JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. As far as Criminal Appeal No. 1478 of 2004 is concerned, the same abates qua appellant No. 4, the original accused No. 5. Appellant No. 6-original accused No. 12, as we are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant, had died during the pendency of the appeal. However, an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 8024 of 2016 has been filed bringing heirs of the original accused No. 12-appellant No. 6 on record. Hence, Criminal Misc. Application No. 8024 of 2016 is allowed. Heirs of appellant No. 6-original accused No. 12 be brought on record and title be amended accordingly. 2. These proceedings arise out of judgment and order dated 07.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 2, Mehsana. 3. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the sole appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1807 of 2004 has been convicted for the offence under section 302, 147 and 148 of the IPC. 4. Appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 1478 of 2004 have been convicted for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 324 of IPC. Criminal Revision Application No. 727 of 2004 has been filed by the original complainant challenging the complete acquittal of the original accused Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 and prayed for enhancement of the sentences for the rest of the accused. 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: On the date preceding that of the incident in question i.e. on 26.10.2002, Kamlesh Parshottam saw the accused Harshad Kantilal Bhankhariya, Bhupendra Kantilal, Kamlesh Chimanlal, Mukesh Nagin, Deelip Raman gambling on the road. Kamlesh Parshottam, therefore, snatched the cards that the accused were possessing and tore them away. On 27.10.2002 i.e. on the next day, the accused went to the house of Kamlesh at 8 in the evening together with the accused numbers 2 to 5. They called Kamlesh outside his house and attacked Kamlesh with sword, iron pipes and sticks. Accused No. 1 Harshad Kantilal attacked Lalit Poonamchand with the sword on his left hand and also inflicted blows on the head. As a result of which, Lalit Poonamchand succumbed to the injuries. Accused No. 1 therefore was charged with offence under section 302 of IPC and the remaining accused were charged for offence under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 read with section 149 of IPC. 6. As a result of which, Lalit Poonamchand succumbed to the injuries. Accused No. 1 therefore was charged with offence under section 302 of IPC and the remaining accused were charged for offence under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 read with section 149 of IPC. 6. PW 2, Ramesh Maganbhai Shah was examined at Exh. 50. He was the doctor who initially treated the deceased Lalit Poonamchand and also treated the injured witnesses. According to the deposition of this witness, when on 27.10.2002 he was working as a Medical Officer at Kottage Hospital, Unjha, at 8.45 in the evening, Lalit Poonamchand was brought to the hospital without a police yadi. The relatives had given history that Lalit has suffered injury as a result of being attacked by a sword. The injuries sustained, according to the doctor, were narrated in the deposition. The injured Lalit had sustained injuries on the left hand and also had suffered injuries on the front temporal region of the head. Injury certificate was accordingly issued at Exh. 51. Pareshbhai Parmar Kachrabhai PW 3 was also an injured witness who was examined by this doctor. An injury certificate was issued at Exh. 52. According to the doctor this witness had sustained injuries as a result of being attacked by iron pipe. Kamleshbhai Parshottambhai Parmar, PW 4, also was the victim who had sustained injuries on being attacked by a stick. He had sustained injuries on the temporal region of his head. An injury certificate was issued at Exh. 53. Satish Parmar, Poonam Parmar, Naresh Parmar were also treated by this doctor and injury certificates at Exh. 53, 54, 55 were issued. According to the history given by these injured eyewitnesses they had sustained injuries on being attacked by sword, iron pipe and the stick respectively. Similarly, this doctor has also treated Kantaben Vankar, PW 7, Varshaben Vankar P.W. 8 and Kirtikumar Parmar P.W. 11. They had also stated before the doctor that they had been attacked by a stick. Injury certificates for the injuries sustained by them have been produced on record at Exhs 58 and 59 respectively. In the cross examination this doctor has stated that as far as Lalit Poonamchand is concerned, he had sutured stitches for Injury No. 2 sustained by Lalit Poonamchand but had not given any further treatment such as injection or any medicine. Injury certificates for the injuries sustained by them have been produced on record at Exhs 58 and 59 respectively. In the cross examination this doctor has stated that as far as Lalit Poonamchand is concerned, he had sutured stitches for Injury No. 2 sustained by Lalit Poonamchand but had not given any further treatment such as injection or any medicine. The injury sustained by Lalit Poonamchand was as a result of sharp edged instrument. It was possible that the injury was sustained on by being attacked by two separate such instruments/weapons. Injury No. 2 could have been sustained as a result of long sharp edged weapon. This doctor further stated that certain injuries could have been sustained by sharp edged stone. This doctor further testifies that these injuries could be sustained when two groups were inter-se fighting. 