JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. The appellant - accused has, by way of this appeal, challenged his conviction and sentence dated 19.06.2009 passed in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Valsad for offence punishable under sections 302, 120 (B) and 506(2) of IPC r/w 135 of B.P. Act whereby the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and was ordered to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 506(2) of Indian Penal Code r/w 135 of B.P. Act and rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- in default rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 120 (B) of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution as emanating from the records is as under: "2.1 On 02.10.2007, a quarrel took place between the appellant - original accused No. 1 and deceased while drinking liquor and during the scuffle, the deceased had twice slapped the appellant and the appellant had threatened the deceased of dire consequences. However, the next day they compromised the said incident. The appellant however carried a grudge about the said incident and therefore he in connivance with other co-accused hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. 2.2 Accordingly, on 05.10.2007, at about 07.00 pm, the appellant as well as juvenile co-accused - Pinku went to the house of the deceased and asked him to accompany them to catch crabs. The deceased along with the appellant, juvenile co-accused, original accused Nos. 2 & 3 and P.W. 1 went in the autorickshaw and reached the canal of Daman Ganga at Karvad village where appellant caught hold of deceased by his neck, other co accused caught hold of deceased by his legs and hands whereas the juvenile co-accused gave knife blows on the stomach of the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The entire episode was witnessed by P.W. 1 and therefore the appellant as well as juvenile accused asked him to keep mum about the incident or else they would kill him also. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The entire episode was witnessed by P.W. 1 and therefore the appellant as well as juvenile accused asked him to keep mum about the incident or else they would kill him also. 2.3 As the deceased did not return home, his wife - P.W. 2 searched for him at various places including the house of appellant and thereafter lodged a complaint. Investigation was carried out and necessary panchnamas were drawn. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed against the accused. The offences committed by the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 01 of 2008. Charge vide Ex. 4 came to be framed against the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.4 During the course of trial the prosecution examined following ocular evidences which have been read before us by learned advocates for both the sides: (i) P.W.1 – Amitbhai Halpati Ex. 11 (ii) P.W.2 – Dr. Anjana Patel Ex. 12 (iii) P.W.3 – Ramilaben Jitubhai Ex. 17 (iv) P.W.4 – Maheshbhai Uttambhai Ex. 20 (v) P.W.5 – Manoj Rajput Ex. 21 (vi) P.W.6 -  Mahesh Patel Ex. 27 (vii) P.W.7 – Mukesh Patel Ex. 29 (viii) P.W.8 – Dahyabhai Patel Ex. 32 (ix) P.W.9 – Anil Patel Ex. 34 (x) P.W.10 – Jayantilal Patel Ex. 37 2.5 The prosecution also relied upon the following documentary evidences before the trial court and we have perused the same: (i) P.M. Note Ex. 15 (ii) Medical certificate of deceased Ex. 16 (iii) Original complaint Ex. 18 (iv) Inquest panchnama Ex. 22 (v) Panchnama of clothes of deceased Ex. 23 (vi) Arrest Panchnama Ex. 24 (vii) Arrest Panchnama Ex. 25 (viii) Discovery Panchnama Ex. 28 (ix) Panchnama of autorickshaw Ex. 30 (x) Discovery Panchnama Ex. 35 (xi) FSL Report Ex. 42 (xii) Serological report Ex. 43 2.6 At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the accused claimed that a false case is foisted upon them and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant of the charges leveled against him by impugned judgement and order. Accused Nos. Accused Nos. 2 & 3 were however acquitted by the trial court. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellant - original accused No. 1 has preferred the present appeal." 3. Mr. Y.J. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the complainant and eye witness. He submitted that the case of the prosecution is not supported by medical evidence. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W. 1 & P.W. 3 and submitted that the evidence of these witnesses ought not to have been believed by the trial court as they are interested witnesses. 3.1 Mr. Patel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the inquest panchnama, scene of offence panchnama and submitted that the dead body was in such a condition that the cause of death and the injuries sustained by the deceased could not have been ascertained. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the deceased died due to an act of culpable homicide. 3.2 Mr. Patel further submitted that the complaint was filed after two days and that there is no plausible explanation given for the delay in filing the complaint. He submitted that not even a missing complaint was filed during the said period. He has taken this Court to the panchnama at Ex. 33 and submitted that nothing objectionable is found from the scene of offence which would go against the appellant. 3.3 Mr. Patel submitted that therefore it is in the interest of justice that the appeal may be accepted and the appellant may be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He submitted that the trial court has not appreciated the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case in its true perspective which has ended in miscarriage of justice. He submitted that the trial court has erred in holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant. He submitted that, therefore, the appellant -accused deserves to be acquitted by atleast granting him benefit of doubt. 3.4 In support of his submissions, Mr. He submitted that the trial court has erred in holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant. He submitted that, therefore, the appellant -accused deserves to be acquitted by atleast granting him benefit of doubt. 