JUDGMENT : Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. The State as the appellant is taking exception to the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao pursuant to which the respondents accused were given the benefit of doubt and set at liberty in respect of the commission of the offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 426 and 302 r/w. 149 I.P.C. 2. The parties would be referred to as the State and the accused for brevity’s sake hereinafter. 3. It was the case of the State that sometime on 26/08/2011 between 20.00 to 20.20 hours at Miramar, Goa, all the four accused along with the juvenile formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons such as choppers, iron pipes etc. and assaulted Manjunath Kambli, Salvador @Ghalu and Miss Arifa Khan and caused them grievous injuries. The injured Salvador had succumbed to the injuries on 03/09/2019 while undergoing treatment at the GMC Hospital, Bambolim leading to the registration of the offence also under Section 302 IPC amongst others. It was the case of the State that the injured Manjunath was sitting on a bench with Salvador @ Ghalu and Mario near the Goa Science Centre when they noticed one person walking towards them with his hand behind his back as was concealing some article in his hands. Salvador @ Ghalu had asked him as to what he was hiding and thereupon the said person had run away some distance followed by them and in the meantime the said person had removed the chopper and had loudly said “abhi mat maro abhi mat maro” and in the meantime 4 persons who were hiding nearby had jumped over the fence armed with baseball sticks and choppers. 4. It was the prosecution case further that Manjunath and Salvador had run towards the road and had entered a car which was parked by the side of the road and in the meantime one girl who was in the passenger seat had come out from the car. She was however attacked with the chopper by one of the assailants who also broke the glasses and damaged the car and assaulted them with choppers and baseball stick. She was however attacked with the chopper by one of the assailants who also broke the glasses and damaged the car and assaulted them with choppers and baseball stick. On the basis of the case as carved out on behalf of the State, a chargesheet was laid against all the four accused before the J.M.F.C., Panaji and thereupon on completion of the formalities of furnishing the case papers to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C., was the case committed to the Court of Sessions, Panaji for disposal in accordance with law. 5. Heard Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State who submitted at the outset that a crime was committed on the night of 26/08/2011 by the four accused alongwith the juvenile and for which offences were registered against them under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 326, 426 and 302 r/w. 149 IPC and that they were placed under arrest on 27/08/2011 at Amboli while trying to escape in a Maruti car. He referred to the evidence of the various witnesses including the testimony of one of the eye witnesses Mario Pw3, the star injured witness Majunath Pw30 who had set the law in motion by lodging a complaint and submitted that a murderous attack was pre planned by the four accused alongwith the juvenile on Salvador @ Ghalu, since deceased, and on Majunath and thereafter they had fled from the spot of crime. The motive for the crime was amply demonstrated from the testimony of Anthony Pw11. He adverted to the testimony of Dr. Fernandes Pw2 who had conducted the post mortem examination on the body of Salvador @ Ghalu and submitted that from his testimony it was amply demonstrated and borne out that the accused had the sole aim to kill Ghalu both in the car and outside. 6. Shri Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor further adverted to the testimony of the other witnesses and submitted that there was ample material on record to hold conclusively that the prosecution had driven home the charge against the accused on all fours and that it was a fit case to convict the accused. 6. Shri Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor further adverted to the testimony of the other witnesses and submitted that there was ample material on record to hold conclusively that the prosecution had driven home the charge against the accused on all fours and that it was a fit case to convict the accused. He adverted to the various findings recorded by the Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment and submitted that the findings of the learned Judge were totally perverse and called for a conclusion that the judgment was vitiated and there was no scope for doubt or for the Trial Court to conclude that the death of Salvador @Ghalu was on account of septicemia despite the innumerable grievous injuries being noted on his person. The cause of death recorded by the Trial Court was not founded on the material on record. The Trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of the injured victim Majunath Pw30 who was a natural eyewitness to the incident and had discarded his testimony without any legal basis. 7. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor referred to the testimony of the Executive Magistrate who had conducted the test identification parade and drawn the memorandum of the test identification parade and submitted that she was unshaken and there was no reason to disbelieve her testimony. She had taken dummies in the course of the test identification parade who were similar in age and appearance as the suspects and despite which the learned Trial Judge had in his wisdom disbelieved her case too and recorded findings which were dehors the records. The Trial Judge had wrongly given the benefit of doubt to the accused and delivered the judgment of acquittal which was fraught with inconsistencies. It necessitated a reversal of the findings and therefore the appeal had to be allowed and the accused convicted for the offences alleged against them. 8. The Trial Judge had wrongly given the benefit of doubt to the accused and delivered the judgment of acquittal which was fraught with inconsistencies. It necessitated a reversal of the findings and therefore the appeal had to be allowed and the accused convicted for the offences alleged against them. 8. Shri S.G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance in Arulvelu and another v/s. State represented by the Public Prosecutor and another [ (2009) 10 SCC 206 ], Muralidhar alias Gidda and another v/s. State of Karnataka [ (2014) 5 SCC 730 ], Madathil Narayanan and others v/s. State of Kerala and another [ (2018) 14 SCC 513 ] and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others v/s. State of Maharashtra [ (2010)13 SCC 657 ] to buttress the proposition that the Appellate Court would not reverse a judgment of acquittal only because a different view was possible. There is no dispute with the proposition as culled out in these judgments but whether this proposition would at all apply in the facts of the present case is to be considered and whether there was a material miscarriage of justice by the Trial Court in rendering a finding of not guilty against the accused and acquitting them of the charges as to justify a conclusion that the judgment was warped, totally dehors the material on record, illegal and did not call for an acquittal of the accused. 9. Shri Desai, learned Senior Counsel next invited attention to the requirements of Section 299 IPC and submitted that the said offence was not attracted to the case when read with the evidence of Dr. Fernandes Pw2. He also referred to Section 319 and 320 IPC which dealt with hurt and grievous hurt and that in the instant case however the prosecution had failed to establish that the injury caused to Salvador @ Ghalu was sufficient to cause death. Dr. Fernandes Pw2 had not at all made out a case of homicidal death and rather had certified the cause of death as due to septicemia and in that context he referred to the literature on septicemia and produced the same for the perusal of the Court. He referred to the testimony of Dr. Dr. Fernandes Pw2 had not at all made out a case of homicidal death and rather had certified the cause of death as due to septicemia and in that context he referred to the literature on septicemia and produced the same for the perusal of the Court. He referred to the testimony of Dr. Pednekar Pw25 and read through the judgment rendered by the Trial Court and submitted that there was material discrepancy in the testimony of Manjunath Pw30 and Matin Pw31 as also Mario Pw3 and submitted that the case of the prosecution did not at all inspire confidence as to return a finding of guilt against all or any of the accused. 10. Shri S.G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 4 further read through the impugned judgment and otherwise placed reliance in Rajesh Govind Jagesha v/s. State of Maharashtra [2000 Cri.L.J. 380], Mulla and Ors. V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2010) 3 SCC 508], Sudhakar alias Sudharasan v/s. State represented by Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Trichy, Tamil Nadu [ (2018)5 SCC 435 ], Joseph v/s. State of Kerala [ (2003) 1 SCC 465 ] and Shankar v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (2018)15 SCC 725 ] toultimately contend that it was a well reasoned judgment written by the Sessions Judge not justifying any interference in appeal by this Court and also by following the settled proposition of law as laid down in Arulvelu, Muralidhar, Madathil Narayanan and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.)(supra). Shri Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel for the accused Nos.2 and 3 at the outset adopted the arguments of Shri S.G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel for the accused Nos.1 and 4 and otherwise referred to the testimony of Matin Pw31 to submit that there was no iota of evidence against the accused Nos.2 and 3 to bring home their guilt and to fasten the liability in the crime alongwith the accused Nos.1 and 4. On his part he placed reliance in Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh V/s. State of Gujarat [ (2019) 6 SCC 535 ]. The accused Nos.2 and 3 were not named in the FIR nor was there any evidence to connect the accused with the crime and therefore the learned Sessions Judge had rightly acquitted the said accused. 11. On his part he placed reliance in Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh V/s. State of Gujarat [ (2019) 6 SCC 535 ]. The accused Nos.2 and 3 were not named in the FIR nor was there any evidence to connect the accused with the crime and therefore the learned Sessions Judge had rightly acquitted the said accused. 11. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State met the contentions of Shri S.G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel initially on the definition of Section 299 CrPC dealing with homicidal death viz a viz the Oxford dictionary meaning of hurt and injury to contend that the argument of Shri S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel was untenable. He placed reliance in Chandrappa and others v/s. State of Karnataka [ (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] qua the power of the Appellate Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal to one of conviction. Insofar as the discrepancies in the version of the three eyewitnesses were concerned namely Mario Pw3, Manjunath Pw30 and Matin Pw31, it was his contention that Mario had a limited role to play who had run away from the spot no sooner the juvenile had shown the knife from some distance and followed by the arrival of the four accused. The star eye witness was Manjunath Pw30 who had given a detailed version of what had transpired at the scene of crime, on the role of Matin Pw31 who was the driver of the car and otherwise unconnected being a witness whose role was limited to shed light on the incident restricted to the damages to the car and taking care of his girlfriend Arifa. There was no discrepancy in the testimony of Manjunath Pw30 and Matin Pw31 and rather Manjunath Pw30 was unshaken on the happening of the incident of assault. Even if there were minor discrepancies in his testimony, his entire testimony could not be discarded on that count. He placed reliance in Chandrappa and others v/s. State of Karnataka [ (2008) 11 SCC 328 ], Malkhansingh and others v/s. State of MP. [ AIR 2003 SC 2669 ] and State of M.P. V/s. Dharkole Alias Govind Singh and others [ AIR 2005 SC 44 ]. 12. He placed reliance in Chandrappa and others v/s. State of Karnataka [ (2008) 11 SCC 328 ], Malkhansingh and others v/s. State of MP. [ AIR 2003 SC 2669 ] and State of M.P. V/s. Dharkole Alias Govind Singh and others [ AIR 2005 SC 44 ]. 12. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the non-examination of Arifa, the injured girlfriend of Matin Pw31 was not fatal to the prosecution case whose absence had been duly accounted for by the prosecution since she had already travelled abroad and was not available during the course of the trial. Insofar as the placement of the two accused in the course of one TI parade was concerned, he placed reliance in Sheikh Sintha Madhar Alias Jaffer Alias Sintha and others [ AIR 2016 SC 1844 ] and submitted that there was nothing amiss in the two accused being a part of the same TI Parade. On the version of Manjunath Pw30 being doubtful viz a viz his complaint, it was his contention that the complaint/FIR was not required to be an encyclopedia and therefore no doubt could be cast on its version. The prosecution had amply proved its case on the basis of the eye witnesses account and even established the motive for the crime. He next placed reliance in State of M.P. V/s. Rammi @ Rameshwar and others [1998 SCC OnLine MP 200) and Devdahadur Jaikrushna Dagal v/s. State of Maharashtra [2014 1 MhLJ (Cri)243] in support of his case. 13. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor in reply invited attention to the points for determination formulated by the Sessions Judge and submitted that the learned Judge had not given any reasoning nor any clear finding on the aspect of unlawful assembly. It was his contention next that even assuming without admitting that unlawful assembly was not established, the case of the prosecution could still fall within the ambit of Section 34 IPC and in that context placed reliance in Jiva Lal and others vs. State of MP [ (1997) 9 SCC 119 ] and Yunis Alias Kariya vs. State of MP [ AIR 2003 SC 539 ]. On the complaint being fabricated and the details of the other accused not being recorded in the complaint, he relied in Surjit Singh Alias Curmit Singh vs. State of Punjab [ AIR 1992 SC 1389 ] to reiterate once again that an FIR was not an encyclopedia. Rather the complaint made a reference to the involvement of five persons in the crime. Section 307 apart from Section 302 IPC were clearly made out and yet the learned Trial Judge had failed to give any finding on the aspects of Section 307 IPC. 14. Shri S.G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the accused Nos.1 and 4 once again submitted that the version of Manjunath Pw30 was unbelievable. He referred to the testimony of Dr. Shaikh Pw23 and submitted that his finding on the injury of an undisplaced fracture on the hand of Manjunath Pw30 clearly indicated that the fracture was in normal alignment meaning thereby that Manjunath Pw30 could sign the complaint and yet there was no explanation why the complaint did not bear his signature. He negated the contention of Shri Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor that the explanation II to Section 299 IPC was not attracted inasmuch as the injuries suffered by Salvador@Ghalu were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Besides, the location of the injuries were not on the vital parts of the body and there was no intention to cause death. He next distinguished each of the judgments relied upon on behalf of the prosecution and submitted once again that even shorn of minor discrepancies, the judgment of the Trial Court did not justify any interference and therefore the judgment of acquittal had to be confirmed and the appeal filed by the State was liable for dismissal. 