JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 19.12.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 331 of 2010. Original accused No. 1-Haresh Dhanjibhai Kataria i.e. the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2012 was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also convicted for offences punishable under sections 394 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to lesser imprisonment. Original accused No. 2-Maheshkumar Khemsibhai i.e. the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2012 was sentenced for offences under sections 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years. Fine was also imposed. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution version was that accused No. 1-Haresh Dhanjibhai had sour relations with deceased Dimple Rameshchandra Patel. Dimple Rameshchandra had filed a complaint against the said accused alleging offences punishable under sections 392, 323, 294 read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code before the Madhavpura police station on 18.11.2006. The said accused would often pressurize Dimplebhai to withdraw the said complaint. Dimplebhai however, did not oblige. Keeping a grouse due to such background, the said accused went to the office of Dimplebhai at night at about 9:30 on 06.03.2009, stabbed him several times with his knife and then threw him from the 5th floor to the ground, causing his death. The accused also took away a gold-chain and a Nokia mobile phone, which in turn, were given by the accused No. 1 to accused No. 2 who sold these articles. The accused No. 2 knowing that the accused No. 1 was involved in murder, had arranged for his stay at Dhanera. Accused No. 2 was therefore charged with offences punishable under sections 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code whereas, accused No. 1 was charged with offences punishable under sections 302, 394, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code. Strangely, such charges were also leveled against the accused No. 2 with the aid of section 114 of Indian Penal Code. However, for want of any evidence on record, the accused No. 2 was acquitted for the offences under sections 302 and 394 read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Umang Rameshbhai Patel, PW-2, Exh.17, was the brother of deceased-Dimplebhai Patel. However, for want of any evidence on record, the accused No. 2 was acquitted for the offences under sections 302 and 394 read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Umang Rameshbhai Patel, PW-2, Exh.17, was the brother of deceased-Dimplebhai Patel. He deposed that his elder brother Dimplebhai lived at Gurukul area of Ahmedabad. He had an advertising agency. His office was situated in B.G. Tower, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad. Dimplebhai was also a councilor in Memnagar panchayat. He would attend office from 12 in the afternoon till 9' O clock. He had employed two people in his office; Dineshbhai and Nayanbhai. Dimplebhai used an esteem car. On 6th, when he returned from work, Dimplebhai's wife called him and informed him that Dimplebhai was taken to trauma center at Civil hospital. He therefore reached Civil hospital and found that Dimplebhai's dead-body was kept there. There were multiple injuries on the body caused with sharp instrument. The witness then went to the office of Dimplebhai and found that chairs and other furniture was totally scattered. On the floor and on the walls of the office, blood stains were there as also on the glass-top of the table. The office computer was still on. He suspected that his brother who had a quarrel about parking the car with Haresh Katariya and others in the year 2006, for which, a police complaint was also filed, may be involved. He stated that these people were mischievous people and were pressurizing his brother for compromising the case. Haresh Katariya was the main culprit in the case. This witness had lodged the FIR before the police about the death of his brother which he has produced at Exh.18. In the cross-examination, he admitted that when he reached Civil hospital, the police was present there. He agreed that in the FIR he had named several people with whom his brother had either business or financial transactions and had shown desire to investigate into the possible involvement of all of them. The defence also questioned this witness on the possibility of other persons having the motive for committing the crime. The witness agreed that in his FIR he had not referred to the threats given by the accused No. 1 and his companions. He did not know whether his brother had several political enemies. 4. The defence also questioned this witness on the possibility of other persons having the motive for committing the crime. The witness agreed that in his FIR he had not referred to the threats given by the accused No. 1 and his companions. He did not know whether his brother had several political enemies. 