JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of two separate judgments rendered by the Sessions Court. However, the incident being common, the appeals have been heard together. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution version was that one Majid Rehmatullah Saiyed was involved in the murder of Ismail and for which he was convicted. While serving life sentence, he was released temporarily on parole. He was at his maternal uncle Suleman Hajibhai Saiyed's place at Juhapura, Ahmedabad. At night, at about quarter to ten on 14.04.2009, said Majid Rehmatullah, his uncle Suleman Hajibhai and other family members had gone just outside their house for a cup of tea at a tea stall. At that time, in all six accused persons which included brother and son of murdered Ismail along with four other persons came there and assaulted Majid with knives, stick and base-ball bat. Majid was carried to nearby V.S. Hospital in an ambulance where he was declared dead. A charge was therefore framed at Ex. 5 in Sessions Case No. 124 of 2010 for offences punishable under sections 302, 324 read with section 34, sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 118, 201 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. This Sessions Case included five accused since the sixth accused Suleman alias Sallu Karimbhai Saiyed was absconding at that time. He was later on arrested and tried in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2011 for similar charges. The learned Sessions Judge gave two separate judgments. By a judgment dated 02.09.2011, he convicted the five accused tried under Sessions Case No. 124 of 2010 for offences punishable under sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 145 read with section 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. He did not impose separate sentences for lesser offences. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 24.11.2015 convicted Suleman @ Sallu for offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code besides other offence such as under Section 324, 143, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded life imprisonment and fine. For the remaining offences, lesser sentences were imposed. Two separate appeals have been filed by the original accused to challenge the judgments of the Sessions Court. 3. We may record the gist of evidence. PW-1, Suleman Hajibhai Saiyed, Ex. 12 was the first informant. For the remaining offences, lesser sentences were imposed. Two separate appeals have been filed by the original accused to challenge the judgments of the Sessions Court. 3. We may record the gist of evidence. PW-1, Suleman Hajibhai Saiyed, Ex. 12 was the first informant. He deposed that he was a resident of village Sami. His sister Zohraben also lived there. Zohraben's son Majid had a fight with accused No. 1 Jabbarbhai. Majid was also convicted for murder of Ismailbhai, brother of Jabbarbhai - accused No. 1. The witness himself and other accused were acquitted. However, Majid was convicted. Majid was released on furlough leave for 15 days during which time he was residing with the witness at Ahmedabad. From this stage onwards, the witness turned hostile and did not support his police statement in which apparently he had stated that he had gone out with Majid and other family members when Majid was assaulted by the accused. The witness was cross examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor. The FIR was produced at Ex. 13. 4. Mohammad Rehmatullah Saiyed, PW-4, Ex. 20 was the brother of deceased Majid. He deposed that at the time of the incident, he lived with his maternal uncle Suleman at Sarkhej. His uncle had a car which the uncle's son Imran would drive taking passengers. He was working as a conductor. However, the vehicle was detained by Sabarmati traffic police on 13.04.2009. He, further, stated that his brother Majid was involved in murder of brother of Jabbarbhai Saiyed (accused No. 1). He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years of jail. He was released on parole for 15 days and was staying with him at Sarkhej. The incident took place on 14.04.2009. He, his uncle Sulemanbhai, uncle's son Imran and his brother Majid (deceased) had gone out of the house after dinner for having tea at the stall. After taking tea, they were standing near a food stall talking. At quarter to ten, from Sarkhej side, a Commander jeep came from which six people got down with knives, base-ball bat and stick. Before they could react, these people started assaulting Majid. He gave the names of four accused who were carrying knives. He did not give the names of other two accused who were carrying a stick and a baseball bat. These people gave blows on the head, stomach and chest. Before they could react, these people started assaulting Majid. He gave the names of four accused who were carrying knives. He did not give the names of other two accused who were carrying a stick and a baseball bat. These people gave blows on the head, stomach and chest. The base-ball bat was hit on the face. He and his uncle Suleman tried to save Majid. Uncle's clothes were torn. He himself got hit on the head by stick. His uncle's friend Firoz also tried to intervene. People started running helter-skelter upon which these people escaped in their Commander jeep. The jeep belonged to Latif Ismail, accused No. 2. Majid was bleeding profusely. He and Imran took him in a rickshaw to Jivraj police chowky expecting an ambulance to be stationed there. In the ambulance, they took him to V.S. hospital for treatment. His uncle and his friend had also come. The doctor declared him dead. His uncle had