JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the same judgment and order and hence, they are disposed off by this common judgment. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 197 of 2011 dated 27.12.2011 whereby, original accused No. 1 was acquitted of all the charges but, original accused No. 2 to 4 were convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Section 135(1) of B.P. Act. For conviction u/s. 302 r/w. Section 34 IPC, all the three accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default, SI for one month; whereas, for conviction u/s. 135(1) of B.P. Act, all the three accused were sentenced to undergo RI for one month and fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default, SI for five days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The sentence already undergone by the accused were given set-off. 3. Criminal Appeal No. 42/2012 is preferred by original accused No. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 47/2012 by original accused No. 3. Criminal Appeal No. 82/2012 by original accused No. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 445/2012 has been preferred by the State against the acquittal of original accused No. 1. Criminal Misc. Application No. 13156/2015 is preferred by original accused No. 3 for regular bail, which was ordered to be heard along with the main appeal. All these appeals are heard together and disposed off by this common judgment. 4. The facts in brief are as under: The complainant herein, Arjun Ranaji Vanzara, was a resident of the area known as Chamanpura Chakla, Popatlal Atmaram Ni Chali, Ahmedabad and was earning his livelihood by doing miscellaneous labour work. On 05.07.2009 at around 2130 hrs. while the complainant, one Himmatbhai and two other friends were returning home after visiting a nearby Temple, the accused herein blocked their way and thereafter, began to reprimand Himmatbhai. During that period, one of the accused inflicted knife blow on the stomach of Himmatbhai. When a crowd began to gather at the place, the accused persons fled the scene of offence. The injured was rushed to the Hospital. However, during the course of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. 5. During that period, one of the accused inflicted knife blow on the stomach of Himmatbhai. When a crowd began to gather at the place, the accused persons fled the scene of offence. The injured was rushed to the Hospital. However, during the course of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. 5. A complaint in connection with the aforesaid incident was registered with Meghaninagar Police Station vide I-C.R. No. 149/2009. Necessary investigation was done and the accused persons came to be arrested. At the end of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the trial Court. However, since it was a sessions triable offence, the case was committed to Sessions Court and ultimately, trial was initiated. 6. During the trial, the prosecution had examined following witnesses:- S. No. Name of Witness Exhibit 1. Jitendrasinh Ranjitsinh Rajput 12 2. Dinesh Shankarbhai Ghangu 15 3. Jitendra Ramdulari Tiwari 19 4. Rajubhai Viraji Bhat 22 5. Arjunbhai Ranaji Vanzara 29 6. Rakesh Fulaji Thakore 31 7. Atul Santoshbhai Sharma 33 8. Maheshkumar Pokhrajji 34 9. Dr. Sureshkumar Kantilal Zaveri 38 10. Dr. Manish Jayantilal Gandhi 42 11. Jaikishan Laxmanbhai 52 12. Rameshsingh Narsingh Rajput 61 13. Vasant Chogaji Vanzara 65 14. Vikramsinh Bhikhsinh Rajput 66 15. Dilip Kalaji 67 16. Parbatkumar @ Prabhu Babubhai Vanzara 68 17. Jashubhai Amrabhai Makwana 69 18. Hussainmiya Samratmiya Rathod 70 19. Sarafathusain Fakruddin Saiyed 75 20. Nagbha Jambha Rana 79 7. The prosecution had produced and relied upon several documentary evidence, particularly, the complaint at Exh. 30, panchnama of scene of offence at Exh. 23, inquest panchnama at Exh. 13, discovery panchnama at Exh. 45, Mobile FSL Report at Exh. 76, Post mortem report at Exh. 40, Cause of death certificate at Exh. 41, Injury Certificate of witness-Vasantbha Chogaji at Exh. 43, FSL Report at Exh. 47 and Serological Report at Exh. 48. 8. At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statement of accused persons u/s. 313 of Cr. P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment and order, which has led to the filing of present appeals. 9. Mr. Yogesh Lakhani, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. B.N. Limbachia learned advocate for original accused No. 2 & 4, submitted that he would not be in a position to assail the impugned judgment on merits. He, however, submitted that the medical evidence on record, particularly, the post mortem report (Exh. 9. Mr. Yogesh Lakhani, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. B.N. Limbachia learned advocate for original accused No. 2 & 4, submitted that he would not be in a position to assail the impugned judgment on merits. He, however, submitted that the medical evidence on record, particularly, the post mortem report (Exh. 40) establish that death was caused on account of the injury narrated at Sr. No. 4. 9.1 Learned senior counsel submitted that the evidence on record does not show that accused persons shared the common intention to do away the deceased. Hence, the accused could be convicted for their individual acts and not u/s. 302 IPC by taking aid of Section 34 IPC. He, therefore, requested that conviction of the accused persons may be altered to one under Sections 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC and the sentence may be reduced appropriately. 