7. PW 1 Dr. Gautam Vrajlal Nayak was examined at Exh. 48. He was the Medical Officer working at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and had carried out postmortem of the dead body of the deceased who had succumbed to the injuries on 01.11.2002. He carried out the postmortem. When he received the body there was a bandage on the left hand of the body. The injuries sustained by the deceased have been stated in his deposition. According to this witness the deceased has a stitched wound of 20 cm on the frontal region of the head. He also had an incised wound in the lateral region and incised wound of 6 cm x 3 cm on the head. According to the deposition of the doctor internal injuries were matching the external injuries suffered by the deceased. In the opinion of this doctor, the death occurred due to injuries sustained by Lalit on the head. Referring to the opinion given in the postmortem report at Exh. 49 he stated that cause of death is shock due to the head injury. In the opinion of this doctor the injury in the ordinary course could cause death. This doctor has been cross examined. He agrees that in his opinion the injury sustained and the death thereafter caused was not due to the insufficient medical care given out to the deceased. 8. Parmar Pareshbhai Kachrabhai is the PW 3 who is the original complainant. He has been examined at Exh. 72. He states that he is the resident of Unja. He agrees that in his opinion the injury sustained and the death thereafter caused was not due to the insufficient medical care given out to the deceased. 8. Parmar Pareshbhai Kachrabhai is the PW 3 who is the original complainant. He has been examined at Exh. 72. He states that he is the resident of Unja. The accused is also a resident of Bhakhariya Vas. The incident in question occurred on 27.10.2002 at 8 O'clock in night when he was having his dinner. He heard a commotion near his uncle Parshottambhai's house who was staying nearby. When he went to his uncle's house on hearing of the commotion he saw accused No. 1 Harshadbhai Kantilal with sword, Bhupendra Kantilal, accused No. 2 with iron pipe, Kamlesh, accused No. 3 with iron pipe Kantibhai Hemabhai, accused No. 5 with the stick and all of these accused were attacking Kamlesh. The incident was an outcome of the act of Kamlesh having torn the cards on the previous day when the accused were gambling on the road. They were all abusing Kamlesh. They dragged him out and started beating him. This witness further states that on seeing that Kamlesh was being attacked Lalit also intervened to see that the accused are prevented from attacking Kamlesh. At that time, Bhupendra Kantilal had attacked him on his head and his back with an iron pipe. Kamlesh, accused No. 3 and Mukseh accused No. 4 attacked with the stick on the left side of his head. Harshad, accused No. 1 attacked Lalit Poonam with his sword. He inflicted the first blow with the sword on the left hand of Lalit and the second blow on the head as a result of which, Lalit started profusely bleeding and collapsed. Kanubhai and Ashok Kachrabhai, neighbours residing in the vicinity, have also came to the scene and the accused left the scene. Briefly after sometime, accused No. 1 Harshad accompanied by three others returned to the scene of the offence in a maruti fronti. When Harshad returned in the fronti, Babubhai Makwana, accused No. 12 came with the sword, his wife Bhikhiben with dhoka and the other three of them namely Mahendra Parshottam, Janak Parshottam and Sunil Ramji, accused No. 8, 9 and 11 respectively also came to the scene of the offence and started quarreling. When Harshad returned in the fronti, Babubhai Makwana, accused No. 12 came with the sword, his wife Bhikhiben with dhoka and the other three of them namely Mahendra Parshottam, Janak Parshottam and Sunil Ramji, accused No. 8, 9 and 11 respectively also came to the scene of the offence and started quarreling. Harshad attacked Poonambhai Vitthalbhai with the sharp end of the sword on the head. Babubhai attacked Satish on the right hand with the sword and Kirtikumar attacked Kantaben on the right thumb and on the right knee with the stick. Bhikhiben attacked Naresh Parshottamdas. Deepakkumar, accused No. 7 attacked Harshaben with a stick. When Kanubhai Govindbhai and Ashokbhai, neighbours had come to the scene of the offence, these assailants fled the scene. Shankarbhai Dosabhai and Alkeshbhai had thereafter carried the injured to the Civil Hospital, Unjha for treatment. Kamlesh was admitted to the hospital but as Lalit's condition was serious he was shifted to the Mehsana Civil Hospital. The police arrived at the dispensary and recorded his complaint which is on record at Exh. 73. In the cross examination this witness testifies and denies that the injuries caused to the him and the others were ordinary injuries and he also