JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 22.08.2012 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Limdi, in Sessions Case No. 53 of 2012. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution version was that deceased Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai Rathod and his other family members were cultivating government waste land in a village. The six accused who belonged to the Bharvad community, had disputes with Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai Rathod and his other family members in connection with the cultivation in the government waste land and the grazing of the cattle of the accused on such land. Keeping a grudge about such past disputes, in the afternoon between 3 to 4'O clock on 06.10.2010, when deceased Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai Rathod was traveling on his motorcycle nearby the village, the six accused intercepted him, picked up a fight and gave multiple blows with a 'Farsi' (a weapon made of metal with a long blade which is sharp on one side and blunt on the other which is attached to a wooden handle) and sticks that the accused were carrying. Mansukhbhai in such seriously injured condition, was brought to the family shop in his village by passer-by from where, he was taken to the hospital. At the referral hospital later, Mansukhbhai died due to the injuries. A charge was therefore framed against all accused of having committed offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 324, 325, 504 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code. They were also charged for offence under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Trial Judge by the impugned judgment dated 22.08.2012 convicted all the accused for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302, 504 read with section 149 IPC and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. For the offence under section 302 read with section 149 IPC, they were sentenced to life imprisonment. For other offences, lessor punishments were imposed. Fines were also awarded. The original accused have challenged this judgment by filing Criminal Appeal No. 1908 of 2012. The complainant Kishorbhai Nanjibhai Rathod-brother of the deceased has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1607 of 2012, in which, he has prayed for enhancement of sentence as well as for awarding compensation. 3. We may record the gist of the evidence. Ishwarbhai Nanjibhai Rathod, PW-9, Exh. 84, a brother of the deceased was the first informant. The complainant Kishorbhai Nanjibhai Rathod-brother of the deceased has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1607 of 2012, in which, he has prayed for enhancement of sentence as well as for awarding compensation. 3. We may record the gist of the evidence. Ishwarbhai Nanjibhai Rathod, PW-9, Exh. 84, a brother of the deceased was the first informant. He deposed that he and other brothers had a shop in the village: Chuda where they did the welding work. In the nearby village:Borana, they had been cultivating about 10 vighas of government waste land since many years. His elder brother Mansukh would supervise the cultivation. On the date of the incident, he, his brother Mansukh and nephew Shailesh were at the family shop at Chuda. He left the shop to go to the house in the village for lunch. His brother Mansukhbhai went on his motorcycle to go to Borana for lunch. His nephew Shailesh would take lunch at the shop and he therefore remained there. After lunch, the witness returned to shop at about 3'O clock. At about 4'O clock, the teacher of village:Borana one Mr. Pandya came on his two-wheeler with the brother riding as a pillion rider. He was profusely bleeding. After getting him off the vehicle, the witness asked him about the incident, to which, his brother stated that after lunch when he was returning from Borana to Chuda, near the field of Arjanbhai Chaturbhai when he was traveling on the motorcycle, Raja Mera (accused No. 1), Ramu Chhagan (accused No. 2) Raja Kala (accused No. 3), Bijal Moti (accused No. 4), Rama Hindu (accused No. 5) and Sata Mera (accused No. 6) stopped him and asked him why he was cultivating the waste land though told not to do so. When the brother told them that they had been cultivating the land since the time of his father, the six people started abusing him. Accused No. 1-Raja Mera had Farsi in his hand. The rest five had sticks. They all started giving blows on his hands and legs. The brother fell down from the motorcycle bleeding. They went on giving random blows. The brother started shouting for help, upon which, these people ran away. Teacher Shri Pandya was passing by, to whom, the