4. Dinesh Prabhubhai Bhil, PW-19, Exh.59 was the guard at B.G. Tower at the relevant time. He deposed that at the time of the incident, he was working as a Security Officer for Super Power Security Agency and was posted at B.G. Tower. His duty hours were from 8' O clock at night till 8 in the morning. He was posted at the gate. On 6th March, one boy had come to B.G. Tower and wanted to go to the canteen for tea and he had therefore allowed this boy to go in. Though he did not know the name of the boy, he could identify him. The witness identified the accused No. 1 before the Court. He further deposed that because of the cold weather and cyclonic conditions, he had gone behind the building to take a round. When he was easing himself, he heard a noise like falling of tin sheet. When he saw, he found that someone had fallen down. People had called the ambulance. From this stage onwards, the witness turned hostile and did not support the police statement in which he had implicated the accused No. 1. 5. Manubhai Vardaji Marwadi, PW-20, Exh.60, was the lift-man of the D-block of B.G. Tower where Dimplebhai's office was situated. He deposed that his duty hours were from 9:30 in the morning till 8 at night. After finishing his work, he had handed over the keys to the watchman and left. He was called back by the Chairman later at about 10:15 at night. When he reached there, he had seen that Dimplebhai had fallen down. He was shifted to the hospital in an ambulance. From this stage onwards, this witness also turned hostile and did not support his police statement, in which, apparently, he had referred to a quarrel between the accused No. 1 and Dimplebhai a few days before 6th of March and also of the presence of the said accused at the office building on the date of incident. 6. From this stage onwards, this witness also turned hostile and did not support his police statement, in which, apparently, he had referred to a quarrel between the accused No. 1 and Dimplebhai a few days before 6th of March and also of the presence of the said accused at the office building on the date of incident. 6. Dinesh Ratilal, PW-21, Exh.61, was employed as peon at the office of Dimplebhai. His duty hours were from 10:30 in the morning till 8 at night. He deposed that Nayanbhai Brahmbhatt was also working there as a computer operator. Dimplebhai would normally come to office at about 1:30 p.m. and stay back till about 9:30 at night. On the date of the incident, he and Nayanbhai both were present in the office. Dimplebhai had also come. At 8' O clock this witness and Nayanbhai both left the office. The witness referred to an incident of about five days before 6th March when the watchman of the building Iqbalbhai had come to the office of Dimplebhai to tell him that some boys from the lane had come to smash the glass of his car. Dimplebhai had called Pareshbhai (the Secretary of the building association) to consult him. Pareshbhai advised him to either compromise the issue or to file a complaint. Though the witness did not know these miscreants, he knew one of them by name i.e. Haresh Katariya-accused No. 1. 7. Paresh Dahyabhai Patel, PW-24, Exh.64, also had an office on the same floor as that of Dimplebhai in B.G. Tower. He was active in the building association. He deposed that a few days before the incident, Dimplebhai's peon had come to his office and called him, upon which, he went to Dimplebhai's office where Dimplebhai, two peons and watchman Iqbal were present. Dimplebhai told him that Iqbal had conveyed that few boys had come to create mischief. He has advised Dimplebhai to either sort the issue out or to file a complaint. 8. Several witnesses who, according to the prosecution, knew accused No. 1 and who had given indication about his movement and possible involvement in the incident, however, turned hostile and we have therefore not referred to the testimonies of these witnesses. 9. At this stage, we may refer to the deposition of Dr. Manishbhai Sutariya, PW-1, Exh.14. He was the Medical Officer at Civil hospital, Ahmedabad. 9. At this stage, we may refer to the deposition of Dr. Manishbhai Sutariya, PW-1, Exh.14. He was the Medical Officer at Civil hospital, Ahmedabad. He had carried out the postmortem. 