassed about Pirumiya PW-3, who claimed to have met Dosumiya-the complainant. Even the place of offence, movement of violent mob, the area in which crime had taken place are so inconsistent with what is stated in the complaint and testimonies of PWs. According to her, version of eye witnesses is doubtful even about their presence, if the same is closely considered along with testimonies of police personnel’s, who claim to have reached admittedly after the completion of crime, so recorded. One of the highlights of her submissions is about the Prajapati Vaas, where the incidence is alleged to have taken place, was not by the mob referred to by the police personnel. That the complainant Dosumiya PW-1, real brother of the deceased Pirumiya PW-3, cousin brother of the deceased, Madinabibi PW-4, wife of the deceased, Sharifabibi Saiyed PW-5 daughter of the deceased, Imammiya PW-6, real brother of the deceased, Mohd Khan Sahebkhan Pathan PW-7, cousin brother of the deceased, all are close relatives whose assistance is taken by the prosecution to develop a case that all of them were eye witnesses and have recognized all the accused persons with deadly weapons and by and large attributing role played by each of them. According to her, facts emerge from the statements of following PWs, which are as under: That the true and correct facts of the manner in which the incident took place and so coming out from the statements of Natvarbhai naranbhai Parmar (PW-25, Exh 116), Hamidkhan Nathekhan (PW-26, Exh 117), Dhulabhai Amthabhai (PW-27, Exh 118), Mahipatsinh Ajitsinh (PW-28, Exh. 119) and Gemerbhai Govabhai (PW-29, Exh. 119) and Gemerbhai Govabhai (PW-29, Exh. 120) are as follows: (1) That on 03.03.2002, at about 21 hours in night, police received a message that communal riots have taken place at Charedi Para area of village Meda Aadraj, Mehsana and certain houses and shops of Muslim community were set at fire. That on receiving such a message police reached Vaniyavas, Baliyadev temple and Undavas areas and at that time at different areas, different mobs were causing nuisance. That is also comes on record that during the time when riots in Vaniyavas, Baliyadev temple and Undavas areas were going on, at that time the unfortunate incident of the killing of the deceased had already taken place. That the police fired shots in air, fired tear gas in Vaniyavas, Baliyadev temple and Undavaas areas to disperse the mob but of no avail and therefore the police had to fire on legs in order to scatter the mob, as a result of which the mob was dispersed and riots were taken under control. The respondents submit that thereafter the police reached the field of Joitaram in Prajapativas, which is at a far distance from Vaniyavas and on reaching the said place, police found two dead bodied i.e. deceased Kalumiya and his daughter Hasinabibi. (2) That all these witnesses have stated in their depositions that none of the above witnesses as alleged by the prosecution to be eye witnesses more particularly Dosumiya were present at the time and place of incident. That the police remained at the place of incident for approximately two hours and during these two hours, none of the witnesses as alleged by the prosecution to be eye witnesses came there or found there. (3) That the above mentioned police witnesses remained at the place of incident for two hours and thereafter they went to Nana Kasba. The respondents therefore submit that the case of the prosecution that the above witnesses were eye witnesses is negated by the depositions of the police witnesses themselves and it is also established that the witnesses, alleged to be eye witnesses as per the case of the prosecution, were not present not only at the time and place of incident but even after two hours of the incident, none of them have visited the place of incident. 11. 11. It is submitted that even from the deposition of PW-3, Pirumiya, it comes on record that Dosumiya-the complainant was not present at the time and place of incidence where he categorically depose that he met Dosumiya at 'Nana Kasba' between 10 p.m. to 11 p.m., and therefore, the case of the prosecution is rightly not believed and discouraged by the learned trial judge warranting no interference by this Court. It is further submitted that the alleged eye witnesses have not clearly mentioned in their police statements, which were taken on the very next day of the incident, the specific names of the accused and from which place they saw which accused causing which injury on the deceased persons but in their respective depositions which were taken after two years of the incident the same witnesses have deposed specific names of the accused as also the place from which they saw the accused persons committing the offence. This fact itself establishes that only with a view to improvise the police statements which the said witnesses had given on the very next day of the incident, the said witnesses have specifically named the accused persons in their respective depositions. Therefore, the learned Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents herein. Next it is contended that the Investigating Officer Khanaji Ranaji Jadeja (PW-30, Exh 114) in his deposition has specifically stated that the witnesses, who are alleged to be eye witnesses by the prosecution, have improvise their respective police statements wherein they had stated that they do not know as to from which place they saw the incident but during their respective depositions they have improvised and stated that they saw the incident from a particular place. Therefore also, the acquittal of the respondents herein is not required to be interfered with by this Hon'ble Court". 12. According to her, the Panchnama of place of incidence shows that there was no burning of house or shops as alleged by the prosecution at the place where the deceased persons were killed and so put forth by Dosimiya PW-1-the complainant in his deposition that there was an electricity pole where under a pan galla was situated and that taking shelter behind such pan-shop incident was seen by him. Even no residues of pan shop or any burnt articles of pan galla are noticed or mentioned in the Panchnama. Even no residues of pan shop or any burnt articles of pan galla are noticed or mentioned in the Panchnama. It is submitted that the place mentioned by different witnesses in their respective depositions are not described in the Panchnama of place of offence and contains full of contradictions and improvisation and even fail to get any corroboration from the evidence of witness. It is submitted that as per the panchnama of place of incident no fire arm shells are found from the place of incident and therefore, it cannot be said that any firearm was shot at the place of incident. It is also submitted that therefore presence of three injured witnesses viz. Shah Devangbhai Shaileshbhai (A-24 of Sessions Case No. 223/2002), Patel rajubhai Ramjibhai (A-1 of Sessions Case No. 42/2004) and Patel Pravinbhai Popatbhai (A-2 of Sessions Case No. 42/2004), who as per the case of the prosecution were present at the time and place of incident, is also not believable. The fact that the said accused got fire injuries is true but the fact that they were present at the place of incident is not proved by the prosecution which ought to have been done by examining ballistic experts. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the three accused were present at the time and place of incident is not supported by any evidence more particularly when it is the case of prosecution that police fired arms at Vaniyavas and the accused persons who are alleged to be present at Prajapativas i.e. place of incident in the present case got bullet injuries. It is pertinent to note that a person cannot be present at two places at a time and therefore, the plea of alibi of the said three accused is established by the case of the prosecution itself. Further the first person viz. Gemarbhai Govabhai (PW-29) who saw the dead body of deceased Hasinabibi has stated in his deposition that the body of the deceased Hasinabibi was naked and the inquest panchnama demonstrates that the body of deceased Hasinabibi was covered with blanket. This fact also creates suspicion with regard to case of prosecution as none of the so-called eye witnesses have stated in their deposition that he/she had covered the dead body of Hasinabibi with blanket. 