JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Both these appeals are filed against common judgment and order dated 29.4.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case Nos. 91, 92 and 411 of 2009. The appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and ordered to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for two months was imposed. All the accused were also held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC and ordered to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of two months was imposed. For the offence punishable under Section 147 of IPC, the accused were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of two months was imposed. All the accused, except accused No. 1, were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of two months was imposed. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the brother of the deceased. The complainant was watching television in the evening at about 8.30 p.m. and the deceased Gopal went to bring milk. When Gopal did not return after considerable time, his mother asked the complainant to go in search of him. When the complainant went in search of the deceased, he was talking with his friends Shakti and Jashwant. In the meantime, Nekram Pandit and his fellows Manoj Goswami, Deva Goswami, Kallu Goswami, Totad Goswami, Umesh and Tino were standing there armed with swords, Dhariya, Gupti and knife. Nekram instructed his fellows to kill the deceased. Manoj inflicted one sword blow to the deceased on his right jaw and ear. Deva Goswami inflicted dhariya blow on both the wrist of the deceased. Kallu Goswami inflicted Gupti blow on the right thigh of the deceased. Nekram instructed his fellows to kill the deceased. Manoj inflicted one sword blow to the deceased on his right jaw and ear. Deva Goswami inflicted dhariya blow on both the wrist of the deceased. Kallu Goswami inflicted Gupti blow on the right thigh of the deceased. Totad Pandit inflicted sword blows on the both buttocks of the deceased and Tino inflicted one knife blow on the private part of the deceased. Then the deceased was rushed to LG Hospital where the complainant reported the incident to the police. With these allegations, a complaint was lodged against the accused. 2.1 Upon filing of the complaint, investigation was carried out and the accused were arrested and charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to Sessions Court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.2 During the trial, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:- S. No. Name Exhibit 1. Madansinh Maniram Kushvah 17 2. Chandrabhansinh Shyamsing Bhadoriya 23 3. Ramsevak Brijpalsing Rathod 24 4. Maheshkumar Gyasiram Vishakarma 28 5. Kamleshbhai Gyansing Chauhan 29 6. Narsinhbhai Lalsinh Rajput 32 7. Rammilan Haslaprasad Kori 35 8. Dharmendrasinh Rajvirsinh Pavar 39 9. Pushpendrasinh @ Chhotu Dharampalsinh Bhadoriya 43 10. Ramgopal Ramkal Kashyap 52 11. Jashvant Rameshbhai Prajapati 57 12. Rajeshbhai Ramdas Jatap 62 13. Rahul Rameshsinh Chauhan 72 14. Chandrakant Shivcharan Sharma 78 15. Shakti Ramlakhan Kushvah 84 16. Dr. Dilipkumar Shankarlal Shah 85 17. Ghanshyam Ramvakisinh Rathod 87 18. Manubhai Khatubhai Ninama 90 19. Chadrashekhar Manekbhai Mudliyar 94 20. Balabhai Mohanbhai Rajpara 101 21. Kishorsinh Manharsinh Jadeja 111 22. Rameshbhai Ishwarbhai Patel 114 23. Vinodray Jestaram Raval 115 2.3 The prosecution has also produced and relied upon following documentary evidence:- S. No. Description Exhibit 1. Panchnama of seizure of clothes of the deceased 18 2. Panchnama of seizure of clothes of accused no. 1 25 3. Panchnama of collection of blood sample of the deceased after carrying out postmortem 30 4. Panchnama of seizure of sword 33 5. Panchnama of seizure of dharia 37 6. Panchnama of seizure of gupti 40 7. Original complaint 45 8. Panchnama of seizure of sword 53 9. Inquest Panchnama 73 10. Letter of FSL 77 11. Discovery Panchnama at the instance of accused-Vivekchandra Totad 79 12. PM Note 86 13. Panchnama of seizure of sword 33 5. Panchnama of seizure of dharia 37 6. Panchnama of seizure of gupti 40 7. Original complaint 45 8. Panchnama of seizure of sword 53 9. Inquest Panchnama 73 10. Letter of FSL 77 11. Discovery Panchnama at the instance of accused-Vivekchandra Totad 79 12. PM Note 86 13. Report of in-charge officer 95 14. Dispatch note of FSL 96 15. Receipt of FSL 97 16. Dispatch note of FSL 98 17. FSL receipt 99 18. Forwarding letter of FSL 100 19. FSL report 102 20. Serological report 103 21. Letter of FSL 104 22. FSL report 105 23. Serological report 106 24. Dispatch note of FSL 107 25. Receipt of FSL 108 26. Forwarding letter of FSL 109 27. Report of FSL 110 28. Dispatch note of FSL 116 29. Letter of FSL 117 30. Report of FSL 118 31. Report of FSL 119 32. Report of physics department of FSL 120 2.4 At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment and order awarding the sentence, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the trial Court, present appeals are preferred by accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 before this Court. 3. Mr. Ashish Dagli and Mr. Nirad Buch, learned advocates appearing for the appellants-original accused have taken us through the evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order is against the evidence on record. