JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. When these matters were taken up for hearing, we found on record the note dated 04.04.2016 filed by learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi wherein, the learned advocate informed his client, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 774/2011, about his intention to retire from the appeal on the ground of want of necessary instructions. It appears that the said communication has not been served upon the appellant-accused for want of complete address. Today also, learned counsel Mr. Joshi renewed his request for retiring from the matter. 2. Earlier, this matter was listed on the provisional Board. Thereafter, it was listed yesterday, i.e. on 18.04.2016. Considering the fact that the appellant-accused is not available at the last known address and the matter has been listed time and again, though we formally do not permit learned advocate Mr. Joshi to retire from the matter but, we requested him to assist the Court so that this group of appeals could be heard and decided on merits. Learned counsel Mr. Joshi accepted our request and accordingly, made his submissions on behalf of appellant-accused No. 1. 3. These appeals arise out of the same judgment and order and hence, are disposed off by this common judgment. 4. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment and order dated passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge & Fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 86/2006 whereby, all the three accused were convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC and Section 25(1)(a)(b) of the Arms Act r/w. Section 120(B) IPC. For conviction u/s. 302 IPC, all the original accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default, SI for two months; Whereas, for conviction u/s. 25(1)(a)(b) of the Arms Act, all the accused were sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default, SI for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the sentence already undergone by the accused was given set-off. 5. Criminal Appeal No. 774/2011 has been filed by original accused No. 1, Criminal Appeal No. 606/2011 by original accused No. 2 and Criminal Appeal No. 1593/2011 by original accused No. 3 against the impugned judgment and order of conviction. 6. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the sentence already undergone by the accused was given set-off. 5. Criminal Appeal No. 774/2011 has been filed by original accused No. 1, Criminal Appeal No. 606/2011 by original accused No. 2 and Criminal Appeal No. 1593/2011 by original accused No. 3 against the impugned judgment and order of conviction. 6. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeals are as under; The original complainant, Maksudbhai Ganibhai Ghanchi, was the care-taker of the Hotel named "Hotel Sabar & Guest House", situated at Sarkhej in the outskirts of Ahmedabad City. On 08.02.2006 at around 01:00 hrs., the complainant received a phone call from the Manager of the Hotel, Mansurbhai Babubhai Pathan, informing him that the dead body of an unknown individual (Dhruvalbhai Mukeshbhai Patel) has been found lying in Room No.126 of the Hotel. Therefore, he rushed to the Hotel. On inquiry from the Hotel employees, he came to know that three individuals had checked in the Hotel on 03.02.2006 and that the dead body is of one amongst them. Since the two other individuals had not yet checked out, the complainant and other employees waited for them. At around 02:30 hrs., the two individuals arrived at the Hotel. They were caught hold by the Hotel staff and thereafter, taken to the nearest Police Station. 6.1 A complaint in connection with the aforesaid incident was lodged with Sarkhej Police Station vide I-C.R. No. 36 of 2006. Necessary investigation was done and the accused 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. 7. During the trial, the prosecution had examined the following witnesses; Wt. No. Name of witness Exhibit No. 1 Dr. 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. 7. During the trial, the prosecution had examined the following witnesses; Wt. No. Name of witness Exhibit No. 1 Dr. Khemchand Bijalbhai Parmar 24 2 Sharafathusain kadarmiya 31 3 Munnabhai Hussainbhai 33 4 Girishbhai Mahipatbhai 34 5 Nasirkhan Usmankhan Pathan 38 6 Bhavesh Surendrabhai Desai 40 7 Maksudbhai Ganibhai Ghanchi 43 8 Babubhai Nasibhai Solanki 48 9 Dhiren Jayantilal Lariya 61 10 Mohmadbhai Dawoodbhai Neva 71 11 Kantibhai Savabhai Parmar 72 12 Makbulshah Rehmanshah Diwan 73 13 Jafarali Gulamabbas Momin 76 14 Pallaviben Mukeshbhai Patel 79 15 Mansurbhai Babubhai Pathan 85 16 Tushar Jayantilal Patel 88 17 Chandubhai Khatubhai Damor 89 18 Pareshkumar Mangaldas Shah 92 19 Arun Shankarlal Sanghvi 96 20 Anilkumar Dhirajlal Chauhan 101 21 Irfanbhai Yakubbhai Vora 103 22 Noormohmad Rasulbhai Modan 105 23 Menat Kishorbhai Thanabhai 108 24 Rakesbhai Jasvantlal Shah 112 25 Rajeshbhai Narandas Motwani 119 26 Kishor Arvindkumar Sharma 121 27 Surendra Pursottam Patriwala 123 28 Manish Punjabhai Patel 125 29 Bagban Mohmad Abdulkadar 126 30 Abdulsamad Abdulkarim Sheikh 127 31 Ahmedali Vajirbhai Kardiya 128 32 Devvrat Pulimbihari Chakravarti 129 33 Kaushikumar Punjalal Vyas 135 34 Keshubhai Rambhai Bhuva 162 35 Karamsinhbhai Harjibhai Desai 171 36 Aniruddhsinhji Mohabbatsinh Jadeja 176 37 Bhargav Jayantilal Vyas 184 38 Jogendrasinh Umedsinh Bhadoriya 187 39 Tahirmiya Nazimmiya Malek 192 40 Amrutbhai Karsanbhai Patel 202 41 Taraben Dayalan 206 8. The prosecution had produced and relied upon several documentary evidence, particularly, the Post mortem report at Exh. 25, inquest panchnama at Exh. 41, complaint at Exh. 44, panchnama of scene of offence at Exh. 49 & FSL Report at Exhs.124 & 174. 9. At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statement of accused u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment and order, which has led to the filing of present appeals. 