13. This fact also creates suspicion with regard to case of prosecution as none of the so-called eye witnesses have stated in their deposition that he/she had covered the dead body of Hasinabibi with blanket. 13. That the case of the prosecution is that weapons allegedly recovered from the accused during the investigation and a panchnama was drawn in that regard. That the panch witnesses of panchnama dated 05.02.2002 Exh 90, Kalaji Mansangji (PW-12) Exh-91 and panch witness Prahladji Bhikhaji, (PW-11) Exh-89 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, panch witness of weapon recovery Panchnama dated 22.04.2002, Exh-106, Prahladji Shivabhai Patel (PW-20) Exh-105 did not support the drawing of panchnama and turned hostile. The witnesses were extensively cross examined by the prosecution. However, during the course of cross-examination also, the prosecution could not elicit that recovery was made from the accused and the panchnama Exh-90 and 106 was drawn. It appears from the evidence of this witness that except identifying their signature on panchnama, they did not deposed about recovery of alleged weapons. Therefore the contents of the panchnama are not proved through PW-12, 11 and 20. The respondents submits that, in the present case, it emerges from the deposition of Panch witnesses that as panchas have not supported the prosecution case and panchnama is not proved by police witness, the prosecution case with regard to recovery of weapon raised serious doubts. 14. It is submitted that, all the above Panchnama have not supported the case of the prosecution and even not proved by police witness including that of recovery of weapons. That communal riots which took place in the State of Gujarat after the Godhra carnage and simply because the respondents belong to the Hindu community they are not to be arraigned as an accused in absence of any cogent material and evidence since all of them had stayed together in harmony in a village without any animosity in such a serious offence. She has, however, submitted that in the election of Sarpanch of the village, widow of the deceased Kalumiya had contested an election for Sarpanch against one Vimlaben Patel in which she lost and keeping the grudge the accused are falsely implicated. The investigation is unfair and non transparent and undertaken with a view to falsely implicate the accused and absence of T.I. Parade is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The investigation is unfair and non transparent and undertaken with a view to falsely implicate the accused and absence of T.I. Parade is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even if recovery is made out of weapons used in the crime against 5 persons more than 25 persons are implicated, though, some weapons are recovered from 15 accused, only 5 weapons were sent to the FSL out of which only 3 weapons contained blood stains. The Medical Officer, PW-2, depose that none of the injury sustained by the deceased person is caused by Dhariya or Spear and also by an Axe. Even the said PW had not examined the very aspect as to whether the injuries were ante mortem or post mortem, which is required as per the medical jurisprudence. In this type of cases, many other vital dereliction of duties appear and such opinion by itself of Medical Officer will not lead to conclusion about involvement of the respondent in such a crime. 15. Learned counsel for the defence has placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. (2012) 12 SCC 711 . In the case of Busi Koteswara Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. Para : 6 to 8. When a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, the normal test is that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident in question. 2. 2010 (3) SCC 538 . In the case of Javed Masood Vs. State of Rajasthan. Para: 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16. Entire prosecution case rests upon the statement of PW-1, who trying to implicate as many possible persons in the offence, being interested witness. Once presence of PW-1 is disbelieved, the whole case of the prosecution collapses. 3. 2003 (12) SCC 647. In the case of Bachhu Narain Singh Vs. Naresh Yadav. Para: 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16. Entire prosecution case rests upon the statement of PW-1, who trying to implicate as many possible persons in the offence, being interested witness. Once presence of PW-1 is disbelieved, the whole case of the prosecution collapses. 3. 2003 (12) SCC 647. In the case of Bachhu Narain Singh Vs. Naresh Yadav. Appeal against acquittal-discrepancies and inconsistencies in evidence-several persons witnessed the incident-I.O. reached the place of occurrence at about 7.20 a.m. - at 9 a.m., brother of deceased Mukhiya (PW-9) came and lodged the statement-High Court by impugned judgment acquitted the respondents-held, PW-9 appeared to have come to the place of occurrence more than an hour and a half after the I.O. had come there-there was no explanation for delay in lodging the statement-therefore, presence of PW-9 was highly doubtful-High Court rightly held that the prosecution case was untrue and not reliable-no interference warranted and acquittal justified-appeals dismissed. 4. 2008 (7) SCC 755 . In the case of Tamilselvan Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu. Para : 8 and 12. Incident occurred at night - appreciation of evidence - identification of accused - challenged - held, it is found that prosecution witnesses stated in their deposition that they had identified accused in moonlight (10:30 p.m.) which is hard to believe - further, there are material inconsistencies in deposition of first informant - there was opportunity of subsequent improvement in prosecution case due to delay in lodging of FIR - under facts and circumstances, conviction of the A1 cannot be upheld - conviction set aside - appeal allowed. 5. 2004 (11) SCC 253 . In the case of Harjinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and Haryana. Para 11 and 13. Evaluation of chance witnesses - credibility of - according to prosecution, PW 3 and PW4 witnessed the attack on the deceased by the two accused - held, the fact that Pws 3 and 4 were chance witnesses, their evidence should have been analysed more carefully which the High Court failed to do - severe lapses were found casting a doubt on the prosecution case - it is doubtful whether PW 3 and 4 would be in a position to give graphic details of the alleged incident - their testimony cannot be considered to be credible - conviction and sentence against the appellant is set aside - appeal allowed. 6. 6. 1983 (1) SCC 379 . In the case of Maula Bux and others Vs. State of Rajasthan. Common intention - Discrepancy in inquest panchnama and post mortem report - Benefit of the discrepancy must be given to the appellants - Medical Jurisprudence. 7. 2014 (5) SCC 730 . In the case of Muralidhar @ Gidda Versus State of Karnataka. In the above decision also the Apex Court laid down parameters while dealing with appeals arising out of the judgment and order of acquittal. Therefore, it is submitted that both these appeals deserve to be dismissed. 16. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions relied by learned counsel appearing for the defence and learned APP we proceed further and we find in the case of Muralidhar @ Gidda Versus State of Karnataka (Supra), whereby it is held that:- (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial Court, (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal, (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and (Emphasis supplied) (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial Court. 17. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties namely learned Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State, original-complainant, learned counsel for the defence and learned counsel for the complainant, we find that charge was framed vide exhibit 5 on 05.01.2004, by learned trial judge in Sessions Case No. 223/2002 against 25 accused of forming unlawful assembly armed with Dhariya, Danti, Spear, pipe, kodaadi, farsi, axe etc., which are deadly weapons and keeping in mind vengeance due to incident which had taken place at Godhra railway station of burning a train consisting of passengers belonging to Hindu community and killing them to fulfill common intention deadly assault was made. In the charge itself, accused named in paragraph 2 armed themselves with deadly weapons as above attacked Kalumiya brother of the complainant and Madinabibi and Hasinabibi wife and daughter of the deceased Kalumiya, who were looking for a place to hide. The accused named therein started assaulting and inflicting injuries upon Kalumiya, who fell down and his wife Madinabibi went towards Prajapati-vas, while the daughter Hasinabibi took shelter in the house of Prajapati Joitaram Ambalal, PW-13. The accused followed her and broke open the door of house of PW-13, removed Hasinabibi from the house and inflicted injuries by weapons and even Kalumiya also was beaten and other persons of the mob having burnt rags set ablaze Kalumiya and his daughter Hasinabibi. The charges are framed under Sections 147,148, 149, 451, 302, 337, 435, 436, 427, 504, 506(2) of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 18. Dosumiya Hamirmiya Saiyed, PW-1 at Exh. 46, was examined and depose that he was staying at Kumbhaar-vas at village Meda-Aadraj and his brother Kalumiya (deceased) was staying with his family in the same locality. On 03.03.2002, the atmosphere in the village Meda-Aadraj was tensed pursuant to incidence of Godhra carnage, and thereafter, police was deployed to maintain law and order and the village consisted of 60 to 70 houses belonging to Muslims. On 03.03.2002, the atmosphere in the village Meda-Aadraj was tensed pursuant to incidence of Godhra carnage, and thereafter, police was deployed to maintain law and order and the village consisted of 60 to 70 houses belonging to Muslims. The above witness further depose that mob consisting of Patel caste of Hindu with deadly weapons like Dhariya, spear, Danti, and Kodaadi, approached the place from nearby locality with shouting slogans like "hack them, kill them", and at that time along with Kalumiya and Hasinabibi, family members namely wife-Madinabibi and another daughter Sharifabibi PW-4, and PW-5, other member Imammiya PW-6. According to the above witness, he could recognize members of the mob and described the following persons with weapons: A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-19, A-21, A-22 and A-25. However, the above PW was not able to identify A-1, A-23 and A-24 and A-2 of another Sessions Case namely Sessions Case No. 42 of 2004. Those witnesses who were identified were all before the trial Court. Likewise, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 also attributes above accused with weapons like Dhariya, Kohaadi/axe and other articles, but some discrepancies of minor nature appears in describing weapons. It further appears that according to PW-1, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11 and A-12 were found as shouting in the mob and admittedly not named in the complaint. PW-3 was not able to identify A-1, A-9, A-17, A-23, A-24 of Sessions Case No. 223 of 2002 and A-1 and A-2 of Sessions Case No. 42 of 2004. 19. As the stones were pelted on the house of Kalumiya, to save his life Kalumiya and Hasinabibi took shelter in the house of PW-13, as they were surrounded by mob and locked the door from inside. This door was broke open by the mob with blows of Spear and Dhariya, and the mob asked the members of PW-13 to walk out of the house or to go out of the house and inflicted blows of Spear and Farsi on Kalumiya and Hasinabibi, and then poured kerosene over their bodies and set them ablaze. In a faint attempt to save life, Hasinabibi jumped into a nearby water tank and also kalumiya. Thereafter also, again the members of the unlawful assembly inflicted various blows on Kalumiya staked wooden blocks, poured kerosene and set him ablaze. In a faint attempt to save life, Hasinabibi jumped into a nearby water tank and also kalumiya. Thereafter also, again the members of the unlawful assembly inflicted various blows on Kalumiya staked wooden blocks, poured kerosene and set him ablaze. As Hasinabibi was lying just nearby the water tank, again blows of Spear and Farsi were inflicted. Thereafter, the Police had entered into the village and this PW was standing nearby a cabin situated near the house of Ahmedmiya Alimiya. The above incidence was seen by him in the light of electricity pole. As the police had arrived, who resorted to bursting of tear gas cell then firing, due to this the members of the mob rushed towards Mota Kasbaa. The above PW had lodged the complaint before the police. According to him, the members of the mob were shouting to hack and kill members of the Muslim community. Two members of the mob, who were injured by firing, one of the injured was Dilip Ranchhodbhai. The above PW further describes the damage caused to the properties of members of the Muslim community which included residential houses, small shops and other such items like the Inquest panchnama, panchnama of scene of offence, and the procedure to be followed for post mortem. The above PW also identified the accused to which reference is made in earlier paragraph. 20. In cross examination, the above PW denies to have not named in his complaint names of Rakeshbhai Ashokbhai, Patel Bhavesh Ramabhai, Rakeshbhai Prafullbhai, Nimeshbhai Ajitbhai, Kiritbhai Somabhai, Vishnubhai Dahyabhai, Kamleshbhai Jayantilal, Pravinbhai Popatlal and Rajubhai Ramabhai. When the complaint was lodged, all the above names were disclosed therein along with the weapons possessed by them. The above PW further deposes that the place of offence was in the backyard of house of PW-13 and also described that the backyard was having fencing of thorny bushes and also having facility of light in the house. The above witness also denies of not describing the manner in which the incident had taken place and the deceased Kalumiya and Hasinabibi were gheraoed by members of the unlawful assembly. The above witness also denies of not describing the manner in which the incident had taken place and the deceased Kalumiya and Hasinabibi were gheraoed by members of the unlawful assembly. He further denies of not seeing the actual participation or commission of crime by the accused of breaking open the door of house of PW-13, removing family members of PW-13 and making deadly assault by weapons upon Kalumiya and Hasinabibi, and thereafter, pouring kerosene and setting them ablaze and an attempt made by Hasinabibi to jump into water body, and thereafter, again second round of assault by deadly weapons by the accused of setting them ablaze. Likewise, denial appears of not knowing where Madinabibi wife of the deceased and Hasinabibi had run away. In fact, the above PW admits to have known that Madinabibi rushed towards Prajapativaas and that incident had not taken place in the backyard of PW-13. The above PW denies about lacunae and omissions in the complaint and having not seen dead bodies. He further affirms that the inquest panchnama was drawn in the light of battery and charging was done therein it self. As the accused hail from the same village, some of them were not described by their names, but name of their father was mentioned. The above witness also graphically described place of the offence and other surroundings including the place where the dead bodies were lying and in what condition. In cross examination, further, the above PW describes the distance between the complainant and members of the mob having seen the incidence and he was petrified and apprehending danger to his life could not intervene or made any attempt to save his brother and niece from violent mob. He admits having not seen actual assault upon Kalumiya and Hasinabibi inside the house of PW-13. However, he heard shouting of both the above persons. 