3.4 In support of his submissions, Mr. Patel has relied upon the following decisions: "(I) Inder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2015(2) SCC 734 , more particularly paras 8, 14 & 18 which are reproduced hereunder: "8. On behalf of the appellants, several other issues of facts were also raised with a view to criticize the prosecution case and persuade us to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubts. The general criticisms are that the six eye witnesses relied upon are interested and three of them, i.e., P.Ws 12, 14 and 24 are minors whose names were not disclosed in the FIR that they had also witnessed the occurrence. It was also submitted that the occurrence took place in open field and was allegedly witnessed by large number of villagers but no independent witness, unrelated to the family of the deceased persons has been examined and, therefore, prosecution case deserves to be rejected. It was also pointed out that the investigating officer could not recover pellets from the place of occurrence and ballistic report was not made available to corroborate use of fire arms by some of the accused persons. Our attention was also drawn to injuries sustained by some of the accused persons and it was contended by learned senior counsel for the appellants that in absence of any explanation for the injuries on the side of the accused persons, the prosecution case deserves to be rejected. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed upon judgments of this Court in the case of Siri Kishan & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2009) 12 SCC 757 and in the case of Lakshmi Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 . 14. The criticism that some of the accused had sustained injuries for which the prosecution has not offered any explanation has rightly been rejected by the trial court because there is no counter version or even a suggestion disclosing that any of the accused had received injuries in the same occurrence and at the same place. 14. The criticism that some of the accused had sustained injuries for which the prosecution has not offered any explanation has rightly been rejected by the trial court because there is no counter version or even a suggestion disclosing that any of the accused had received injuries in the same occurrence and at the same place. None of the persons allegedly injured on the side of the defence have lodged any case disclosing where and under what circumstances they sustained the injuries. In the facts of the case, in absence of any counter version and any plea of self-defence, it would be hazardous to presume at the instance of the defence that the accused persons sustained the injuries in course of same occurrence and at the same place. Only if these two ingredients were established, the defence would have been entitled to seek an explanation from the prosecution in respect of some injuries on three of the accused persons. Their injuries were neither fatal nor they caused any threat to life and that also reduces the burden upon the prosecution to explain injuries on the accused. In view of above discussion, we are of the view that judgments in the case of Siri Kishan (supra) and Lakshmi Singh (supra) do not help the appellants. In paragraph 12 of the judgment in the case of Lakshmi Singh (supra) the court had found that in the circumstances of that case there could be no doubt that the accused must have received grievous injuries in course of the assault. In the case at hand, the facts are different and hence the prosecution version cannot be disbelieved on account of some injuries allegedly sustained by some of the accused, namely, Maan Singh (accused No. 8); Ram Prasad (accused No. 28); and Bahadur Singh (accused No. 29). 18. The ingredients of Section 149 IPC require presence of an unlawful assembly which is defined under Section 141 of the IPC as an assembly of five or more persons, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is any of the five objects fully enunciated in Section 141 of IPC. The third object is - "to commit any mischief or criminal trespass or other offence." The explanation to Section 141 clarifies that an assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly. The third object is - "to commit any mischief or criminal trespass or other offence." The explanation to Section 141 clarifies that an assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly. As per Section 149, even if any one member of an unlawful assembly commits an offence in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who at the time of committing of that offence was a member of the unlawful assembly is guilty of that offence." (II) Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, reported in 1993(3) SCC 282 wherein paras 3 to 6 read as under: "3. This case primarily hinges on the testimony of a single eye witness Ajoy PW3. Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eye-witness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eye-witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then, the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect. It is in the light of these settled principles that we shall examine the testimony of PW3 Ajoy. 4. Ajoy PW3, on his own showing, is the nephew of the deceased. He had accompanied the deceased to the place of occurrence when the later went to recover the loan from Anil appellant. This witness, therefore, is a relative of the deceased and an interested witness. Of course, mere relationship with the deceased is no ground to discard his testimony if it is otherwise found to be reliable and trustworthy. In the normal course of events, a close relation would be the last person to spare the real assailant 394 of his uncle and implicate a false person. Of course, mere relationship with the deceased is no ground to discard his testimony if it is otherwise found to be reliable and trustworthy. In the normal course of events, a close relation would be the last person to spare the real assailant 394 of his uncle and implicate a false person. However, the possibility that he may also implicate some innocent person along with the real assailant cannot be ruled out and therefore, as a matter of prudence, we shall look for some independent corroboration of his testimony, to decide about the involvement of the appellant in the crime. Since, there are some doubtful aspects in the conduct of Ajoy PW3, it would not be safe to accept his evidence without some independent corroboration, direct or circumstantial. 