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. It is also submitted that a false case is filed against the accused and they are wrongly roped in and they are wrongly convicted by the trial Court. Learned advocates have taken us through the medical evidence and submitted that the injuries mentioned in the medical report are not caused by the weapons, which were allegedly used by the accused persons. We have been taken through the evidence of the complainant, PW-9 and Ghanshyambhai, PW-17 and it is contended that there are many contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. It is submitted that there is a discrepancy as regards the place where the incident had happened, therefore, evidence of these witnesses could not have been relied to convict the accused. It is submitted that there is a discrepancy as regards the place where the incident had happened, therefore, evidence of these witnesses could not have been relied to convict the accused. It is further submitted that the story of the complainant going to verify as to why the deceased did not return is also got up and it can be said that the complainant is a chance witness. It is further submitted that though statements of independent witnesses were recorded, they were not examined by the prosecution in supports of its case. It is further submitted that the witnesses, who are examined, are either related to the deceased or they are connected with the business of the deceased or the complainant. It is submitted that so far as evidence of Ghanshyamsing Rathod, PW-17 is concerned, it cannot be relied as this witness has given name of one Mr. Ravi, however, this name is not mentioned in the FIR. This witness also do not state that Shakti was present. Not only that Ravi and Jashwant are not examined by the prosecution, while Shakti has turned hostile. It is also submitted that as per the FIR, the deceased was talking on his phone near Kajal Sweet Mart, however, an altogether a different place is stated by this witness. It is further submitted that the panchnama of the scene of offence does not refer to any pan shop in the vicinity, while it is stated by Ghanshyamsing that the distance between the pan shop and the scene of offence was 300 ft. It is also submitted that the sword and the clothes allegedly seized at the instance of the accused-Vivekchand had no blood stains. Though it is alleged that accused-Vivekchand had caused injuries on the head of the deceased with sword, however, PM report does not show any injury on the head of the deceased. So far as Pushpendrasinh @ Chhotu Dharampalsinh, PW-9, complainant is concerned, it is submitted that he appears to be a chance witness and his presence at the scene of offence was not natural. The complainant has admitted that normally his family members would go to bring milk, therefore, it is clear that the accused were not knowing that the deceased would come to take milk. The complainant has admitted that normally his family members would go to bring milk, therefore, it is clear that the accused were not knowing that the deceased would come to take milk. It is submitted that the mother of the deceased, milk vendor, any other independent witness or anyone from Kajal Sweet Mart is not examined. It is submitted that the complainant has not deposed that Ghanshyamsing is an eye witness. No injury is received by the complainant, though he stated that he had intervened during the incident. It is further submitted that the accused were not named as assailants in the medical history. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for commission of offence. In view of above, it is submitted that the appellants ought to have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them and prayed that these appeals may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. 4. On the other hand, Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the order of conviction recorded against the accused is just and proper and she has supported the conviction recorded by impugned judgment. She submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the accused. She has taken us through the evidence and contended that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused because as many as 23 witnesses were examined and 32 documents were produced in support of the prosecution case. She has taken us through the medical evidence and submitted that there were approximately 25 injuries found on the body of the deceased and the cause of death of the deceased is shock and hemorrhage due to multiple stab and multiple cut injuries. She further submitted that Dr. D.S. Shah, PW-16, who carried out postmortem, has also stated that these injuries are possible with the muddamal weapons. It is also deposed by the doctor that these injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of a person. She has also taken us through the evidence of the complainant, PW-9 and Ghanshyamsing, PW-17. She submitted that these witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. She submitted that only because there are some discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses, the accused cannot be acquitted. She has also taken us through the evidence of the complainant, PW-9 and Ghanshyamsing, PW-17. She submitted that these witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. She submitted that only because there are some discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses, the accused cannot be acquitted. She submitted that so far as place of offence is concerned, it is proved by the panchnama, Exh. 58 and it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 (1) SCC 697 , wherein it is observed as under:- "11. In fact, much confusion was caused on account of the use of three words, namely, canal, Bamba and cool. The witnesses have specifically explained that the main canal was on the