JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. These Criminal Appeals arise out of two different Sessions cases being Session Cases No. 28/2009 and 29/2009 for the same incident. Therefore, both the appeals would be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. We may first refer to facts and evidence from Criminal Appeal No. 193/2014. This appeal has been filed by the accused in Sessions Case No. 28/2009. The complainant of this case was Samatbhai Jikubhai. He was the first informant. In the First Information Report filed on 2.12.2008, it was his case that accused No. 2 Bhaya Punja had blackmailed his sister Ramila. He had clicked certain photographs of his sister Ramila and was thereafter, harassing them for having lodged an FIR against this accused at an earlier point of time. Bhaya Punja therefore, on 1.12.2008 at around 6:30 in the evening, when the complainant Samatbhai was standing in the company of Suresh near a Paan shop, the accused No. 2 Bhaya Punja came to the site in a Tata Sumo. Later on, he was followed by his brother Lila Punja accused No. 1 on a motorcycle. Both of them then started indiscriminately attacked deceased Suresh with knives. When Samat's brother Ajay and mother Savitaben tried to intervene, both Ajay and Savita also sustained injuries. Savitaben was injured on her hand and Ajay sustained serious injuries. Suresh died as a result of the injuries sustained at the hands of the accused. The accused therefore, were charged with offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 324, 325 read with section 34 of the IPC. 3. Samatbhai Jikubhai Vaja, Prosecution Witness No. 15, who was the first informant was examined at exh. 69. According to this witness, the incident happened on 1.12.2008 in front of a Paan shop named Manish. On the date of the incident, his cousin Suresh had come to his house at Antroli. Since Suresh wanted to return to Mangrol, he along with Suresh had gone to the bus-stop. While waiting near the bus stand, both were standing near the Paan shop. At that point of time Bhaya Punja accused No. 2 arrived in his Tata Sumo jeep. Lila Punja, his brother accused No. 1 followed soon on his motorcycle. Before Suresh could react, both the accused who were wielding the knives started indiscriminately attacking Suresh with the knives in their hands. At that point of time Bhaya Punja accused No. 2 arrived in his Tata Sumo jeep. Lila Punja, his brother accused No. 1 followed soon on his motorcycle. Before Suresh could react, both the accused who were wielding the knives started indiscriminately attacking Suresh with the knives in their hands. His mother Savita who was on her way back from the dairy and brother Ajay both tried to intervene. Both the accused attacked Ajay too with the knives in their hands. Suresh collapsed on the ground near the jeep. Both the accused left the scene on Lila Punja's motorcycle leaving behind their jeep. People gathered on the scene of the offence. OF the people present were Alkesh, Rama, Koli, Bharat and others, The complainant further testified that he called the ambulance. The police vehicle which was patrolling arrived. Suresh was carried in this police vehicle. On the way to the hospital, when the ambulance arrived, he was transferred in such ambulance. His mother Savita was also taken to the hospital by Bhima and others. Suresh was declared dead on arrival at the Government hospital. Ajay was given primary treatment in the Mangrol hospital and then referred to Junagadh. He stayed back at Mangrol. The motive behind the incident, according to the complainant, was that Bhaya used to frequently visit their home and tried to develop a relationship with his sister Ramila. He had clicked certain photographs and, thereafter, blackmailed her. Her sister Ramila and Ramila's husband had therefore, lodged the police complaint. He confirmed to have lodged the FIR which was at exh.70. Suresh was stabbed and had sustained four injuries on his chest. These injuries were caused by Bhaya Punja and Lila Punja. Ajay also had sustained injuries on his left shoulder. He also had sustained these injuries as a result of the attack by the knives being wielded by Bhaya Punja and Lila Punja. Mother Savita had also sustained injuries on her hand. Ajay was at Junagadh hospital thereafter, shifted to Rajkot where he was in the hospital for about 17 to 18 days. When shown articles 6 and 3, knives, he identified these mudammal knives and stated that these were the knives that Bhaya Punja