9. At this stage, we may refer to the deposition of Dr. Manishbhai Sutariya, PW-1, Exh.14. He was the Medical Officer at Civil hospital, Ahmedabad. He had carried out the postmortem. He produced the postmortem note at Exh.15 and pointed out that the injuries were recorded on a separate sheet of paper which was produced at Exh.16, in which, following injuries were recorded: Column No. 17 (1) 3.5 x 1' x bone visible incised wound on left forehead directed oblique upword laterally starting from left mid eyebrow (2) 4 x 0.5 x 1.5 c.m. transverse incised wound on left chin near midline 1.5 c.m. below lip and having palpable fracture of left mandible near symphysis (3) 5 x 0.5 x 1 c.m. transverse incised wound on mid and left lower lip (4) 3.5 x 0.5 c.m. transverse stab wound on left lateral chest 4 c.m. below axilla and 13 c.m. left to nipple between mid axillary and posterior axillary line, margins sharply cut and inverted, posterior angle acute, anterior angle broad, blood and clots present at margins and tract of wound (5) 4 x 0.5 x 1 c.m. incised wound on anterolateral aspect of right leg directed oblique downwards laterally 7 c.m. below knee with 3 c.m. liner tailing effect below laterally (6) V shape 5 x 3 c.m. slicing incised wound cutting 0.5 c.m. thickness on right index finger involving distal interphalangeal joint up to proximal phalanx on palmer aspect (7) 5 x 1 x 1.5 c.m. transverse incised wound on palmer aspect of right hand over thenar area 3 cm above little finger (8) 3.5 x 0.5 x 1 c.m. vertical incised wound on dorsum of right hand 2 c.m. below wrist in plane of middle finger (9) 2.5 x 1 x 1 c.m. transverse incised wound on dorsum of right hand 1.5 c.m. below wrist in plane of index finger (10) 2.5 x 1 x 1 c.m. transverse incised wound on posteromedial aspect of left forearm 7 c.m. above wrist (11) 2 x 2 c.m. as on dorsum of right hand 1 c.m. below injury No. 9 (12) 7 x 7 c.m. lacerated wound on posterolateral of right lower arm above elbow with projecting fractured lower end of humerus with fracture of right elbow (13) 9 x 7 c.m. area of intermittent abrasion on back of below left elbow with 1 x 1 x 1 c.m. CLW below left elbow (14) 8 x 6 c.m. transverse contusion on mid and right frontal above right eyebrow (15) 8 x 3 c.m. transverse contusion on left lower chest near midline 6 c.m. below nipple plane (16) 1 x 1 x 1 c.m. CLW with surrounding abrasion in area of 5 x 5 c.m. on left cubital fossa anteromedial aspect with dislocation of left elbow joint (17) 1 x 1 x 0.5 cm, 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 c.m. and 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 c.m. clws on anteromedial aspect of left wrist (18) V shape 2 x 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. slicing incised wound on palmer aspect left thumb (19) 7 x 7 c.m. contusion on left sub-costal area (20) 8 x 10 c.m. contusion on right chest over lower costal and sub-costal area (21) 18 x 11 c.m. vertical intermittent contusion abrasion on anterior of left thigh (22) 22 x 6 c.m. vertical intermittent contusion abrasion on anterior of inguinal and right thigh Corresponding to such external injuries, he had recorded multiple internal injuries, reference to which in detail is not necessary. He had opined that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. In his opinion, injuries No. 1 to 10 could be caused with a weapon. Injuries Nos. 11 to 22 could be caused by throwing someone from a height. The cause of death was shock due to excessive bleeding as a result of the injuries. 10. Dr. Laxmikant Nekchand Somani, PW-29, Exh.75, was the Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. Accused No. 1-Haresh was brought to him for the treatment of his injuries. According to the history recorded by this doctor, Haresh had stated before him that he had received the injuries upon his motorcycle slipping about a week before and upon being hit with a chair by the opponent on 06.03.2009 at B.G. Tower. He had examined the injuries, found the right hand thumb swollen. There were two healed wounds on the right knee and one near left elbow. He had taken out the x-ray of the right hand and found that right hand thumb was dislocated. In his opinion, such injuries could be caused during a fight. Injury certificate was produced at Exh.76. In the cross-examination, he agreed that such injuries could also be caused by falling down from a motorcycle. He denied that he had later on added the history of being beaten by the opponent. 11. Kailashkumar Ramgopal Vaghela, PW-27, Exh.72, had started one Shiv Palace hotel at Dhanera. This witness was examined by the prosecution to show that accused No. 1-Haresh had spent a night there, after committing the offence and he was in the process, helped by accused No. 2 who had secured this place for Haresh. This witness however turned hostile and stated before the Court that it was the accused No. 2-Mahesh who had rented a room in his hotel for one night since Mahesh had guests at home and he wanted to study. 12. Ankur Maheshbhai, PW-28, Exh.74, had a gold and silver ornaments shop at Dhanera. According to the prosecution, accused No. 2-Mahesh had sold the gold chain of deceased Dimplebhai which was given to him by accused No. 1. This witness also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. 13. Rameshbhai Bhikhaji Soni, PW-30, Exh.78, was the person according to the prosecution who had purchased the mobile phone of deceased Dimplebhai from accused No. 2-Mahesh. This witness also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. 