5. The unnatural conduct of Ajoy PW3 which has come to our notice from the record is that though he was present alongwith the deceased at the time of occurrence, on 21.3.1976, at about 8 p.m., he made no attempt to save his uncle from the assault. He did not even continue to stay there, though of course according to him, he ran for his life on being advised so by his uncle. He was not assaulted though both he and his uncle were unarmed. Even if Mahendra was engaged in assaulting the deceased, Anil, who was also allegedly armed neither made an attempt to assault Ajoy PW3 nor even chased him. PW3 Ajoy did not himself lodge the FIR. Of course, he gave information about the occurrence to PW4, PW5, PW7 and others immediately after the occurrence describing the manner of assault and the names of the assailants but why he did not lodge the FIR has not been explained by him. In his testimony in the court he deposed that after Mahendra accused gave blow with the crowbar on the head of the deceased "other accused also assaulted him". He did not describe as to on which part of the body of the deceased, had Anil and Jojneswar caused the injuries and made a general vague statement without assigning any particular injury to either of them. When we look to the medical evidence, we find that the deceased-had suffered two injuries on his head and no other injury on any other part of the body. In all, four injuries were recorded in the post-mortem report. When we look to the medical evidence, we find that the deceased-had suffered two injuries on his head and no other injury on any other part of the body. In all, four injuries were recorded in the post-mortem report. The other two injuries, according to the doctor, could have been the result of a fall and indeed looking to the nature of those injuries, which are in the nature of a swelling on the back of the interscapular region and a lacerated wound on the interior aspect of the right thigh, it is possible to agree with the medical witness PW1 Dr. Ganesh Ch. Buragohain, that those injuries could have been caused by a fall and were not the result of any direct impact with a weapon of assault. Both the head injuries are almost of the same dimensions. The possibility, therefore, that both the injuries had been caused to the deceased by Mahendra with the crowbar, who according to PW3 had hit the deceased on the head cannot be ruled 395 out. In this connection, it would also be relevant to not that according to the testimony of the Investigating Officer, PW11 Abhiram Taye, all the weapons like the crowbar Ex. M5, a dao, an axe and a hand dag were recovered only from the house of Mahendra. We have it from the testimony of PW3 and the first informant PW2 that all the three brothers lived separately. No recovery was affected from the house of the appellant Anil at all. All that was seized from his house were two bonds Ex. 7 and Ex. 8, undertaking to repay the loan to the deceased. Unlike Mahendra accused he was not even arrested on the date of the occurrence and the mere ipse dixit of the investigating officer, that Anil had absconded is not acceptable, particularly when the investigating officer is totally silent as to where all he had made the search for the appellant and when. He was not questioned under Section 313 Cr. PC about the allegation of absconding either. The deceased was still alive when his wife and the other co-villagers, who have appeared as witness reached the place of occurrence. The deceased did not name the appellant as his assailant before anyone. The crowbar Ex. He was not questioned under Section 313 Cr. PC about the allegation of absconding either. The deceased was still alive when his wife and the other co-villagers, who have appeared as witness reached the place of occurrence. The deceased did not name the appellant as his assailant before anyone. The crowbar Ex. 5 was recovered from the house of Mahendra and according to the testimony of PW3, it was the same weapon with which Mahendra had hit deceased on his head which position also receives corroboration from medical evidence. The deposition of PW4, who is the sister of PW3 Ajoy to the effect that when Ajoy PW3 came running to the house, he told her that her uncle had been killed by Anil and his brothers does not stand scrutiny because admittedly according to PW3 himself, when he ran from the place of occurrence, the deceased was still alive and as a matter of fact he was alive even when the wife of the deceased and other neighbours reached there and brought him to the house. It was only at the house while the deceased was kept in the verandah that he succumbed to the injuries. There could have been, therefore, no occasion for Ajoy PW3 to have told his sister PW4, that her uncle had been 'killed' by Anil and his brothers. This also shows that Ajoy PW3 has the tendency to exaggerate matters. The medical evidence is consistent with the theory that the deceased had been assaulted only by one person and not by all the three brothers as alleged by the prosecution. The possibility, therefore, that Mahendra accused alone had caused injuries on the deceased cannot be ruled out. May be on account of the recovery of the two bonds Ex. 7 and Ex. 8 from the house of Anil, he was also implicated. We cannot be sure. The origin of the fight is totally in obscure and the prosecution has not explained the genesis of the origin of the fight either. It is not even the case of the prosecution that Anil had refused to repay the loan or that any hot words 396 or abuses had exchanged between Anil and the deceased when the later had demanded from him the repayment of the loan. It is not even the case of the prosecution that Anil had refused to repay the loan or that any hot words 396 or abuses had exchanged between Anil and the deceased when the later had demanded from him the repayment of the loan. In view of the infirmities pointed out above, it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of Ajoy PW3, the sole eye-witness, without looking for independent corroboration and as already noticed, the corroboration furnished by the prosecution unlike in the case of Mahendra, is negative in character in so far as the involvement of Anil appellant is concerned. 