and Lila Punja had used. The complainant was cross examined. Ajay was at Junagadh hospital thereafter, shifted to Rajkot where he was in the hospital for about 17 to 18 days. When shown articles 6 and 3, knives, he identified these mudammal knives and stated that these were the knives that Bhaya Punja and Lila Punja had used. The complainant was cross examined. In his cross examination, this witness stated that the complaint was recorded by Mangrol police at around 7 in the evening, A suggestion by the defence was denied that the complainant or the others were wielding pipes and sticks and had injured either of the accused. His further statement was recorded about 20 days later. The defence in the cross examination tried to suggest that it was apparent that the Paan shop was located at a public road. He admitted that though he intervened in the ensuing fight, he did not sustain any injuries. Shri Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the appellant, has also drawn the attention of the Court to the cross examination of this witness where the defence has sought to bring out certain contradictions in the statement made by this witness vis-à-vis the police statement. It is further suggested by the defence in the cross examination that Suresh also was wielding stick in his hands. 4. Ajay alias Lakha Jikubhai Vaja, Prosecution Witness No. 16, brother of the complainant who also sustained injuries from wielding of knife by accused No. 1 and 2 has been examined at exh.71. He stated in his testimony that on the date of the incident i.e. 1.12.2008, he was on his way back from Farganta after dropping his sister Ramila. He was standing on Alkesh Paan shop which is situated next to Manish Paan shop. Samatbhai and Sureshbhai were walking towards the Paan shop of Bhimabhai. They were standing at Manish Paan shop. Suresh wanted to go to Mangrol so both had gone to the bus station. Bhaya Punja arrived in his Tata Sumo. He stopped his vehicle, got down from the vehicle and started hitting Suresh with a pipe and stick. Soon thereafter, he took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed Suresh. Accused Lila Punja soon followed him on the motorcycle. When the witness tried to intervene, both Lila Punja and Bhaya Punja attacked him with the knife. Suresh was stabbed on the chest and in the stomach. Soon thereafter, he took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed Suresh. Accused Lila Punja soon followed him on the motorcycle. When the witness tried to intervene, both Lila Punja and Bhaya Punja attacked him with the knife. Suresh was stabbed on the chest and in the stomach. He was attacked with a knife on the chest and on the shoulder. He also sustained injuries on the back. While Bhaya was attacking him from the front, Lila Punja was attacking him from back. He was taken to the hospital by his cousin. First he was taken at Mangrol hospital, thereafter, shifted to Junagadh and then Junagadh hospital referred him to Rajkot, where he was admitted for 17 to 18 days. This witness also in his testimony has stated that since Bhaya Punja was blackmailing his sister and a police complaint was lodged, Bhaya was upset with this and, therefore, carried out the attack. This witness was cross examined. In his cross examination, he stated that he was carried to the hospital in an ambulance. His statement was recorded by the police after five to six days. The suggestion that he had offered his motorcycle to Samat and Suresh and the incident was as the result of fight that Samat and Suresh had entered into over the motorcycle was denied. He denied the suggestion put by the defence that he could not witness the incident as when Suresh was attacked, his vision was blocked since the incident occurred on the back side of the Tata Sumo vehicle. He denied the suggestion by the defence that he was not present when Suresh was being attacked or that he had not seen Lila Punja inflicting repeated stab injuries on deceased Suresh. He admitted that for the incident in question a cross complaint was filed wherein he was also arraigned as an accused. In his cross examination, he also stated that while he was lying on the ground, his cousin Rambhai Ranabhai came over and carried him to the hospital. The First Information Report was lodged by his brother Samat. 5. Savitaben Jiku Vaja, Prosecution Witness No. 17, the mother, who was also present at the scene of offence was examined at exh.72. In her testimony she stated that she was returning from the dairy. The First Information Report was lodged by his brother Samat. 