15. We would consider their submissions at length in the light of the judgments relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the accused Nos.1 and 4 and the learned Advocate on behalf of the accused Nos.2 and 3, discus the evidence borne from the record and on a consideration of the judgment under challenge proceed to decide the appeal accordingly. 16. 16. In Arulvelu(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held while dealing with an appeal against acquittal that unless the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse, the Appellate Court would not be justified in substituting its own view and reverse the judgment of acquittal. It considered a host of the judgments of the Apex Court and earlier of the Privy Council and culled out the principles that (i) the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the Trial Court. The Trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. (ii) The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the Trial Court. (iii) The Appellate Court should always keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. (iv) The Appellate Court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. (v) If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/Appellate Courts must rule in favour of the accused. The Apex Court further went on to hold that unquestionably, the Appellate Court has the power to review and reappreciate the entire evidence on record. The Appellate Court would be justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal only if there are substantial and compelling reasons and when the judgment of the Trial Court is found to be a perverse judgment. Interfering in a routine manner where the other view is possible is contrary to the settled legal position crystallized by the aforementioned judgments of the Court. 17. Interfering in a routine manner where the other view is possible is contrary to the settled legal position crystallized by the aforementioned judgments of the Court. 17. In Muralidhar(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the judgment of the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup vs. Kind Emperor [(1933-34) 61 IA 398] where the opinion of Lord Russell that the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (i) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (ii) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he had been acquitted at his trial; (iii) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (iv) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses was followed over the years and reiterated in Surajpal Singh v/s. State [ AIR 1952 SC 52 ] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal where it was observed that the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it was equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the Trial Court, and the findings of the Trial Court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons. 18. Madathil Narayanan (supra), reiterated the principles while dealing with an appeal against acquittal where the case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the well settled principle of law that if two views are plausible, the view which goes in favour of acquittal has to be adopted and that in the absence of any manifest illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice, the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court may not be interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 19. 19. In Sunil Kumar(supra), another two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal reiterated the well established principle of law consistently reiterated and followed by it that while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, an Appellate Court must consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the Trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. Even though the Appellate Court is entitled to consider, whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the Trial Court had placed the burden of proof incorrectly or failed to take into consideration any admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law; the Appellate Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the Appellate Court may be the more probable one. The Trial Court which has the benefit of watching the demeanour of the witnesses is the best Judge of the credibility of the witnesses. 20. In Sunil Kumar(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India. The nature of the offence, its seriousness and gravity has to be taken into consideration. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused, and further, that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference with the decision of the Trial Court in a casual or cavalier manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for such interference. It further held at paragraph 40 as thus: “In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is 'against the weight of evidence', or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality." 21. In Shanker(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that before awarding a conviction against an accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC, the Courts should be mindful of the fact that there should be no room to suspect evidence of the key prosecution witnesses based on whose evidence conviction is being awarded. As a general rule, while appreciating evidence in a criminal case, Court should bear in mind, that it is not quantity, but quality of evidence that is material. It is the duty of Court to consider the trustworthiness of witness and evidence adduced on record and to assess the same in a prudent manner, whether the same inspires confidence, so as to accept and act upon, before convicting an accused. Insofar as the facts of the matter were concerned, their Lordship held that when the evidence of prime prosecution witnesses were not corroborating with the other on material aspects, the Courts had unmindfully given greater importance to the evidence, without looking into the veracity of their statements. It was found in the facts that even if credence was given to the statement of Pw5, the genesis and genuineness of FIR was, undoubtedly questionable. Taking into consideration the observations made by the Court in S. Govindaraju v/s. State of Karnataka [ (2013) 15 SCC 315 ]: “It is well settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude so as to materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements in relation to trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not be made a ground for rejection of evidence in its entirety. The trial Court, after going through the entire evidence available, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses, and the appellate court in the normal course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without providing justifiable reasons for doing so. The trial Court, after going through the entire evidence available, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses, and the appellate court in the normal course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without providing justifiable reasons for doing so. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found not to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, the witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence available or with a statement that has already been recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt”. 22. In Joseph (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held while appreciating the evidence in a case where the prosecution's case was based on an evidence of a solitary eyewitness, such evidence must be wholly reliable so as to record conviction on that basis. Though the witness was an injured witness and his presence at the time and place of occurrence may not be doubtful but his evidence found to be in conflict with other evidence. It also reiterated the proposition that in an appeal against acquittal when the Trial Court gave cogent reasons for acquittal, High Court should not interfere with the acquittal merely because another view was possible. 23. Chandrappa (supra), too on a consideration of several judgments culled out at paragraph 42 the following general principles regarding the power of the Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal namely - (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 24. In State of Karnataka(supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the contention on behalf of the appellants that the discrepancies between the statements of the eye witnesses inter se would go to show that they had not seen the incident and no reliance could thus be placed on their testimony. It had been pointed out that their statements were discrepant as to the actual manner of assault and as to the injuries caused by each of the accused to the deceased and to Pw3 the injured eye witness. We are of the opinion that in such matters it would be unreasonable to expect a witness to give a picture perfect report of the injuries caused by each witness to the deceased or the injured more particularly where it has been proved on record that the injuries had been caused by several accused armed with different kinds of weapons. Their Lordship at para No.18 states that with the passage of time the memory of an eye witness tends to dim and it is perhaps difficult for a witness to recall events with precision. Their Lordship at para No.18 states that with the passage of time the memory of an eye witness tends to dim and it is perhaps difficult for a witness to recall events with precision. We have gone through the record and find that the evidence had been recorded more than 5 years after the incident and if the memory had partly failed the eye witnesses and if they had not been able to give an exact description of the injuries, it would not detract from the substratum of their evidence. It is however very significant that Pw2 is the sister of the 5 appellants, the deceased and Pw3 Devendrappa and in the dispute between the brothers she had continued to reside with her father Navilappa who was residing with the appellants, but she has nevertheless still supported the prosecution. In their opinion in normal circumstances she would not have given evidence against the appellants but she has come forth as an eye witness and supported the prosecution in all material particulars and in that view of the matter their Lordship could not find any merit in the plea on behalf of the appellant accused and dismissed the appeal. 25. In Devbahadur Dogal(supra), the division bench of this court was concerned with the contention on behalf of the appellant that the panch witness was known to Pw1 Sandeep who is the complainant in the case, and therefore could not be relied upon. It was found that nothing further has been elicited in the cross examination of the panch witness Pw5. More so as to disbelieve his testimony except the fact that he knew the complainant. It was found that nothing further has been elicited in the cross examination of the panch witness Pw5. More so as to disbelieve his testimony except the fact that he knew the complainant. In that context the Division Bench referred to Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code and subsection 4 in particular which required an Officer to make a search under chapter to call upon two or more independent or respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do observe that a panch witness Pw5 was a resident of the same locality in which the complainant was residing and he was bound to know the complainant thus this fact by itself without anything more to record or any other material to show that he was under the thumb of the police would not affect the veracity of his evidence do not find any merit in the averments on behalf of the appellant accused challenging the judgment of conviction rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai. 26. Jivan Lal and others(supra), were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Trial Court who challenged the same in appeal before the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Appeal of eight convicts acquitting them by giving the benefit of doubt. So far as three appellants where concerned, their conviction was maintained for the offence under section 302 read with 149 IPC giving rise to the appeal at their instance. A plea was taken on their behalf that their conviction could not be sustained under section 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC. 13 persons were arraigned as the accused and that the acquittal of ten of them (two by the Trial Court and eight by the High Court), the conviction of the remaining 3 under section 148 and 302/149 of IPC is not permissible as the assembly of three only would not be an unlawful assembly within the meaning of section 141 IPC. The opinion of the High Court that these three appellants formed an unlawful assembly with some “other known unknown persons” is based on no evidence as it was not the prosecution case that besides the 13 named persons, there was any other “unknown” person also who had shared the common object with the appellants for committing the murder of the deceased. The High Court was therefore not justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 148 and 149/ 302 IPC. However, the manner in which the incident took place clearly indicates that the appellants had shared the common intention of committing the murder of the deceased. They would therefore be liable for the said murder with the aid of Section 34 IPC. The Apex Court therefore altered the conviction of the appellants from Section 302 read with 149 IPC to one under section 302 IPC while maintaining the sentence of life imprisonment. 