6. In our considered opinion, therefore, it would not be safe to hold that the prosecution has established its case against Anil appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant in our opinion, is entitled to the benefit of doubt and granting him that benefit, we set aside his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and consequently the judgment of the High Court in so far as Anil appellant is concerned, is set aside and he is hereby acquitted. " (III) Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2003 (2) SCC 401 wherein paras 10 to 13 & 15 read as under: "10. The Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness. (See - Vadivelu Thevan etc. v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 ). 11. In the case at hand, we can neither place implicit reliance on nor totally discard the testimony of Mannu (PW-9) as it can neither be called wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Mannu is a witness who could have been naturally present with his brother while ploughing the field. v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 ). 11. In the case at hand, we can neither place implicit reliance on nor totally discard the testimony of Mannu (PW-9) as it can neither be called wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Mannu is a witness who could have been naturally present with his brother while ploughing the field. However, we find his testimony to have been substantially improved at the trial than what it was to begin with when the First Information Report of the incident was lodged. Though at the trial Mannu alleges all the 10 accused persons to have dealt blows with their respective weapons on the body of his brother Suphal Hansda, but that is certainly not correct. If 10 accused persons had dealt even one blow each, there would have been a minimum of 10 injuries on the person of the deceased. It is the specific case of Mannu that so far as the chest injuries (fracture of ribs) are concerned, it was the result of the accused Gurua having climbed upon the body of the deceased after he had fallen down and then pressed him against the ground. As the fracture of ribs is not accompanied by any apparent injury on the body, in all probability such injuries were not caused by any weapon. The injuries could have been caused either by pressing hard as alleged or even by forcefully pushing the deceased during the course of any scuffle. The deceased has suffered only two other injuries, which obviously were not caused by three persons. So far as the assault on the deceased is concerned, there is so much of chaff collected by Mannu (PW-9) in his deposition that it becomes very difficult, almost impossible, to sift the grains of truth from out of the mass of chaff of falsehood and exaggerations. 12. There is another very material aspect of the incident and we cannot resist observing that the investigation in the case has been very defective. The Investigating Officer did not prepare any site plan of the place of occurrence. Samples of blood stained earth were not sent for chemical examination. No effort seems to have been made to recover and seize any weapon of offence. No witness of the locality, who could have been present near the place of occurrence at the time of the incident, has been interrogated. Samples of blood stained earth were not sent for chemical examination. No effort seems to have been made to recover and seize any weapon of offence. No witness of the locality, who could have been present near the place of occurrence at the time of the incident, has been interrogated. It was the cultivation time and agriculturists or labourers busy ploughing the fields must have been present in neighbourhood. The witnesses referable to neighbouring piece of land could have deposed to as to the question and nature of possession over the land in dispute; as to whether it was cultivated previously and if so by whom whether the complainant party or the accused persons. The village Patwari and Chowkidhar would have been most material witnesses. Their interrogation and collection of entries in revenue papers would have revealed who was in actual possession of the land prior to the incident. The Court is just left in doubt guessing whether it was the complainant party in possession of the land illegally obstructed by the accused persons or whether the accused persons were in possession of the land which was sought to be trespassed upon by the deceased and his brother Mannu (PW-9) and the attempted trespass was sought to be prevented and preempted by the accused persons. 13. It is, therefore, clear that the genesis or the root cause of the incident is not known. The most crucial question as to the factum of possession over the land in dispute immediately preceding the date of the incident cannot be determined and any specific finding in that regard arrived at. The version of the incident given by the sole eyewitness who is also an interested witness on account of his relationship with the deceased and being inimically disposed against the accused persons is highly exaggerated and not fully corroborated by medical evidence. The version of the incident as given in the Court is substantially in departure from the earlier version as contained and available in the First Information Report. We cannot, therefore, place reliance on the sole testimony of Mannu (PW-9) for the purpose of recording the conviction of all the accused persons. 