21. PW-2, Dr. Rajendra Acharya at Exh. 48, in his chief confirms about dead bodies of female and male bodies of muslim and that female had 90% burn injuries almost on all parts of the body except feet. The injuries were on head, left hand, left thigh and were serious. Internal injuries revealed presence of carbon particles in trachea and cause of death was shock due to burn injuries. The injuries were on head, left hand, left thigh and were serious. Internal injuries revealed presence of carbon particles in trachea and cause of death was shock due to burn injuries. That male body of the deceased Kalumiya had 80% of burn injuries with external injuries almost on all parts of head including temporal and occipital regions with deep wounds and internal injuries revealed fracture of occipital bone wound length of 8 cm. Internal injuries contained presence of carbon particles in trachea and cause of death was same like that of the female deceased Hasinabibi. The above PW opines nature of injuries and possibility of such injury by Dhariya with a rider that such injuries are possible by usage of Dhariya, depending upon the manner in which such blow is inflicted. This PW concludes that injuries mentioned in post mortem note were inflicted by the weapons of Dhariya shown to him. He was not definite or sure, but expresses the possibility of injuries by sharp cutting weapon. He admits having not noted in the P.M. Report that whether the injures were ante mortem or not. However, admits that if a person alive is burnt, presence of carbon particles in trachea is possible. In further cross examination, he admits that except presence of carbon particles so as to determine burnt injuries, other symptoms are absent. The detailed examination of dead bodies was not carried out in such a circumstances and was not sure about timings of death. This PW however, expresses his opinion on the basis of rigor mortis and P.M. and presence of food in the body and absence of rigor mortis in internal organs of the body. On the basis of above, he admits that when rigor mortis is absent on internal and outer organ of the body, death could be possible within two to three hours. However, he was unable to describe the nature of burning. That P.M. Report of the deceased Hasinabibi Kalumiya Saiyed at Exh. 49, at column No. 17, reads thus: "17. About 90% burns all over face, chest, abdomen, back, both thighs, both upper limb and both lower limb except sole of feet. (A) On head 1) CLW about 7cm x 1cm bone deep on frontoparietal region. 2) CLW about 2cm x 0.5cm on frontal region. (B) On left upper limb 1) I/w-About 12cm x 2cm bone deep on left upper arm laterally. (A) On head 1) CLW about 7cm x 1cm bone deep on frontoparietal region. 2) CLW about 2cm x 0.5cm on frontal region. (B) On left upper limb 1) I/w-About 12cm x 2cm bone deep on left upper arm laterally. 2) I/w-fracture of the mivvk post of left radius a left ulna. Left forearm hanging with muscle. (C) Left side of join: IW : about 13cm x 1.5cm muscle deep oblique on left side of join (D) Left thigh: 1) I/w. About 10cm x 2cm bone deep seen on the lateral side of left thigh. (E) Left buttock: I/w. About 2.5cm deep c 0.5 cm wide muscle deep on left buttock. The cause of death of the deceased is stated in para 23, which reads thus: 23 Cause of death: Death is due to shock, due to burns". (B) Likewise, second P.M. Report is of the deceased Kalumiya Amirmiya Saiyed, at Exh. 51, column No. 17 of which reads thus: "17. (1) I/w. About 10cm x 2cm bone deep on occipital bone. (2) I/w. About 5cm x 1cm muscle deep on frontoparietal bone. (3) I/w. About 3cm x 1.5cm bone deep on right side temporal bone medial to laterally (4) I/w. About 2cm x 1.5cm muscle deep on Rt thigh lateral side Fracture about 8cm long on occipital bone. The cause of death of the deceased is stated in para 23, which reads thus: 23 Cause of death: Death due to shock due to head injury and burns." 22. Likewise, Pirumiya PW-3, Exh. 54, in his chief deposes about violent mob namely members of unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, the manner in which Kalumiya and Hasinabibi were chased and hacked to death by inflicting blows of weapons like Dhariya, Spear etc., kerosene was poured over their bodies and they were set ablaze and again were beaten. The above PW also identified the accused to which reference is made in earlier paragraph. 23. Their description and narration of incidence in his cross examination, he denies having not stated in his police statement of members of unlawful assembly breaking open doors of the house of PW-13 and assaulting Kalumiya and Hasinabibi. The above PW also identified the accused to which reference is made in earlier paragraph. 23. Their description and narration of incidence in his cross examination, he denies having not stated in his police statement of members of unlawful assembly breaking open doors of the house of PW-13 and assaulting Kalumiya and Hasinabibi. He also admits the fact that in his statements before the police, he had mentioned about stone pelting by the mob, instigating the members to kill and set person and house on fire belonging to Muslim community, bursting of tear gas cell and firing by police personnel. However, he admits of not visiting or approaching the dead bodies as he had left towards Mota Kasbaa. According to this PW, he admits having met Dosumiya-the complainant between 10:00 to 11:00 on the same night of the incidence and further admits that he had no idea at what time Dosumiya had complained to the police about the incidence. However, the above PW admits to have not informed the police about the incidence immediately. According to this PW, topography of the village consisted of first bus stand then dairy and on right side thereof will be chhota Kasbaa and on the left side the bigger one. While entering into Mohalla of this PW from the side of dairy, the residential house of PW-13 is situated and from the house of this PW if bazaar is to be approached, again the house of PW-13 would have to be passed by. While the incident took place, this PW admits to have seen from toilet of his house and except him no other member of the family was there. However, this PW admits to have seen the incidence for about half an hour, but was unable to see what could have happened inside the house of Joitaram Prajapati, PW-13. It is stated by this witness on his own that street light was on and also light at the place of PW-13 and at the place of the deceased Kalumiya was on. 24. The testimony of PW-4, Exh. 55, in her chief almost repeats the backdrop of incidence and family background and on 28.02.2002, she along with her husband had gone to nearby village and returned on 03.03.2002 and reached at around 15:30 at village Meda-Aadraj and all family members had assembled after dinner at around 08:30 p.m. at her place. 