denies that a complaint was lodged at the instance of his neighbours. According to this witness, incident occurred two parts. In the first part accused Nos. 1 to 5 came and attacked Kamlesh and Ors. Thereafter, Harshad accused No. 1 left the scene and returned with the three others. The incident occurred outside the house of Parshottambhai. This witness was cross-examined. It is further stated by him that Lalit was profusely bleeding as a result of the injury sustained by him and before the second incident happened, Lalit briefly walked and collapsed at a distance of about 20 ft. After Lalit sustained injuries, Harshad, accused No. 1, returned with the three others but he could not identify the others who were sitting in the front car. Harshad and Bhupendra are the sons of Kantilal. Babubhai accused No. 2 and Bhikhiben are husband and wife whereas the accused Janak Parshottam and Mahendra Parshottam are brothers. The accused and the victims are residents of the same locality. Babubhai was working as a Postmaster and Bhikhiben was working in the Government School. Harshad and Bhupendra are the sons of Kantilal. Babubhai accused No. 2 and Bhikhiben are husband and wife whereas the accused Janak Parshottam and Mahendra Parshottam are brothers. The accused and the victims are residents of the same locality. Babubhai was working as a Postmaster and Bhikhiben was working in the Government School. A suggestion that the second incident occurred at a place other than the first one was denied by this witness. On 26.10.2002 i.e. on the previous day, he denied that Sanjay Parshottam, Piyush Khemchand and Hardishbhai Kantlal were present. It may be pointed out that the injuries sustained by this injured eyewitness is on record at Exh. 52 and he was attacked with an iron pipe. 9. Prosecution Witness 4 Kamleshbhai Parshottambhai Parmar has been examined at Exh. 74. He is also an injured witness and as is evident from the deposition of the doctor who treated him, a certificate has been issued at Exh. 53 showing that this witness has suffered injury on being attacked by a stick. This witness also supports the theory put forth by the PW 3 in as much as according to this witness on 26.10.2002 Kamlesh Parshotam Parmar had prevented Harshad, accused No. 1, Bhupendra accused No. 2 and Kamlesh Chimanlal indulging in gambling on the middle of the road. According to this witness, on the next day at 8 O'clock in the evening accused No. 1 Harshad came with sword, Bhupendra with pipe and Kamlesh and Mukesh with sticks. Even Dilip had brought a stick and all of them attacked Kamlesh. According to this witness he was attacked with a stick by Mukesh Nagin. Lalit was also attacked by the accused No. 1 Harshad. Paresh was attacked by Bhupendra with iron pipe. This witness also confirms as on the same line as testified by the PW 3 that the accused No. 1 Harshad inflicted two blows with the sword on the deceased Lalit i.e. on the left hand and on the head. He further states that accused No. 1 thereafter left the scene and returned in his maruti with three others. According to this witness Babubhai accused No. 12, Bhikhiben accused No. 13 were carrying a sword and dhoka respectively and were accompanied by Janak Parshottam, Mahendra Parshottam and Ramji, accused No. 9, 10 and 14 respectively. These witnesses have been cross-examined. He further states that accused No. 1 thereafter left the scene and returned in his maruti with three others. According to this witness Babubhai accused No. 12, Bhikhiben accused No. 13 were carrying a sword and dhoka respectively and were accompanied by Janak Parshottam, Mahendra Parshottam and Ramji, accused No. 9, 10 and 14 respectively. These witnesses have been cross-examined. According to the stand in his cross examination Kamlesh and others were known to the accused and therefore when they were gambling the previous day they were prevented from doing so. Nothing specific comes out in the cross-examination of this witness. 10. PW 6 Satishkumar @ Sahilesh Kachrabhai Parmar who had sustained injuries as a result of being attacked with a sword has been examined at Exh. 77. On reading the testimony of this witness it is apparent that this witness also attributes the accused with the role that each one of them had played with the weapon in hand that has been stated in the testimonies of the witnesses viz. the original complainant PW 3 and the other injured witness PW 4. In cross-examination of this witness this witness denies that on 27.10.2002 in the evening hours, prior to this incident all these injured victims had intercepted Harshadbhai near Umiya Mata temple. This witness also in his cross examination testifies that Poonambhai Vitthalbhai, Naresh and others were standing close by when he was attacked with the sword. Incidentally, in his testimony it has come out that Babubhai attacked him with the sword. 