10. Mr. P.R. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the original accused-appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 606/2011, submitted that there is nothing on record to prove the involvement of accused in the crime in question. 10. Mr. P.R. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the original accused-appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 606/2011, submitted that there is nothing on record to prove the involvement of accused in the crime in question. It was submitted that the dead body was found lying inside the Hotel room and merely because the accused shared the room with the deceased, it cannot be concluded that the accused were the authors of the crime. It was submitted that there are no eye-witness to the alleged incident and therefore, the entire prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. However, since the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of accused, the Court below ought not to have convicted them for the alleged offence. 10.1 Learned counsel Mr. Nanavati submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had lent Rs. 60,000/- to deceased-Dhruval at any time before 07.02.2006 and that it became the root cause or motive behind the murderous death of Dhruval. No witness led any kind of evidence to prove that deceased was last seen in the company of accused persons. Thus, the Court below committed serious error in law and on facts in convicting the appellants for the alleged offence. 10.2 It was further submitted by learned counsel Mr. Nanavati that the Court below committed serious error in placing heavy reliance upon the testimony of Pallaviben (PW-14), the mother of deceased-Dhruval. Her evidence reveals that there was a talk between deceased and original accused No. 1 on the issue of some restaurant business and that in that conversation, there was a reference of original accused No. 2 as well. However, her evidence does not make any reference about original accused No. 3. It was submitted that the deceased was involved in a love affair with some girl but, the parents of the girl were opposed to that relation. Learned counsel drew our attention to the cross-examination of PW-14 and submitted that the cross-examination has been conducted in such manner as if none of the accused are involved in the crime. Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased might have been murdered at the instance of the parents of the girl with whom the deceased was into a love affair. 11. Mr. Premal Joshi, learned counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 774/2011, adopted the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased might have been murdered at the instance of the parents of the girl with whom the deceased was into a love affair. 11. Mr. Premal Joshi, learned counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 774/2011, adopted the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. P.R. Nanavati appearing for original accused No. 1. He did not make any other submission/s. 12. Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 1593/2011, also adopted the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. P.R. Nanavati. Over and above, Mr. Dagli submitted that original accused No. 3 has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence inasmuch as, initially, original accused No. 3 was not named as accused in the police statement of Pallaviben (PW-14), which has been admitted by Investigating Officer, Keshubhai Bhuva (PW-34). It was also submitted that prosecution failed to prove that the keys found from original accused No. 3 were of Room No. 126 of Hotel Sabar from where the dead body was found. It was, therefore, submitted that the Court below ought not to have convicted original accused No. 3 for the alleged offence. 13. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP, supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that original accused No. 1 & 2 were caught hold by the Hotel staff and it was the accused persons who had named original accused No. 3 as their third companion in the crime. The evidence of witnesses clearly establish the guilt of all the three accused and hence, the Court below was completely justified in convicting them for the alleged offence. 14. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. In order to prove that deceased-Dhruval died a homicidal death, the prosecution placed reliance upon the Post-mortem report (Exh. 25) and the oral evidence of Dr. Khemchand Bijalbhai Parmar (PW-1), who performed the autopsy. In the Post-mortem report (Exh. 25), the cause of death has been narrated as internal hemorrhage on account of penetrating wound injuries to vital organs, viz. lung & liver, caused by bullet shots. The aforesaid medical evidence proves beyond doubt that deceased died a homicidal death. 15. The complainant, Maksudbhai Ganibhai Ghanchi (PW-7), was serving as the care-taker of Hotel Sabar when the alleged crime was committed. lung & liver, caused by bullet shots. The aforesaid medical evidence proves beyond doubt that deceased died a homicidal death. 15. The complainant, Maksudbhai Ganibhai Ghanchi (PW-7), was serving as the care-taker of Hotel Sabar when the alleged crime was committed. This witness is not related to deceased or his family in any manner. It is established from his evidence that on 08.02.2006 at around 01:30 hrs., he received a telephone call from Mansurbhai Babubhai Pathan (PW-15), Manager of the Hotel, informing him that the dead body of an unknown individual has been found in one of the rooms of the Hotel. He, therefore, rushed to the Hotel. While he was in the reception area of the Hotel, original accused No. 1 & 2 came there on a motorcycle. On identification by the Manager (PW-15) that the two individuals were the same persons who had checked-in Room No. 126 of the Hotel, from where the dead body of unknown person was found, both PW-7 and PW-15 attempted to catch them. However, both fled the Hotel on the motor-cycle. After hot pursuit, PW-7 and PW-15 were successful in nabbing both original accused No. 1 & 2. They were brought back to the Hotel and on necessary inquiry, they disclosed their real identity. They also disclosed the name of original accused No. 3 as their third companion in the offence. 