5. Savitaben Jiku Vaja, Prosecution Witness No. 17, the mother, who was also present at the scene of offence was examined at exh.72. In her testimony she stated that she was returning from the dairy. At that point of time when Suresh and Samat were standing in front of the Paan shop, Bhaya Punja arrived in his jeep. Suresh was standing there. Bhaya Punja entered into an argument with him, took out a knife and attacked him. Lila Punja, Bhaya Punja's brother came on the motorcycle. He also took out a knife and hit Suresh. Suresh had collapsed on the ground. She along with her sons Samat and Ajay tried to intervene. Suresh was repeatedly stabbed on the chest, stomach and on the back. Both Bhaya Punja and Lila Punja left behind the jeep and fled on the motorcycle. Soon a police jeep arrived and Suresh was put in the police vehicle to be shifted to hospital. He was taken to Mangrol Government hospital. She also like Ajay and Samat has bring out the motive behind the incident. This witness was cross examined. In the cross examination, the defence has tried to discredit this witness by pointing out the contradictions on the question of her presence at the scene of the offence. A suggestion put to her was denied that even Samat had picked up a tap of water tank in self defence and hit the accused. Several other witnesses like the owner of Manish Paan shop Bhikan Kanabhai Kishor Prosecution Witness No. 18 exh.73, the owner of Shivshakti Paan shop Bhimabhai Parmar Prosecution Witness No. 19 exh.74 and Alkeshbhai Rama Gargathiya Prosecution Witness No. 20 exh.75 have been examined. Their testimonies however, do not reveal anything substantial in view of the fact that they have not been eyewitness to the scene of the incident. In fact, from their versions, it emerges that they had left the scene of the offence soon after learning that there was a commotion outside their shop. 6. Several doctors have been examined who have either treated the injured eyewitness Savita and Ajay or the accused. Dr. Ramnivas Ramlagan Sharma, Prosecution Witness No. 10 has been examined at exh.31. Ajay PW-16 was referred to Rajkot hospital where this doctor was the medical officer. 6. Several doctors have been examined who have either treated the injured eyewitness Savita and Ajay or the accused. Dr. Ramnivas Ramlagan Sharma, Prosecution Witness No. 10 has been examined at exh.31. Ajay PW-16 was referred to Rajkot hospital where this doctor was the medical officer. According to the doctor, Ajay had stated in the history recorded that he had received injuries on being assaulted. According to this doctor, Ajay had sustained serious injuries and was operated as a result of ruptured spleen. He was admitted in the hospital on 2.12.2008 and discharged on 19.2.2008. He was issued medical certificate enlisting the injuries which is at exh.32. This doctor had also treated the two accused Lila Punja and Bhaya Punja. Lila Punja had sustained injuries in the nature of lacerated wound on the right hand and a swelling on the temporal region. He had also sustained a fracture on the right hand. As far as the nature of injuries sustained by Bhaya Punja is concerned, according to the doctor, there was a lacerated wound on the temporal and occipital region on the right side of the forehead. He had sustained injuries on the left shoulder and a fracture on the right hand. This witness was cross examined. He admitted that the injuries that Ajay had sustained were serious in nature. As far as the injuries that Bhaya Punja and Lila Punja had sustained, this witness stated that they were injuries in the nature of fractures. 7. Dr. Lineshkumar Savdasbhai Makwana, Prosecution Witness No. 11, exh.39, was the medical officer at the Mangrol Community health centre. He carried out the postmortem on the body of the deceased Suresh. According to the doctor, the deceased had sustained injuries on his chest. He had sustained four stab wounds as per the postmortem report at exh.40. The injuries that Suresh sustained have been described in column No. 17 as under: "There are four stab wounds with sharp edges and acute angles. (i) Stab wound obliquely over the sternum at the level of 5th sternocostal junction and sized 5 cm x 1.5 cm x 1 cm deep upto sternum. (ii) Stab wound, 6 cms below L nipple and oblique in shape sized externally 4 cm x 1 cms. Piercing through 6th intercostal space and muscles, downward upto liver about 5 cms deep. (i) Stab wound