11. Kantaben Poonamchand Parmar, mother of the deceased Lalit who also sustained injuries in the attack with the stick has been examined as PW 7 at Exh. 78. On reading testimony, it indicates that she has deposed that Harshad had attacked Lalit with sword on the left hand and on the head. As a result of this, Lalit sustained injuries and was profusely bleeding. Lalit became unconscious and collapsed. This witness further states that Kantibhai Hemabhai had attacked her with the stick on the left leg and she has also sustained injuries on the thumb as a result of being attacked by the stick. Lalit's father, her husband, was attacked, according to her, in the second round which occurred after five minutes when Harshad had returned with front car with three others. His husband was attacked by Bhikhiben with dhoka. Lalit's father, her husband, was attacked, according to her, in the second round which occurred after five minutes when Harshad had returned with front car with three others. His husband was attacked by Bhikhiben with dhoka. In her cross examination she denies that she was not being able to identify the assailants as it was dark. She also denies a suggestion in the cross-examination that previous to the incident in question on the same day Harshad was intercepted near the Umiya Mata Temple. 12. Varshaben Kirtibhai Parmar PW 8 has been examined at Exh. 79. According to this witness, Kamlesh was the brother-in-law. The incident in question occurred on 27.10.2002 at 8 in the evening and she was at her residence. She saw Harshad with sword, Kamlesh Chimanbhai with iron pipe, Mukesh Nagin with the stick, Dipak Raman with stick, Bhupendra Kanti with iron pipe and Kantibhai Hemarabhai with stick. She also in accordance with the testimony of other witnesses testified that Harshad attacked Lalit with the sword on the head and the left hand and the others also carried out attack with the weapons in their hand. The narration of this witness is in conformity with the other prosecution witness and therefore need not be elaborated. She also sustained injuries as a result of attack by a stick and the doctor who treated her issued injury certificate which is at Exh. 58 on record. 13. PW 9 Nareshkumar Parshottambhai Parmar though not injured witness is an eyewitness to the incident. In his deposition which is at Exh. 80 he has stated that on 27.10.2002 at 8 in the evening the incident occurred near his house and when he was returning from a bazzar he saw Harshad with sword, Bhupendra Kanti with pipe and Kamlesh Chiman with the pipe, Mukesh Nagin with stick and so also Dipak Raman with the stick. All of them were abusing Kamlesh and shouted him to come outside of his house and Lalit was attacked by the accused No. 1 Harshad. On seeing Lalit being attacked, Sailesh Paresh had come to scene. Lalit started profusely bleeding on being attacked on the hand and on the head. Bhupendra inflicted blows with the iron pipe. When Ashok and Kanubhai Govindbhai intervened, the assailants fled and thereafter after a few minutes, accused No. 1 Harshand returned to the scene with three others. On seeing Lalit being attacked, Sailesh Paresh had come to scene. Lalit started profusely bleeding on being attacked on the hand and on the head. Bhupendra inflicted blows with the iron pipe. When Ashok and Kanubhai Govindbhai intervened, the assailants fled and thereafter after a few minutes, accused No. 1 Harshand returned to the scene with three others. Janak Parshottam, Mahendra Parshottam Babu Amra Bhikhi Babubhai were carrying sword and dhoka respectively. Satish was attacked with sworn on the hands by Babubhai, accused No. 12. In his cross examination this witness confirms the fact that accused No. 1 returned after sometime in a maruti car with the registration No. GJ 6656 and it was accompanied by Himanshu Raghubhai, Harshad Kantilal, Ravan Samant, Vaniya Sunil Babulal. 14. Poonambhai Vithhalbhai Parmar, father of the deceased Lalit has been examined as PW 10 who has, as evident from the testimony of the mother of the deceased Kantaben, has suffered injuries as a result of being attacked by a dhoka being carried by Bhikhiben. This occurred when accused No. 1 returned after having attacked Lalit and others. This witness has also, in conformity with the testimonies of the other witnesses, testified the role of accused Nos. 1 to 5, 7, 12 and 13. 15. Kirtikumar Parshottambhai Parmar, PW 11 was examined at Exh. 82. He is Kamlesh's brother. In the deposition of this witness he states that the incident occurred on 27.10.2002 at 8 in the evening when he was at his residence. On hearing the shouts of Lalit he came to Kamlesh's house and saw Harshad with sword attacking Lalit. Bhupendra and Kamlesh were carrying iron pipes, Mukesh, Kamlesh and Dipak were carrying sticks and these accused were abusing Kamlesh. When Satish Kachrabhai, Paresh Kachrabhai and his brother also came to the scene they saw Kamlesh being attacked. Harshad attacked Lalit on his left hand and the head with the sword as a result of which Lalit collapsed on the scene. When he tried to intervene, Harshad attacked him with the sword on his left hand. Kamlesh also hit him with iron pipe on his back. Harshad attacked Chimanbhai with the sword. This witness in his testimony therefore confirms that has been stated by the other witnesses as far as role of these accused are concerned and the weapons that they have used. 16. Narshihbhai Hemabhai Parmar PW 5, Exh. Kamlesh also hit him with iron pipe on his back. Harshad attacked Chimanbhai with the sword. This witness in his testimony therefore confirms that has been stated by the other witnesses as far as role of these accused are concerned and the weapons that they have used. 16. Narshihbhai Hemabhai Parmar PW 5, Exh. 76 is the panchwitness of the scene of the offence. This witness therefore testifies as to having carried out the exercise of panchnama alongwith Baldevbhai Somabhai. 