Northern side of the two adjacent fields of the complainant. Bamba, i.e. outlet of canal is from that canal on the Northern side and the water then comes in that small outlet, which feeds Eastern side field of the complainant. Adjacent to that field is another field of the complainant and naturally, in order to draw water from Bamba, there has to be an aqueduct, which would go up to the adjacent field of the deceased. It is at that spot that the incident must have taken place. This situation is explained by Kedar Prasad (PW-2). He says in Para 15 of his deposition that on the earlier day of the incident, water from the canal was released in his field; the water was released firstly in the canal and they (complainant party) went in the morning to open the water in his field. He was specific that before that, water was not flowing in the canal. He was obviously referring to the Northern side main canal. Much was made by the learned defence Counsel that the word used is "canal" in the First Information Report and, therefore, urged that the spot of occurrence must be near the canal in the Northern side. This is obviously impossible for the simple reason that both the eye-witnesses are unanimous on the point that the incident took place in the field of complainant, which was not adjacent to the main canal flowing East-West on the Northern side. This is obviously impossible for the simple reason that both the eye-witnesses are unanimous on the point that the incident took place in the field of complainant, which was not adjacent to the main canal flowing East-West on the Northern side. The witness Kedar Prasad (PW-2) has specifically deposed:- "When water is opened from canal, it comes to bomba and thereafter when bomba opens then comes to cool and when cool is opened, it comes to field." As regards the spot of occurrence, the witness said in para 18 of his deposition that: "Murder took place in the field situated near Lahdaria village. Murder was not taken place in the field situated near road named Ambah Used Ghat." The witness was very specific in his answer when he was asked whether Investigation Officer collected the blood from the place of incident. He deposed:- "I do not know whether I.O. had collected blood at the time of preparation of spot map. I do not know whether blood was present on the place of incident." Ramgopal (PW-3) also asserted that:- "Quarrel had taken place on the issue of water. Kedar was releasing water in his field. He was releasing water from the cool." Ramgopal (PW-3) was very specific that the murder took place in the field of Kedar Prasad (PW-2). In his cross-examination, he stated that he was not called by Ramgopal (deceased) or Kedar Prasad (PW-2) to irrigate the field and that he was going to his own field along with them. The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant found fault with this and according to the Learned Senior Counsel, since the version was that he was going for irrigating his field and since the version of Kedar Prasad (PW-2) was that this witness was going with them to their field, this witness was lying. The argument is correct. What was the purpose of this witness in going was not material. Whether the witness was there or not at the time of assault on Ramgopal is the material fact. It was obvious that he may have gone to the spot either for irrigating or for collecting grass from his own field. The purpose is irrelevant. Therefore, the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel is not right. Whether the witness was there or not at the time of assault on Ramgopal is the material fact. It was obvious that he may have gone to the spot either for irrigating or for collecting grass from his own field. The purpose is irrelevant. Therefore, the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel is not right. As regards the incident and topography, Ramgopal (PW-3) says that:- "It is true that water is first released from canal to the Bomba and when released from Bomba then it comes to cool and when it released from cool then it comes to Baraha and when it is released from Baraha then it comes to field. No quarrel had taken place when water was opened from canal. Bomba from the canal came upto Lahdaria Village and take a turn therefrom. I do not know the distance between the place of murder and the place of cool where from water released for Baraha. Even I cannot say the distance in yard, hand, fields, steps etc." He, however, refuted the suggestion that the quarrel has taken place where the water was released from the canal. He further asserted that:- "It is also not a fact that when water open from canal then accused persons came with lathi and Ballam and started quarreling and mar-pit." Now, such suggestion, in our opinion, was a suicidal suggestion. It merely established the presence of the accused persons with weapons, which they handled. The witness further specified that when water was opened from cool, then mar-pit had taken place. It must be realized that vocabulary and the terms used by the villagers could always be confused by the police when they recorded their statements. Much importance cannot be given to such minor discrepancies. The broad features of the evidence were that the complainant party wanted to irrigate their field and for that they wanted to open the aqueduct for supplying water to their field and it was at that spot that the incident took place. Much importance cannot be given to such minor discrepancies. The broad features of the evidence were that the complainant party wanted to irrigate their field and for that they wanted to