24. The testimony of PW-4, Exh. 55, in her chief almost repeats the backdrop of incidence and family background and on 28.02.2002, she along with her husband had gone to nearby village and returned on 03.03.2002 and reached at around 15:30 at village Meda-Aadraj and all family members had assembled after dinner at around 08:30 p.m. at her place. The above PW also identified the accused to which reference is made in earlier paragraph. Also she further narrates how she along with her elder brother-in-law and Kalumiya, Hasinabibi and Madinabibi, Sharifabibi escaped from their house and she along with Sharifabibi hid at Harijan-vaas at the house of one Chaturbhai Harijan. After 12:00 hours in the midnight, she had gone to Mota Kasbaa. In the morning at 07:00 of 04.03.2002, the incidence was narrated to her by the complainant Dosumiya and the manner in which Kalumiya and his daughter Hasinabibi were killed. In her cross examination, she denies about false implications of accused and that she was not present at the scene of offence and had not taken shelter in Harijan-vaas. She further admits to have not met the complainant on the night of 03.03.2002 and was afraid of the mob and throughout the night remained under terror. 25. PW-5, Sharifabibi Exh. 57, her testimony is on the line of PW-4 and admits to have met Dosumiya on the morning at 07:00 O'clock on 04.03.2002, whereby the incidence was narrated by the complainant to her. PW-6, Imammiya, Exh. 59 also repeats the manner in which crime was committed by the accused, who were recognized initially possessing different types of weapons. The above PW also identified the accused to which reference is made in earlier paragraph. 26. In cross examination, the above PW admits to have not disclosed the names initially to the police. It is further admitted that there is no accused named Prahladbhai Dahyabhai. However, according to this PW, one mob was approaching from Vaghri-vaas while another mob from Zampa-vaas. The members of the mob had deadly weapons and on both the sides of this PW, mob was shouting to kill persons of Muslim community. This PW, was aware about the murder of Kalumiya and Hasinabibi and not disclosed the names of accused till 06.03.2002, when the statement was recorded by the police. Other witnesses are PW-7, Exh. The members of the mob had deadly weapons and on both the sides of this PW, mob was shouting to kill persons of Muslim community. This PW, was aware about the murder of Kalumiya and Hasinabibi and not disclosed the names of accused till 06.03.2002, when the statement was recorded by the police. Other witnesses are PW-7, Exh. 61, Pathan Mohammadkhan, PW-8 Exh 63, Fakruddin M Saiyed, who is also a panchnama of the scene of offence in detail describes the place of offence and other surroundings including that of backyard of residential house of PW-13 surrounded by fencing of thorny bushes, electricity pole on northern side at a distance of 30 feet, water body of 4/7 width and depth of two and a half feet, water therein of red colour, burnt wooden pieces and smell of kerosene, control samples were taken of earth, water, other articles including clothes and chappals, broken door of house of PW-13, blood stains inside the house No. 140, burnt articles, scattered stones and damages to the properties and household items, bottles and kerosene and other inflammable material, pieces of rags etc. The above PW admits that in the panchnama pan cabin of Ahmedmiya Alimiya is not shown. The above PW further denies not to have gone to the place of offence and being a part of the above panchnama. 27. Inquest panchnama at Exh. 65, in detail described multiple injuries on body of the deceased (male and female) with extensive burnt injuries and the location where the bodies were lying. PW-13, Joitaram Ambaram Prajapati, Exh. 92 in his chief denies to have seen members of the mob, but admits that the mob consisted of 1,000 to 1,500 persons and that he was at a distance and so he was not able to recognize any member of the mob. However, when police party entered into village and after receiving some preliminary treatment at Primary Health Centre Thol early in the morning at 08:00 O'clock on the next day i.e. 04.03.2002. He had seen dead bodies of Kalumiya and Hasinabibi lying in the backyard of his house. In cross examination, the above PW almost deny to have seen the incidence in question of mob inflicting deadly weapons upon the body of persons namely Kalumiya and Hasinabibi, after the family members were driven out from house. He had seen dead bodies of Kalumiya and Hasinabibi lying in the backyard of his house. In cross examination, the above PW almost deny to have seen the incidence in question of mob inflicting deadly weapons upon the body of persons namely Kalumiya and Hasinabibi, after the family members were driven out from house. Even, naming of members of violent mob so stated in his police statements were also denied. Prajapati Mukesh Joitaram, PW-14, Exh. 94, in his cross examination admits to have seen a mob consisting of 200 members of the day of incidence i.e. 03.03.2002 and further that members of the mob had killed Kalumiya and Hasinabibi having set them ablaze. The above PW, further, admits to have stated in his statement before the Police that stones were pelted by the mob and neighbors namely Kalumiya and his family members were rushing towards the backyard compound of his house after making a way from fencing of thorny bushes. The above PW, further, admits that mob with deadly arms had chased father and daughter and to save their lives old house of the above PW, which was open, in which they had entered and the door was closed from inside. He further admits that the enraged mob had broke open the door by force, but denies to have stated by use of weapons. That other portion of the police statement was denied by him. Doctor Upendra Patel, PW-16, Exh96 admits to have treated PW-13 at Primary Health Centre, Thol, on 04.03.2002, where some injuries were noticed, which were not serious enough. Likewise, Mukeshbhai Prajapati, PW-14, was also treated by him and possibility of such injuries by many reasons. That second set of witnesses consisting of PW-17, i.e. Exh. 19 Patel Harshadbhai has not supported the case of the prosecution at all. Exh. 100 and 101 about recovery of bullet from accused No. 24 of Sessions Case No. 223 of 2002 and clothes of accused No. 2, of Sessions Case No. 42/2004, PW-18, Exh. 102 Mahendra Patel has turned hostile. Second set of witnesses PW-25, Exh. 116, PW-26, PW-27, PW-28 Exh. 119, PW-30 Khanji Ranaji Jadeja and according to these police witnesses, upon receiving a message around 21:00 on 03.03.2002 about riots broke out and houses were set ablaze in charedi para of village Meda-Aadraj along with other police personnel’s proceeded to reach at Meda-Aadraj. Second set of witnesses PW-25, Exh. 116, PW-26, PW-27, PW-28 Exh. 119, PW-30 Khanji Ranaji Jadeja and according to these police witnesses, upon receiving a message around 21:00 on 03.03.2002 about riots broke out and houses were set ablaze in charedi para of village Meda-Aadraj along with other police personnel’s proceeded to reach at Meda-Aadraj. While upon reaching at Meda-Aadraj, he found a mob of 200 to 300 persons and Police Inspector Baranda had ordered to disperse the mob by bursting two cells of tear gas and even after bursting of 8 cells of tear gas, the mob had not dispersed and continued to shout 'Kill Kill' and kept throwing burning rags, kerosene and bottles towards mohalla of muslims. Thereafter, S.R.P. police personnel’s also resorted to firing, but the mob was reluctant and when effective firing was ordered, the mob had dispersed. When the police personnel reached nearby the Prajapativaas, two dead bodies were seen and were identified as of Kalumiya and Hasinabibi. Hamidkhan Natthekhan Pathan, PW-26, also described law and order situation in the district of Mahesana including that of area under the jurisprudence of Bavlu Police Station. When the message was received from Mahesana control room and reached at Village Kalyanpuri, where also mob consisting of Hindu had burnt shops of Muslim person and set on fire 'Masjid' and 'Dargaah' and even snatched away revolver of police party. Thereafter, on 03.03.2002, on the day of incidence around 21:00 hrs had proceeded for village Meda-Aadraj along with members of other police personnel and noticed hurdles or obstacles created on the way by mob. According to this PW, mob was found at Vaaniya-vaas near Baliyadev Temple and Undavaas. That mob was pelting stones and setting ablaze and setting the fire. That members of the mob had deadly weapons and in spite of warning it was not disturbed and almost repeated the story narrated by PW-25, and so is the case of PW, 27, 28, 29 and 30. 