27. In Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court summarised the principles while interfering with the concurrent finding of facts of the Court below. In the brief facts the appellant No.1 with 5 others and their servant were chargesheeted under Sections 302, 307 and 120-B IPC r/w Section 34 IPC, Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 506 Part II, 323 and 504 IPC, under Section 25(c) of the Arms Act and under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and in support of its case the Trial Court examined four eye-witnesses namely the complainant Somabhai Rupabhai (Pw3), Hirabhai Somabhai Nandaben Hirabhai (Pw7), the injured eye-witnesses Ramanbhai Mulabhai Rangjibhai (Pw6) and Nandaben Hirabhai (Pw7), Dr. Rohit Kumar (Pw1) who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Somiben, Dr. Deshmukh Hiralal (Pw4) who examined the injured eye-witnesses and other witnesses. Upon the consideration of the eye-witnesses, recovery of weapons and other evidence on record, the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 15/11/2000 convicted the appellant Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC apart from Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC as also under Section 25(c) of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment, while acquitting the accused nos.3 to 7 from all the charges. The appellants took the matter in appeal before the High Court while the State filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of the co-accused Nos.3 to 7 and by a common judgment dated 05/03/2009, the High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act, Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and acquitted the accused No.2 of all the charges by giving him the benefit of doubt while dismissing the appeal preferred by the State. The appellant preferred the appeal before the Apex Court while the State filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of the 2nd accused which came to be dismissed on 02/05/2019. 28. In Ashok Jayendrasinh(supra), the occurrence had taken place on the night of 23/11/1997 in the agricultural field of the complainant-Somabhai Rupabhai where it was dark. The panchnama of the scene of occurrence showed no indication of an electric light either in the animal shed situated behind the house of complainant or that there was any electric pole anywhere in the vicinity or there was a light on the well supplying water. In the absence of any evidence as to the light aspect, the possibility of identifying the accused in the darkness of the agricultural field of the complainant, particularly at 09:00 PM became doubtful. There was no evidence as to whether there was moonlight on 23.11.1997 and the complainant had also not stated that he had identified the appellant or other co-accused with the help of moonlight. In the absence of evidence as to the availability of sufficient light, the identification of the accused and the overt act attributed to the appellant became doubtful. Besides, the Apex Court also found that the evidence of the eye-witnesses were contradictory to each other as to the firing of the fatal blow. The guilt of the accused had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of which had to be given to the accused and in view thereof set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 25(c) of the Arms Act. In the backdrop of these judgments and the principles culled out therein, we would now assess the evidence in-depth to conclude whether the Trial Court was in error in concluding as it did and by a proper marshalling of the evidence. 29. Dr. N. Pednekar Pw25 had occasion to examine Salvador, since deceased, in the Casualty and Trauma Department on 26/08/2011 at 9.00p.m. upon being brought by 108 ambulance with history of assault at Miramar on the same night at 8.00p.m. On examination he had found: i. Incised wounds (a) 15x 1x 1cm (b)10 x 1 x 1cm (c) 3 x1 x 1cm (d) 5 x 1 x 1cm which were present on the front temporal occipital region of the head caused by sharp edged weapon within 6 hours duration and grievous in nature. ii. Lacerated injury 2 x 1 x 0.5 cm on the pinna of the right ear caused by blunt force within 6 hours duration and simple in nature. iii. Incised wound with bleeding and contamination measuring 10 x 1 x 1 cms on the posterior aspect of the right arm caused by a sharp edged weapon within 6 hours of duration and simple in nature. iv. Multiple contused lacerated wounds with comminuted fracture of the right olecranon with sub-luxation of the right humerocapital joint. This was round the right elbow caused by blunt force within 6 hours duration and grievous in nature amongst the multiple lacerations and the largest was measuring 10 x 15 x bone deep and the smallest measuring 5 x 5 x 1cm. v. Multiple contused lacerated wound with muscle exposed with undisplaced unicortical fracture mid shaft of right ulna bone with distal neurological deficit, the largest laceration measuring 15 x 15 cm on the right forearm and grievous in nature. vi. Incised wound measuring 3 x 3 x 1 cms. on the hypothnar aspect of the right hand caused by sharp edged weapon and simple in nature. vii. Contused lacerated wound measuring 15 x 15 x bone deep with comminuted fracture of the left olecrenon bone with fracture neck of the left radius bone with sub-luxation of the left elbow joint with distal neurological deficit and grievous in nature. viii. Contused lacerated wound measuring 10 x 5 cms x muscle deep with tenderness with absence of the left finger movements and grievous in nature. ix. Linear abrasions and simple in nature. viii. Contused lacerated wound measuring 10 x 5 cms x muscle deep with tenderness with absence of the left finger movements and grievous in nature. ix. Linear abrasions and simple in nature. x. Contused lacerated wound measuring 3 x 2 x 2 cms. with undisplaced unicorticular fracture of anterior cortex of right mid-shaft of right tibea bone and grievous in nature. xi. Contused lacerated wound with contamination with absence of right toe movements and grievous in nature. xii. Contused lacerated wound measuring 20 x 25 cms x bone deep with open knee injury with compound pattela bone with pattela tendon avulsed and grievous in nature. xiii. Multiple contused lacerated wounds largest measuring 10 x 10 x muscle deep with avulsion fracture or left tibial tuberosity with comminuted fracture of proximal 1/3rd shaft of left tibia bone extending to the mid-shaft with distal neurological deficit and grievous in nature. xiv. Punctured wound 05 x 0.5 x 0.5cm on the right lower abdomen caused by a sharp pointed object and the opinion reserved. xv. Abrasion measuring 1 x 0.5 cm on the left lower abdomen caused by blunt force and simple in nature. In the assessment of the Doctor the patient was bleeding profusely from all the injuries, pulse was very feeble and blood pressure was not recordable followed by investigation with x-rays, C.T. Scan of the head, abdominal ultrasound, CT Angiography of the abdomen and the patient was referred to Orthopaedic Surgery Department, Neurosurgery and ENT Department. A detailed reference is made to these injuries and their nature apart from their location since it is tried on behalf of the defence to brush aside these injuries under the carpet and to put forth a case that the death of Salvador, since deceased, was purely due to septicemia and not due to any of these injuries contributing to septicemia. 30. Dr. Pednekar Pw25 had further opined that the injuries which were found on Salvador, since decreased, were caused by sharp weapons such as chopper, koita etc. as also the injuries caused by a blunt object were possibly by the use of weapons like iron rods and wooden danda etc. There was a bare denial of his statement that these injuries could have been caused with weapons like chopper, koita, iron rod, danda etc. as also the injuries caused by a blunt object were possibly by the use of weapons like iron rods and wooden danda etc. There was a bare denial of his statement that these injuries could have been caused with weapons like chopper, koita, iron rod, danda etc. with no rebuttal of the detailed description of the nature of injuries found on the patient upon his initial examination in a traumatic condition in the Casualty and Trauma Ward of the GMC hospital. 31. Dr. A. Fernandes Pw2 who had occasion to conduct the autopsy examination on the body of Salvador, since deceased, on 04/09/2011 stated that he had received the details of the treatment received by the deceased in the GMC hospital from the date of his admission till the time of his death on 03/09/2011 at 23.30 hours and had given his detailed findings on the autopsy report. He had opined the cause of death and being certified by him as due to septicemic shock as a result of deep infected wounds associated with fractures to underlying bone inflicted by sharp, medium to heavy weight cutting weapons and which injuries were antemortem and fatal in the ordinary course of nature. The underlying fractures in respect of these injuries which were grievous and dangerous in nature could have been caused by a sharp, medium to heavy weight cutting weapon and of which he had given the details in the autopsy report. 32. The injury No.1 in particular on the right side fronto temporal region vis-a-vis its pictorial depiction would negate the contention of Shri Desai, learned Senior Counsel that this injury being one of the several injuries inflicted on the person of Salvador, since deceased, was not on a vital part of the body and like the injury nos.2 and 3 which were on the right side parieto mastoid region of the head and on the left side back of the head. That there was no fracture to the scalp due to the infliction of these injuries would not make the seriousness and gravity of the injuries any less nor would it lie in the mouth of the accused that these injuries were contrary to the finding of Dr. Fernandes Pw2 being antemortem in nature and fatal in the ordinary course of nature. 33. Fernandes Pw2 being antemortem in nature and fatal in the ordinary course of nature. 33. His opinion as regards the causative weapon was arrived at the time of the autopsy based on the fractures present on the long bone since a lot of the injuries numbering 19 had a lot of infected collection, were excised by the surgeons in the operation theatre for wound debridement and desloughing. He had again reiterated on the weapons being shown to him on receipt of the Report from the CFSL, Hyderabad that the 19 injuries recorded in his postmortem report were possible to be caused by Chopper, koita being sharp and heavy weapons. The mere possibility of septicemia being caused due to unhygienic conditions prevailing in the hospital is a mere possibility or hypothesis and it was nowhere the case of Dr. Fernandes Pw2 that the death was caused simplicitor due to septicemia. The findings in the autopsy report have therefore to be read in conjunction with the findings of the injuries noted by him which were mainly grievous and dangerous in nature caused by the sharp cutting weapons and the cause of death certified by him as due to septicemic shock has to be read in conjunction with the latter part of his report that this septicemic shock was as a result of deep infected wounds associated with fractures to the underlying bones, inflicted by sharp, medium to heavy weight cutting weapons which were antemortem in nature and fatal in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore the entire exercise by Shri Desai, learned Senior Counsel for the accused Nos. 1 and 4 to brush the cause of death as due to septicemia and the reliance in the literature in that context is in futility to say the least. 34. Therefore the entire exercise by Shri Desai, learned Senior Counsel for the accused Nos. 1 and 4 to brush the cause of death as due to septicemia and the reliance in the literature in that context is in futility to say the least. 34. Section 299 contained in chapter XVI of the IPC dealing with the offences affecting the human body reads thus : “Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.” Explanation 2 thereto is particularly attracted in the facts of the case where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. A reading of the testimony of Dr. Pednekar Pw25 who had occasion to examine the injured Salvador, since deceased, and that of Dr. Fernandes Pw2 who performed the autopsy examination on his body upon his death would clearly indicate that the death was caused due to the grievous injuries suffered by the deceased and which in the assessment of the Forensic Surgeon were fatal in the ordinary course of nature. The contentions thus of Shri Desai, learned Senior Counsel for the accused Nos.1 and 4 in that context that the ingredients of Section 299 IPC were not at all attracted to the facts of the case and of death being due to septicemia alone, clearly bites the dust. 35. Dr. Fernandes Pw2 had otherwise referred the sample of blood relating to the deceased for blood grouping to the Blood Bank, GMC Hospital, Bambolim and had received the report from the Medical Officer of the Blood Bank certifying the blood group of the deceased as A Rh+ve. He had otherwise forwarded the exhibits to the PI Panaji Police Station for onward transmission to the CFSL Hyderabad. Dr. S. Palyekar Pw18 was attached to the Blood Bank, GMC Hospital at the relevant time who corroborated the version of Dr. Fernandes Pw2 that he had received the request for carrying out the blood grouping of Salvador, since deceased, that he had carried out the same and found it to be A Rh+ve. Dr. S. Palyekar Pw18 was attached to the Blood Bank, GMC Hospital at the relevant time who corroborated the version of Dr. Fernandes Pw2 that he had received the request for carrying out the blood grouping of Salvador, since deceased, that he had carried out the same and found it to be A Rh+ve. 36. Mario Pw3 was one of the persons who was present in the company of Salvador, since deceased, on the night of 26/08/2011 alongwith the star eyewitness of the prosecution Manjunath Pw30. As per his version, he was sitting on the bench alongwith Salvador @ Ghalo and Manjunath Pw30 on 26/08/2011 around 8.00pm by the side of the road on Miramar Road, near the Science Center and talking with each other. After about 15 to 20 minutes he noticed one boy coming from Panaji side towards them with his right hand inside the shirt on the back side holding something concealed inside and Manjunath told Salvador that the boy is holding something inside the shirt. At that time Manjunath and Salvador stood and started walking towards the said boy and started asking him as to what he was concealing in the shirt (“fatlyan kide asa”). The said boy answered in Konkani “tuka kidyak zai” and started shouting. Another person hearing, who was concealing behind the wooden railing and the trees, started coming towards them with a chopper in his hand who tried to attack him however he had managed to run towards Dona Paula side. 37. Mario Pw3 stated that Salvador and Manjunath also ran away on the other side but he did not know their direction. There was no serious rebuttal of his testimony that he was present with Salvador and Manjunath on that night at the stated place, the coming of the boy walking from Panaji side concealing something in his shirt behind his back and followed soon thereafter by one person coming to attack him. Much was said in his testimony not inspiring confidence or not corroborating the version of Manjunath Pw30 but this contention cannot stand the test of scrutiny when his role was limited to noticing the narrated acts and then making good his escape from the scene. 