brother requested to be dropped at the shop at Chuda. The rest five had sticks. They all started giving blows on his hands and legs. The brother fell down from the motorcycle bleeding. They went on giving random blows. The brother started shouting for help, upon which, these people ran away. Teacher Shri Pandya was passing by, to whom, the brother requested to be dropped at the shop at Chuda. The witness also stated that when this conversation was going on, his nephew Shailesh was also present. They called an ambulance and took the brother to the Government hospital at Chuda. After preliminary treatment, he was taken to Surendranagar Government hospital. Doctor told them later on, that the brother had died due to excessive bleeding. He produced at Exh. 85 the FIR which he had lodged, in which, he had given substantially the similar version. In the cross-examination, he stated that his brother had travelled with teacher Shri Pandya on the motorcycle alone without the help of any other person. When they reached Surendranagar, his brother was not in a position to speak. He agreed that on 15.09.2010, Raja Mera had filed complaint against his brother Mansukhbhai and their worker Sanjay, in connection with which, they were arrested. He denied that he had levelled allegations against the accused keeping grudge about the said complaint. 4. Shailesh Govind, the nephew of the complainant was examined as PW-15, Exh. 93. He was also present at the family shop at Chuda when Mansukhbhai was brought there in a severely injured condition by teacher Shri Pandya. He deposed that in the afternoon of 06.10.2010 when he was at shop alongwith Ishwarbhai, between 3:30 and 4'O clock, Shri Pandya came on a motorcycle carrying Mansukhbhai as a pillion rider. He and Ishwarbhai helped him get down from the motorcycle and took him to Chuda at Government hospital in the ambulance. He asked his uncle Mansukhbhai what had happened. This witness also had given the version similar to the one given by Ishwarbhai Nanjibhai Rathod, PW-9, the first informant. He further stated that this conversation between him and Mansukhbhai took place while his treatment was going on at Chuda Government hospital. In the cross-examination, he stated that after dropping his uncle, Shri Pandya did not wait at the shop and left immediately. Neither at the shop nor in the ambulance he had any conversation with the deceased Mansukhbhai. He further stated that this conversation between him and Mansukhbhai took place while his treatment was going on at Chuda Government hospital. In the cross-examination, he stated that after dropping his uncle, Shri Pandya did not wait at the shop and left immediately. Neither at the shop nor in the ambulance he had any conversation with the deceased Mansukhbhai. He could not remember if Ishwarbhai had any conversation with Mansukhbhai in his presence. He clarified that when his uncle Mansukhbhai had disclosed him about the incident, he was alone with the uncle. 5. Hasmukhkumar Himmatlal Pandya, PW-10, Exh. 88, was earlier the Principal at Borana government primary school. At the time of incident, his wife was the Principal of the same school. His daily routine was to drop her and pick her up from the school on his motorcycle. On the date of the incident, at about 3'O clock, he was traveling on his motorcycle going towards Borana to pick up his wife. About one and half kms before the village, he saw Mansukhbhai of his village lying on the side of the road covered with blood. Mansukhbhai shouted for him. When he went there, Mansukhbhai told him that he was beaten by the Bharvads of the village. He requested Mr. Pandya to call the ambulance and to drop him to the shop at Chuda. Since he knew Mansukhbhai and he was bleeding, he took him on the motorcycle as a pillion rider and brought him to his shop at Chuda. After dropping him there, he went back to pick up his wife. At that time, at the shop, Ishwarbhai and Shailesh were present. In the cross-examination, he stated that he had spent about five minutes talking to Mansukhbhai at the scene of incident. At that time, no other person had come there. Mansukhbhai climbed on the motorcycle taking his support without the help of anyone else. Mansukhbhai was holding him on the motorcycle. Mansukhbhai had walked from the roadside ditch by himself to climb on the motorcycle. He knew Mansukhbhai because his daughters were studying in his school. During this conversation, Mansukhbhai had told him that he was beaten by the Bharvads of the village. He had not given any further details. At Chuda, Mansukhbhai got down from the motorcycle by himself. Mansukhbhai had walked from the roadside ditch by himself to climb on