28. Having recorded the substance of the testimonies of eye witnesses, police witnesses and documentary evidence as above, we would like to refer to para 39 of the judgment and order under challenge by the learned trial judge, which reads as under: "39. 28. Having recorded the substance of the testimonies of eye witnesses, police witnesses and documentary evidence as above, we would like to refer to para 39 of the judgment and order under challenge by the learned trial judge, which reads as under: "39. Taking into consideration the prosecution evidences and the oral evidences by the witnesses there are clear omissions found which are as here below: The complainant Dosumiya has in his written complaint made mention of the names of the accused and the weapons, but, who were first to cause injury using weapons and thereafter who had poured kerosene and burnt the deceased Kalumiya and Hasinabibi, in this regard there is no clarification made and also in the statement on oath although the incident is eye-witnessed then also and although there is presence of the witnesses but the police is also present, also the accused have not threatened or pressurized then also there is no complaint and also no pressure for not giving the names is exerted then also the accused/many accused are identified and they are not declaring the names nor attributing offence. Thus, whether they have in fact witnessed the incident or not, inspires doubts therefore their natural conduct is not apparent. Also, as per the deposition on oath by Pirumiya and Imammiya the eye witnesses who had witnessed the incidents from the beginning to the end of the incident such facts are coming on records from their deposition. But, after the incident when both these complainants are making their complaint before the Police Inspector Mr. Jadeja at that time the accused/mob had dispersed in spite of this and at that time although they are having the police protection then also they are aware about the facts of the incident they have not made any efforts to give the names of the accused and although such unfortunate incident has taken place then also the complainant or others, in spite of the presence of the police, have not made any efforts to take assistance/give reassurance, at such time also the conduct of both these eye-witnesses is raising doubts. As per the deposition by the complainant before the Court he had recorded the names of the accused in paper. As per the deposition by the complainant before the Court he had recorded the names of the accused in paper. On the other hand the complainant is illiterate, thus in such a condition how can he record the names in any paper such facts are inspiring doubts, such names are given by other persons. As deposed by the witnesses Imammiya and Pirumiya in repercussion to the Godhra Railway Carnage incident in the Meda Adraj village the atmosphere was tense therefore their family members were sent to safe places, and they had themselves stayed back for the protection of their properties. But, at the time of incident it does not appear that Imammiya had gone to protect his house. Because at the time of incident he claims to have witnessed the incident from the osri of Badrumiya, and after the incident had taken place then he is not giving any explanation about his presence, thus, his conduct is inspiring doubts. The identification parade of the arrested accused or any one amongst them was not held by the Investigating Officer through the Superior Police Officer or through the Executive Magistrate by the complainant or any eye-witnesses. The pancha witness of the panchnama of the place of incident other than Fakrudin Saiyed all have turned hostile in the matters of taking custody of the weapons, inquest panchanama, physical condition of the accused and clothes of the injured in firing and the bullet shells taken into custody, therefore the panchanama are not proved. The independent witnesses of the place of incident Joitaram Ambalal Prajapati, his wife Raiben and son Mukeshbhai have selected to turn hostile and have made the prosecution case lame. As per the defense taken by the defense party the Medical Officer has not taken the due care at the time of performing the PM of the deceased as per the Medical Jurisprudence, and have not taken any samples or in this regard no action is taken for taking related tests. The family members of the victim Kalumiya and Hasinabibi viz. Madinabibi and Shadabibi have prior to the incident only made efforts to protect their own lives, and had hid and had run to the Harijan Mohalla and had taken shelter in the house of Chaturbhai Chairma, thus, prior to the incident they had seen any person from such distance or identified anyone such facts are inspiring doubts. Madinabibi and Shadabibi have prior to the incident only made efforts to protect their own lives, and had hid and had run to the Harijan Mohalla and had taken shelter in the house of Chaturbhai Chairma, thus, prior to the incident they had seen any person from such distance or identified anyone such facts are inspiring doubts. When the incident had taken place prior to that in the Meda Adraj village there was police bandobast and frequent police patrolling started, in spite of this in the presence of armed police first of all the cabins/gall, houses and flour mill and etc. were ransacked and set on fire, thus for avoiding the incident to take place and to take necessary action the police was competent then also the opportunity for committing such criminal act was afforded thus such murder incidents had taken place in Meda Adraj village thus the police machinery and entire society is not warned and with regard to the evidences if the complainant himself had eye-witnessed the entire incident then in this regard using which inflammable substance the deceased were burnt and how they were burnt, and at which place himself and other witnesses have stood and eye-witnessed this incident in this regard the evidence of the location is not given and the complainant himself and other witnesses have remained silent on this aspect. At the place of incident there was police bandobast and thereafter Police Inspector like superior post officers came to the site with mobile van, in spite of this the complainant and the witnesses have not taken their assistance and not tried to catch any person in the mob, and doubtful circumstances are created as is clearly evident. At the time of incident tear gas and firing in the air was done and in the last firing those persons who were injured with regard to the presence of such persons at the place of incident there are no evidences collected. There is no prosecution case against them nor the investigating officer has given any explanation at the time of his deposition before the Court, thus, the investigations by the investigating officer are defective as is prima facie evident. There is no prosecution case against them nor the investigating officer has given any explanation at the time of his deposition before the Court, thus, the investigations by the investigating officer are defective as is prima facie evident. The complainant and other eye-witnesses have stated in their statements before the police that they had eye-witnessed the incident, the facts of such place are not mentioned at the time of drawing the panchanama of the place of incident or in the map prepared by the Circle Officer there is no mention made. The complainant Dosumiya and the eyewitnesses Imammiya and Pirumiya have in their deposition before the Court deposed that the deceased Kalumiya and Hasinabibi were assaulted in the house of Prajapati Joitabhai and burnt or they were burnt outside in this regard there are contradictions in their depositions, thus, the uniformity regarding the incident is not maintained." 