open the aqueduct for supplying water to their field and it was at that spot that the incident took place. Once the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, who themselves were injured eye-witnesses, was accepted by the High Court after the detailed consideration and when they asserted that the incident took place in the field of the complainant and when placement of the field of the complainant was fixed by the evidence, the evidence becomes immediately acceptable and then such minor discrepancy whether it was spot 'A' or spot 'B' would be pushed to the background. Such minor discrepancy cannot affect the whole prosecution story. It is only when the defence is able to establish that the change of the spot was deliberate and such a change was so substantial as would affect the whole prosecution story, that such discrepancies assume importance. In the present case, it was clearly an open and shut case where the two eyewitnesses in the broad day light witnessed the attack by the accused persons. There was absolutely no variance in the version of the two eye-witnesses to the effect that it was the present appellant, who gave the spear blow on the back of the deceased. It must be seen immediately that both the witnesses, i.e. Kedar Prasad (PW-2) and Ramgopal (PW-3) were injured and there was no explanation for their injuries." 4.1 She submitted that the complainant has specifically mentioned the role of each of the accused and the weapons which they were holding and it cannot be said that his evidence is not reliable. Since the complainant was knowing the accused since long, he could easily identify them. She also submitted since the witnesses were related or knowing the deceased cannot be a ground to disbelieve their statements. She submitted that their evidence cannot be discarded and mere relationship cannot be a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. In support of this submission, she has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 324 , wherein it is observed as under:- "28. She submitted that their evidence cannot be discarded and mere relationship cannot be a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. In support of this submission, she has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 324 , wherein it is observed as under:- "28. The High Court disbelieved both the witnesses Subedar (P.W.1) and Balak Ram (P.W.5) as being closely related to the deceased and for not examining any independent witnesses. In a case like this, it may be difficult for the prosecution to procure an independent witness, wherein the accused had killed one person at the spot and seriously injured the other. The independent witness may not muster the courage to come forward and depose against such accused. 29. A mere relationship cannot be a factor to affect credibility of a witness. Evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of his relationship with the victim of the offence. The plea relating to relatives' evidence remains without any substance in case the evidence has credence and it can be relied upon. In such a case the defence has to lay foundation if plea of false implication is made and the Court has to analyse the evidence of related witnesses carefully to find out whether it is cogent and credible. [Vide Jarnail Singh (supra), Vishnu & Others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477 and Balraje @ Trimbak (supra)]. 30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. [Vide : State Represented by Inspector of Police vs. Saravanan & Another, AIR 2009 SC 152 ; Arumugam vs. State, AIR 2009 SC 331 ; Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334 and Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Others vs. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287]. 31. The High Court has also fallen into error in giving significance to a trivial issue, namely, that in respect of the morning incident all the accused had not been named in the complaint/NCR." 4.2 She further submitted that from the evidence on record, it is clear that the accused have committed the offence and, the trial Court has rightly convicted them. She, therefore, submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused. In view of these, she submitted that the accused are rightly convicted and these Criminal Appeals filed by the accused may be dismissed. 5. We have heard Mr. Ashish Dagli and Mr. Nirad Buch, learned advocates for the appellants-accused and Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing for the State. We have also gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence on record and the judgments relied by learned APP. From the postmortem report of the deceased, it is clear that there were approximately 25 injuries found on the body of the deceased, which are as under:- "Face:- (1) 8 x 1 x 3 cms transverse bone cut I.W. on rt. Ear and either part of adjoining ear, pinna cut at middle. (2) 6 x 1 x 2 cms oblique downwards and backwards I.W. on posterior of Rt. Ear and either part of adjoining ear, pinna cut at middle. (2) 6 x 1 x 2 cms oblique downwards and backwards I.W. on posterior of Rt. ear below injury No. (1) anterior end merged in injury No. (1) and bone cut. (3) 7 x 2 cm I.W. on Rt. jaw downwards laterally, strafing from 1 cm medial to Rt. angle of mouth, it is tressing to oral cavity with full thickness cut of mandible. At upper limb:- (1) 8 x 3 cm oblique I.W. on posteromedial aspect of wrist downwards medially cutting 3 x 4th thickness of wrist joint at metatarsal involving Lt. three fingers. Rt. Upper limb:- (1) 6 x 2 cms bone cut