16. Having gone through the evidence of both the complainant (PW-7) and Hotel Manager-Mansurbhai Pathan (PW-15), we find that they completely support the prosecution story. It is true that in the complaint (Exh. 44) reference is made of only two unknown individuals. However, the evidence of Mansurbhai Pathan (PW-15) proves that three individuals had checked-in the Hotel on 03.02.2006 at around 15:00 hrs. and that they were allotted Room No. 126. 17. Though the prosecution has not examined the hotel staff, who had informed Mansurbhai Pathan (PW-15) about the finding of a dead body from one of the rooms of the Hotel Room, in our opinion, this aspect would not cause any harm to the prosecution case since the opinion of the Handwriting Expert proves that it was original accused No. 2 who had made entry in the Hotel Register in his own hand-writing while furnishing details about the "Name of the occupants with address". Even if we presume that the other two individuals, who shared the room with original accused No.2, were not original accused No. 1 & 3 but, were the real persons whose names were mentioned in the Hotel Register, the fact remains that original accused No.2 stayed in Room No. 126 of the Hotel in fictitious name and address. Thus, it is an established fact that in all three individuals, including original accused No. 2, stayed in Room No. 126 of Hotel Sabar during the period in question. In this background, if we go through the testimony of Pallaviben Mukeshbhai Patel (PW-14), who is the mother of deceased, it would be evident that this witness had seen both accused No.1 & 3 when she visited Room No.126 on 07.02.2006 in search of her son. This fact is corroborated by the evidence of Mansurbhai Pathan (PW-15). 18. Thus, from the evidence of complainant-Maksudbhai Ganibhai Ghanchi (PW-7), Pallaviben Patel (PW-14) and Hotel Manager-Mansurbhai Babubhai Pathan (PW-15), the prosecution has been able to prove that all the three accused stayed in Room No. 126 of the Hotel during the period in question. If the accused were genuine individuals, then they would not have stayed in the Hotel room in fictitious names & address. It has also come on record that all the three accused had stayed in fictitious names & address in another hotel, named Hotel Navjivan and Guest House, from 30.01.2006 to 03.02.2006 up to 15:00 hrs. just before checking-in Hotel Sabar and Guest House. During that stay, entry in the Hotel Register of Hotel Navjivan and Guest House was made by original accused No. 1 in his handwriting, which has been proved by the prosecution. This fact is established from the evidence of Pallaviben Patel (PW-14) and also from her statement before the police. 19. The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer, Keshubhai Rambhai Bhuva, as PW-34. It is established from the cross-examination of this witness that original accused No. 1 had made a confession before Noormohmad Rasulbhai Modan (PW-22) that deceased-Dhruval had visited Room No. 126 of Hotel Sabar on 06.02.2006. It is also established from the evidence of I.O. (PW-34) that the keys of said Room No. 126 were produced before him by original accused No. 3 himself. It is also established from the evidence of I.O. (PW-34) that the keys of said Room No. 126 were produced before him by original accused No. 3 himself. Not only did the accused persons stayed in the Hotel on fictitious names/address but, they also changed the registration number of their motorcycle used for committing the crime and had acquired a local fire-arm (pistol) though they did not have any valid licence for using the same. The fact that they stayed in Hotel Sabar from 03.02.2006 to 07.02.2006 coupled with the aforesaid aspects speaks volumes about their conduct and ill-design. 20. It is a matter of fact that the accused persons abandoned the motor-cycle, in which the deceased had arrived at the Hotel, at a public place so that the deceased is not traced to the Hotel. It is established from the evidence on record that deceased died as a result of the bullet shots fired from the fire-arm (pistol) recovered from original accused No. 1. The Serological Report (Exh. 173) proves that the blood group of deceased was 'A' and that blood which was found on the bullets fired from the fire-arm (pistol) by original accused No. 1 and recovered from the dead body also belonged to group 'A'. Thus, the FSL report also supports the prosecution case. 21. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below has not committed any error while convicting the accused persons for the crime in question. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at in the impugned judgment and hence, find no reasons to entertain these appeals. 22. For the foregoing reasons, all the appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 22.03.2011 passed in Sessions Case No. 86/2006 stands confirmed. It is, however, clarified that imprisonment for life shall not mean imprisonment till the last breath and that the State may grant benefit of remission to the accused persons at the appropriate time. All the three original accused are on bail. Hence, their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender to custody on or before 22nd July 2016 failing which appropriate action shall be taken to secure their arrest. R & P, if lying here, be sent to the trial Court forthwith.