lodged the FIR after which his statement was recorded by the police. About three days later, the police had collected his blood stained clothes. About 10 months after the incident, his uncle and Imran were called for identification of two persons. He had identified them before the Magistrate who happened to be Farukbhai and Kabirbhai i.e. accused Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. He was shown the t-shirt and jeans pants and identified them as his clothes recovered by the police. He also identified the clothes worn by Majid at the time of the incident. He also identified the five accused before the court and stated that the 6th one was not present. He also identified the base-ball bat which according to him was carried by Faruk Kazi - accused No. 4 and the stick carried by Kabir Saiyed-accused No. 5. Though he stated that the other four accused were carrying knives, he was not in a position to state with certainty whether the muddamal articles knives presented before the court were those very knives. 4.1 In the cross examination, he denied that his police statement was prepared by someone else and he had merely signed it. He clarified that he was staying at Azad Manzil at Nehru Chowk at Sami whereas the accused Jabbarbhai lived near Juma Masjid so also the other accused except Kabir whom the witness did not know where he lived. 4.1 In the cross examination, he denied that his police statement was prepared by someone else and he had merely signed it. He clarified that he was staying at Azad Manzil at Nehru Chowk at Sami whereas the accused Jabbarbhai lived near Juma Masjid so also the other accused except Kabir whom the witness did not know where he lived. He further stated that Azad Manzil is at a distance of barely 50-60 steps from Juma Masjid area. After his uncle's complaint was registered, his statement was recorded by the police late at night. 5. Imran Suleman Saiyed, PW-5, Ex. 24 was also an eye witness. He was the son of the complainant Suleman and deposed that Majid was his cousin brother, he was plying a Toofan jeep at the time of the incident. His cousin Mohammad Rehmatullah was engaged as a conductor. His cousins Mohammad and Majid also lived at his house with his family. On the date of the incident, he, his father and his two cousins Mohammad and Majid had gone out at about 08.30 at night for tea. After having tea, they were standing near a railing when at about quarter to ten, a Commander jeep came from Sarkhej side. From the jeep, six people with knives, stick and base-ball bat got down. Before they could comprehend what was happening, these people started assaulting Majid. They started giving blows on the stomach, chest, head and back with knives. One of them was carrying a base-ball bat and the other was carrying a stick. He gave the names of four persons who were carrying knives. He knew them because they were natives of Sami. Mohammad tried to intervene upon which one of them gave a blow on his head with a stick. Sulemanbhai also tried to intervene. His t-shirt got torn. Soon his father's friends came and all the six accused ran away in the Commander jeep. He knew the jeep was of Latif because he was from village Sami. Majid was bleeding profusely. He and Mohammad took Majid in an autorickshaw to Jivraj police chowky since an ambulance is usually found there with a doctor. In the ambulance, they took him to V.S. hospital. Majid was declared dead. This witness also stated that Majid was convicted for murder of the brother of Jabbarbhai. Majid was bleeding profusely. He and Mohammad took Majid in an autorickshaw to Jivraj police chowky since an ambulance is usually found there with a doctor. In the ambulance, they took him to V.S. hospital. Majid was declared dead. This witness also stated that Majid was convicted for murder of the brother of Jabbarbhai. He was serving sentence at Porbandar jail from where he had come on furlough leave for 15 days. During this leave, he was staying at Sarkhej. He was also called for identification of the two unknown assailants. He had identified them before the Magistrate. This witness identified Latif Ismailbhai - accused No. 2 before the court. The remaining four accused were not brought before the court and the defence did not raise any dispute about their identification. The witness pointed out that one of the assailants Suleman was carrying a knife and was not present. He identified the base-ball bat and one bamboo stick. 5.1 In the cross examination, he stated that he had seen the incident from a distance of about 7-10 feet. Four of the accused he knew since childhood. The other two he knew but did not know their names. His statement was recorded by the police around sunrise on the next day. 6. Taufik Abdul Gaffur, PW-12, Ex. 62 was also an eye witness. He deposed that he had a motor garage at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. One Firoz was his old friend and lived near Sonal Cinema. Every day after his office hours, Firoz would come to his garage. Later on he would go to Sonal Cinema area to drop Firoz at night. On the date of the incident, as per routine, he had gone to Sarkhej to drop Firoz at about 09.15 and stopped at a tea stall to have a cup of tea and at that time, Majid (deceased) and his brother Mohammad and others had also come for tea. In about 15 minutes, a Commander jeep came from Sarkhej side. Six people got down from the jeep. Four of them had knives, one had a stick and the other had a base-ball bat. They immediately started assaulting Majid and gave repeated blows. When Mohammad tried to intervene, he was also assaulted with the base-ball bat and the stick. He had helped Firoz and Mohammad in taking Majid to the hospital in an autorickshaw first and then in an ambulance. They immediately started assaulting Majid and gave repeated blows. When Mohammad tried to intervene, he was also assaulted with the base-ball bat and the stick. He had helped Firoz and Mohammad in taking Majid to the hospital in an autorickshaw first and then in an ambulance. After that he went home. He identified some of the accused before the court by their names. Some he could not give the names. 