38. Much was said in his testimony not inspiring confidence or not corroborating the version of Manjunath Pw30 but this contention cannot stand the test of scrutiny when his role was limited to noticing the narrated acts and then making good his escape from the scene. 38. In Dharkole(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held at paragraph 9 that: “It is trite that where the eye-witnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process. Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts; the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.” 39. In Dharkole(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court also observed at paragraph 10 that “A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to 'proof' is an exercise particular to each case?” 40. It held at paragraph 11: “Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and commonsense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.” 41. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and commonsense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.” 41. In Dharkole(supra), an appeal by the State questioning the legality of the judgment of acquittal rendered by a Division Benchof the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was found by the Apex Court that the High Court noticed inconsistency in the evidence of so called eye witnesses and it was observed that the discrepancies were not only between the statements of these witnesses but the statement of each one of them was also inconsistent with his earlier statement recorded during investigation and in that view of the matter the Hon'ble High Court held that they could not be relied upon in view of the fact that some of them had a criminal background their evidence was not worthy of credence while setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court however on a perusal of the judgment of the High Court found that it showed that the High Court had disposed of the appeal in a rather casual manner, that most of the conclusions arrived at by the High Court were per se not on sound footing and in that context observed that the Appellate Court had not abjured its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice by interfering where interference is imperative. 42. In Dharkole(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where doubt is based on irrelevant grounds or where the Court allows itself to be deflected by red herrings drawn across the track, or where the evidence accepted by the Trial Court is rejected by the High Court after a perfunctory consideration or where the baneful approach of the Court has resulted in vital and crucial evidence being ignored or for any such adequate reason, the Court should feel obliged to secure the ends of justice, to appease the judicial conscience, as it were. The High Court had noted that the names of witnesses do not appear in the first information report. That by itself cannot be a ground to doubt their evidence as noted by the Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. (JT 2002 (3) SC 387), Chittar Lal v/s. State of Rajasthan (2003 AIR SCW 3466) and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Man singh and Ors. That by itself cannot be a ground to doubt their evidence as noted by the Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. (JT 2002 (3) SC 387), Chittar Lal v/s. State of Rajasthan (2003 AIR SCW 3466) and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Man singh and Ors. ( 2003 (6) Supreme 202 ). There is no requirement of mentioning the names of all witnesses in the first information report. Even insofar as the plea that the medical evidence is at variance with ocular evidence, it has to be noted that it would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye-witnesses' account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the "variable" keeping the medical evidence as the "constant". 43. In Surjit Singh (supra), the Division Bench of the Apex Court held that the FIR is not an encyclopedia of an entire case and is even not a substantive piece of evidence. It has value, no doubt, but only for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the maker. 44. Manjunath Pw30 had come on record that on 26/08/2011 he was sitting on a bench near the Goa Science Center at Miramar located on the left side of the road while proceeding from Miramar to Dona Paula during the night time at around 8.00 hours. There he noticed a short person wearing a white shirt and blue jeans pant, having his right hand on the back side concealing something and coming towards them from Miramar side. He suspected about the said person since he was trying to conceal something and told Salvador about it. Salvador had asked the said person as to what he was concealing in Konkani “fatlyan kide asa” and “tu khancho”. The said person had replied in an arrogant tone in Konkani “kide jala tumche”. In the meantime, Salvador stood from the bench and on seeing, the said boy started running away and followed by them for around 4 to 5 mtrs. The said boy stopped when he was around 20 to 25 mtrs. away from them and he showed a koita which was in his hand and said loudly “abhi mat maro, abhi mat maro”. The said boy stopped when he was around 20 to 25 mtrs. away from them and he showed a koita which was in his hand and said loudly “abhi mat maro, abhi mat maro”. Just at that time he noticed four persons, who were hiding nearby across the fence of the bench, come jumping from the fence and they were found armed with koita, danda, pipe and baseball bat. They suspected some foul play on them and thereafter he and Salvador started running towards the other side of the road while Mario ran towards the Taliegao road. 45. Manjunath Pw30 revealed that there was a car on the other side of road which was a silver colour I-20 make and a boy and a girl were sitting on the front seat. In order to save himself from the attack, he opened the front left side door of the car and at the same moment, the girl sitting there came out and therefore he went inside the car and sat on the front left seat. At the same time the boy with white shirt who came first, assaulted the said girl with chopper (koita). He also noticed that the boy who was sitting at the driver's seat came out of the car and Salvador sat on the driver's seat. The said 5 persons who had come at the spot armed with koita, baseball and dandas started damaging the car including the side window glasses. They assaulted him and Salvador with koitas, baseball bat and dandas while they were sitting in the car. In the meantime and due to the commotion, people gathered at the spot and these 5 persons ran away from the spot towards Taliegao side. 46. Manjunath Pw30 had corroborated the version of Mario on the incident about the boy walking with his hand behind his back concealing something, the question by Salvador to him, his reaction and thereafter the action of that boy to show the koita from some distance away. 46. Manjunath Pw30 had corroborated the version of Mario on the incident about the boy walking with his hand behind his back concealing something, the question by Salvador to him, his reaction and thereafter the action of that boy to show the koita from some distance away. There was no rebuttal of his testimony that 4 persons, who were hiding nearby across the fence of the bench came jumping from the fence armed with koita, danda, pipe and baseball bat and for which both Salvador and he had taken refuge by running across to the other side of the road and taking seat in the I20 car which in the meantime was vacated by its two occupants, the lady Arifa and her friend Matin. He maintained that the accused No.1 was wearing a long sleeves blue, white and pink colour vertical stripes shirt and a blue jean pant whom he had clearly identified at the time of the incident, the short boy who first came to the spot being the juvenile facing trial separately and the other accused alongwith the accused No.1 being the accused nos.2, 3 and 4 namely Krishna, Godwin and Sandip respectively. Accused no.2 Krishna was wearing white short sleeved shirt having black vertical stripes and blue jean pant, the accused no.3 Godwin was wearing white round neck t-shirt having a picture of baby face and jean pant and the accused no.4 Sandip was wearing a white round neck t-shirt having vertical stripes of different colours and white colour 3/4th pant. 47. Manjunath Pw30 stated that he had received injuries on his right hand due to the assault and also behind his right ear due to the breaking of the window glass while Salvador sustained injuries on his head, back and both hands and legs and they were shifted to the hospital in an 108 ambulance from the spot. They were taken to the GMC hospital Bambolim where his complaint was recorded and on which he had fixed his thumb impression. No doubt he had revealed during his cross examination that PI Gaonkar had approached him while he was in GMC and thereafter recorded his complaint and at which time he was in complete senses and never felt that anything remained to be disclosed while giving his complaint so as to give a supplementary statement. No doubt he had revealed during his cross examination that PI Gaonkar had approached him while he was in GMC and thereafter recorded his complaint and at which time he was in complete senses and never felt that anything remained to be disclosed while giving his complaint so as to give a supplementary statement. This was apparently pointed out to show that there was no description of the clothes worn by the accused Nos. 2 to 4 in his complaint to the police although there was a detailed narration at the time of his statement in the Court. However, it is a settled proposition of law that an FIR need not be an encyclopedia and it was for the complainant to narrate facts from his memory which were known to him though remained to be narrated in his complaint at length. Besides we do not find any reason to disbelieve his testimony when there was a clear assertion in his complaint that not only did he identify the accused No.1 from amongst the assailants but that he could identify all the assailants if shown to him and whom he had later on identified in the course of the Test Identification Parade. 48. Manjunath Pw30 had clearly asserted that the accused No.1 and the three others had assaulted them with the help of koita, baseball bat and dandas while they were sitting in the car and identified the accused No.1 at the spot itself and confirmed that he could identify the other accused if shown to him. Besides, it cannot at all be overlooked that Manjunath Pw30 who was himself under assault could not have replicated in great detail the nature of the assault mounted on Salvador, since deceased, who was being simultaneously assaulted with him. Besides, he had confirmed during his cross-examination that the juvenile held Koita in his hand while the accused no.1 Tigade was holding the iron pipe, accused no.2 Krishna holding the danda and the accused no.3 Godwin holding a baseball bat. He had also described that when he opened the door of the I20 car, the girl sitting in front came out and he sat inside and he noticed that she was attacked by a short person. He had also described that when he opened the door of the I20 car, the girl sitting in front came out and he sat inside and he noticed that she was attacked by a short person. Taking a pause here, it needs reckoning that the said Arifawas not examined by the prosecution in support of its case apparently because she had travelled abroad and she was not available to the prosecution for tendering her testimony. On that premise itself there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case when the evidence of Manjunath Pw30 is seen in its totality and duly tested on the touchstone of cross-examination. Moreover, the fact that she was assaulted is otherwise established from the evidence of Dr. S. Kenkre Pw14, Dr. D'Souza Pw20 and Dr. V. Bhobe Pw21 to whose testimony i would shortly advert. 49. Dr. Kenkre Pw14 had stated that a patient named Arifa aged 26years, female was brought to the hospital at 8.30 pm of 26/11/2011 with alleged history of stab injury alongwith a relative and admitted in the ICU of the hospital. The stab injury was on the backside right portion of the chest and she was under treatment of Dr. V Bhobe. He had informed immediately to the police that a patient has been brought with a stab injury on the backside right portion of the chest. His unrebutted testimony indirectly supports the prosecution case that Arifa was the victim of assault who was caught in the crossfire of enmity between Salvador, since deceased, and A1 Tigade in particular and had to bear the brunt of being assaulted on her back when she came out of the car and Manjunath Pw30 gaining foothold in the car earlier occupied by her. 50. Dr. V. Bhobe Pw21 had occasion to examine Arifa on 26/08/2011 at 8:30 p.m. when he was attached to the Campal Clinic at Campal, Panaji as a visiting Surgeon. She had an incised wound measuring 7 x 1.5 cm on the back, admitted and was treated in the hospital in respect of the injury which was grievous in nature. The chest X-Ray and CT Scan of the chest showed a right mid-zone contusion with mild pleural effusion and he had issued the Hurt Certificate to the Police. She had an incised wound measuring 7 x 1.5 cm on the back, admitted and was treated in the hospital in respect of the injury which was grievous in nature. The chest X-Ray and CT Scan of the chest showed a right mid-zone contusion with mild pleural effusion and he had issued the Hurt Certificate to the Police. He had not at all ruled out the possibility of such injury being caused by a sharp weapon such as a chopper and had identified the chopper/koita as being the possible weapon with which such injury could have been inflicted on her back. The fact that these weapons were not shown to him at any earlier point of time nor his opinion obtained to that effect does not reflect on his sworn testimony that Arifa had suffered an incised wound on her back with a sharp cutting weapon such as chopper/ koita. His unrebutted testimony supports the prosecution case on the incident of assault on the night of 26/08/2011 at Miramar, Panaji though for explicable reasons, she was not available to the prosecution to narrate the events within her knowledge. Dr. V. D'Souza Pw20 had occasion to examine the blood group of the victim Arifa on 19/09/2011 and which was found as AB Rh -ve upon the reference by Dr. M. Kantak. 51. Manjunath Pw30, was unshaken that the accused were armed with a baseball bat and choppers though he could not account for the omission in his complaint that they were also armed with danda and pipe. There was also no rebuttal of his testimony that Salvador, since deceased, and he were assaulted with choppers and baseball stick though there were omissions insofar as the assault with the danda is concerned. Nonetheless his unrebutted testimony on the sequence of assault does not depart from the prosecution case that Salvador, since deceased, and he were brutally assaulted on the night of 26/08/2011. He was candid enough to admit that though Salvador, since deceased, and he were shouting for help at the time of assault, he had not described the details and features of the remaining 4 accused persons in his complaint to the Police. 