obliquely over the sternum at the level of 5th sternocostal junction and sized 5 cm x 1.5 cm x 1 cm deep upto sternum. (ii) Stab wound, 6 cms below L nipple and oblique in shape sized externally 4 cm x 1 cms. Piercing through 6th intercostal space and muscles, downward upto liver about 5 cms deep. (iii) Stab wound 5 cms below L nipple & just lateral to wound (ii) oblique in shape & sized 5 cm x 1.5 cms & piercing through 5th intercostal muscles & space, pleura, lung upto left ventricle of heart of about 7 cms deep-length of wound. (iv) Stab wound 10 cms below left axilla on lateral thoracic wall in 6th intercostal space of size 5 cm x 1 cms piercing through 6th intercostal space & muscles and lung of about 5 cms deep. All wound having dried blood on edges and are about > 12 hours. No palpable # found." All these injuries were anti-mortem. According to the doctor injuries No. 2, 3 and 4 was sufficient to cause death. This doctor also gave preliminary primary treatment to the injured eyewitness Ajay. According to this doctor, Ajay was brought to the hospital in an ambulance at 7:30 in the evening of 1.12.2008. Ajay also had sustained serious injuries. In the history recorded in the medical certificate issued by this doctor at exh.44 it was recorded as assault by somebody. The patient was found conscious and oriented. He had sustained four stab wounds on the upper part of the body whereas two stab wounds were recorded on the lower back on the midline. This doctor was cross examined. The defence through the cross examination of this witness has tried to bring out a case that the injuries that deceased Suresh and Ajay sustained was not as a result of knives articles 6 and 18. He admitted to the suggestion that Ajay had not at the time of recording the history named any accused. 8. Dr. Iliyas Hashanbhai Gariba, Prosecution Witness No. 12, exh.46 was the medical officer. He had treated Savitaben Prosecution Witness No. 17. According to this doctor, she had sustained minor injuries on the left hand. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries that Savitaben had sustained could have been as a result of self defence while she was being attacked. Dr. Iliyas Hashanbhai Gariba, Prosecution Witness No. 12, exh.46 was the medical officer. He had treated Savitaben Prosecution Witness No. 17. According to this doctor, she had sustained minor injuries on the left hand. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries that Savitaben had sustained could have been as a result of self defence while she was being attacked. She was given primary treatment and discharged from the hospital. 9. Savitaben also was treated by Dr. Narsibhai Gobarbhai Aasodariya, Prosecution Witness No. 13, exh.51. He also issued the medical certificate at exh. 52. The evidence in the nature of injuries sustained by Savitaben is in no manner different from the version given by the previous doctor. 10. Dr. Ashokkumar Lakshmidas Samani, Prosecution Witness No. 14, exh.58 was the medical officer at Junagadh who had treated Ajay. According to the doctor, Ajay had stated that injuries that he had sustained was as a result of assault. The defence in the cross examination of this witness had tried to bring out that Ajay was not fully conscious when brought to the hospital. 11. During panchnama, exh.21, the knife used by the accused No. 1 Lila Punja has been discovered. Prosecution Witness No. 4 Sarvarkha Rehmankha Balim exh.20 and Prosecution Witness No. 5, Jumabhai Jamalbhai Saki exh.23 are the panch witnesses. These witnesses have however, turned hostile. They have admitted their signatures to the panchnama. Through the evidence of the investigating officer Prosecution Witness No. 27 Thakardas Kashiram Gondaliya exh.97, the execution of this panchnama is proved. As per this panchnama, Lila Punja accused No. 1 led the police party to his house. He further led the police party to a veranda. The motorcycle that was used to come to the scene of the incident by this accused was recovered. Bloodstains were found on the wheel-guard and the spokes of the wheel of the motorcycle. He further under the stairs discovered the knife. The scientific evidence in terms of serological report has been produced at exh.110. The knife A3 contained bloodstains. Blood group of deceased was also found in the clothes of the accused. 