6.1 In the cross examination, he admitted that about five criminal cases of fight have been lodged against him. He had spent about three months in Sabarmati jail. In the year 1994, he was also involved in an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He denied that he was a got up witness and not genuinely an eye witness. 7. Dr. Rohit Chimanlal Jariwala, PW-2, Ex. 16 had carried out the post mortem. In the post mortem note, Ex. 17, he had recorded as many as 32 injuries which were as under: "(1) Incised wound present 4 cm above & 2 cm right lateral to right nipple on front of right chest, obliquely downward to medially directed 7 cm x 2.5 cm x muscle deep with clear cut edges. (2) Stab wound present on front of right chest at right lower medial of nipple, obliquely downward to laterally directed, 5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep, upper angle acute and lower angle blunt and both margins are sharply cut. (3) Stab wound present 3 cm below to and 1.5 cm right lateral to right nipple and 6 cm right lateral to mid plane on front of right upper abdomen, obliquely downward to laterally directed and 10 cm x 3.5 cm x muscle deep with clean cut edges. (4) Incised wound present 18 cm below to right nipple and 6 cm right lateral to mid plane on front of right upper abdomen obliquely downward to laterally directed and 10 cm x 3.5 cm x muscles deep with clean cut edges. (5) Stab wound present 2 cm below to and 2 cm right lateral to umbilicus on front of right abdomen, 2 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep, obliquely downward to laterally, upper angle blunt & lower angle acute and both margins are sharply cut. (5) Stab wound present 2 cm below to and 2 cm right lateral to umbilicus on front of right abdomen, 2 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep, obliquely downward to laterally, upper angle blunt & lower angle acute and both margins are sharply cut. (6) Linear abrasion present at anteromedial aspect of upper 1/3rd of right arm, 8 cm x 0.25 cm and red in colour. (7) Stab wound present 10 cm below to right posterior axillary fold on right lateral of chest, vertical, 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscles deep (3.5 cm) upper angle blunt & lower angle acute and both margins are sharply cut. (8) Abrasion present on right elbow, 1 cm x 1 cm and red in colour. (9) Incised wound present on palmar aspect of right thumb at distal phalynx, 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep with clean cut edges. (10) Abrasion with contusion present on dorsal aspect of base of right index finger, 2 cm x 1 cm and red in colour. (11) Abrasion present on right shoulder, 2 cm x 2 cm and red in colour. (12) Stab wound present 8 cm below to suprasternal notch on front of mid of chest, vertical, upper angle blunt & lower angle acute, margins are sharply cut and 5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep. (13) Incised wound present 9 cm right medial to left nipple on front of chest, 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm x skin deep with clean cut edges. (14) Stab wound present 5 cm right medial to left nipple on front of chest left side, vertical, upper angle acute & lower angle blunt, 4 cm x 1.2 cm x cavity deep and both margins are sharply cut. (15) Abrasions with contusions are present on anterolateral of upper 2/3rd of left arm, two, obliquely downward to front, parallel 2 cm apart from each other, 9 cm x 0.5 cm each and red in colour each. (16) Incised wound present 6 cm left lateral to and 8 cm above to umbilicus on left front of upper abdomen 5 cm x 1.5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep shaped and sized with clear cut edges. (17) 3 cm x 1 cm x skin deep linear abrasion present on torso at anterior region, started from below to nipple line to upper abdomen, 15 cm x 0.5 cm and red in colour. (17) 3 cm x 1 cm x skin deep linear abrasion present on torso at anterior region, started from below to nipple line to upper abdomen, 15 cm x 0.5 cm and red in colour. (18) Incised wound present on anteromedial of upper 2/3rd of left forearm 5 cm x 1.5 cm x muscles deep with clear cut edges. (19) Abrasion present on medial of left elbow 1 cm x 1 cm and red in colour. (20) Incised wound present on anteromedial aspect of left thumb, 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep with clear cut edges. (21) Incised wound present on left palm, 4 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep with clear cut edges. (22) Incised wound present on palmer aspect of left index finger at distal phalynx, 2 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep with clear cut edges. (23) Incised wound present 3 cm back to left mastoid on left occipital region, horizontal, 5 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp tissue deep with clear cut edges. (24) Incised wound present on back of left ear, 3 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep and margins are red contused and clear cut edges. (25) Incised looking lacerated wound present 6 cm above to left ear on left parietal region, anteroposterior directed 