10. Insofar as Criminal Appeal No. 445/2012 filed by the State is concerned, learned counsel Mr. Limbachia submitted that the Court below has not committed any error in acquitting original accused No. 1 of all the charges. He submitted that there is nothing on record to prove the involvement of original accused No. 1 in the crime. Hence, this Court may not entertain the appeal filed by State and the same may be dismissed. 11. Mr. R.J. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of original accused No. 3, adopted the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Y.S. Lakhani. Learned counsel Mr. Goswami did not make any other submission. 12. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP, supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the testimony of injured eye-witness (PW-13) establish the presence and role played by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. All the accused shared the common intention to kill the deceased, which is evident from the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Hence, the Court below was completely justified in convicting the accused u/s. 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC. 13. Learned APP further submitted that the Court below ought not to have acquitted original accused No. 1 of all the charges since the evidence on record proves his presence at the relevant time. Hence, the acquittal recorded by the Court below deserves to be set aside and original accused No. 1 deserves to be convicted for the crime in question. 14. Hence, the acquittal recorded by the Court below deserves to be set aside and original accused No. 1 deserves to be convicted for the crime in question. 14. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents on record. The medical evidence on record in the form of Postmortem report of deceased (Exh. 40) and testimony of Medical Officer (PW-9) establish that deceased died on account of the stab wound injury on the abdomen, which is described in Column No. 17 of the Report (Exh. 40) at Sr. No. 4. The cause of death has been narrated as shock and hemorrhage due to stab and cut injuries over the body. Considering the medical evidence on record, there remains no iota of doubt that deceased died a homicidal death on account of the stab injury. 15. The Court below examined Vasant Chogaji Vanzara as PW-13. The prosecution has projected him as an eye-witness, who had sustained injuries in the incident in question. It is established from his evidence that original accused No. 2 inflicted knife blow on the deceased and that while original accused No. 3 was in the process of inflicting sword blow on the deceased, this witness blocked it, on account of which he sustained sword injury on his hand. The injury sustained by this witness (PW-13) is corroborated by the medical evidence on record in the form of testimony of Dr. Manish Jayantilal Gandhi (PW-10), who has given necessary treatment to injured-Vasantbhai (PW-13). Thus, from the evidence of injured witness-Vasantbhai (PW-13), the role played by both original accused No. 2 & 3 is established beyond doubt. 16. Insofar as the role played by original accused No. 4 is concerned, contradictory facts emerge on record. Some witness say that he was simply holding an iron-pipe whereas, some say that he was swinging the iron-pipe in such a manner so that the public which had gathered at the place of incident do not come close to them. However, the factum of his holding an iron-pipe is proved beyond doubt. Further, it is also proved from the panchnama that original accused No. 4 had hidden the weapon as also the clothes belonging to other accused persons at this house. It has also come out that after committing the crime, all the three accused fled the scene of offence in a two-wheeler. Further, it is also proved from the panchnama that original accused No. 4 had hidden the weapon as also the clothes belonging to other accused persons at this house. It has also come out that after committing the crime, all the three accused fled the scene of offence in a two-wheeler. Thus, the role played by original accused No. 4 is also proved beyond reasonable doubt. 17. As regards the acquittal of original accused No. 1 is concerned, the Court below found that no cogent evidence was produced by the prosecution to prove his involvement in the crime. Even in the complaint, nothing incriminating has been averred against original accused No. 1. Original accused No. 1 also does not appear to have played any role, much less any active role, in the commission of the crime in question. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the Court below recorded acquittal of original accused No. 1, which, in our opinion, is just, legal and appropriate. Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence on record so as to take a contrary view in the matter or to conclude that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored material evidence while acquitting original accused No. 1. 18. The Court below recorded conviction of original accused No. 2 to 4 u/s. 