12. Bloodstains were found on the wheel-guard and the spokes of the wheel of the motorcycle. He further under the stairs discovered the knife. The scientific evidence in terms of serological report has been produced at exh.110. The knife A3 contained bloodstains. Blood group of deceased was also found in the clothes of the accused. 12. Before we assess the evidence in the present appeal, it needs to be mentioned that the accused of the present Sessions Case had filed a cross complaint on the same date against the complainant Samat, deceased Suresh, Savitaben Prosecution Witness No. 17 and one Lakhaji for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 325, 326 read with section 114 of the IPC. It was the case of the accused herein i.e. the complainant of the FIR in question that when they had reached the Paan shop in the evening of 1.12.2008, complainant Samat together with Suresh had intercepted their car and Samat who was wielding an iron pipe had hit Lila Punja and Bhaya Punja on the head. They had also sustained injuries on being so attacked on the hands. Sessions Case No. 29/2009 was registered and trial commenced in the Session Case and by judgement and order of the even date dated 30.11.2013, the complainant in Criminal Appeal No. 193/2014 i.e. Samatbhai, Savitaben and Ajay were acquitted of the offences that they were charged with. Criminal Appeal No. 965/2014 which we would discuss at a later point of time was filed to challenge the acquittal of the accused therein. The said appeal was filed by accused No. 2 of Criminal Appeal No. 193/2014. 13. We may now assess the evidence in Criminal Appeal No. 193/2014. Samat who is the first informant and deceased Suresh's cousin brings forth a case in his version that when he was at the Paan shop on 1.12.2008 at 6:30 in the evening, the accused Bhaya Punja arrived on his Tata Sumo. Suresh who was standing with him, was attacked with a knife. Lila Punja too came to the scene immediately thereafter, also wielding a knife, inflicted repeated blows on Suresh and stabbed him on the chest and back. It further comes out from the version of the complainant that at this point of time when his mother Savitaben who was returning from the dairy and brother Ajay tried to intervene, both of them faced the wrath of the accused. It further comes out from the version of the complainant that at this point of time when his mother Savitaben who was returning from the dairy and brother Ajay tried to intervene, both of them faced the wrath of the accused. Ajay was also attacked with a knife by both Lila Punja and Bhaya Punja. He also sustained injuries. Savitaben who also tried to intervene sustained injuries. Suresh collapsed on the ground. Lila Punja and Bhaya Punja left on the motorcycle leaving behind the Tata Sumo jeep. Several people gathered on the scene of the offence. The police party of Junagadh who were patrolling nearby arrived soon and Suresh was shifted Suresh to hospital. Suresh was declared dead on arrival. The motive behind the incident was an unfortunate episode when their sister Ramila was stalked by accused No. 2, as a result of which FIR was filed by Ramila's husband. This witness also deposed that Ajay had sustained serious injuries on the left shoulder. This has happened as a result of being indiscriminately attacked by Bhaya Punja and Lila Punja. 14. From the testimony of Samat what comes out is that both Suresh and Samat were present at Manish Paan shop. Samat had come to drop Suresh who was to proceed to Mangrol. At that point of time both the accused arrived in different vehicles without warning, took out knives in their possession and stabbed Suresh. When Ajay and Savitaben tried to intervene, they too sustained injuries. Ajay was examined as Prosecution Witness No. 16 who also in his evidence states that when he was returning from Farganta and waiting at the Paan shop next to Manish Paan shop, he saw both the accused arriving with knives in their hand and stabbing Suresh repeatedly in the chest and on the stomach. So far as injuries that he sustained he was in Rajkot Civil hospital for 16 to 19 days. Even according to this witness, motive behind the attack was Ramila his sister whom Bhaya accused No. 2 had harassed and the FIR was lodged by her husband. The defence in the cross examination of this witness has tried to establish that Ajay cannot be termed as eyewitness as he arrived on the scene of the incident after Suresh had been attacked. The defence in the cross examination of this witness has tried to establish that Ajay cannot be termed as eyewitness as he arrived on the scene of the incident after Suresh had been attacked. Further the