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp tissue deep. (26) Contusion present on mid of left ear 1 cm x 1 cm and red in colour. (27) Incised looking lacerated wound present 7 cm proximal to medieval end of left eyebrow on left frontal region shaped and sized 5 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp tissue deep and 4 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep. (28) Incised looking lacerated wound present 12 cm above to medial end of left eye brow on left fronto parietal region anteroposterior directed 9 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp tissue deep. (29) Incised wound present on right parietal region 3 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp tissue deep as anteroposterior directed edges are clear cut well defined and margins shows red abruded. (30) Lacerated wound present on left forehead, 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep. (31) Contusion present on inner aspect of lower lip, 3 cm x 1 cm, and red in colour. (32) Contused lacerated wound present on right side of upper lip, 2 cm x 1 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep. (30) Lacerated wound present on left forehead, 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep. (31) Contusion present on inner aspect of lower lip, 3 cm x 1 cm, and red in colour. (32) Contused lacerated wound present on right side of upper lip, 2 cm x 1 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep. (i) Haemotoma formation is evident on above described incised wounds. (ii) Bruising red coloured of margins, vital reaction, evasion and guping of margins are evident on above described lacerated wounds. (iii) Above described injuries are antemortem in nature." 7.1 Corresponding to such external injuries, he had recorded the following internal injuries: "External injury No. 3 has entered into right thoracic cavity through cutting skin, subcutaneous tissue, chest muscles, 5th intercostal space, right dome of diaphragm and then entered into right lobe of liver. Size of wound on liver is 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 4.5 cm. External injury No. 2 has entered into right pleural cavity through cutting skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscles, right 4th rib at costocondreal region pleural and then entered into 4 cm x 0.5 cm anterior surface of right lower lobe of lung to 3 cm x 0.5 cm medial surface of right lower lobe of lung. External injury No. 12 has entered into pericurdial cavity through cutting skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscles sternum bone, pericardium 4 cm x 0.5 cm anterior wall of right ventricle to 2 cm x 0.5 cm posterior wall of left ventricle of heart. External injury No. 14 has entered into left pleural cavity through cutting skin subcutaneous tissue, muscles left 5th rib at costocondreal junction, pleura and entered into 3 cm x 0.5 cm anterior surface of lower lobe of left lung. External injury No. 5 has entered into abdominal cavity through cutting skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscles peritorenium and 1 cm x 0.5 cm anterior surface of jejenus to lumen of it." 7.2 He had opined that the death was due to shock as a result of injuries sustained. He stated that the injuries No. 2, 3, 12, 14 and 5 were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Such injuries could be caused by multiple blows of stick, base-ball bat and knives. 7.3 In the cross examination, he admitted that all four muddamal knives had curved edges and if stab injury is caused with such a knife, the wound would not be straight. 8. Such injuries could be caused by multiple blows of stick, base-ball bat and knives. 7.3 In the cross examination, he admitted that all four muddamal knives had curved edges and if stab injury is caused with such a knife, the wound would not be straight. 8. Dr. Jitendra Parmar, PW-3, Ex. 18 was the Medical Officer on night duty at V.S. hospital. He deposed that on 14.04.2009, when he was on duty at about 10.55 pm, one patient Mohammad Rehmatullah was brought before him with a head injury. He had stated that he was hit on the head. The doctor found that he had a cut injury of 0.5 x 0.3 cm. He had taken out x-ray and sent the patient for the opinion of a neuro-surgeon. Thereafter, after giving preliminary treatment he was released. He produced the medical papers mentioning such treatment at Ex. 19. 9. Lakshmanbhai Keshavlal Parghi, PW-10, Ex. 53 was the Executive Magistrate who had conducted the Test Identification parade of the two unnamed accused at the hands of the complainant Suleman, PW-1 and the witnesses Mohammad Saiyed, PW-4 and Imran Saiyed, PW-5. He stated in detail the steps taken by him during such identification parade and pointed out that all the three persons had successfully identified the two accused. A panchnama to this effect drawn by him was produced at Ex. 56. 