52. He was candid enough to admit that though Salvador, since deceased, and he were shouting for help at the time of assault, he had not described the details and features of the remaining 4 accused persons in his complaint to the Police. 52. A lot of nitpicking was done on behalf of the defence to bring attention to the omissions and contradictions in the statement of Manjunath Pw30 for example he having told the Police that he opened the front left side door of the car and at that time the girl was sitting there and then he sat on the front left seat vis-a-vis his statement in the complaint that he entered into one car parked there. The fact remains that he had gained entry into the car and sat inside and which fact is amply demonstrated and established from the fact that the girl Arifa who had come out of the car was assaulted on the back with a chopper by the juvenile. Another discrepancy which was pointed out was about Salvador, since deceased, taking the driver's seat and the complaint giving a different version that Salvador, since deceased, following him also entered the said car. 53. Manjunath Pw30 was otherwise unshaken in his testimony that he was assaulted with the help of a chopper while the vehicle was damaged with the help of danda, baseball bat and chopper and that Salvador, since deceased, was assaulted with the help of koita, baseball bat and danda. In short, Manjunath Pw30 stood the test of cross-examination despite some omissions and contradictions in his statement which were duly accounted and need not have been marked as such by the Sessions Judge looking to the tenor of his testimony. 54. Matin Pw31 another person caught in the crossfire but not a victim of assault was the friend of Arifa and the occupant of the I20 car parked across the road from the Science Center at Miramar. He came on record that he had come alongwith Arifa in the I20 Car bearing registration No.GA-08-F-0993 which was registered in the name of his father Badruddin and thereafter they went to Miramar where he parked the vehicle opposite Goa Science Center by the side of the road facing Panaji direction. He was sitting on the driver's seat and Arifa was sitting on his left side. He was sitting on the driver's seat and Arifa was sitting on his left side. One person suddenly came running towards the car and sat by the side of Arifa on the front left seat and at the same time four to five persons followed him and started damaging the car with the help of koitas and pipe. They damaged the front windshield, window glasses, bumper and the other parts of the car. The said four persons who damaged the car, were in the age group of 20 to 25 years. Since the attack was sudden, he could not find out what was happening and even he tried to tell them not to damage the car. 55. Matin Pw3, stated that he had come out of the car from the driver's side door alongwith Arifa and at that time one person gave Koita blow on the back of Arifa due to which she started bleeding. He received a blow on his right side shoulder with the help of a pipe. Out of the five persons, one was having a pipe and the remaining were having koitas in their hands. He was totally frightened, became blank and was unable to notice the features of the assailants and was therefore unable to identify them. He was instrumental in taking Arifa to the Campal Clinic for treatment. One person who entered the car remained inside while the attack was going on and when he came out, one more person was lying near the driver's side door when he opened the door to come out. Two persons came and tried to enter their car out of which he had seen one person who was lying with injuries. In other words, Matin Pw31 had no track either with the injured Manjunath Pw30 or with the accused and was busy with Arifa in the car when Manjunath and Salvador came upon their car as an escape from the assailants. His role was limited to narrating the incident which had taken place only after Manjunath Pw30 had come towards and then inside the car on the passenger's seat and Salvador, since deceased, having attempted to gain an entry from his side. 56. His role was limited to narrating the incident which had taken place only after Manjunath Pw30 had come towards and then inside the car on the passenger's seat and Salvador, since deceased, having attempted to gain an entry from his side. 56. Matin Pw31 was totally frightened and become blank which is apparent from his inability to narrate the sequence of events properly inasmuch as he claimed that Arifa tried to come out from the driver's side of the car which was not possible looking to the unrebutted version of Manjunath Pw30 that she was assaulted with the chopper on the back when she was coming out of the car and going towards the front of the car. The version of Matin Pw31 that one person fell down when he opened the door of the driver's side is plausible looking also to the fact that Salvador, since deceased, had suffered injuries not only on the upper parts of his body but also on his legs which explains the grievous injuries to his legs being even bone deep. In any event, he was not in a position to identify any of the assailants as it was night time and besides according to him it was dark and he could not notice the features of the said persons, their clothes and the nature of the weapons used by them. A lot of doubt was sought to be created in the prosecution case taking cue from the testimony of Matin Pw31. However as earlier observed his role was limited to coming out of the car and thereafter taking Arifa to the Campal Clinic for treatment. Moreover, on his admission he was all confused and blanked out and therefore his testimony cannot be used as a lever to undo the case of the prosecution as brought forth from the unrebutted testimony of Manjunath Pw30. 57. Dr. Moreover, on his admission he was all confused and blanked out and therefore his testimony cannot be used as a lever to undo the case of the prosecution as brought forth from the unrebutted testimony of Manjunath Pw30. 57. Dr. I. Shaikh Pw23 had occasion to examine Manjunath Pw30 on 26/08/2011 with a history of assault on the same night at Miramar around 8:00p.m. He was brought by the Police and some other persons and on examination at 9.10 p.m., he found : Grade II compound and displaced fracture distal one third shaft of right ulna with distal neurological deficit with contused lacerated wound over extensive aspect of the right forearm with injury to the right extensor pollicis longus, right extensor indicis, right extensor comminis and right extensor digiti minimi. X-ray was taken and it showed displaced fracture of the distal 1/3rd shaft of the right ulna. The wound was explored, injured tendons were repaired and the fracture was treated conservatively. The injury was grievous in nature and caused by sharp weapon and the patient was discharged on 02/09/2011. There was no rebuttal of his testimony but for the bare suggestion that his opinion that the injury was caused by sharp weapon was incorrect. 58. Dr. Pednekar Pw25 had examined Manjunath Pw30 on 26/08/2011 at 9.10p.m. upon being brought by 108 ambulance and with the history of an alleged assault at Miramar at around 8.00p.m. On examination he had found i) incised wound measuring 3 x 1cm x depth which had to be obtained at the time of final Medical Certificate, extension of finger absent with fracture distal 1/3rd shaft of the right ulna bone. This was on the extensor aspect of right forearm caused by a sharp edged weapon within 6 hours of duration and grievous in nature. ii) scratched abrasion 15 x 0.2 cm and 10 x0.3 cm on the right upper back caused by a sharp edged weapon within 6 hours of duration and simple in nature and iii) an incised wound measuring 1 x 1 x 0.2 cms on the right side of the neck caused by a sharp edged weapon within 6 hours of duration and simple in nature. He was investigated with X-ray of the right wrist which showed a fracture and admitted in Orthopeadic Department. He was investigated with X-ray of the right wrist which showed a fracture and admitted in Orthopeadic Department. The injury on his right hand was caused by a sharp weapon possibly by the use of a chopper or koita, while the 2nd and 3rd injuries were caused by sharp edged object but smaller in size. But for the bare denial of his statement, there was no rebuttal of his testimony in material particulars thereby corroborating the version of Manjunath Pw30. 59. Taking a pause here, Manjunath Pw30 had stated that he had suffered injuries to his right hand and which were described at length by Dr. Shaikh Pw23 being a fracture to 1/3rd shaft of the right ulna which was grievous in nature. In these set of circumstances, which according to the Doctor were caused by a sharp weapon and serious in nature, it would not have been possible for Manjunath Pw30 to sign the complaint and for which the Investigating Officer has taken his thumb impression. The contention thus of Shri Desai, learned Senior Counsel that an "underplayed fracture" means that there was normal alignment and therefore the complainant could sign the complaint, cannot at all be accepted since the learned Senior Counsel had clearly overlooked the element of pain coupled with the type of grievous injuries suffered by Manjunath Pw30 and treatment given to him by Dr. I. Shaikh Pw23. Therefore by no stretch of the imagination could the complainant Manjunath Pw30 have signed on the complaint. It is rather surprising that it is only on this aspect that the learned Sessions Judge found favour with the prosecution case that Manjunath Pw30 could not have signed the complaint with fracture to his right hand while disbelieving vital evidence to negate the prosecution case against the accused. Dr. S. Banaulikar Pw24 had received the request letter from PI Panaji Police Station for the blood grouping of Manjunath Pw30 and thereupon he had referred him to the Blood Bank for blood grouping and received the report from Dr. Priyolkar disclosing the blood group as B Rh+ve. 60. Dr. S. Banaulikar Pw24 had received the request letter from PI Panaji Police Station for the blood grouping of Manjunath Pw30 and thereupon he had referred him to the Blood Bank for blood grouping and received the report from Dr. Priyolkar disclosing the blood group as B Rh+ve. 60. PSI R. Kalangutkar Pw37 was on SHO reserve duty at the Panaji Town Police Station on 26/08/2011 when a phone call was received from the PCR Panaji at 20.25 hours informing that a fight was going on near the Goa Science Center, at Miramar and Robot vehicle had been directed to visit the spot. He had immediately deputed HC Parab and PC Rane to the spot and effected necessary entry in the Station Diary and followed to the spot with PC Amonkar in the police jeep driven by driver Pirankar. He had found two persons badly injured namely Manjunath Pw30 and Ghalu and in the meantime 108 ambulance arrived at the spot and both were shifted to the GMC hospital Bambolim alongwith PC Rane. He then informed PI Gaonkar Pw38 about the incident from the spot where the robot staff were already present, conducted an inquiry and learnt that 4-5 persons had assaulted Ghalu, Manjunath Pw30 and one lady who was the occupant of Hyundai car, with sharp weapons. SDPO Banaulikar and PI Gaonkar and other staff came to the spot. Upon their directions, the scene was guarded by deploying necessary staff. He was instrumental in visiting the Campal Clinic and getting the information about the injured lady Arifa. The Medical Officer had certified that she was not fit to give her statement at that time and then they found her companion Matin Pw31 present at the Campal Clinic whom he called at the Police Station for recording his statement. An offence was accordingly registered under Crime No.259 of 2011 u/s 143, 147, 148, 326, 307, 427 r/w 149 IPC by PI Gaonkar Pw38 against A1 Tigade and 4 others. There was no rebuttal of his testimony but for the bare suggestion that he had not received any such a phone call while he was on SHO duty at the Police Station and having deputed the staff at the spot and followed by his arrival at the spot. 61. There was no rebuttal of his testimony but for the bare suggestion that he had not received any such a phone call while he was on SHO duty at the Police Station and having deputed the staff at the spot and followed by his arrival at the spot. 61. PI Gaonkar Pw38 was holding additional charge of the Panaji Police Station on 26/08/2011 when he received a phone call from PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 at 20.45 hours that an incident had taken place near the Goa Science Center and one person was seriously injured. He had left for the spot and noticed PSI Kalangutkar Pw37, PCR van and other staff present apart from the silver colour I20 Hyundai car bearing registration No.GA-08-F-0993 in a damaged condition. PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 had informed him that two persons were shifted to the GMC Hospital, Bambolim by 108 vehicle and one lady was shifted to the Campal Clinic, Miramar. He had instructed PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 to guard the scene of occurrence by tying a rope and also to depute policemen to guard the spot. He noticed that one person was seriously injured and another was having injury on his hand. He gave a letter to the Medical Officer requesting him to issue permission to record the statement of the injured persons. At 21.30 hours the Doctor at casualty issued him permission to record the statement of the patient Manjunath Pw30 and that he would examine the other injured named Salvador and issue the Certificate accordingly. 62. PC Kerkar Pw7, was instrumental in guarding the scene of crime near the Science Centre at Miramar on 26.08.2011 at around 11.45 p.m. alongwith another Constable, where they found one car covered with polythene. They remained at the spot throughout the night and were relieved on the following morning by two other Constables. He confirmed the identity of the car as Hundai I 20 while relenting that he had not removed the cover from the said car. PC Gokharnkar Pw8, was deputed to the scene of crime on 27.08.2011 at 08.00 hours alongwith PC Palekar which was opposite the Science Centre at Miramar alongwith PSI Kalangutkar Pw37. They had found one car covered with polythene and remained at the spot alongwith the other PC. PC Gokharnkar Pw8, was deputed to the scene of crime on 27.08.2011 at 08.00 hours alongwith PC Palekar which was opposite the Science Centre at Miramar alongwith PSI Kalangutkar Pw37. They had found one car covered with polythene and remained at the spot alongwith the other PC. Rather he confirmed that PSI Kalangutkar had come to the spot alongwith a photographer and two pancha witnesses while guarding the spot of crime and attached the articles. He and the other Constable were discharged from the spot and after that the vehicle was brought to the Police Station with no rebuttal of his testimony. 