13. Rameshbhai Bhikhaji Soni, PW-30, Exh.78, was the person according to the prosecution who had purchased the mobile phone of deceased Dimplebhai from accused No. 2-Mahesh. He deposed that he had a mobile store at Dhanera. On 22.03.2009, accused No. 2-Mahesh had come to his shop to sell a mobile phone for Rs. 3000/-. He had eventually purchased the phone for Rs. 2450/-. Police had come to his shop and recovered the mobile from him. 14. Mahesh Dahyabhai Parmar, PW-8, Exh.36, was a panch witness to the discovery of the murder weapon knife and the shoes of the accused No. 1 at his instance. The witness however, turned hostile. He admitted his signature on the panchnama which was produced at Exh.37. The second panch witness to this panchnama PW-12, Exh.47, Arvind Narsinhbhai however, supported the prosecution. As per this witness and as recorded in detail in the discovery panchnama Exh.37, the accused led the police party and the panch witness in the police vehicle to a place near Jupiter mill compound. From a hole in the wall, they entered an open place not frequented by people. The accused pointed out to a spot near a tree where he had thrown the knife and the shoes. Upon further search, a knife was dug out and recovered. The knife had dried blood spots. A little distance away, discarded shoes were found and recovered. 15. The gold chain supposedly of the deceased was discovered at the instance of accused No. 2 under discovery panchnama, Exh.41. Though the panch witness Khagaji Bhalaji, PW-9, Exh.40, turned hostile, the discovery was proved through the evidence of the Investigating Officer. As per this discovery panchnama, Exh.41, the accused No. 2 led the police party and the panch witnesses to the shop of Ankurbhai. Ankurbhai, upon being inquired, had produced the gold chain which was recovered. 16. Various articles collected during such investigation were sent for forensic analysis. The serological report Exh.81, would show that the deceased had blood group-AB, which naturally was found from the scene of the incident and further that the blood of the same group was also found from the clothes of the accused No. 1 i.e. jacket and pants and from the knife discovered at his instance. 17. This, in the nutshell, is the evidence on record. 17. This, in the nutshell, is the evidence on record. From such evidence, we will first discuss the involvement of accused No. 2. As recorded earlier, involvement of this accused even as per the prosecution, started only after the principal offence of murder and snatching away valuables from deceased Dimplebhai was committed by accused No. 1. There is not even a hint of involvement of this accused before this main offence was committed. Even as per the prosecution case and the prosecution theory, the accused No. 2 had no role in causing the death of Dimplebhai. We are therefore somewhat surprised that against him, the charge was framed for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 394 read with section 114 Indian Penal Code. Correctly and advisedly the learned Trial Judge did not find any evidence against this accused for the above noted offences. He was however convicted for offences punishable under sections 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code. Section 201 of Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for causing disappearance of an evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen the offender. It provides that whoever knowing or having reason to believe that the offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he thinks or believes to be false, the accused would be punished depending on the nature of offence which he tries to shield. 18. On the other hand, section 212 of Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for harbouring an offender and provides that whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him with legal punishment would be subjected to punishment as prescribed under the said section. 19. The prosecution would point out that the act of hiding the accused No. 1 at a hotel at Dhanera amounted to commission of offence under section 212 of Indian Penal Code by accused No. 2 and the act of disposing of the stolen properties in the nature of gold chain and mobile handset amounted to commission of offence under section 201 of Indian Penal Code. 20. In this background, we may assess the evidence on record. 