10. Dr. Ashokkumar Somani, PW-14, Ex. 65 was a General Surgeon who had his hospital at Gandhinagar. He deposed that at night at about 01.45 on 14.04.2009, two people Jabbarbhai - accused No. 1 and Latifbhai - accused No. 2 were brought before him. He had examined the patients. Jabbarbhai had given history of being injured in an accident. He had injury on the lips which was bleeding. He had bruises on the body and swelling on the right hand and on the head. He had also treated Latif on the same night. He had given a similar history of being injured in a road accident. He had two wounds on the stomach which were bleeding. He had taken stitches and given them treatment. The doctor produced the case papers of both these persons and stated that next morning these patients left the hospital without informing the staff or making payment. They were brought before him by the police in the year 2010. He had two wounds on the stomach which were bleeding. He had taken stitches and given them treatment. The doctor produced the case papers of both these persons and stated that next morning these patients left the hospital without informing the staff or making payment. They were brought before him by the police in the year 2010. He had identified them and the police had recorded his statement. The witness identified these two accused before the court also. 11. Dr. Mohammad Ashraf Memon, PW-15, Ex. 68 had a dispensary at Bhuj. He deposed that Jabbarbhai - accused No. 1 and Latif - accused No. 2 had taken treatment at his hospital on 18.04.2009 for injuries which he estimated to be about 4-5 days old. About the history, the patients had said that they had fallen down and that is how they had got injured. Both of them had old dressings which he had replaced by new dressings and allowed them to go. 12. Mohanbhai Chhagandas Patel, PW-17, Ex. 75 was the Investigating Officer. In his deposition, he narrated at length the steps taken by him during the course of investigation. Under panchnama Ex. 42, the investigating agency had recovered the clothes of accused No. 4 at his instance. The panchnama would show that the accused had led the panch witnesses and the police party to a house in Sarkhej area of the city of Ahmedabad in which from out of a cupboard the clothes were recovered. Though the panch witness turned hostile, the discovery was proved through the deposition of the Investigating Officer. Under a panchnama Ex. 45, the investigating agency had recovered three knives at the instance of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The panchnama would show that the said three accused one after the other led the panch witnesses and police party to three separate and different sites from where the knives were discovered. The defence has criticized this panchnama as being a joint discovery panchnama and argued that the same would not be admissible. We would refer this legal aspect at a later stage. 13. The stick allegedly used in commission of the offence was recovered from the scene of the incident itself along with base-ball bat and a broken piece of such base-ball bat. 14. The FSL report Ex. 33 read with serological report Ex. 34 would show that the deceased had blood group 'O'. 13. The stick allegedly used in commission of the offence was recovered from the scene of the incident itself along with base-ball bat and a broken piece of such base-ball bat. 14. The FSL report Ex. 33 read with serological report Ex. 34 would show that the deceased had blood group 'O'. The blood of same group was found from the stick and the baseball bat recovered from the scene of the incident as also from the t-shirt of the complainant and the t-shirt and pants of P.W. 4. 15. Further articles recovered after arrest of various accused were sent for analysis. The FSL report Ex. 73 would show that no blood was found from the knives and the clothes of the accused recovered by the investigation. 16. Before going into the assessment of the evidence, we may record that under pursis Ex. 76, the prosecution dropped a witness - Firozkhan Saiyedkhan Pathan who was supposed to be an eye witness citing two grounds. First ground was that three eye witnesses Imran Suleman, Mohammad Rehmatullah and Taufik Abdul Gaffur were already examined. Examination of the fourth witness would, therefore, be merely a repetition. The second ground was that according to the information of the prosecution, the said witness Firozkhan Saiyedkhan had been won over by the defence. The defence had put an endorsement of No Objection and the learned Sessions Judge on 24.05.2011 took this pursis on record by putting the following endorsement - "Recorded." 17. The trial with respect to the sixth accused was separately conducted. All the witnesses examined in the first trial were recalled. Their depositions remained substantially similar. Except that, the defence would point out, the prosecution referred to one more knife which was used during the fight. 18. On the basis of such evidence on record, learned advocates for the accused appellants in their lengthy arguments raised following contentions: (i) Evidence on record did not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (ii) Taufik Abdul Gaffur, PW-12, Ex. 62 was a chance witness. His presence at the scene of incidence was unnatural. He referred to the presence of his friend Firozkhan Saiyedkhan whom the witness had come to drop. Firozkhan Saiyedkhan was not examined. Taufik himself had criminal antecedents. His testimony, therefore, should be discarded. (ii) Taufik Abdul Gaffur, PW-12, Ex. 62 was a chance witness. His presence at the scene of incidence was unnatural. He referred to the presence of his friend Firozkhan Saiyedkhan whom the witness had come to drop. Firozkhan Saiyedkhan was not examined. Taufik himself had criminal antecedents. His testimony, therefore, should be discarded. (iii) The other two eye witnesses Mohammad Saiyed, PW-4 and Imran Saiyed, PW-5 were close relatives of the deceased and hence interested witnesses. Their testimonies should therefore be scrutinized minutely. According to the counsel, there were number of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the versions of these two witnesses. (iv) It was not clear whether the injured was carried to the V.S. hospital in an ambulance or whether he was first taken in an autorickshaw and then in an ambulance. Evidence of different witnesses differ on this count. (v) Who carried the injured to the hospital is also not clearly coming out from the evidence. In any case, blood stained clothes of the persons who might have carried the injured to the hospital were not recovered. (vi) The discoveries of the knives were not satisfactorily established. A joint discovery panchnama was not legal. In any case, no blood stains were found from the weapons. 19. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeals contending that the involvement of the accused was established through cogent and reliable accounts of eye witnesses. As many as three eye witnesses had seen the incident and identified the accused before the court. Their testimonies were substantially consistent. Minor inconsistencies would not destroy the very foundation of the prosecution case. Weapons were discovered at the instance of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The stick and the base-ball bat were recovered from the scene of incident itself. She pointed out that the blood stained clothes of P.W. 4 were recovered during the investigation and were produced before the court. 20. We may assess the evidence on record. As noted, though PW-1 Suleman Saiyed, the first informant turned hostile, the first portion of his deposition supported the prosecution and would bring on record certain important aspects. This witness stated that he was a native of village Sami. His sister Zohraben had two sons Majid and Mohammad. Majid had a fight with Jabbarbhai - accused No. 1. As noted, though PW-1 Suleman Saiyed, the first informant turned hostile, the first portion of his deposition supported the prosecution and would bring on record certain important aspects. This witness stated that he was a native of village Sami. His sister Zohraben had two sons Majid and Mohammad. Majid had a fight with Jabbarbhai - accused No. 1. He was convicted for murder of Ismail - brother of Jabbarbhai and he was serving the sentence. At the time of the incident, Majid was released on furlough leave. During such leave, Majid was living with the witness Suleman at his house at Ahmedabad. From this position onwards, the witness did not support the prosecution. However, in the first part of his deposition he did establish three important aspects. One that Majid was involved in a fight with Jabbarbhai and was in fact convicted for murder of Jabbarbhai's brother Ismail. Second that while serving sentence for such offence, he was released on furlough and thirdly that during the furlough leave period the convict was residing with Sulemanbhai at his residence at Ahmedabad. 21. Mohammad Saiyed, PW-4, Ex. 20 was the brother of Majid. He was also residing with Sulemanbhai at the time of the incident. He pointed out that Sulemanbhai owned a four wheeler which his son Imran was ferrying for passengers. He was working as a conductor. At the time of the incident, Majid was released on furlough. At night on 14.04.2009, he, his brother Majid, Sulemanbhai and Sulemanbhai's son Imran had gone outside their house for a cup of tea. After having tea, they hung around talking. At about quarter to ten at night, one Commander jeep came from Sarkhej direction where they were standing. Six people got down from the jeep carrying knives, base-ball bat and stick. Before anybody could realise what was happening, these people attacked Majid and gave multiple blows on all parts of the body with such weapons. Sulemanbhai tried to intervene. His clothes were torn. He also tried to save his brother. He was hit on the head. This witness gave names of four persons who were carrying knives and referred to two more people, each carrying a stick and base-ball bat. He also referred to shifting his brother in injured condition to V.S. hospital in an ambulance. This witness was called for identification of the two unnamed accused. He was hit on the head. This witness gave names of four persons who were carrying knives and referred to two more people, each carrying a stick and base-ball bat. He also referred to shifting his brother in injured condition to V.S. hospital in an ambulance. This witness was called for identification of the two unnamed accused. He had identified both of them before the Magistrate as well as before the court along with four named accused. He clarified that all the accused lived in Juma Masjid area at Sami which was barely about 50-60 steps away from Azad Manzil, Nehru Chowk where he himself lived. 22. The presence of this witness would be corroborated by the injuries that he received during such fight. He was treated by Dr. Jitendra Parmar, PW-3, Ex. 18 at V.S. hospital. The doctor, after preliminary treatment, had taken out an X-ray and allowed him to go after obtaining opinion from the Neurosurgeon. The clothes of this witness were recovered by the police which, as noted above, showed presence of blood of group "B" that belonged to the deceased. The identification of the accused by this witness was also natural for several reasons. He knew all the four accused who were carrying knives by name even beforehand. In fact there appears to be a long standing feud between the two sides. The brother of this witness was convicted for the murder of accused No. 1 who also happened to be the father of accused No. 2. The witness pointed out that all accused lived at Sami, very close to where he himself resided. The two unnamed accused were offered for test identification parade during which the witness successfully identified both of them. The witness identified the accused before the court by name also. 23. Imran Saiyed, PW-5, Ex. 24 was also an eye witness and gave very similar version as