JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-accused has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3 Bhavnagar at Mahuva in Sessions Case No. 201 of 2008 on 23/12/2010, whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and are sentenced as under: 1. For the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month SI. 2. For the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, accused was sentenced to undergo six months SI. 3. For the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, accused was sentenced to undergo seven months RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month imprisonment. 4. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month SI. 5. Appellant was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 6. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that, accused got married with injured-victim-Dahiben prior to seventeen years of the incident and since last six months, the accused was keeping doubt over her character and was giving mental and physical harassment to her wife and therefore she was staying at her parental home since last six months and thus keeping grudge over the same, the accused had gone to her parental home on 06/06/2008 between 7:00 and 7:15 hours at Village Gundarna and gave an axe blow on the head of his father-in-law who succumbed to the injuries. The accused had also given axe blow on head of his mother-in-law and thereby caused grievous hurt and was died during the treatment on 14/06/2008. It is also the case of prosecution that accused had given three axe blows on head of his wife and thereby caused injuries to her and attempted to commit her murder. The accused had also given axe blow on head of his mother-in-law and thereby caused grievous hurt and was died during the treatment on 14/06/2008. It is also the case of prosecution that accused had given three axe blows on head of his wife and thereby caused injuries to her and attempted to commit her murder. It is also the case of prosecution that accused had also caused injury on shoulder of his daughter by giving axe blow. Thus, the accused had committed murder of his in-laws and caused grievous hurt to the injured witnesses. 2.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar. 2.2 The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. 2.3 In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence, as under: ORAL EVIDENCE Sr. No. Name of witness Exh. 1. Kajalben Madhubhai 23 2. Hansaben Kishorbhai 24 3. Ilaen Karmasinhbhai 25 4. Divayat Pratapbhai 26 5. Nakulbhai Parshottambhai 28 6. Asmita Madhubhai 31 7. Dayaben Madhubhai 32 8. Bharatbhai Dayabhai 33 9. Bhagirathgiri Himatgiri 35 10. Mukeshbhai Chhaganbhai 38 11. Mavjibhai Lakhmanbhai 40 12. Dhirubhai Shardulbhai 42 13. Jaysukhgiri Parangiri Goswami 44 14. Harjibhai Ramjibhai 46 15. Manjuben Amababhai 47 16. Shaktisinh Ashoksinh 49 17. Rajak Ahmed 50 18. Hardevsinh Talubha 51 19. Faruk Mohmmedbhai 53 20. Vallabhbhai Valjibhai 54 21 Dr. Mukesh Shah 56 22 Dr. Devsinhbhai Ashwinbhai Bhatt 58 23 Chetan Jayantibhai Rathod 61 24 Sukha Merabhai 62 25 Nathubhai Parshottambhai 64 26 Homlal Nathalal 65 27 Panch – Jayastbhai Gobarbhai 69 28 Dr. Ashok Laljibhai Vadher 70 29 PSO - Khimji Fakirbhai Dabhi 81 30 I.O. - Imtiyaj Mehburbhai 86 31 I.O. - Dashrathsinh Kanubhai Solanki 90 32 I.O. - Nirmalsinh Vajubha 102 33 Dr. Tejas Sikant Joshi 104 34 Dr. Kirtan Maheshbhai Shah 106 35 Ravjibhai Chhanabhai 114 36 Chandu Labhshanker 115 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. No. Document Exh. 1. Complaint 21 2 Inquest Panchnama 28 3. Panchnama of collection of blood sample from the clothes of deceased – Raiyaben Mayabhai 29 4. Tejas Sikant Joshi 104 34 Dr. Kirtan Maheshbhai Shah 106 35 Ravjibhai Chhanabhai 114 36 Chandu Labhshanker 115 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. No. Document Exh. 1. Complaint 21 2 Inquest Panchnama 28 3. Panchnama of collection of blood sample from the clothes of deceased – Raiyaben Mayabhai 29 4. Panchnama of collection of blood sample from the clothes of deceased – Raiyaben Mayabhai 34 5. Panchnama of arrest of accused and identification of weapon 36 6. Inquest Panchnama of Dahyaben Madhubhai 38 7. Inquest Panchnama of Raiyaben Mayabhai in unconscious situation 38 8. Panchnama for recovery of clothes and blood sample of deceased – Mayabhai 41 9. Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused 43 10. Panchnama of recovery of blood sample of accused 45 11. Inquest Panchnama of Raiyaben 48 12. Panchnama of recovery of blood stains clothes of Raiyaben 55 13. Panchnama of place of incident 63 14. Yadi for preparing map of place of incident by PSI, Bagdana to Circle Inspector 66 15 Yadi for forwarding map 67 16. Map of local scene and Rojkam 68 17. Form of postmortem 72 18. Postmortem report of Mayaben 73 19. Forwarding Letter 74 20. Certificate of Raiyaben 75 21. Case papers 76 22. Original unit certificate 77 23. Medical Certificate of Ashmita 79 24. Station Diary 82 25. Yadi for registration of offence 83 26. Yadi for handing over investigation 84 27. Form of Postmortem of Raiyaben 87 28. Yadi for forwarding papers 88 29. Yadi for initiating proceeding 89 30. PM report of Raiyaben 90 31. Yadi for medical case papers 91 32. Yadi for conducting Inquest Panchnama 92 33. Yadi for sending blood sample 93 34. Yadi for taking blood sample of accused 94 35. Forwarding letter for muddamal 95 36. Receipt of FSL 96 37. Forwarding letter for sending FSL report 97 38. Biological report of FSL 98 39. Serological Report of FSL 99 40. Serological report of FSL 100 41. Certificate issued by Dr. Brijesh 105 42. City scan print 108-110 43. Case papers of Raiyaben 112 44. Certificate issued to Raiyaben 113 2.4 At the end of the trial, Further Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code were recorded in which they denied the evidence forthcoming on the record and stated that because of business rivalry, a false case has been filed. City scan print 108-110 43. Case papers of Raiyaben 112 44. Certificate issued to Raiyaben 113 2.4 At the end of the trial, Further Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code were recorded in which they denied the evidence forthcoming on the record and stated that because of business rivalry, a false case has been filed. Thus, after recording above-referred Further Statements and hearing the arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge passed the aforesaid impugned judgment and order. 2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the accused persons have preferred the present appeals against their conviction and sentence. 3. Learned Counsel Ms. Meenu Kumar appearing for the appellant-accused has contended that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. She has contended that all the important Panch Witnesses to the Panchnama drawn were declared hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. She has mainly contended that complainant came to know about the occurrence of the incident from her mother, but mother of complainant was found unconscious and was not in a position to speak and thus the complaint was given by gathering information from here or there. Thus, the complaint is not required to be believed. She has further contended that no particular information about the incident was given to the doctor by complainant and other witnesses and after lapse of sufficient time, the list of names were given. She has further contended that if the deceased persons were taken to hospital in time and treatment was given, there are chances of their alive. She has further contended that evidence of the eye-witnesses are contradictory and they are of the same family and therefore cannot be believed. She has contended that no independent witnesses are examined. The evidence of child witness is also not believable. 3.1 She has also contended that so far as the medical evidence is concerned, Dr. Vadher (Exh. 70) was examined and has deposed that injured was having simple injury and no such explanation from the prosecution was coming forth so far as injuries No. 6 to 11 caused to Raiyaben are concerned. The doctor has not given the specific description about the causation of injuries to the injured. Vadher (Exh. 70) was examined and has deposed that injured was having simple injury and no such explanation from the prosecution was coming forth so far as injuries No. 6 to 11 caused to Raiyaben are concerned. The doctor has not given the specific description about the causation of injuries to the injured. There are contradictions in the version of doctor and witnesses so far as the injuries caused and therefore, the appellant may be given the benefit by acquitting him of the charges levelled against him. 3.2 She has further contended that presence of the accused was also doubtful since the I.O., has not disclosed in his evidence about the same. She has further contended that blood stains clothes were also not recovered, as also the important witness-Raiyaben who was injured, whose dying declaration was not recorded and accused was wrongly roped in the offence. She has further contended that so far as the recovery of muddamal axe is concerned, the evidence in this regard is doubtful and therefore benefit of which is required to be given to the accused. She has lastly contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. She has submitted that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of the charges. 