defence has tried to bring out in the cross examination of this witness inasmuch as they have questioned whether this witness could have seen the incident i.e. attack on Suresh when he was being inflicted knife blows repeatedly behind the Tats Sumo vehicle. The nature of injuries that Ajay had sustained and which comes out from the version of this witness has to be appreciated in light of the evidence of the doctor who had treated Ajay. From the testimonies of Dr. Ramnivas Prosecution Witness No. 10 when read together with the testimony of other doctors namely, Dr. Lineshkumar Prosecution Witness No. 11 and Dr. Ashokkumar Prosecution Witness No. 14, what comes out is Ajay was first taken to Mangrol Community Health centre. He was subsequently transferred to Junagadh hospital and thereafter referred to Rajkot Government hospital. The nature of injuries that the doctor had Rajkot hospital recorded is evident from exh.32. Ajay had suffered rupture of spleen for which he was operated and admitted in the hospital for about 18 days. 15. Savitaben is the injured eyewitness, mother of the complainant Samatbhai. From her version in the testimony that she had given at exh.72, it is borne out that she was on her way back from the dairy in the evening when she saw Suresh and Samat standing in front of the Paan shop. Both the accused Lila Punja and Bhaya Punja arrived in separate vehicles and stabbed repeatedly Suresh with the knives in their hands. When both she and Ajay tried to intervene, she too sustained injuries. The defence has tried to put forth the case on the basis of testimony of Savitaben that presence of Ajay at the scene of the offence is not established through her testimony. It is the case of the appellant that Ajay nowhere figures in her testimony and that Ajay's presence at the scene of the incident ought not to be believed. Savita also had received injuries as coming out from the medical evidence of Dr. Iliyas Hashanbhai Prosecution Witness No. 12 and Dr. Narsibhai Gobarbhai Prosecution Witness No. 13 who had treated Savita for injuries. Savita also had received injuries as coming out from the medical evidence of Dr. Iliyas Hashanbhai Prosecution Witness No. 12 and Dr. Narsibhai Gobarbhai Prosecution Witness No. 13 who had treated Savita for injuries. That she has sustained minor injuries on the left hand, in the lower arm has been recorded in the injury certificate issued by Dr. Iliyas. According to the doctors, such injuries were possible as a result of self defence. 16. Rama Natha Vaja, Prosecution Witness No. 23, exh. 82 though was not an eyewitness to the incident, had in his testimony stated that while he was at home, he had heard a commotion outside. He came out of the house when he saw injuries on Savita's hands and upon inquiring with her, he came to know that she had sustained injuries when she intervened in a scuffle and tried to defence Suresh. 17. When the testimonies of these three witnesses namely, Prosecution Witness No. 15 Samat, Prosecution Witness No. 16 Ajay and Prosecution Witness No. 17 Savitaben are examined together with the medical evidence vis-à-vis the nature of injuries that both Ajay and Savitaben suffered, a common thread that emerges from the conjoint reading of these testimonies is that : "(i) On 1.12.2008, in the evening at 6:30 at the Paan shop, Samat was present with Suresh. (ii) Both Bhaya Punja and Lila Punja arrived there in different vehicles, got down from it, without any warning, with their knives in their hands, stabbed Suresh on the vital parts of his body. As a result of which Suresh succumbed to injuries. The postmortem report at exh.40 through the testimony of Dr. Lineshkumar Prosecution Witness No. 11 proved the fact that Suresh suffered serious stab injuries. Injuries No. 2, 3 and 4 in the opinion of the doctor were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. (iii) Savitaben and Ajay tried to intervene in the scuffle. Ajay faced the wrath of the accused. He also sustained serious injuries as is evident from the medical evidence of doctors who are examined as Prosecution Witnesses No. 10, 11 and 14. Having received primary treatment at Mangrol hospital, he then was shifted to Rajkot hospital. He was admitted as an indoor patient for a period of 18 days and had undergone an operation as a result of ruptured spleen. Having received primary treatment at Mangrol hospital, he then was shifted to Rajkot hospital. He was admitted as an indoor patient for a period of 18 days and had undergone an operation as a result of ruptured spleen. Savitaben too had sustained injuries, as is evident, from the testimony of doctors who are examined as Prosecution Witness No. 12 and 13." 