the motorcycle. He knew Mansukhbhai because his daughters were studying in his school. During this conversation, Mansukhbhai had told him that he was beaten by the Bharvads of the village. He had not given any further details. At Chuda, Mansukhbhai got down from the motorcycle by himself. He did not have any conversation with Ishwarbhai at the shop nor Mansukhbhai had any conversation with Ishwarbhai in his presence. He dropped Mansukhbhai at his shop and left. 6. Vipulbhai Madhabhai, PW-19, Exh. 97, claimed that he had reached the scene of incident shortly after Mansukhbhai was attacked. This witness deposed that he and his mother were doing labour work on a farm on the date of the incident when in the afternoon at about 3'O clock, he heard shouts for help. When he looked towards the road, he saw some people were giving blows to someone. When he was going towards the road from the farm where he was working, he saw the six accused. Accused No. 1 was carrying a 'Farsi' and the rest were carrying sticks going towards a river. At the spot, he saw Mansukhbhai lying on the ground covered with blood. Teacher Shri Pandya took him to Chuda on his motorcycle. In the cross-examination, he claimed ignorance to the suggestion that Mansukhbhai was a close friend of his father. He also claimed that he did not know many people in the village since he was always very busy with the labour work. He stated that he reached the scene of incident in about 10 minutes but claimed that the assault on Mansukhbhai lasted for about half an hour. He denied that when he reached the scene of incident, Mansukhbhai was lying alone. He had no conversation with Shri Pandya, but stated that all the while when Shri Pandya arrived and took away Mansukhbhai, he was present at the scene. In fact, he and Shri Pandya had lifted Mansukhbhai and put him on the motorcycle. After putting Mansukhbhai on the motorcycle, he was tied by Shri Pandya with the handkerchief. Mansukhbhai was unable to sit himself. 7. Dr. Miteshkumar Satyaki, PW-1, Exh. 27, was the medical officer at Chuda Community Health Center. He deposed that when he was on the duty in the afternoon, on 06.10.2010 Mansukhbhai was brought for treatment. After putting Mansukhbhai on the motorcycle, he was tied by Shri Pandya with the handkerchief. Mansukhbhai was unable to sit himself. 7. Dr. Miteshkumar Satyaki, PW-1, Exh. 27, was the medical officer at Chuda Community Health Center. He deposed that when he was on the duty in the afternoon, on 06.10.2010 Mansukhbhai was brought for treatment. He had informed the Chuda police station about it telephonically. He had recorded the history given by the patient as being beaten with sticks by the six accused (who were named) at 3:30 in the afternoon on the road between Borana and Chuda. The doctor had recorded five principal injuries on different parts of the body. In the cross-examination, he agreed that in the history given by the patient, there was no reference to 'Farsi'. 8. Dr. Mahesh Dudhagara, PW-3, Exh. 44, was the medical officer at Government hospital, Surendranagar, where Mansukhbhai was referred for further treatment. He deposed that when Mansukh was brought to him, he was unable to speak. His brother Ishwar had given history of being assaulted by unknown people in the afternoon. The doctor had found as many as 11 fractures on different parts of the body which included two on each leg, on the collarbone and on the hands. Two of these injuries could be caused by the 'Farsi' and the rest by the sticks. In the cross-examination, he stated that when the patient was brought to him, he was in semi unconscious state and he was unable to speak due to excessive bleeding. He agreed that if the patient was given timely treatment, his life could have been saved. 9. Dr. Ramniklal Thanki, PW-4, Exh. 52, had carried out the postmortem. In the postmortem note, Exh. 54, he had recorded following injuries: "(1) Red braise over () upper arm about 18 cms in length x 10 cms in breath (2) Red braise with swelling (L) dorsum of hand (3) Swelling c braise ® dorsum of the hand about 6 x cms in size (4) Abra.... over (L) Knee Joint about 2 x 1/2 cms in size (5) Stitched wound over (L) middle of legs about 2 cm x 1/2 x 1/4 cm in size (6) Stitched wound... over (L) leg 5 cms above the ankle joint about 2 x 1/4 x 1/2 cms in size (7) Abra.... over (L) Knee Joint about 2 x 1/2 cms in size (5) Stitched wound over (L) middle of legs about 2 cm x 1/2 x 1/4 cm in size (6) Stitched wound... over (L) leg 5 cms above the ankle joint about 2 x 1/4 x 1/2 cms in size (7) Abra.... over Part of the (L) thigh about 2 x 1/4 cm in size (8) Stitched wound over ® lower leg about 3 x 1/2 x 1/4 cm in size (9) Red braise C swelling over (L+) thign & # of (10) Red braise over (R+) calf muscle region about 8 cms x 6 cms in size. Found following +........ of the bone (1) # of W/3 - M/3 fibula (L+)... (2) M/3 U/3 Fema___ (L+) side (3) # U/3 - M/3 Febula (R+) sid (4) # of L/4 Febula (R+) sid (5) CI. # of L/4........# (R+) sid (6) # L/3. Radias (L+) sid (7) # 3rd 4th 5th M.C. (R+) Sid hand (8) Cl. #....... end....... Antemortem" In his opinion, death occurred due to excessive bleeding from multiple injuries. The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He did not agree that the death occurred because timely treatment was not given. 10. The prosecution examined Naresh Kolubhai, PW-20, Exh. 99, the Talati-cum-Mantri of Borana village. This witness pointed out that the proceedings pending before the Mamlatdar for the possession and cultivation of the Government waste land of Borana by Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai. 11. Investigation was carried out in part by Bhupatbhai Virabhai, PW-26, Exh. 113. At the relevant time, he was Circle Police Inspector, Chotila. He gave the steps taken by him during the course of such investigation. In the cross-examination, he agreed that Raja Mera (accused No. 1) had filed an FIR against Mansukhbhai, his brother Kishorbhai and their worker for offences under sections 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(C) of the Arms Act. He did not know whether the panchayat had taken the possession of government land from Mansukhbhai. 12. Ajaykumar Pandav, PW-27, Exh. 119, had carried out part of the investigation. It was during the cross-examination of this witness that the FIR against Mansukhbhai and others filed by Rajabhai Merabhai was produced at Exh. 122. One of the allegations was that Ishwarbhai Nanjibhai had flashed a country made revolver and threatened the complainant and others. 12. Ajaykumar Pandav, PW-27, Exh. 119, had carried out part of the investigation. It was during the cross-examination of this witness that the FIR against Mansukhbhai and others filed by Rajabhai Merabhai was produced at Exh. 122. One of the allegations was that Ishwarbhai Nanjibhai had flashed a country made revolver and threatened the complainant and others. 13. Different weapons i.e. the Farsi and sticks allegedly used in the commission of offence were discovered at the instances of respective accused. Since these discoveries are not seriously challenged, we have not referred to the panchnamas, the panch witnesses and the contents of the same. Various articles collected during the course of investigation were sent for forensic analysis. The forensic science laboratory report read with serological report at Exh. 118 would show that the deceased had blood group-B. It was the blood of the same group which was found from the Farsi and two of the sticks. Yet another stick showed presence of blood, the group of which, however, could not be analyzed. 14. This in the nutshell, is the evidence on record. The evidence would suggest that the prosecution case rests on the oral dying declarations and other attendant circumstances. We will refer to and assess the reliability of such declarations. Essentially, we have three dying declarations on record. First is the one allegedly made by the deceased to his brother Ishwarbhai when he was in seriously injured condition brought to the shop at Chuda by teacher Shri Pandya. According to Ishwarbhai, when his brother was brought to the family shop at Chuda by teacher Shri Pandya in bleeding condition, he asked his brother as to what had happened. The brother stated that six Bharvads had intercepted him, questioned him about cultivating government waste land. Though asked not to do it and then assaulted with Farsi and sticks on all parts of the body. A very similar version was given by Shailesh, PW-15, Exh. 93. He was also present at the family shop when Mansukhbhai was brought there. He also claimed that Mansukhbhai had given similar version to him when he inquired about the incident. Though asked not to do it and then assaulted with Farsi and sticks on all parts of the body. A very similar version was given by Shailesh, PW-15, Exh. 93. He was also present at the family shop when Mansukhbhai was brought there. He also claimed that Mansukhbhai had given similar version to him when he inquired about the incident. The only point of difference between the versions given by PW-9 and PW-15 is that according to Ishwarbhai, the conversation between him and Mansukhbhai took place at the shop, whereas, according to Shailesh, the oral dying declaration was made by Mansukhbhai when he was under treatment at Chuda hospital. We would refer to this aspect a while later. 