4. On the other hand learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah appearing for the respondent-State of Gujarat has contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. All the three witnesses viz., the complainant and eye-witness has supported the case of prosecution in its true and letter spirit and there is no earthly reason to disbelieve the same. She has further contended that the medical evidence also proved from the evidence of the doctor who has conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased and has specifically stated that the injuries caused to the deceased can be caused with the muddamal axe and those injuries are sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in natural course. She has further contended that so far as the Panch Witnesses are concerned, the panchnama of recovery and discovery can be proved from the evidence of the I.O. and therefore, no lacuna on part of the prosecution to prove its case could be found. She has further contended that so far as the Panch Witnesses are concerned, the panchnama of recovery and discovery can be proved from the evidence of the I.O. and therefore, no lacuna on part of the prosecution to prove its case could be found. She has submitted that there is no error in the findings of the trial Court and both the appeal may be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective appellants and learned APP for the respondent-State. We have also gone through the records and proceeding in context of the submissions made before this Court. 6. Having gone through the evidence on record and having examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses viz., injured witnesses Dahiben (Exh. 32) and Ashmitaben (Exh. 31), as also from the dying declaration of Raiyaben, it has been proved that accused had given blows on head of both the deceased, which had resulted into their death. It is also proved that blows were given on the vital parts of their body viz., head and therefore, intention of causing their murder was also proved. Further, from the evidence on record it is also proved that blood group of the deceased was found on the axe used in commission of crime and from the evidence of the Investigating Officer it is proved that accused was caught immediately after commission of offence with the possession of weapon used in commission of crime. 7. So far as the intention part is concerned, it is borne out from the evidence on record that the marriage of accused and Dahiben was solemnized prior to seventeen years of the incident and the accused by keeping doubt over her character was giving mental harassment to Dahiben since last seven months and therefore, she was residing with her mother since last six months. However, the accused by keeping grudge over the same had gone to her home and caused murder of his father-in-law and mother-in-law by giving axe blow on their head and also caused grievous hurt to his wife. 8. However, the accused by keeping grudge over the same had gone to her home and caused murder of his father-in-law and mother-in-law by giving axe blow on their head and also caused grievous hurt to his wife. 8. Thus, on overall examination of the evidence on record of the case, this Court is in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court, more particularly, the evidence in the form of dying declaration given by Raiyaben, medical evidence, evidence of eye-witnesses viz., Dahiben, Ashmitaben and Kajal, who were also injured in the said incident, as well as, the evidence of independent witnesses and evidence in the form of FSL Report, which go to prove that relationship between the accused and deceased side was not cordial and as the wife of accused was not going to her in-laws home since last six months, can be said to be the motive on part of the accused to commit murder of family members of Dahiben. 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 alleged against them. Therefore, this appeal is required to be dismissed. 9. In light of what is discussed herein above and in view of the findings recorded by the trial Court, this Court is of view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading its cogent and convincing evidence. The medical evidence also established the usage of weapon in the commission of crime and this Court is in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court in this regard. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3 Bhavnagar at Mahuva in Sessions Case No. 201 of 2008 on 23/12/2010 is hereby confirmed. It is clarified that imprisonment for life shall not mean imprisonment till the last breath and that the State Government may consider the case of the accused persons for the grant of remission and/or other benefit at appropriate stage in accordance with law.