20. In this background, we may assess the evidence on record. So far as the question of harbouring the accused No. 1 is concerned, the prosecution examined only one witness viz. Kailashkumar Ramgopal Vaghela, PW-27. He was the owner of Shiv Palace hotel. He however turned hostile. Before the Court what he stated was that not the accused No. 1, but the accused No. 2-Mahesh had stayed at his hotel since Mahesh had many guests at his home and he wanted to concentrate on his studies. In absence of any other evidence on record, this charge against accused No. 2 must fail. 21. In the context of the sale of the gold chain, the prosecution examined Ankur Maheshbhai, PW-28, to whom Mahesh had allegedly sold the gold chain. This witness also turned hostile. The additional evidence in this respect was in the nature of the discovery of the gold chain at the instance of this accused as can be seen from panchnama Exh.41. In connection with the sale of mobile handset, witness Ramesh Bhikhaji, PW-13, supported the prosecution and deposed that Mahesh-accused No. 2 had sold a mobile phone to him on 22.03.2009. 22. We may proceed on the basis of discovery panchnama Exh.41 and the deposition of PW-30 and may arrive at the conclusion that these articles i.e. the gold chain and the mobile handset were sold by the accused No. 2, sometime in March, 2009. If these articles belonged to deceased Dimplebhai and were snatched by the accused No. 1 while committing the offence of murder, a further question of the offence under section 201 having been committed by accused No. 2 would arise. However, in the present case this crucial link is missing. There is nothing on record whatsoever to suggest that these articles belonged to Dimplebhai. The wife of Dimplebhai or any other near relative would have been the best witness to identify the gold chain as that belonging to deceased. Likewise, the IMEI number which is unique to each mobile handset, could have been easily brought on record to establish that the handset in question belonged to deceased Dimplebhai. This was not done. The wife of Dimplebhai or any other near relative would have been the best witness to identify the gold chain as that belonging to deceased. Likewise, the IMEI number which is unique to each mobile handset, could have been easily brought on record to establish that the handset in question belonged to deceased Dimplebhai. This was not done. In absence of any proof that the gold chain and the mobile handset belonged to Dimplebhai, mere fact that such articles were sold by accused No. 2 in the market would not automatically establish the offence under section 201 of Indian Penal Code against him. His conviction was therefore wrongly recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for such offence. 23. This brings us to the involvement of accused No. 1. Against him, the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The established circumstances on which the prosecution would rely are as under: (a) Accused No. 1-Haresh and deceased Dimplebhai had strained relations. In the past there were minor skirmishes. Dimplebhai had lodged an FIR Exh.109, on 18.11.2006, alleging offences punishable under Sections 392, 323 and 294 read with section 114 IPC. In such FIR he had complained that while parking his car, it had scraped against the lorry of the accused No. 1, upon which, the accused No. 1 and his friends had beaten him and also snatched away his gold chain. The witnesses had also referred to this incident. For example, Umang Rameshbhai Patel, PW-2, the brother of the deceased had referred to this incident after which, this accused would pressurize Dimplebhai for withdrawing the case. (b) Dimplebhai had an office on the 5th floor of B.G. Tower, Shahibaug, is not seriously in dispute. In addition to Umang Rameshbhai Patel PW-2, pointing out this fact, his employee Dinesh Ratilal, PW-21, gave further details of the daily schedule of deceased Dimplebhai at his office. Dineshbhai was working as a peon. His office hours were between 10:30 in the morning and 8 in the evening. According to him, the deceased would come to the office at about 1:30 in the afternoon and stay back late in the evening. (c) On the date of the incident, deceased Dimplebhai did come to the office and was there till late, has also been pointed out by this witness Dinesh Ratilal, PW-21. According to him, the deceased would come to the office at about 1:30 in the afternoon and stay back late in the evening. (c) On the date of the incident, deceased Dimplebhai did come to the office and was there till late, has also been pointed out by this witness Dinesh Ratilal, PW-21. He stated that on 6th March, he and his co-employee Nayanbhai left office at 8' O clock in the evening when Dimplebhai was still there. (d) Dimplebhai was attacked in his office at 9:30. Multiple injuries were caused to him and then he was thrown from the 5th floor to the ground is also not in serious doubt. The furniture was lying all over the place. On the floor, on the walls and on the glass covering the table, there was blood. The dead-body of Dimplebhai was found from the ground, first spotted by the watchman Dinesh Prabhubhai Bhil, PW-19. The medical evidence showed as many as 11 injuries that could be caused by sharp edged instrument. Several other injuries were relatable to the fall suffered by Dimplebhai. (e) Dinesh Prabhubhai Bhil, PW-19, is also an important witness. He was a guard at the B.G. Tower. Though this