15. All these aspects of the case, specially the infirmities in the prosecution evidence and the investigation, have not received the attention of the Trial Court as also the High Court. We cannot, therefore, place reliance on the sole testimony of Mannu (PW-9) for the purpose of recording the conviction of all the accused persons. 15. All these aspects of the case, specially the infirmities in the prosecution evidence and the investigation, have not received the attention of the Trial Court as also the High Court. We are very clear in our mind that on the state of evidence available the accused persons could not have been held guilty of the offences charged. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Trial Court as also of the High Court are set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The appellants shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other offence. " 4. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing for the respondent - State has strongly supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court and submitted that the same does not call for any interference by this Court. She has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the present appellant beyond doubt. She has drawn our attention to the impugned judgement and order passed by the trial court and submitted that going by the cogent reasonings given by the trial court it cannot be said that the trial court had committed any error in convicting the appellant. 4.1 Ms. Shah has drawn the attention of this Court to the injuries sustained by the deceased which are described in column No. 17 of post mortem report coupled with the evidence of doctor and submitted that the injury was on the vital part of the body and the same was sufficient to cause death of the deceased and therefore the conviction of the appellant is just and proper. 4.2 Ms. Shah too has drawn the attention of the Court to the evidences of P.W. 1 & P.W. 3 and submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1 does not suffer from any infirmities. She submitted that P.W. 1 is the sole eye witness in the present case and though he is the friend of the deceased, he was the person who had accompanied the accused as he was the rickshaw driver. She submitted that the presence of this witness at the scene of offence is genuine and natural. 4.3 Ms. She submitted that P.W. 1 is the sole eye witness in the present case and though he is the friend of the deceased, he was the person who had accompanied the accused as he was the rickshaw driver. She submitted that the presence of this witness at the scene of offence is genuine and natural. 4.3 Ms. Shah has also submitted that it was a well planned murder. She submitted that the prosecution has proved the motive behind the alleged incident. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the earlier scuffle and fight which had taken place between the appellant and the deceased. She submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned judgement and order. 5. We have gone through the judgement and order passed by the trial court. We have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence perused by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocates for both the sides. As per the latest decision of the Apex Court, we have appreciated, re-appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence led before the trial court in its entirety but we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a different view than the one taken by the trial court. 6. So far as the contention of Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant that the evidence of complainant and other witnesses as well as widow of deceased does not inspire confidence and the contention that they are interested witnesses are concerned, we are unable to accept the same. In fact from the evidence of these witnesses, the presence of the accused persons at the scene of offence is clearly proved. It is required to be noted that nothing incriminating has surfaced from the cross examination of the so called eye witness - P.W. 1. 6.1 P.W. 1 - Amitbhai Halpati has been examined at Ex. 11. This witness has stated that he was taken by accused No. 1 in the autorickshaw to the scene of offence alongwith deceased and other co-accused. He has stated that he was asked to wait near the autorickshaw and the deceased, appellant and other co-accused went to the scene of offence and after some time he heard shouts of the deceased. This witness has stated that he was taken by accused No. 1 in the autorickshaw to the scene of offence alongwith deceased and other co-accused. He has stated that he was asked to wait near the autorickshaw and the deceased, appellant and other co-accused went to the scene of offence and after some time he heard shouts of the deceased. This witness has stated that when he reached the scene of offence, he saw that the appellant had caught hold of deceased and the other co-accused namely Pinku was giving knife blows to the deceased. 6.2 P.W. 3 - Ramilaben Jitubhai is the widow of the deceased and this witness has been examined by the prosecution vide Ex. 17. This witness has stated that the deceased used to have liquor with the appellant and other accused persons. She has stated that around five days prior to the date of lodging complaint, the deceased had a fight with appellant during one such liquor session in which the deceased had slapped the appellant and the appellant in turn had threatened the deceased of dire consequences. This witness has further stated that on 05.10.2007, the appellant and other co-accused namely Pinku and Chinu had come to her house inquiring about her husband - deceased. This witness has stated that they had taken the deceased alongwith them on the pretext of going out and whiling away time. She has further stated that her husband thereafter never returned. She tried to search him and she also went to the place where the appellant lived but could not find