63. PC Khadpe Pw9, was attached to the Panaji Town police station when a call was received at 8.10 p.m. of 26.08.2011 that there was fighting going on opposite the Science Centre, Miramar. He reached the spot with homeguard Nauso and noticed two male and one injured female persons. He also noticed one silver colour I20 vehicle bearing No.GA-08-F-0993 by the side of the road near the Science Centre, Miramar and some other persons were also present near the spot. There were damages to the vehicle apart from blood stains both near and inside the vehicle. There were marks on the vehicle hit by a chopper or with a sharp weapon and on inquiries he was told that four to five persons who were present assaulted them with chopper. PSI Kalangutkar Pw37, had come to the spot alongwith some staff and so also PI Gaonkar reached the spot. The injured were shifted to the GMC hospital followed by PI Gaonkar Pw38 who instructed PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 to remain at the spot. He too was unshaken in his testimony on the receipt of the information, on being deputed to the spot of crime and the availability of the vehicle in a damaged condition and two male and one female injured persons lying at the spot. He rather confirmed that one injured was Manjunath with whom he made inquiries as to what had happened. The injured Manjunath was shifted in a vehicle while Salvador alias Ghalu was shifted by 108 ambulance. He had noticed blood on the front as well as the rear seat of the said vehicle and blood was also found on the road on the left side of the vehicle. The injured Manjunath was shifted in a vehicle while Salvador alias Ghalu was shifted by 108 ambulance. He had noticed blood on the front as well as the rear seat of the said vehicle and blood was also found on the road on the left side of the vehicle. His unrebutted testimony confirms the gory scene of crime and establishing one of the links in the prosecution case in its own way. 64. PI Gaonkar Pw38 had recorded the complaint of Manjunath Pw30 who had narrated the incident at length and thereupon waited for the Doctor to give his opinion regarding the recording of statement of the other injured Salvador, since deceased. In the meantime, he came to know that some members from the crowd who had gathered near the casualty were found discussing that they had seen one blue colour Maruti car proceeding in a fast speed. He had contacted the Police Control Room and informed them about the same and requested them to alert the border check post so as to detect such car and its occupants. He had received information from his staff that they received information that the assailants had used a blue colour car bearing registration No.GJ-01-C-1233 and there were chances that they may cross the border. Accordingly, he had contacted the PCR and informed to alert the neighbouring District PCR such as Sindhudurg, Belgaum and Karnataka and requested to alert the staff on their Check post and besides the car could be a stolen car used by the assailants to cross the border. He was unshaken in his testimony on material aspects discussed thus far vis-a-vis the information received from PSI Kalangutkar Pw37, his rushing to the spot of scene of crime, followed at GMC, recording the detailed complaint of Manjunath Pw30 and then waiting for the status report of Salvador, since deceased, from the Doctor who had examined him at Casualty. 65. Reverting to the testimony of D. Banaulikar Pw35, he stated that he was working as SDPO, Panaji in 2011 and while he was at his residence on 26/08/2011, he had received a telephonic call around 21.00 hours from PI Gaonkar Pw38 that an assault had been reported at Miramar and 2 persons were seriously injured who were taken to the GMC Hospital and one lady who was injured was taken to the Campal Clinic hospital. He learnt the name of the injured as Ghalu from Taleigao and second as Manjunath while the girl's name was not disclosed. He had rushed to the scene of crime where he saw PSI Chodankar and the blood stains on the ground on inspecting the scene of crime apart from an I20 silver car parked nearby. He had instructed PSI Chodankar to cover the scene with the help of tarpaulin and then went to the GMC Hospital where he saw Ghalu, since deceased, and Manjunath Pw30 having injury on his right hand and being treated in the Casualty, GMC. In the meantime, PC Guraiya and Nitin came and informed that there was a quarrel on three occasions between A1 Tigade and Salvador, since deceased, that A1 Tigade was staying in a rented room at St. Cruz and thereupon he had despatched both the Constables to get information about his movements. 66. Agustin Pw12 stated that he owned the blue Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.GA-01-C-1233, which he had purchased from his nephew Paul Fernandes for Rs.75,000/-, 8 to 10 years back and thereafter it was transferred from the records of RTO in his name. He had agreed to sell the vehicle at the instance of his son since he had gone abroad. The vehicle was sold for Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- through an agent named Babu who had assured to do all the formalities for the transfer of the vehicle. However, the transfer formalities could not be completed and the vehicle remained registered in his name. This was the vehicle used by the accused Nos.1 to 4 to make good their escape, after the incident of assault, from the scene of crime, near the Science Centre Miramar to Amboli. The inability of the witness to give the details of the sale transaction would not make the prosecution case anytheless believable on that count alone which had however been established from the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses and corroborated by the testimony of Dy.S.P. Banaulikar Pw35 and P.I. Ramesh Pw38 amongst others. 67. Banaulikar Pw35 stated that he learnt that the Accused No.1 and 2-3 other persons had left the room in a blue Maruti car bearing registration No.GA-01-C-1233. 67. Banaulikar Pw35 stated that he learnt that the Accused No.1 and 2-3 other persons had left the room in a blue Maruti car bearing registration No.GA-01-C-1233. In the meantime, he came to the Campal Clinic hospital where a girl was admitted and at around 22.30 to 23.00 hours he received information from PI Gaonkar Pw38 that the car which was described by him had been detained at the Ambolim Outpost alongwith the five occupants and their movements were suspicious. He informed his SP who directed him to proceed to Ambolim Outpost for further action and told PI Gaonkar Pw38 to keep ready the LIB staff to proceed to Ambolim. PI Gaonkar Pw38 arranged a private Innova vehicle and he alongwith the staff left for the Ambolim Outpost in his official Jeep and Innova car where they reached at about 02.00 hours. All the occupants of the said Maruti car were sitting at the Outpost at Ambolim and disclosed their names as A1 Tigade, A2 Krishna, A3 Sandeep, A4 Godwin and A5 Ashraf i.e. the juvenile. He described the clothes worn by them and took their custody from the Ambolim Check Post and thereafter effected Station Diary entry at the Outpost. He had brought all the accused alongwith the juvenile to the Panaji Police Station in both their vehicles while the Maruti car was brought to the Panaji Police Station which was driven by HC Khot and Amonkar who had accompanied them to Ambolim. When he saw the said accused persons at the Ambolim Outpost, he observed that there were blood stains on their clothes which he would be in a position to identify if shown to him. 68. Police Nayak Takekar Pw13 was attached to the Sawantwadi Police Station at Amboli Outpost alongwith Head Constable Rathod. Head constable Rathod and Police Nayak Surve were also attached to the Amboli Outpost. Their duty at the Outpost was to verify and check the vehicles and to receive the information and act accordingly. He had received a message at 8.30 p.m. from the Control Room Sindhudurg that one blue colour Maruti car bearing registration No. GA-01-L-1233 from Goa was stolen, to keep a watch on the said vehicle at the Outpost and if found to detain the vehicle alongwith its occupants. This information was recorded in the Case Diary by Head Constable Rathod. He had received a message at 8.30 p.m. from the Control Room Sindhudurg that one blue colour Maruti car bearing registration No. GA-01-L-1233 from Goa was stolen, to keep a watch on the said vehicle at the Outpost and if found to detain the vehicle alongwith its occupants. This information was recorded in the Case Diary by Head Constable Rathod. One blue colour Maruti car had arrived at the Outpost while they were checking the vehicles and which was stopped by Head constable Rathod and there were five persons in the car who were detained. He had noticed that all of them were tense and were giving evasive answers. The information was passed on to the Oras Control room. Inquiries were made of their names when one of them disclosed his name as Krishna Naik, another as Sandeep Shinde, third one as Yusuf Shaik and the fourth person as Yatin Tigade while he could not recall the name of the fifth person. On inquiry, Krishna had told them that they were proceeding to Belgaum to their friend's place while Tigade was driving the vehicle when he was stopped. At around 02.00 hours SDPO Banaulikar Pw35, alongwith staff came to the spot at the Outpost and told them that the occupants of the car were involved in an assault case and were required in custody. He took all of them inside and after making an entry in the Register also took them alongwith the vehicle. His unrebutted testimony lends credence to the version of the prosecution witnesses who were present on duty at the Outpost apart from that of Banaulikar Pw35. He had otherwise confirmed that the accused were wearing jean pants and T-shirts and were kept under guard by him and Head Constable Rathod. 69. ASI Dabholkar Pw15 was attached to the control room at Oras Police Station, Sindhudurgh District and was on duty from 20.00 hrs. on 26.08.2011 to 08.00 hrs. on the following day. He had received a phone call from PSI D'Costa Pw6 from Control room and informing that a blue colour car bearing registration No. GA- 01-C-1233 had proceeded from Panaji and if found at the Check Post to detain the same. He had informed all Check Posts and Police Stations of Sindhudurg District and details of the car alongwith its number and its occupants and requested to detain them if found. He had informed all Check Posts and Police Stations of Sindhudurg District and details of the car alongwith its number and its occupants and requested to detain them if found. He had received information at 23.30 hrs. from PC Surve that the Maruti car alongwith its occupants were found at the Amboli Checkpost and detained. He had informed about the said detention telephonically to the Panaji Control Room and PI Gaonkar Pw38. He had learnt that the occupants of the car had committed an offence by assaulting the persons at Miramar and had fled away from the spot with the said car. He had also informed that the official from the Goa Police would come to take the car and in the meantime to detain the said persons at the Outpost. He too was unshaken in his testimony on being in the Control Room on the said date, time and place. There is nothing to rebut his testimony but for the bare denials in his statement on oath. 70. SDPO Banaulikar Pw35 admitted that while bringing the Maruti car from Ambolim to Panaji no attachment panchnama was conducted by him at the Ambolim Outpost though a Station Diary was effected regarding the accused being taken in custody alongwith the car. He had also not made inquiries with the Ambolim Outpost whether any attachment panchanama of the car was carried out by them nor was the car searched by him or by the officers present with him at Ambolim before bringing it to Panaji. He had also not drawn any arrest panchanama of the accused and the juvenile at Ambolim. His testimony at the outset is at the most indicative of the fact that he had merely gone to Ambolim as per the request of PI Gaonkar Pw38 on the whereabouts of the accused being learnt to be at Ambolim and brought them back to Goa alongwith the seized vehicle. He had played no other role and therefore his testimony stands only to the limited extent of detaining the accused at Ambolim and bringing them back to Goa alongwith the car in question in which they had made good their escape soon after the incident on the night of 26/08/2011 and nothing further. 71. He had played no other role and therefore his testimony stands only to the limited extent of detaining the accused at Ambolim and bringing them back to Goa alongwith the car in question in which they had made good their escape soon after the incident on the night of 26/08/2011 and nothing further. 71. PI Gaonkar Pw38 had gathered information from the Casualty at 23.30 hours that Salvador, since deceased, was not fit to give his statement and as such he had left the GMC Hospital, Bambolim towards the Panaji Town Police Station when he received the information that the car was detained at the Ambolim check post. He had passed the information to the SP North and then SDPO Banaulikar Pw35 who had proceeded to Ambolim on the instruction of the SP North. To that extent he corroborated the version of Banaulikar Pw35 that he had proceeded to the spot at Ambolim with an Innova Car and returned to the Police Station alongwith them on the following day i.e. 27/08/2011. His testimony unfolds to reveal that he had written to the Medical Officer of GMC on 28/08/2011 to find out the fitness of Salvador, since deceased, to give his statement or otherwise and in the meantime had recorded the statement of Mario Pw3 as per his say. He had sought for the Medical Certificate of Salvador and Manjunath Pw30. 72. PI Gaonkar Pw38 had deputed PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 to record the statement of the injured Arifa in case she was fit to give her statement and who did so and simultaneously requested the Medical Officer, GMC to confirm whether Salvador, since deceased, was fit to give his statement or otherwise and learnt that he was not in a fit condition to give his statement. On 03/09/2011, he had received a wireless message from the Casualty that Salvador, since deceased, had expired in the ICU on the following day and requested the Medical Officer to handover his MLC case papers and thereupon conducted the inquest panchanama in the presence of Ernesto Pw29 and one Rozario wherein he had recorded the injuries found on the body of the deceased apart from taking photographs. He had referred the body for postmortem examination to the Forensic Surgeon and received the report from Dr. Fernandes Pw2 alongwith the exhibits for serological examination. 73. He had referred the body for postmortem examination to the Forensic Surgeon and received the report from Dr. Fernandes Pw2 alongwith the exhibits for serological examination. 