29. For not believing the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, substantially the learned trial judge has assigned reasons that very presence of the eye witnesses having seen the incidence is doubted on the basis of their conduct which is not natural and apparent. In spite of presence of Police Inspector Mr. Jadeja immediately after the incidence and mob had dispersed and complainant and other witnesses under police protection correct facts are not disclosed. Further, absence of holding Test Identification Parade and except Fakruddin Saiyed one of the panchas of scene of offence, other panchas have turned hostile, which includes seizure of weapons/articles, inquest panchnama, physical condition of the accused and clothes of the injured in firing etc. That independent witnesses like PW-13 and PW-14, in whose house the incident had taken place, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Likewise, the doctor performing the Post Mortem had not taken due care as per medical jurisprudence and the procedure adopted was not in accordance with established norms. This material has not come on record in description of the surrounding area of the incident in question, panchnama drawn and absence of how the deceased were killed, the eye witnesses have remained silent. That even after police party arrived at village Meda-Aadraj, no prompt action was taken to arrest the accused and such conduct of the police personnel also create doubtful circumstance. That even after police party arrived at village Meda-Aadraj, no prompt action was taken to arrest the accused and such conduct of the police personnel also create doubtful circumstance. No evidence was collected with regard to presence of persons who received injuries either due to bursting of tear gas cell or firing. The Investigating Officer has failed to give any explanation in this regard. In the version of eye witnesses Dosumiya, Imammiya and Pirumiya, there appear to be contradictions as they are not uniform regarding the incident in question. That the manner in which the investigation had taken place for such heinous crime in a casual manner by Investigating Officer was deplored and that how so ever heinous the crime may be the incident though painful, while evaluating the case by the trial Court, credible and convincing evidence must be brought and established by the prosecution. The above reasoning of the learned trial judge, if considered in juxtaposition to what we have recorded of evidence of prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence to which reference is already made in earlier paragraphs reveals that none of the grounds on which acquittal is ordered by learned trial judge can be sustained. Having careful consideration of the evidence on record we have found sufficient evidence of guilt of the above accused connecting the same with the crime namely offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 337, 427, 435, 436,452, 504, 506(2) with Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 30. Upon detail and careful consideration of the evidence on record we are inclined to accept the submissions of learned Special Public Prosecutor, as well of learned counsel for the complainant that there was no delay in filing the complaint for the incident in question keeping in mind the overall scenario of break down of law and order in the village Meda-Aadraj and surrounding areas. The complaint Exh. 47 was filed within two hours of the incidence. As we have reproduced testimonies of Dosumiya-the complainant PW-1, Exh. The complaint Exh. 47 was filed within two hours of the incidence. As we have reproduced testimonies of Dosumiya-the complainant PW-1, Exh. 46 an eye witness and brother of the deceased Kalumiya residing in the same locality, whose presence is natural and witnessing the incidence in view of corroboration available from the evidence of inquest panchnama, scene of offence panchnama, seizure of articles/weapons panchnama, FSL Reports and MLC Certificate about the injuries on the bodies of the deceased as noticed in the PM Report and confirmation by the Investigating Officer. 31. If the injuries reproduced in para 21 of the judgment are seen in the context of version of eyewitnesses and the complainant Dosumiya, PW-1 who attributes usage of weapons like Dhariya, axe, spear, kodaadi, danti and farsi in juxtaposition to testimonies of P.M. Doctor Rajendra Kumar Acharya, PW-2, Exh. 48 version of the eye-witness gets complete corroboration. So is the case about version of another eye witness Pirumiya, PW-3, Exh. 54 and Madinabibi, PW-4, Exh. 55 who is the wife of the deceased Kalumiya and mother of the deceased Hasinabibi. No doubt, PW-13 and PW-14 have not fully supported the case of the prosecution. But the mob consisting of more than 200 persons shouting the slogans armed with deadly weapons and lying of dead bodies in the court yard is admitted. PW-14, the son of PW-13 goes a step further and admits that a mob consisting of 200 persons approximately on the day of incidence i.e. 03.03.2002 had killed Kalumiya and his daughter Hasinabibi having set them ablaze. The above witness, also described the place of incidence and further admits of Kalumiya and his daughter Hasinabibi entering into his house after finding a way through fencing of thorny bushes. The above PW further admits Kalumiya and his daughter entering into his house to save their lives from an unruly armed mob and bolting the door from inside. It is further admitted that the violent and agitated mob had broke opened the door of the house of the PW-14. Rest of the things are denied. According to us, this is one of the best corroborating piece of evidence about the manner and nature in which the violent mob has behaved and acted. It is further admitted that the violent and agitated mob had broke opened the door of the house of the PW-14. Rest of the things are denied. According to us, this is one of the best corroborating piece of evidence about the manner and nature in which the violent mob has behaved and acted. We are having no doubt that the version of eye-witnesses i.e. the complainant, PW-1, PW-3, and PW-5 is free from doubt and discrepancies, omissions and contradictions noticed by the learned trial Judge are such which do not make any dent to the core of the case of the prosecution. The trial Court has remained oblivious to the fact situation prevailing in the locality, village and surrounding areas and when law and order machinery was completely broken down, the first and foremost duty of the police personnel was to control and maintain law and order as early as possible and also to bring the culprits on the book. In the process, if lacunae is noticed about not following certain procedural aspect which may have no barring on substance of complaint or investigation that may have taken and later on brought on the record in the form of evidence of eye witness and forensic evidence, such evidence needs to be evaluated, appreciated and analyzed accordingly. When circumstances are exceptional, behavior or conduct of witnesses and for that matter even of a police personnel is expected to be not normal and instantaneous reaction to abnormal situation will not be in conformity with strict procedural requirement. However, on appreciation of the overall facts and circumstances based on material collected during the course of investigation and established before the Court conducting the trial, if found convincing and reliable enough to satisfy the core conscience of the trial Court upon finding the same to be trustworthy and inspiring confidence, and therefore reliable, the same will not deter the trial Court of believing the version of eye witnesses or the documentary evidence as the case may be available. 