15. Ishwarbhai Nanjibhai Rathod, PW-9, had referred to his own presence at the shop alongwith Shailesh. He had, in fact, given the complete sequence suggesting that in the first half of the afternoon he himself, his brother Mansukh and Shailesh were present in the shop. He went to the village for lunch. His brother went to village: Borana for his lunch. Shailesh always had lunch at the shop and he had stayed back. Ishwarbhai returned after lunch. At about 4'O clock, Mansukhbhai was brought there by Shri Pandya. 16. The presence of both these witnesses at shop is natural and even otherwise, well established. Shri Pandya, PW-10, the teacher at Borana primary school who brought Mansukhbhai also confirms the presence of both of them at the shop. We may recall that this witness had given version of going towards village: Borana to pick up his wife where about a kilometer and half before the village, he found Mansukhbhai lying on the side of the road profusely bleeding. Mansukhbhai stopped him and asked him to be taken at the shop. Shri Pandya knew Mansukhbhai because Mansukhbhai's daughters were studying in his school. Shri Pandya also referred to a brief declaration made by Shri Mansukhbhai about the assault saying that the Bharvads of the village had beaten him. 17. From the evidence of these witnesses, the prosecution, in our opinion, succeeded in establishing that Mansukh was attacked just outside the village: Borana, that Shri Pandya helped him and brought him to village: Chuda on his motorcycle. Further that at that time, Ishwarbhai and Shailesh both were present at the shop. 17. From the evidence of these witnesses, the prosecution, in our opinion, succeeded in establishing that Mansukh was attacked just outside the village: Borana, that Shri Pandya helped him and brought him to village: Chuda on his motorcycle. Further that at that time, Ishwarbhai and Shailesh both were present at the shop. One more dying declaration was made by the deceased to Shri Miteshkumar Satyaki, PW-1, Exh. 27, the doctor at the community health center at Chuda. The doctor had recorded the history stated to have been given by the deceased, in which, names of all six accused were mentioned. Only point of difference being all six accused were attributed sticks and there was no mention of having 'Farsi' in the hands of anyone of them. 18. It is true that dying declaration is considered to be a weak piece of evidence. Essentially it is in the realm of hearsay evidence and since the possibility of cross-examination of the maker of the statement is eliminated, the Court would view such evidence cautiously and ordinarily look for corroboration. 19. In case of Waikhom Yaima Singh v. State of Manipur reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court Supp 783 the Court observed as under: "15. There can be no dispute that dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction, however, such a dying declaration has to be proved to be wholly reliable, voluntary, and truthful and further that the maker thereof must be in a fit medical condition to make it. The oral dying declaration is a weak kind of evidence, where the exact words uttered by the deceased are not available, particularly because of the failure of memory of the witnesses who are said to have heard it. In the present case also, the exact words are not available. They differ from witness to witness. Some witnesses say about the name of the village of the appellant having been uttered by the deceased and some others do not. Further, Dr. Ningombam Shyamjai Singh (PW-12) was also not cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor in this case about the medical condition of the deceased and further fact as to whether he was in a fit condition to make any statement." 20. In the present case, we have as many as three and full dying declarations made by the deceased. Further, Dr. Ningombam Shyamjai Singh (PW-12) was also not cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor in this case about the medical condition of the deceased and further fact as to whether he was in a fit condition to make any statement." 