73. PI Gaonkar Pw38 had sought for the Hurt Certificate of Manjunath Pw30 and requested for the blood grouping of the victim Arifa and which he received from Dr. D'Souza Pw20. He had also sought for the final Medical Certificate in respect of Manjunath Pw30, sought for his blood group and also provided security round the clock to him since he had complained of receiving threatening calls. His cross-examination had borne out that he had obtained the thumb impression of Manjunath Pw30 on his complaint which also explains the lack of signature on account of the fracture injuries sustained by him to his right ulna. So much for the claim of the defence that despite the undisplaced fracture, he could still have signed the complaint and disbelieving the version of Manjunath Pw30 only because the complaint bore his thumb impression. 74. The CFSL Report on the examination of the exhibits also confirms that the blood group A was detected in the stained gauze piece collected from the scene of crime, the glass pieces, the stained clothes and matched with the blood group of Salvador, since deceased. 75. HC Khot Pw4 had gone to the spot on the instructions of SHO on 26/08/2011 around 20.30 hours upon receipt of information that fighting was going on near the Science Center, Miramar. He was accompanied by PC Guraiya and on reaching the spot on a private motorcycle had found PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 with HC Parab present at the spot with Robot vehicle and staff. He had seen that the I-20 Hyundai car bearing registration No.GA-08-F- 0993 was in a damaged condition and found blood stains near the vehicle. He corroborated the version of PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 and PI Gaonkar Pw38 that they were both available at the spot and he was deputed to the GMC Hospital to inquire about the injured. At GMC he learnt that Salvador @ Ghalu was badly injured with Manjunath Pw30 and PI Gaonkar Pw38 had also reached GMC in the meantime. PI Gaonkar Pw38 too reached GMC and PC Nitin brought the information that there was a scuffle between Salvador, since deceased, and A1 Tigade and thereafter PI Gaonkar Pw38 sent PC Nitin and PC Gurraiya to St. PI Gaonkar Pw38 too reached GMC and PC Nitin brought the information that there was a scuffle between Salvador, since deceased, and A1 Tigade and thereafter PI Gaonkar Pw38 sent PC Nitin and PC Gurraiya to St. Cruz area to find out the location of A1 Tigade. 76. HC Khot Pw4 stated that both the Constables returned after half an hour and brought the information that A1 Tigade with 3 to 4 person had left in a vehicle i.e. a blue colour Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.GA-01-C-1233 and PI Gaonkar Pw38 informed the control room to alert the Border Check Post. He further corroborated the version of PI Gaonkar Pw38 that at 23.45 hours, an information was received that the said Maruti car was detained at the Ambolim Check Post and thereafter he accompanied Dy.S.P. and other staff members to Ambolim Check Post in a private Innova vehicle. At that time PSI Velip, HC Amonkar, Salgaonkar, PC Rahul, PC Guraiya and PI Gaonkar were present in a private vehicle and he was with Banaulikar Pw35 in the Government vehicle. They had reached Ambolim Check Post at around 02.00hours on 27/08/2011. SDPO Banaulikar Pw35 had showed his identity to the Check Post staff and thereupon the staff showed the persons numbering 5 detained by them being A1 Tigade, A2 Krishna, A3 Sandeep, A4 Godwin and A5 Ashrafjuvenile who were taken in custody by him. 77. HC Khot Pw4 had recorded the statement of HC Rathod who was in charge of the Check Post at Ambolim and was instrumental in bringing the Maruti 800 car to the Panaji Police Station alongwith HC Amonkar while the five accused were brought in the vehicle of SDPO Banaulikar Pw35 and the other private vehicle. He had handed over the keys of the Maruti car to PI Gaonkar Pw38. He had duly identified the four accused in the Court and also confirmed his ability to identify the Maruti vehicle brought from the Check Post. He had further corroborated the version of PI Gaonkar Pw38 and SDPO Banaulikar Pw35 that there were blood stains on their clothes though it is another matter that he could not recall the type of clothes worn by the accused on that day but could identify if shown to him. He had further corroborated the version of PI Gaonkar Pw38 and SDPO Banaulikar Pw35 that there were blood stains on their clothes though it is another matter that he could not recall the type of clothes worn by the accused on that day but could identify if shown to him. He was unshaken despite his cross examination and affirmed that SDPO Banaulikar Pw35 had effected entry in the Station Diary at Ambolim Check Post about his visit but in fairness conceded that he was unaware if any Panchnama was drawn at the Ambolim Check Post while confirming that no Panchnama of the vehicle was drawn at the Ambolim Check Post. No arrest panchnama too was drawn while taking the accused persons in custody at Ambolim nor had he enquired with Hc Rathod at the Ambolim Check Post whether he had conducted any Arrest panchnama. But for the bare suggestion that he had not accompanied SDPO Banaulikar Pw35, there was no rebuttal of his testimony that the four accused with the juvenile were detained at Ambolim and were brought to Goa by SDPO Banaulikar Pw35 and on the presence of the blood stains on their clothes. 78. HC Parab Pw5 attached to the Panaji Police Station where PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 too was attached corroborated his version that he had received information about the fight going on near the Science Centre Miramar and having proceeded to the spot with the other PC on a private motorcycle. He had noticed one car in a damaged condition and one injured person lying near the car. He had informed PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 and who came to the spot with staff. PSI was instrumental in shifting the injured to the GMC Hospital Bambolim. He had also learnt that there were two other persons injured who were shifted by him. He had noticed blood stains near the car on the road and in the car and besides the car had damages. His unrebutted version advances the prosecution case on the prompt follow up at the scene of crime, the availability of an injured at the spot, the damages to the car and besides the presence of blood near the car and in the car. 79. PSI D'Costa Pw6 was on duty at the said Police Control Room on 26/08/2011 from 18.00 hours till 09.00 hours on the following day. 79. PSI D'Costa Pw6 was on duty at the said Police Control Room on 26/08/2011 from 18.00 hours till 09.00 hours on the following day. He had received a phone call from PI Gaonkar Pw38 informing about the assault case reported at the Panaji Police Station and more particularly that the accused involved in the case were likely to abscond in the Maruti 800 Car, one of them named A1 Tigade. He was asked by PI to inform the Border Check Post and neighbouring control rooms regarding the details of the suspected persons and he had flashed a message to the Control Rooms of Sindhudurg, Karnataka and Belgaum. He had got all the details telephonically from PI Gaonkar Pw38 about the registration number of the car and its colour and informed the Control Rooms and Border Check Posts accordingly. He had received a phone call from the Control Room at Sindhudurg that the vehicle in question had been detained at the Ambolim Check Post alongwith its occupants and he had accordingly issued the instructions to detain the occupants, contacted PI Gaonkar Pw38 and passed on the information to him alongwith the contact number of the Control Room. His unrebutted testimony clinches the case of the prosecution establishing another link in the case against the accused. 80. PI Gaonkar Pw38 further stated that PSI Velip amongst others including HC Khot Pw4 had returned from the Ambolim Check Post alongwith 5 persons and the Maruti car in question. The 5 persons i.e. the 4 accused and the juvenile were produced before him by PSI Velip with their faces covered and their identity was kept secret by providing them cloth covers to conceal their identity. He was instrumental in drawing the Arrest Panchanama after the panchas were arranged by the LIB staff. The 5 persons i.e. the 4 accused and the juvenile were produced before him by PSI Velip with their faces covered and their identity was kept secret by providing them cloth covers to conceal their identity. He was instrumental in drawing the Arrest Panchanama after the panchas were arranged by the LIB staff. The first person whom he placed under arrest was A1 Tigade whose details were duly recorded in the Arrest panchanama as also the clothes worn by him and during the course of his search a brown colour wallet was found in the back pocket containing 6 notes of Rs.500/-, ATM cum debit card of Canara Bank in his name, two mobiles in the front pocket of his jeans, one of NOKIA having black and blue colour body and SIM card of Idea bearing No.9850693379 and another white and black colour mobile of make Blackberry with SIM card of Vodafone bearing No.9637333030 and attached under the panchanama. 81. PI Gaonkar Pw38 had then directed A1 Tigade to hand over the clothes worn by him while providing him a spare set of clothes at which time he also noticed on verification that there were reddish stains appearing to be of blood on the shirt of A1 Tigade. The blue jean pant was also found having reddish stains appearing to be of blood which too was separately packed and sealed in an autopress polythene bag and thereafter in a separate green colour envelope and sealed with the seal of the Panaji Police Station. He next called upon the 2nd accused i.e. A2 Krishna, gave his description and the clothes worn by him which bore reddish stains on the shirt appearing to be of blood and a black NOKIA mobile with SIM card of Vodafone bearing No.9049812990 being found and attached under the panchanama. He directed A2 Krishna to handover the clothes worn by him while providing a separate set of clothes. The clothes on his person too on removal were packed, sealed and kept separately in an autopress polythene bag and then in a cloth lined envelope and packed and sealed with the seal of the Panaji Police Station signed by him and the panchas. 82. The clothes on his person too on removal were packed, sealed and kept separately in an autopress polythene bag and then in a cloth lined envelope and packed and sealed with the seal of the Panaji Police Station signed by him and the panchas. 82. PI Gaonkar Pw38 had next called out the 3rd accused Ashraf Shaikh, described the clothes worn by him also containing reddish colour stains appearing to be of blood and duly packed and sealed separately in autopress polythene bags and then in an envelope and then sealed with the seal of the Panaji Police Station. He was also instrumental in attaching the NOKIA mobile phone with Vodafone card No.9823366953. The 4th person gave his particulars being A4 Sandeep and his clothes too were attached under the panchanama after giving him a spare set of clothes. The cash found in his wallet apart from the black and red colour NOKIA mobile with SIM card of Vodafone bearing No.9764595410 were attached under the panchanama. Lastly, he asked the 5th person to disclose his name who disclosed it as A3 Godwin, described the clothes on his person and revealed that his clothes too were separately packed and sealed and attached under the panchanama apart from the black NOKIA mobile with SIM card of Vodafone bearing No.9049018449 and attached under the panchanama. He had duly identified each of the items of clothing of A1 Tigade, A2 Krishna, A3 Godwin and A4 Sandeep apart from those of the juvenile and the other attached property in Court with no rebuttal of his testimony. 83. PI Gaonkar Pw38 had materially come on record that he had interrogated the accused and during such course it had transpired that the weapons of assault were thrown by A1 Tigade and assisted by A4 Sandeep in crossing the road. He had thoroughly interrogated A1 Tigade who admitted that he had thrown the weapons of assault near the Green Park junction and he was ready to show the said place. He had instructed the staff of LIB to secure the presence of two respectable pancha witnesses from the locality being Ernesto Pw29 and Prashant, briefly explained the facts of the case to them and requested them to act as pancha witnesses to the Recovery Panchanama. He had instructed the staff of LIB to secure the presence of two respectable pancha witnesses from the locality being Ernesto Pw29 and Prashant, briefly explained the facts of the case to them and requested them to act as pancha witnesses to the Recovery Panchanama. A1 Tigade was brought to his office from the lockup and produced him before the pancha witnesses while at the same time taking precaution to see that his identity was not disclosed. He had requested them to hear and see what the accused was saying and showing. He had made a detailed disclosure about the incident on the night of 26/08/2011, that they had used iron pipes, choppers (koita) to mount the assault and that the same were thrown in the bushes near the Bastora Bridge, Mapusa after inserting in a gunny bag which he was ready to show to them. The disclosure in the words of A1 Tigade was recorded in the body of the Panchanama which was duly signed by them i.e. PI Gaonkar himself, two panchas and A1 Tigade and thereafter they had left the Police Station in the Police Station jeep driven by PC Pirankar. 84. PI Gaonkar Pw38 revealed that A1 Tigade was taken in the jeep with his face covered and the staff had carried the investigation kit and other material for the purpose of recovery of the weapons while he had carried the seal of the Police Station as well as the camera. The directions to proceed were given by A1 Tigade to the driver and accordingly they proceeded towards Mapusa and when they reached near the Bastora bus stop shed on the main highway, A1 Tigade gave a direction to the driver to take the jeep on the other side of the road leading towards Panaji side and asked him to stop near the Bastora bus stop on the main highway. The jeep driver had stopped as per the directions of A1 Tigade and thereafter A1 Tigade had led them behind the bus stop shed and pointed towards the bushes and then he removed one gunny bag from the bushes and handed over to them. The gunny bag was wet due to the rain water and a part of the iron pipe was seen outside the gunny bag. 85. PI Gaonkar Pw38 stated that on opening the bag they noticed one iron pipe and three choppers (koita). The gunny bag was wet due to the rain water and a part of the iron pipe was seen outside the gunny bag. 85. PI Gaonkar Pw38 stated that on opening the bag they noticed one iron pipe and three choppers (koita). The iron pipe on measuring was found to be 4 inches in diameter and 2 ft. 7 inches in length which was wrapped in a cloth, duly packed and sealed with the seal of the Police Station and a paper slip was attached containing all the relevant details which was signed by both the panchas, himself and A1 Tigade. He next removed one chopper from the gunny bag and found it to be having 10 inches long blade with curve and pointed end, one side sharp and the blade at the flatter end near the handle being 1 inch broad. One side of the koita was seen wet and the other side dry and it was having a wooden handle with metal ring and on measuring found to be of 6 inches. The blade contained reddish stains appearing to be blood. The chopper was inserted in an autopress polythene bag, then in an envelope which was duly packed, sealed and signed and attached under the panchanama. 