32. In fact, in the facts of this case as noticed and considered by us in extensive reproduced evidence of the eye witnesses and various documentary evidences, we find that acquittal ordered qua the following accused by the learned trial Judge is based on incorrect and perverse finding for not believing the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 32. In fact, in the facts of this case as noticed and considered by us in extensive reproduced evidence of the eye witnesses and various documentary evidences, we find that acquittal ordered qua the following accused by the learned trial Judge is based on incorrect and perverse finding for not believing the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. On conjoint and collective re-appreciation of entire evidence in peculiar facts of this case, as convincing, clinching and cogent evidence of testimonies of eye witnesses, Post Mortem Reports Exhs. 49 & 51 was deposed by PW-2, FSL Reports, scene of offence panchnama Exh. 64, Inquest panchnama Exh. 65, one of the panchas PW-8 of scene of offence panchnama who has supported the case of the prosecution, recovery of muddamal articles M1/M2 Dhariya with blood stains and clear identification of the accused named herein below by eye witnesses and that complaint was filed within two hours of incidence in which the accused were named with weapons of assault in their hand as members of unlawful assembly, with sole motive to take revenge as a backlash to burning of Sabarmati Express Train at Godhra, with an intention to kill persons of Muslim community and collective and conjoint reading of evidence as a whole, we find testimonies of relative eye witnesses as probable and trustworthy, inspiring confidence and therefore reliable, we conclude that the prosecution has established and proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, while committing the crime as above under Section 302 of IPC, the accused have also committed other offences under Section337, 427, 435, 436, 452, 504 and 506(2) of IPC, as it is clear from the evidence which emerge on record that they have caused hurt and endangered life and property of persons and committed mischief by fire to cause damage and destroy houses and also tress passed after preparation with burning rags namely 'kakada' and other inflammable material with an intention to commit breach of peace and criminally intimidate persons of Muslim community and the victim, we are inclined to convict the accused. We are hereby quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal qua the following accused: accused No. 2, Patel Mukeshbhai Amrutlal, accused No. 3 Patel Narendrabhai Chimanlal, accused No. 4 Patel Dineshkumar Jasvantlal, accused No. 5 Patel Kiritkumar Somabhai, accused No. 13 Patel Girishbhai Ambalal, accused No. 14 Patel Girishbhai Chunilal, accused No. 16 Patel Kiritbhai Chandubhai, accused No. 18 Patel Mukeshkumar Mahendrabhai, accused No. 19 Patel Nileshkumar Naranbhai, accused No. 21 Patel Janakbhai Rameshbhai and accused No. 22 Patel Mukeshkumar Somabhai. We convict the above numbered and named accused under Section 302, 337, 427, 435, 436, 452, 504, 506(2) read with Sections147, 148, and 149 of IPC and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and for hearing for sentence, the matter is adjourned to 04.08.2016. 33. Today, when these appeals are ordered to be listed and heard on the aspect of sentence, learned counsel for the defence would submit that some of the convict persons are not present, and therefore, time be granted, to which we are not inclined. 34. Shri J.M. Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor, would contend that in the facts of this case, sentence that may be imposed must be commensurate with the guilt of the accused and the manner in which brutal and ghastly murder of two innocent unarmed persons committed by the accused with pre-meditation, warrants maximum punishment of imprisonment for life, viz. till their life. Looking to the seriousness of offence and its impact on the society, when the crime is committed with only motive and intention that innocent persons belonged to a particular community and no element of remorse is shown for any extenuating or mitigating circumstances. The brutality of the respondents-accused gallore on record in as much as the injured were inflicted so many injuries and further set on fire and when one of the deceased though was found having some life, further injuries were inflicted. Though the case in hand may not fall in rarest of the rare cases, sentence is to be imposed for life imprisonment for full life of the convicts. 35. Mr. Though the case in hand may not fall in rarest of the rare cases, sentence is to be imposed for life imprisonment for full life of the convicts. 35. Mr. Shaikh, has adopted the submissions made by Shri J.M. Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor, for awarding the sentence and submitted that this is a rarest of the rare case and death punishment should be awarded since brutal killings/murders of father and daughter duo took place where the daughter who was married before she was burnt alive, hence, no leniency be shown. Learned counsel for the complainant relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Muthuramalingam & Ors. Vs. State Rep. By Insp. Of Police, dated 19.07.2006 and submitted that there should be consecutive sentence for different offences. 36. Ms. Bhavini Jani, learned counsel for S.V. Raju Associates, learned advocate for the accused persons would contend that, some time may be given, for which the Court has already shown disinclination as recorded earlier, and therefore, she requested that in case if any sentence is imposed, same may be suspended for some time or alternatively some time may be granted to the convicts to approach the higher forum and to surrender before the jail authority. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submissions made by learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the complainant/victim, we deem it just and proper that sentence for life imprisonment with permissible remission is imposed upon each of the convict-accused with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. For offences under Sections 337, 427, 435, 436, 452, 504, 506(2), separate sentence and/or fine as the case may be is imposed upon each of the accused to undergo along with sentence of imprisonment for life imposed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 37. Thus, following is the sentence for the offences for which the accused are convicted:- Offence under sections of the IPC Punishment Default of payment of fine 302 r/w. 147, 148, 149 Imprisonment for life with remission and fine of Rs. 37. Thus, following is the sentence for the offences for which the accused are convicted:- Offence under sections of the IPC Punishment Default of payment of fine 302 r/w. 147, 148, 149 Imprisonment for life with remission and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each 1 month Simple Imprisonment 337 6 months - 427 1 year 435 3 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. 1 month Simple Imprisonment 436 3 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. 1 month Simple Imprisonment 452 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- - 504 2 years - 506 (2) 3 years All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Order accordingly. 38. Learned counsel for the defence, at this stage, requests the Court to grant some time to surrender, to which learned Special Public Prosecutor has no objection. Accordingly, we grant 10 week's time to surrender before the jail authority. 39. Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2006 is allowed to the extent aforesaid and Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2006, stands dismissed. Bail bonds of each of the accused, stands cancelled and on completion of the time granted to surrender to the convicts, the convicts shall report to the jail authority, forthwith. Order accordingly.