20. In the present case, we have as many as three and full dying declarations made by the deceased. One to his brother Ishwarbhai, the second one to his nephew Shailesh and third to the doctor at Chuda. Largely the contents of these declarations were common. A brief statement was also made by Shri Mansukhbhai to Shri Pandya who stopped his motorcycle and helped him to bring him to Chuda. We have no hesitation in accepting such dying declarations. There are multiple reasons to this. Firstly, Shri Pandya was the person who reached first at the scene of the incident, possibly minutes after the assault was carried out. To him, the deceased asked for help and told him that he was beaten up by the Bharvads of the village. Having suffered as many as 11 fractures, he was not expected to make a detailed disclosure to Shri Pandya when the prime objective of Mr. Pandya would be to carry the person in seriously injured condition to a place where he could receive help from his relatives. Even then in a brief reference, Mansukhbhai told Shri Pandya that he was assaulted by the Bharvads of the village. The fact that he did not give names of all six assailants is of no consequence. Reference to Bharvads of the village must be to the Bharvads of his village. Secondly, Mansukhbhai gave detailed declarations to his brother Ishwarbhai and his nephew Shailesh. Obviously, as soon as Mansukhbhai was brought to the shop at Chuda, his close relatives would inquire about the cause of the injures. It was then that Mansukhbhai first revealed to Ishwarbhai the precise nature of incident. He repeated the same to Shailesh at the hospital. The depositions of Ishwarbhai and Shaileshbhai should not be seen as conflicting with each other when Ishwarbhai referred to the conversation at the shop and Shailesh's reference is to the dying declaration made at the hospital. Neither of them stated that no further discussion took place either at the shop or at the hospital. The depositions of Ishwarbhai and Shaileshbhai should not be seen as conflicting with each other when Ishwarbhai referred to the conversation at the shop and Shailesh's reference is to the dying declaration made at the hospital. Neither of them stated that no further discussion took place either at the shop or at the hospital. In fact, Shailesh could not remember whether Ishwarbhai had any conversation with Mansukhbhai in his presence, but clarified that Mansukhbhai had narrated the incident to him at hospital. As close relatives, if these witnesses separately asked what had happened to Mansukhbhai, the same behaviour was but natural. The dying declarations referred to by these witnesses were in tune with the history recorded by Dr. Miteshkumar Satyaki, PW-1, when Mansukhbhai was brought to the hospital at Chuda. The minor omission of reference to 'Farsi' as one of the weapons in hands of one of the accused, would not destroy the effect of the evidence on record, nor would it dilute the reliability of the history recorded by the doctor stated to have been given by Mansukhbhai himself. One cannot lose sight of the fact that as per the witnesses, principally Shri Pandya, the deceased himself got up from the ditch and with some help, climbed the motorcycle. Mansukhbhai then traveled as a pillion rider on the motorcycle without any further assistance except for holding Shri Pandya. He also got down from the motorcycle with assistance from his relatives. Thus, Mansukhbhai had not lost consciousness till the time he was brought to the shop at Chuda. In fact, PW-1, the doctor at Chuda hospital also recorded that Mansukhbhai was conscious and was able to converse when he was taken to the hospital. Thus, the fact that Mansukhbhai was fully conscious and mentally alert till he was referred to Chuda Community Health Center is established through reliable and independent witnesses. Shri Pandya, the teacher and doctor at the Chuda Community Health Center both confirmed that Mansukhbhai was conscious and was able to speak. 21. Before referring to the other evidence on record, we may refer to the evidence of Vipul Madhabhai, PW-19. He claimed to have reached the incident first. He also claimed that he was present when Shri Pandya came and took Mansukhbhai on motorcycle. He, in fact, claimed that he had helped the deceased climb on the motorcycle. 21. Before referring to the other evidence on record, we may refer to the evidence of Vipul Madhabhai, PW-19. He claimed to have reached the incident first. He also claimed that he was present when Shri Pandya came and took Mansukhbhai on motorcycle. He, in fact, claimed that he had helped the deceased climb on the motorcycle. The evidence of this witness however, does not inspire confidence. Firstly, he does not come across as a truthful witness. To claim ignorance about the close relations of his father with the family of the deceased, he claimed that he was so busy with the labour work that he was virtually did not know anyone in the village. His version was completely in conflict with the deposition of Shri Pandya. Shri Pandya did not refer to any other person coming to the scene of incident when he stopped his motorcycle and took Mansukhbhai on his motorcycle. In fact, according to Shri Pandya, Mansukhbhai had walked and climbed the motorcycle, in contrast to which this witness Vipul stated that Mansukhbhai was virtually lifted and put on the motorcycle and he was in fact tied to Shri Pandya with the handkerchief. The statement of this witness was recorded by the police couple of days later. All these factors would show that Vipulbhai Madhabhai was not a reliable witness and in all probability, a planted witness. 