I.W. transverse on back of Rt. Wrist cutting 1/2 thickness lower end oulua and radians. (2) 6 x 1 cm bone cut downwards laterally on dorsum near wrist and 1 cm below injury No. (1) cutting 1/2 thickness metatarsal of index, middle and ring fingers. (3) Cutting amputation of index fingers at base with flaap of 0.5 cm skin. (4) Cutting amputation of distal, inter tarsal joint of thumb of distal area. (5) 2 x 0.5 x 1 cm transverse I.W. on posteromedial aspect of 1/3" forearm with abrasion at both ends. (6) 2 x 0.5 x 1 cm transverse I.W on back of elbow with abrasion laterally. (7) 2 x 0.5 x 1 cm transverse I.W. on back of forearm 3 cms below No. (6) with abrasion laterally. Chest and abdomen:- (1) Subcutaneous emphysema palpable on lower chest, abdomen and scrotum (2) 3 x 0.5 cm oblique downwards laterally abrasion on Lt. Chest below middorsal. (3) Subcutaneous haematoma on Lt. inguinal and iliac fossa Lt. Lower limb:- (1) 6 x 0.5 cm transverse abrasion on anterolateral mid thigh. (2) 5 x 2 cm vertical abrasion infero lateral to Knee. Rt. Lower limb:- (1) 5 x 0.3 cm downwards laterally oblique abrasion on anterolateral upper thigh. (2) 6 x 0.5 cm down wards laterally on lower anterior thigh abrasion. (3) 6 x 0.5 cm transverse abrasion lateral upper leg 3 cm below knee (4) 8 x 0.5 cm transverse abrasion on upper leg 5 cm below injury No. (3) (5) 3 x 0.5 x 1 cm oblique I.W downwards laterally on 'anterior skin 11 cm below knee. (3) 6 x 0.5 cm transverse abrasion lateral upper leg 3 cm below knee (4) 8 x 0.5 cm transverse abrasion on upper leg 5 cm below injury No. (3) (5) 3 x 0.5 x 1 cm oblique I.W downwards laterally on 'anterior skin 11 cm below knee. (6) Haemostatic pack in wound having 6 x 3 cms transverse stab wound on upper and medial guardant of Rt hip, 1 cm away from mid line lateral angle acute, it is abdominal cavity deep Other injury:- (1) 6 x 0.5 cm vertical abrasion on back of Rt. chest medial to scapula. (2) 4 cm transverse sutured wound on back of Rt. trunk, 5 cms away from midline and 10 cms posterior to anterior superior iliac spine after remaining sutures it is stab wound goes upwards laterally to abdominal cavity (3) 3 x 1 cm transverse stab wound on Rt. upper hip, 4 cm infero lateral to anterior superior iliac spine, lateral angle acute, it goes upwards medially in abdominal wall. Internal:- Injury No. (6) of buttock goes upwards medially cutting hip muscles and entering into abdominal cavity where it cuts mesentery, rectum, posterior fascia of bladder causing hemperitoneum, hemostat pack found into anal canal area. Note – I.W. is incised wound" 6. The cause of death of the deceased mentioned in the postmortem report is shock and hemorrhage due to multiple stab and multiple cut injuries. These injuries were caused on the vital parts of the body. Dr. D.S. Shah, PW-16, who carried out postmortem has also deposed that these injuries are possible with the muddamal weapons. It is also deposed by the doctor that these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of a person. Therefore, in our opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error in holding that this is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. 7. So far as role of the accused is concerned, in the evidence of the complainant, PW-9 and Ghanshyamsingh, PW-17, their role is very specifically described. These are the witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution and other witnesses, who were present at the time of commission of offence, have turned hostile. These two witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution and they have narrated the role played by each of the accused and the weapons which they were holding. These are the witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution and other witnesses, who were present at the time of commission of offence, have turned hostile. These two witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution and they have narrated the role played by each of the accused and the weapons which they were holding. Though there are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of both these witnesses, it cannot be taken into consideration and such discrepancies might have occurred as both of them had seen the incident from different places and from different angle. Therefore, it is possible that they may not be able to describe the incident in the identical manner. However, so far as the weapons used and the injuries caused on the body of the deceased are identically stated by both these witnesses and, therefore, their evidence cannot be discarded only because there are some minor discrepancies. Not only that the place of the incident is also proved by the panchnama. Therefore, in our view, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and other alleged offences. Therefore, these appeals are required to be dismissed. 8. For the foregoing reasons, both these Criminal Appeals are dismissed. The impugned common judgment and order dated 29.4.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case Nos. 91, 92 and 411 of 2009 is hereby confirmed. At this stage, learned advocates for the appellants-accused requested that the accused may be given benefit of remission after completion of requisite period. Therefore, it is observed that upon completion of 14 years' imprisonment, the State Government may consider the case of the accused persons for remission. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused be given set off to them. Bail bonds, if any, of the accused stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent to the Court below forthwith.