17. PW 12 and 13 are the panchwitnesses who though have turned hostile they have in the cross examination testified as to the recovery of the front car which was used by accused No. 1 in the second phase of the incident, weapons that have been recovered from accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The panchnama is produced on record at Exh. 87. The FSL report and serological report produced at Exh. 102 and 103 respectively. It is stated on perusal of this report in the context of accused No. 1 that the serological report is a pointer to the fact that the blood group of the deceased i.e. blood group 'O' was found on the clothes of the deceased and also on the sword used by the accused No. 1. 18. In light of this evidence on record the role of accused No. 1 and the roles of the accused Nos. 2 to 5, 7, 12 and 13 need to be examined as they have been charged of offence under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 326. 19. Accused No. 1 has been charged for offence under section 302 of IPC. On reading of first information report together with the deposition of the complainant PW 3 Parmar Parshottam, he has testified that on 27.10.2002 at 8 in the evening when he was having dinner at home and on hearing the shouts coming near Parshottam's residence when he went to the scene, he saw accused No. 1 Harshad attacking Lalit, the deceased with the sword. Lalit was inflicted two blows one on the left hand which resulted in severing of the hand and one on the head. Lalit started profusely bleeding and after having walked at a distance of about 20 ft collapsed. Injured witnesses viz. Lalit was inflicted two blows one on the left hand which resulted in severing of the hand and one on the head. Lalit started profusely bleeding and after having walked at a distance of about 20 ft collapsed. Injured witnesses viz. PW 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 have in their testimonies unequivocally come out with the case that accused No. 1 Harshad @ Hitendra attacked Lalit with the sword as a result of which, Lalit sustained serious injuries on his head. The evidence on record has comes out by the testimony of this injured witness which further indicates that accused No. 1 accompanied by others with the premeditation not only attacked the deceased Lalit on the head and the hand but also came back after few minutes with his assailants at the scene of the offence to carry out the subsequent act of attacking the others. The testimonies of these injured eyewitnesses and the certificates produced on record supported by the testimony of the doctor viz. doctor Ramesh Maganbhai Shah as PW 2 are clearly a pointer to the fact that t accused No. 1 came to the scene of the offence and on being enraged by the incident of the previous day i.e. 26.10.2002 Kamlesh had prevented them from indulging in gambling. 20. On considering the evidence in this perspective, the FIR, the testimony of the complainant PW 3 Parshoottambhai Parmar, a clear and a specific role, a sword, is attributed to the accused No. 1. The complainant's presence at the scene of the offence is natural and therefore the eye witness account narrated by him inn the complaint and the testimony are not at variance. Contradictions as to the number of accused involved is sought to be brought out to discredit the testimony, however, such contradictions are not material so as to warrant disbelieving this witness. Similarly there are injured witnesses who are eye witnesses to the incident. P.W. 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 were part of the same incident. Having sustained injuries as a result of weapons yielded by other accused, corroborated by the medical evidence on record of the doctor who treated them, evidently also, make their presence of the scene of the offence plausible and natural. All of them were staying in the same vicinity. Having sustained injuries as a result of weapons yielded by other accused, corroborated by the medical evidence on record of the doctor who treated them, evidently also, make their presence of the scene of the offence plausible and natural. All of them were staying in the same vicinity. Implication of the accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 302 cannot therefore said to be false. Accused No. 1 having inflicted two blows with a sword caused the death of Lalit. Medical evidence supports the prosecution case that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained. 