22. In addition to the dying declarations referred to above, which for reasons stated inspires confidence, we also have other corroborative evidence to involve the accused. First of all there was clear dispute between the two sides about the deceased and his other family members occupying Government waste land and cultivating it since years. This dispute led to the accused No. 1 filing an FIR against Mansukhbhai, his brother and an employee on 15.09.2010 i.e. about three weeks before the date of incident. The allegations in the FIR included accused having threatened the complainant and other family members during which one of them wielded the firearm. The past ill-will between the two sides would thus provide sufficient motive. The medical evidence confirmed assault with the help of 'Farsi' and sticks. The weapons were discovered at the instance of the respective accused. Serological report showed presence of blood of the group belonging to the deceased on the 'Farsi' and a stick. 23. The past ill-will between the two sides would thus provide sufficient motive. The medical evidence confirmed assault with the help of 'Farsi' and sticks. The weapons were discovered at the instance of the respective accused. Serological report showed presence of blood of the group belonging to the deceased on the 'Farsi' and a stick. 23. Considering such evidence on record, we found no error in the view of the Trial Court in holding that all the six accused had got together and assaulted the deceased with a 'Farsi' and sticks, causing serious injuries on all parts of the body. The question is would the offence fall under section 302 of Indian Penal Code? In this context, we may recall that there were as many as 11 fractures on all parts of the body, which included the hands, legs and the collarbone. None of the serious injuries were however, on the vital parts of the body. No major injury was recorded on the head. There is no evidence on record that the accused were prevented by someone; or upon intervention of some passerby, they stopped beating the deceased. It was also not so stated by the deceased in any of his dying declarations. These two factors put together, one; that all the blows were principally on hands, legs and other non vital parts of the body and that the accused were not stopped by any of the witnesses from giving further blows, would persuade us to come to the conclusion that they did not intend to cause death of Mansukhbhai. Had that been the intention, nothing prevented them from carrying out such intention in action by giving more blows on more vulnerable parts of the body such as head, neck etc. These accused however, cannot escape the liability of having caused such bodily injuries as were likely to cause death. More appropriately, their offence would therefore fall under section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code. The rest of the conclusions and convictions and sentences of the Trial Court would remain unchanged. 24. In view of above conclusions, the prayer of the original complainant to enhance the sentences gets automatically rejected. The request was made to award compensation. More appropriately, their offence would therefore fall under section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code. The rest of the conclusions and convictions and sentences of the Trial Court would remain unchanged. 24. In view of above conclusions, the prayer of the original complainant to enhance the sentences gets automatically rejected. The request was made to award compensation. However, looking to the background of the accused, it is highly unlikely that the accused would be in a position to pay since there is no evidence to suggest that these are the accused who have any means. 25. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 1908 of 2012 is allowed in part. Conviction of all the accused for offence under section 302 is converted into one under section 304 Part I. Correspondingly, instead of life sentences, they would undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Rest of the convictions and sentences including fines remain unchanged. Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Criminal Appeal No. 1607 of 2012 is dismissed. R & P to be transmitted back to the concerned Trial Court.