him. 6.3 P.W. 5 - Manoj Rajput has been examined by the prosecution vide Ex. 21. This witness has stated that on 05.10.2007, at around 08.00 pm, he had seen the deceased going with the appellant and juvenile accused in an autorickshaw. From the evidence of these witnesses, the fact that a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and appellant and also the fact that the appellant had come to the house of the deceased on the date of incident on the pretext of going out to catch crabs is borne out. The last seen theory is proved by the prosecution by way of evidences of P.W. 3 & P.W. 5. The role essayed by the appellant is clear from the evidence of P.W. 1. The last seen theory is proved by the prosecution by way of evidences of P.W. 3 & P.W. 5. The role essayed by the appellant is clear from the evidence of P.W. 1. The knife was carried by the appellant to the scene of offence and he had tried to throttle the deceased when the juvenile accused was giving knife blows to the deceased. Moreover, the conduct of the appellant also speaks volumes. He was absconding after the alleged incident. 7. Another important link that has a bearing on the case is that the muddamal weapon allegedly used by the appellant at the time of incident and recovered during the course of investigation contained blood stains on them which were sent for forensic analysis and as per the forensic report the blood group found on the weapon matches with blood group of deceased. Even the blood collected from the scene of incident and sent for FSL matched with the blood group that of the deceased. The panchnamas have been proved by the panch witnesses who have supported the prosecution case. 7.1 The cause of death as per the post mortem report is shock due to multiple injury over body (Cut throat wound, stab wound injury to heart & liver). It cannot be said that the evidence of the witnesses, more particularly the injury given to the deceased does not get corroboration. If we go through the nature and number of injuries sustained by the deceased coupled with the evidence of doctor who performed post mortem, it is clear that the said injuries were possible by way of muddamal knife. There were around 7 injuries sustained by the deceased. 8. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was involved in the alleged crime in question. Going by the serological report, injury certificate, evidence of witnesses, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court. The weight of evidence against the appellant is so culpable that we are unable to agree with the arguments put forth by the learned advocate for the appellant. We do not find any substance in the appeal. Learned advocate for the appellants is not in a position to point out any cogent evidence or circumstance so as to enable this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by the trial court. We do not find any substance in the appeal. Learned advocate for the appellants is not in a position to point out any cogent evidence or circumstance so as to enable this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by the trial court. The factum of accidental death is also ruled out considering the FSL/serological report, medical evidence and the panchnamas on record. The trial court has considering all these facts convicted the accused under section 302 of Indian Penal Code which is just and proper. The trial court has given cogent reasons for sustaining conviction of the appellant. We, therefore, do not see any reason for interference in the appeal. 9. However, in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah v. State of Assam, reported in JT 2013 (10) SC 373, life imprisonment as awarded by the trial court would not be till last breath. The relevant portion of the said judgement reads as under: "15. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that life imprisonment means imprisonment for whole of life subject to the remission power granted under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India. [Vide Life Convict @ Khoka Prasanta Sen v. B.K. Srivastava & Ors., (2013) 3 SCC 425 , Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 3 SCC 294 , Sangeet and Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 , Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 2 SCC 764 , Chhote Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 8 SCR 239, Mulla and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 508, Maru Ram v. Union of India & Ors., (1981) 1 SCC 107 , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh & Others, (1976) 3 SCC 470 and Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 600 ]. 16. In view of the clear decisions over decades, the argument of learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused is unsustainable, at the same time, we are not restricting the power of executive as provided in the Constitution of India. For adequate reasons, it is for the said authorities to exercise their power in an appropriate case." 10. For the reasons recorded in the judgement dictated today, appeal is hereby dismissed. For adequate reasons, it is for the said authorities to exercise their power in an appropriate case." 10. For the reasons recorded in the judgement dictated today, appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgement and order dated 19.06.2009 passed in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Valsad is confirmed. However, it is clarified that after the appellant serves sentence for 14 years his case may be considered for remission as it is not that life imprisonment should be treated till last breath and the case of the appellant may be reviewed by the appropriate authority considering the decision of Apex Court in the case of Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah (supra). The period of sentence already undergone shall be considered for remission and set off in accordance with law. The accused shall surrender before the concerned authority within a period of twelve weeks from today to serve out the remaining period of sentence. R & P to be sent back forthwith.