that of Mohammad Saiyed, PW-4. He also referred to the four people including Majid going out of the house at night on 14.04.2009 for tea. After having tea, when they were standing by the road side, six people came in a Commander jeep which came from Sarkhej direction. These people were carrying knives, stick and baseball bat. The assailants indiscriminately started giving blows to Majid on all parts of the body. After having tea, when they were standing by the road side, six people came in a Commander jeep which came from Sarkhej direction. These people were carrying knives, stick and baseball bat. The assailants indiscriminately started giving blows to Majid on all parts of the body. He also pointed out that the t-shirt of Sulemanbhai was torn when he tried to intervene and that when Mohammad Saiyed intervened, he was hit on the head with the stick. This witness also had identified the two unnamed accused during the test identification parade. Secondly, before the court, when four accused were not present, the defence gave a pursis of No Objection to the question of identification. He also stated that he knew the four accused since childhood and the other two he knew as they belonged to the same village but not by name. 24. Taufik Abdul Gaffur, PW-12, Ex. 62 was yet another eye witness examined by the prosecution. According to him, he had gone to the area where the incident took place to drop his friend Firoz who lived there. While he was standing at the tea stall with Firoz, a jeep came carrying six people who attacked Majid. He had helped the family in shifting the injured Majid to the hospital. 25. We thus have the firsthand account of the incident from three eye witnesses. We have no reason to discard the testimonies of these witnesses. Barring minor inconsistencies, which in any case do not go to the root of the matter, the versions provided by these witnesses are largely consistent. It is true that Taufik had a criminal record. His presence at the scene of incident was a matter of chance. His testimony, therefore, though may require closer scrutiny, need not be discarded if otherwise found consistent. In any case, we have relied upon the testimony of Taufik only for the purpose of corroboration. The principal source of our conclusions is in the form of testimony of Mohammad Saiyed, PW-4 and Imran Saiyed, PW-5. Both these witnesses knew four of the six assailants by name, in particular, Mohammad Saiyed who mostly lived at Sami pointed out that the accused lived in an area very close to his house. We may recall, the FIR was lodged soon after the incident and the statements of PWs. 4 and 5 were recorded shortly thereafter in quick succession. Both these witnesses knew four of the six assailants by name, in particular, Mohammad Saiyed who mostly lived at Sami pointed out that the accused lived in an area very close to his house. We may recall, the FIR was lodged soon after the incident and the statements of PWs. 4 and 5 were recorded shortly thereafter in quick succession. PW-4 pointed out that his statement was recorded later at night after lodging the FIR PW-5 pointed out that his statement was recorded in the early morning. In the FIR also, names of four accused and roles of two unnamed accused were referred. Since the first informant has turned hostile, we are not using this FIR for corroboration but to point out that there was no contradiction insofar as the disclosures made by other eye witnesses in their police statements which they fully supported before the court. This would effectively eliminate the angle of false implications and manipulations, the ground strongly urged by the defence counsel. 26. The post mortem report Ex. 17 and the deposition of Dr. Rohit Jariwala, PW-2 who carried out the post mortem would fully support the eye witnesses' accounts. We have noted that as many as 32 injuries were found on the body of the deceased. These injuries were possible with the use of knife, stick and base-ball bat. The stick and the base-ball bat were recovered from the scene of the incident itself. The three knives were discovered at the instance of accused Nos. 1 to 3. Contrary to what was argued before us, this discovery panchnama Ex. 45 cannot be treated as invalid. It is true that it is under one single panchnama that the investigating agency had shown discoveries of three knives at the instance of three different accused. However, the panchnama was made in three different parts and each part was severable, separate from the other two. Discoveries were made from entirely unrelated and different sites. No part of the discovery of one object had any correlation with the discovery of the other. The panchnama was thus a single panchnama recorded for convenience and it cannot partake the characteristic of a joint discovery. Discoveries were made from entirely unrelated and different sites. No part of the discovery of one object had any correlation with the discovery of the other. The panchnama was thus a single panchnama recorded for convenience and it cannot partake the characteristic of a joint discovery. What the law frowns upon is the concept of joint discovery of the same object by two different accused and not separate discoveries where different accused show different objects from different sites merely because these discoveries are documented in a common document. 27. Merely because the three knives so recovered by the investigating agency did not show presence of blood by itself would not shake the very foundation of the evidence on record. In fact, this was to be expected since the knives were recovered after a long time of the incident. The incident took place on 14.04.2009 whereas the knives were recovered on 05.02.2010. Many of the accused were absconding for a long time and thus the knives could be recovered only about eight months later. 