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC. However, on the basis of the evidence on record, it could not be concluded with certainty that all the three accused, viz. accused No. 2 to 4, shared the common intention to do away the deceased. It is a matter of fact that original accused No. 2 inflicted the deadly knife blow on the deceased, which, ultimately, resulted into his death. Though the record shows that original accused No. 3 attempted to inflict sword blow on the deceased, which was blocked by PW-13, resulting into injury on his hand, it cannot be said that he shared the common intention to kill the deceased since it does not appear that subsequently, original accused No. 3 made any fresh attempt/s to cause injury to the deceased with the sword. During this event, original accused No. 4 did not cause any injury to the deceased, even if we believe that he was armed with an iron-pipe. During this event, original accused No. 4 did not cause any injury to the deceased, even if we believe that he was armed with an iron-pipe. If the accused shared the common intention to do away the deceased or that such intention might have developed at the time of commission of crime, then original accused No. 3 & 4 would have caused some injuries to the deceased with their respective weapons. However, that not being the case, it cannot be said that the three accused persons shared the common intention to kill the deceased. Consequently, the accused persons could not be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC and they deserve to be convicted on the basis of their individual roles. 19. In our opinion, original accused No. 1 deserves to be convicted u/s. 304 Part-I IPC for inflicting the fatal knife blow on the abdomen of deceased, which resulted into his death; whereas, original accused No. 2 deserves to be convicted u/s. 304 Part-II IPC for causing injury to injured witness-Vasantbhai (PW-13) and original accused No. 4 also deserves to be convicted u/s. 304 Part-II IPC for wielding the iron-pipe and attempting to cause injury to the public. 20. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Lakhani requested that the accused persons are ready to pay some reasonable amount as compensation to the widow of deceased, who is around 30 years of age as on today and has to look after her two minor children. He, therefore, requested that by taking a sympathetic view in the matter, the Court may reduce the sentence imposed upon the accused appropriately. 21. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is passed: (A) Criminal Appeal No. 445/2012 preferred by the State is dismissed. Bail bonds stand cancelled. (B) Criminal Appeal No. 82/2012 preferred by original accused No. 2 is partly allowed. His conviction u/s. 302 r/w. Section 34 IPC is altered to Section 304 Part-I IPC and he is ordered to undergo imprisonment for Ten Years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, SI for one month. The conviction and sentence u/s. 135(1) of B.P. Act and acquittal u/s. 294(B), 324 & 307 IPC are not disturbed. Original accused No. 2 shall be given the benefit of remission and set-off. (C) Criminal Appeals No. 47/2012 & 42/2012 filed by original accused No. 3 & 4 respectively also stand partly allowed. The conviction and sentence u/s. 135(1) of B.P. Act and acquittal u/s. 294(B), 324 & 307 IPC are not disturbed. Original accused No. 2 shall be given the benefit of remission and set-off. (C) Criminal Appeals No. 47/2012 & 42/2012 filed by original accused No. 3 & 4 respectively also stand partly allowed. The conviction of both original accused No. 3 & 4 u/s. 302 r/w. Section34 IPC is altered to one u/s. 304 Part-II IPC. Both the accused are ordered to undergo imprisonment for Five Years and fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default, SI for one month. The conviction and sentence u/s. 135(1) of B.P. Act and acquittal u/s. 294(B), 324 &307 IPC are not disturbed. Both the accused shall be given the benefit of remission and set-off. (D) Mr. Y.S. Lakhani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons, made a statement that the convict-accused persons are ready to pay Rs. 5.00 Lacs to the heirs of deceased for their welfare. If that be so, then it is directed that convict-accused persons shall deposit the said amount of Rs. 5.00 Lacs with the Registry of trial Court on or before 31st August 2016. If such deposit is made, then the trial Court shall pass necessary orders for the release of original accused No. 2 from jail custody. But, if deposit as aforesaid is not made, then this arrangement shall not come into operation. After such deposit is made, if it is found that original accused No. 2 is required to be released from jail custody after granting him benefit of remission, then he may be released only after 31st August 2016 and not before that date. (E) On such deposit being made, the Registry shall transmit an amount of Rs. 2.50 Lacs to the Bank Account of the widow of deceased, after production of necessary bank details by the widow. The balance amount of Rs. 2.50 Lacs shall be invested by the trial Court in FDR in the joint names of the two children of the widow of deceased with the nearest Branch of State Bank of India where the widow is residing along with her two children. The FDR shall be invested on long term basis. The said FDR shall be encashed only when the two minor children of the widow turn major. The FDR shall be invested on long term basis. The said FDR shall be encashed only when the two minor children of the widow turn major. (F) The impugned judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 197/2011 dated 27.12.2011 stands modified accordingly. In view of the order passed in the appeals, the Misc. Application shall not survive. It stands disposed of accordingly. R & P be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.