witness did not fully support the prosecution, his initial deposition need not be discarded. He pointed out that he was on night duty and would normally be stationed at the gate. His duty started at 8 at night. On 6th March, one boy, whom he identified as accused No. 1, had entered the B.G. Tower in the pretext of going to the canteen for tea. Thus, the presence and movement of accused No. 1 in the night hours of 6th March, 2009, are also established. (f) The jacket and the pants of the accused showed presence of blood of the same group as that of the deceased. (g) Most significantly, the murder weapon knife was discovered at the instance of this accused from an isolated place covered by compound wall and accessible through a hole in the wall. We may recall, as per Panchnama Exh.41, this witness had led the police party and the panch witnesses near a mill compound. They entered through a hole where near a neem tree, the accused led them to the discovery of knife. We may recall, as per Panchnama Exh.41, this witness had led the police party and the panch witnesses near a mill compound. They entered through a hole where near a neem tree, the accused led them to the discovery of knife. Though the counsel for the defence would point out that as per the panch, the accused had shown the place where the knife was thrown, whereas, as per the panchnama, the knife was dug out from the ground. This minor discrepancy however, would not shake our confidence in this discovery. The panch witness had supported the prosecution. The place from which the knife was discovered was virtually out of bounds and away from human movements. It was thus within the exclusive knowledge of the accused where the object could be found. (h) The knife so discovered showed the presence of blood of the same group as of the deceased. (i) The accused No. 1 when arrested, was carrying injuries. Dr. Laxmikant Nekchand Somani, PW-29, who treated this accused, had recorded several injuries in his injury certificate, Exh.76. He deposed that such injuries could be caused during a scuffle. We may not attach any great importance to the history recorded by this doctor since the later portion of the history of being assaulted by the other side at B.G. Tower on 06.03.2009 would be in the nature of an inculpatory statement. The fact that this accused was in police custody at the time when the statement was recorded, would therefore be of relevance. 24. Above noted proved circumstances, in our opinion, would form a complete chain, would point unerringly to the guilt of the offender to the exclusion of any other hypothesis to the contrary. To summarize, this accused was carrying a grudge against the deceased and therefore had motive to commit the offence. His presence at the scene of the incident shortly before was noticed. He had no reason or occasion to visit B.G. Tower at night. We can take judicial notice of the fact that a commercial building having shops and offices would usually be deserted after 8:30 or so at night. It is not even the case of the defence so projected, that the accused had some business work in or around the said office complex. His presence shortly before the incident thus remained unexplained. His clothes showed presence of the blood belonging to the deceased. It is not even the case of the defence so projected, that the accused had some business work in or around the said office complex. His presence shortly before the incident thus remained unexplained. His clothes showed presence of the blood belonging to the deceased. The murder weapon was discovered at his instance and also carried the blood of the same group. At the time of his arrest, he was carrying injuries, which in the opinion of the doctor could have been caused during the scuffle. All these aspects when seen together, form complete chain of circumstances, pointing to the involvement of the accused. 25. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation in confirming his conviction for offences under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. However, for the same reasons for which we have acquitted the accused No. 2 for offence under sections 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code, the accused No. 1 also must be acquitted for offences under section 394, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code. 26. Both the appeals are therefore disposed of in following terms: 1. Conviction and sentence of accused No. 1 for offences under section 302 of IPC and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act is confirmed. His conviction and sentence for the remaining offences is set aside. Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2012 is allowed in part. 2. Conviction and sentence of accused No. 2 for offences under sections 201 and 212 is set aside. His appeal is allowed. Bail bond stands cancelled. R & P to be transmitted back to the Trial Court. Appeal Allowed.