28. It is true that there is some minor inconsistency about the mode and manner in which the injured was shifted to the V.S. hospital. Some of the witnesses referred to first carrying him in an autorickshaw to a nearby police chowky where an ambulance was likely to be present and from there in an ambulance whereas the first informant Suleman Hajibhai, PW-1 had stated that the ambulance had arrived at the scene of the incident. However, in our opinion, this would not overturn the testimony of as many as three eye witnesses. We may recall Sulemanbhai himself had turned hostile and though being a first informant in which he claimed to be an eye witness, he did not support the prosecution at the time of the trial. 29. The criticism of the defence that it was only Firoz who was an independent eye witness which the prosecution dropped is also not valid. The prosecution filed a pursis Ex.76 explaining the reasons for dropping this witness. It was pointed out that three eye witnesses were already examined. Examination of fourth witness would merely be a repetition and in any case according to the information of the prosecution, Firoz was won over by the defence. 30. The prosecution filed a pursis Ex.76 explaining the reasons for dropping this witness. It was pointed out that three eye witnesses were already examined. Examination of fourth witness would merely be a repetition and in any case according to the information of the prosecution, Firoz was won over by the defence. 30. The grievance that the incident took place at a public place despite which no independent witness was examined would also not be enough to acquit the accused. We have noticed the past animosity between the two sides. Going by the nature of incident, the attack would have been over in a couple of minutes. The deceased was assaulted in a most gruesome manner. An unrelated bystander or even a nearby shop owner or an owner of a food stall would try to get away from the scene of incident instead of waiting and watching the entire assault. Even if a person does stay put and witnesses the entire incident the chances are he would not want to get involved in a case of this nature and declare himself to be a witness. 31. The evidence on record would thus suggest that because of the old enmity the accused had every reason and therefore the motive to attack the deceased. The deceased himself was involved in murder and in fact convicted for the murder of the brother of accused No. 1 and father of accused No. 2. While serving his sentence he was released on parole for a brief while, spending his time at Ahmedabad. The accused who were all from village Sami, came there in a vehicle belonging to one of them, armed with deadly weapons such as knives, stick and base-ball bat and assaulted the deceased in a gruesome manner causing as many as 32 injuries all over the body. These facts have been established through the evidence of three eye witnesses. We have no manner of doubt that the learned Sessions Judge correctly convicted all the accused. 32. It was, however, argued that there was no evidence of conspiracy and that therefore each accused can be held responsible for his individual act. In turn it was argued that since the precise role played by each accused is not brought on record, none of them can be convicted for murder. This argument needs to be recorded only for rejection. It was, however, argued that there was no evidence of conspiracy and that therefore each accused can be held responsible for his individual act. In turn it was argued that since the precise role played by each accused is not brought on record, none of them can be convicted for murder. This argument needs to be recorded only for rejection. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we have come to the conclusion that deceased Majid was targeted because of his involvement in the murder of the relative of the accused. The accused had come from Sami to Ahmedabad where the deceased was residing with his uncle. Sami is at a distance of nearly 140 kms from Ahmedabad. The manner in which the attack was carried out, the nature of weapons used, the injuries inflicted by such weapons all point at one conclusion mainly that the accused intended to cause death of Majid. The incident did not take place at the spur of the moment, pursuant to a fight without any previous background or premeditation. The genesis of the offence had long standing feud between two sides. The murder was carefully planned and executed. By the very nature of things, direct ocular evidence of hatching of conspiracy would be extremely rare to find. The court, therefore, would look for facts and attendant circumstances to cull out whether the charge of conspiracy is established or not. At any rate, application of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to hold each accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 also cannot be ruled out. Be it with the aid of section 34 or under section 120B of IPC, the accused cannot escape the liability of having intentionally caused death of Majid. 33. Under the circumstances, the judgments under challenge are confirmed. Both the appeals are dismissed. We are informed that accused No. 5 - Kabir Saiyed is on bail. He would have time up to 15.04.2017 to surrender. Bail bond shall stand cancelled on his surrender or on 16.04.2017 whichever is earlier. R & P to be transferred to the trial court forthwith. Appeal Dismissed.