18. Thus vital facts which come out from the evidence of these three witnesses clearly establishes beyond doubt the presence of all the three at the time when the incident occurred. That Suresh succumbed to injuries as a result of stab injuries by wielding knives by the accused and that Ajay too sustained injuries clearly establish the nature of aggression that the accused used while stabbing without any warning, which lends credence to the prosecution story that they were the principal aggressors. The intention and the knowledge that causing such injuries would result into death of the victim was evident from the fact that they had come to the scene of the offence wielding knives. Medical evidence when examined in light of the above vis-à-vis the injuries that deceased sustained and so did Ajay are eloquent enough. 19. Supportive evidence in terms of discovery panchnama exh.21 and serological report exh.110 corroborated the prosecution story that both the accused were rightly charged for the offences in question. 20. In the earlier part of the judgement before discussing the evidence, a brief reference was made to the cross case filed by the appellants of the present appeal. The cross FIR, was subsequently committed to trial being Sessions Case No. 29/2009 and was tried. Samat, Savitaben and Ajay were charged with offences punishable under sections 323, 324 and 325 of the IPC. It was the case of the present appellants i.e. appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 193/2014 that Samat had wielded an iron pipe together with other three accused in that Sessions Case and caused serious injuries to Bhaya Punja. Lila Punja and Bhaya Punja were examined in the Sessions Case No. 29/2009 as Prosecution Witnesses No. 11 and 12 respectively. Lila Punja did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. What comes out on reading his testimony is that while he was proceeding to the Vadi, he received a call from his brother to come out of the place of the incident. Lila Punja did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. What comes out on reading his testimony is that while he was proceeding to the Vadi, he received a call from his brother to come out of the place of the incident. He however, completely turned over and did not support the theory of the complainant's brother Bhaya's version. Bhaya Punja was examined as Prosecution Witness No. 12. He too turned hostile. Though in his examination-in-chief he named Samat to have attacked with a pipe, he completely turned around and denied the presence of Samat and others at the scene of the offence. 21. In other words, both these prime witnesses namely complainants of prosecution case of the Sessions Case No. 29/2009 turned over and did not support the prosecution in the complaint that they lodged against the victim of Criminal Appeal No. 193/2014. 22. Even in 313 statement which was recorded where they were convicted of offence under section 302, they turned around and completely disowned their version and denied having been present at the scene of the offence. 23. From the assessment of the evidence as we discussed in Sessions case No. 28/2009 out of which Criminal Appeal No. 193/2014 is arising, presence of Both Bhaya Punja and Lila Punja at the scene of the offence was established from the evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 15, 16 and 17 namely, complainant Samat, brother Ajay and mother Savita. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that they were prime aggressors having come to the scene of the offence and carried out the attack. 24. The conviction therefore, for the offence under sections 302, 307, 324 and 325 handed out by the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 30.11.2013 cannot be faulted. 25. We are informed by the learned advocate Shri Ashish Dagli that accused No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 193/2014 and the sole appellant Bhayabhai Punjabhai Bariya in Criminal Appeal No. 965/2014 has died. 26. In the result following order is passed : "Criminal Appeal No. 193/2014 qua accused No. 1 is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 193/2014 qua accused No. 2 stands abated. Criminal Appeal No. 965/2014 qua the sole appellant stands abated." R&P may be transmitted back to the concerned trial Court.