21. Dr. Gautam Nayak PW 1 who carried out postmortem of the body of the deceased Lalit, who succumbed to the injuries on 01.11.2002 has, in detail, narrated the nature of injuries that were caused at the result of attack carried by the accused No. 1. According to the opinion of this doctor, the injuries which Lalit sustained in the ordinary course, could cause death of Lalit and such injuries were possible with the sharp edged weapon. The cause of death, as is evident on reading the postmortem report was, shock due to the head injury. Corroborative evidence has come on record by way of the FSL report and the serological report which also revealed that the blood group 'O' which was found on the clothes of the deceased also was found on the sword used by accused No. 1. On the basis of these set of evidences therefore evidently, the role played by accused No. 1 and the weapons used make it apparent that accused No. 1 carried out the act of attacking the deceased Lalit which caused his death. 22. As a pre-cursor to the incident of 27.10.2002, Kamlesh had on 26.10.2002, prevented some of the accused from gambling. The accused were therefore hurt by the act and had threatened to retaliate. On the next day therefore the accused No. 1 with other accused came to Kamlesh's house, challenged him to come out, dragged him out, and while the other accused attacked the injured eye witnesses whose testimonies clearly implicate each one of them, evidently, the incident did not occur at the spur of the moment. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 and 7, 12 and 13 were charged for offences under 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 326. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 and 7, 12 and 13 were charged for offences under 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 326. Oral and medical evidence implicate these accused of the role they have played with their respective weapons. Injuries sustained by their victims are evident from their injury certificates. It is therefore not a case of false implication even vis-à-vis. the remaining accused, who have been let off for the offences under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC but have been charged under the remaining sections as stated hereinabove. Once eye witness accounts at the hands of injured witnesses cannot be said to be unworthy of being believed. The sentence awarded by the learned judge even on such independent assessment of evidence at our hands therefore cannot be faulted. 23. Learned senior advocate Mr. K.J. Shethna has drawn our attention to the opinion of the doctor and stated that the doctor in his opinion was of the view that the death occurred in the ordinary course and the weapon used were not sufficient to cause death and therefore the accused be given benefit of reduction in sentence and the sentence be reduced to that 304 part II. 24. From the narration of the testimony on record read together with the medical evidence of the doctor it is apparent that the injury sustained by the deceased were on the vital part of the body i.e. on the head which was direct proximate cause of death as is evident from the post mortem note. The benefit of reduction of sentence, as canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Shethna, does not deserve merit. 25. The Learned Sessions Judge, in his well reasoned Judgment, has imposed the punishment under Section 302 as far as accused No. 1 is concerned. Accused Nos. 2 to 5, 7, 12 and 13 have been handed out sentences for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 of IPC. As discussed in the judgment, the versions of the witnesses, several of whom are injured eye witnesses indicate the complicity of the accused in the act which caused death of one and injuries to the other witnesses. Medical Evidence corroborates the version. Accused Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 have been awarded clean acquittal. Independent assessment of evidence of the witnesses indicate that they, had no role to play. Medical Evidence corroborates the version. Accused Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 have been awarded clean acquittal. Independent assessment of evidence of the witnesses indicate that they, had no role to play. No overt act on their part has been substantiated. They cannot be even said to be part of the unlawful assembly also. The complainant's Criminal Revision Application No. 727 of 2004 stands dismissed. 26. In the result, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.08.2004 imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 2, Mehsana, convicting accused No. 1 for the offence under section 302 of IPC stands confirmed. 27. So far as the remaining accused are concerned, their conviction under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 324 is confirmed. However, in view of the fact that after the judgment dated 07.10.2004 twelve years have gone by, they shall not be required to undergo the remaining part of sentence and the sentence they have already undergone shall be considered sufficient to meet the ends of justice. However, fine of Rs. 10,000/- each is imposed upon the accused Nos. 2 to 4, 7, 12 and 13. Criminal No. 1478 of 2004 is abated qua Accused No. 5. 28. Criminal Appeal No. 1478 of 2004 is partly allowed. Criminal Appeal No. 1807 of 2004 is dismissed. 29. Judgment and order dated 07.08.2004 is modified accordingly. 30. As accused No. 1 is on bail he shall surrender before the jail authorities on or before 15.03.2017. Bail and bail bond shall stand cancelled on surrender of the accused No. 1 or on 16.03.2017 whichever is earlier. R & P may be transmitted back to the concerned Trial Court.