86. PI Gaonkar Pw38 had further stated that he had removed another chopper from the bag, measured the same as 11 inches long blade with curve and pointed end having one side sharp and the blade at the flatter end near the handle being 1 inch broad having wooden handle with ring and found measuring 6 inches. The blade of this koita was found having reddish stains appearing to be of blood and which too was duly packed, sealed, signed and attached under the panchanama. He had next removed the 3rd chopper from the bag which was found to be having a blade of 1ft 0.5 inches long blade with slight curve and pointed and having handle of 2.3 inches breadth having plastic handle and found measuring 5.5 inches. The blade of the chopper was found totally rusted having reddish stains appearing to be of blood and the name “Falcon Premium” written on the plastic handle. This chopper was duly packed, sealed, signed and attached under the panchanama. The blade of the chopper was found totally rusted having reddish stains appearing to be of blood and the name “Falcon Premium” written on the plastic handle. This chopper was duly packed, sealed, signed and attached under the panchanama. Nothing further was found on checking the gunny bag which on drying was duly packed in an autopress polythene bag and then in an envelope which was duly signed by all and attached under the panchanama. 87. PI Gaonkar Pw38 revealed that the photographs were clicked with the help of a digital camera and the panchanama was written by PC Tari as per his dictation while the sealing and packing was done by HC Khot Pw4. All this was done near the Bastora Bridge, Guirim Mapusa and the panchanama was duly signed at the spot. He was unshaken that as per the disclosure made by the accused, the pipe was used by A3 Godwin, the chopper by A4 Sandeep, another chopper by A1 Tigade and the 3rd chopper was used by the juvenile. He categorically denied that the weapons were planted subsequently to support the prosecution case and that there was no recovery at the instance of A1 Tigade in particular on the basis of the disclosure statement made by him. But for the bare suggestion that no such recovery was made from the stated place, date and time at the instance of A1 Tigade, there was no rebuttal of his testimony in that regard. 88. In The State of M.P. (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the evidence of discovery and recovery of blood stained weapons and clothes could not be discarded only because witness to the seizure was the maternal uncle of the deceased. The witness to the seizure might have been a resident of village which is 20 kilometres away from the Police Station but it cannot be said that he was especially called from that distance to be a witness to the discovery and seizure. As a relation and a person concerned with incident it was not unlikely that he was readily available in the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer. The most important circumstance is that the weapons recovered as also the clothes contained human blood as confirmed by the report of the chemical analyst. As a relation and a person concerned with incident it was not unlikely that he was readily available in the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer. The most important circumstance is that the weapons recovered as also the clothes contained human blood as confirmed by the report of the chemical analyst. Their Lordship of the MP High Court mindful of reversing the judgment of acquittal and in the facts of the case and considering the perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court, found itself fully justified in upsetting the verdict of acquittal into conviction and allowed the special appeal. 89. Ernesto Pw29 had acted as a panch on 30/08/2011 at the instance of PI Gaonkar Pw38 based on the disclosure made by A1 Tigade. A1 Tigade was produced before them with his face covered wearing a long sleeve gray colour shirt and jean pant and thereafter the face cover was removed. Prior to that the window curtains in the chamber of PI Gaonkar Pw38 were closed and only then his face cover was removed. He had made a disclosure of his residence, that he was ready to show the weapons namely the chopper and the iron pipe used in the assault case and concealed near the Green Park Hotel at Bastora at the side of a bridge behind the bus stop, under the bushes in a sack and would show them the said place if taken there. A1 Tigade had made the disclosure in Konkani and reproduced in English in the body of the Panchanama which was recorded at the Police Station between 3.00pm and concluded at 3.30pm, signed by him, the 2nd pancha, A1 Tigade and PI Gaonkar Pw38. They had then proceeded in a Government jeep towards the spot as per the directions given by A1 Tigade. 90. Earnesto Pw29 stated that while leaving the Police Station, PI Gaonkar Pw38 had taken a briefcase containing sealing and packing material apart from carrying the seal stamp and at which time the face of A1 Tigade was covered with a mask keeping a gap for his eyes. He had showed the way from Panaji towards Mapusa and on reaching near the Green Park Hotel, Mapusa, requested to stop the jeep. He then led them towards the bus stop which was on the side of Bastora i.e. the right hand side from the Green Park Hotel. He had showed the way from Panaji towards Mapusa and on reaching near the Green Park Hotel, Mapusa, requested to stop the jeep. He then led them towards the bus stop which was on the side of Bastora i.e. the right hand side from the Green Park Hotel. A1 Tigade then led them behind the bus stop where there were bushes and removed one sack from the bushes and from which a part of the iron rod was coming out. On opening the sack they noticed one iron pipe and three choppers. The measurements of the weapons were recorded at the spot and noted in the panchanama. The pipe was wrapped in cloth and tied with jute thread and thereafter sealed to which a paper slip bearing their signature and that of A1 Tigade, PI Gaonkar were pasted. 91. Ernesto Pw29 further revealed that the chopper was measured and a record made in the panchanama which was having a wooden handle with ring and the blade was straight with a curve at the top portion, having a sharp edge. It was having reddish stains on the blade which was placed in an autopress polythene bag and then in an envelope and thereafter sealed and signed. The 2nd chopper was measured, a record made in the Panchanama which was having a wooden handle with ring and the blade was straight having a curve at the top portion and a sharp edge. On this chopper too there were reddish stains on the blade which were similar as before. The 3rd chopper was measured and recorded in the Panchanama which was comparatively smaller in size with a plastic handle with the name Falcon Premier. The blade was straight having a curve at the top portion, having sharp edge. There were reddish stains on the blade of the chopper which was similarly packed, sealed and signed as before. The sack was found empty on verification and after it was dried, it was packed in an autopress polythene bag and then it was placed in an envelope, which was duly packed, sealed and signed. The Panchanama was started at 15.40 hrs and concluded at 18.00 hours which was recorded at the spot and the contents of it were explained to them and found to be recorded as per their say. It was duly signed by him, the 2nd pancha, A1 Tigade and PI Gaonkar Pw38. The Panchanama was started at 15.40 hrs and concluded at 18.00 hours which was recorded at the spot and the contents of it were explained to them and found to be recorded as per their say. It was duly signed by him, the 2nd pancha, A1 Tigade and PI Gaonkar Pw38. On being shown the pipe and three choppers on removal from the sealed position, he duly identified the same in the Court. 92. Ernesto Pw29 admitted during his cross-examination that he was a distant relative of Salvador, since deceased, whilst denying the suggestion that Salvador, since deceased, was his cousin. A lot of hue and cry was raised on behalf of the defence for having taken a pancha who was not available at the spot and moreover being related to the deceased. However considering the position of law, there is nothing amiss in his presence being a pancha at the time of the recovery panchanama at the instance of A1 Tigade, particularly when it was nowhere shown that he had any enemity or hostility with him. Besides, a few omissions and contradictions in his statement, there was no rebuttal of his testimony to the disclosure statement made by A1 Tigade, the recovery made at his instance and on the articles being duly recovered, packed and sealed and attached under the Panchanama. One of the flaws which can be highlighted in his testimony is that the photographs of the packing and sealing procedure was carried out at. the Panaji Town Police Station and not at the spot. 93. PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 stated that he had carried out the attachment Panchanama of the clothes of the victim Manjunath Pw30 and Salvador @ Ghalu, since deceased, on 27/08/211 on the instructions of PI Gaonkar Pw38 after securing the presence of two panchas Rajesh Pw33 and Sandeep. He met the CMO who showed two boxes which were produced before the panchas containing the clothes of the injured Manjunath Pw30 and Salvador, since deceased. The first box was containing clothes of Manjunath Pw30 namely a full sleeves shirt with brown, white, yellow colour lines with logo of E-Spirit. The same was found cut into two pieces, soaked with blood and which was placed in a transparent polythene bag. The first box was containing clothes of Manjunath Pw30 namely a full sleeves shirt with brown, white, yellow colour lines with logo of E-Spirit. The same was found cut into two pieces, soaked with blood and which was placed in a transparent polythene bag. He had removed a white banian from the box having the logo VIP Leader soaked with blood and which was put in a transparent polythene bag and thereafter in an envelope and duly packed, sealed and signed. The 2nd box containing the clothes of Salvador, since deceased, was opened and found containing the white colour T-shirt with black colour strip having logo of Adidas, soaked with blood which was found cut into two pieces and then inserted in a transparent polythene bag. He had removed one white colour banyan from the same box, soaked with blood and found cut which was put in another transparent polythene bag and both polythene bags were inserted in an envelope, duly packed, sealed and signed by the panchas and himself. 94. PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 stated that he had removed the blue colour jean pant from the second box having logo of ‘United Colours of Beneton’ which was found soaked in blood and soiled with mud. Cut marks were see on the pant near the knee and different places, which was folded and put in a transparent polythene bag, inserted into an envelope, which was duly packed, sealed and signed. The Panchanama was started at 07.00hours and concluded at 08.00 hours which was recorded at GMC. He duly identified the clothes of Manjunath Pw30 and Salvador, since deceased, upon the exhibits being shown to him which were then handed by him to PI Gaonkar Pw38. He maintained during his cross-examination that the pancha for the attachment of the clothes of the victim were secured from GMC itself, the first being a Mechanic working with the Police Department while the second was unknown to him. He relented that both the boxes were in an open condition with no writings found thereon nor the name of the CMO nor he made inquiry with the CMO as to how he came in possession of the said clothes. Shorn of these minor discrepancies, there was no rebuttal of his testimony. 95. He relented that both the boxes were in an open condition with no writings found thereon nor the name of the CMO nor he made inquiry with the CMO as to how he came in possession of the said clothes. Shorn of these minor discrepancies, there was no rebuttal of his testimony. 95. Rajesh Pw33 was a pancha at GMC, Bambolim at the instance of the Police who claimed want of memory on having acted as such to reveal the details. He also declined to state the facts after his memory was refreshed on the contents of the Panchanama and thereupon the prosecution was granted permission to cross-examine him since he was resiling from the Panchanama. During such time too he claimed want of memory whether it was recorded in the Panchanama that the casualty doctor at GMC had produced the clothes of the injured Majunath Pw30 and Salvador, since deceased, in their presence from two boxes and was attached by PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 in the course of the Panchanama. For that matter he also claimed want of knowledge on the type of clothes of Manjunath Pw30 and more particularly on there being blood stains on the shirt and banyan and being duly packed, sealed and attached under the Panchanama. Similar was his position regarding the contents of the 2nd box being the clothes of the deceased in a cut condition, blood stained and being duly packed, sealed and attached under the Panchanama. Even if his testimony is ignored, it does not depart from the prosecution case that Manjunath Pw30 and Salvador, since deceased, had suffered a murderous assault with sharp edged weapons like choppers (koita) and which could result in the clothes being cut and stained with blood. 96. PI Gaonkar Pw38 stated that during the course of interrogation it was revealed that an iron pipe was brought from Jaishri Auto Works Garage Bambolim and he had secured the presence of the two panchas namely Dinesh Pw34 and Sanjay. A2 Krishna pointed out the garage from where he had obtained the iron pipe and accordingly the Panchanama was recorded. Dinesh Pw34 stated that he had acted as panch with Sanjay on 04/09/2011 at the request of PI Gaonkar Pw38. He was found resiling from the case of the prosecution and accordingly declared hostile and cross-examined. A2 Krishna pointed out the garage from where he had obtained the iron pipe and accordingly the Panchanama was recorded. Dinesh Pw34 stated that he had acted as panch with Sanjay on 04/09/2011 at the request of PI Gaonkar Pw38. He was found resiling from the case of the prosecution and accordingly declared hostile and cross-examined. During such time he admitted that there was a record in the Panchanama that PI Gaonkar had requested them to act as panchas in connection with the Panaji Police Station Crime No.259/2011 and that he had called them near the hospital at Bambolim and requested them to remain as panchas. He however denied the case put to him that PI Gaonkar Pw38 had introduced them to one person i.e. A2-Krishna and that he had informed them that on 25/08/2011 at around 22.00hours after having food at Nilesh Fast Food Center alongwith A1-Tigade, A2-Krishna, A3- Godwin and juvenile, came to Sai Shri Auto Work Garage. He also denied that they were taken to the garage which was situated on the left side of the road proceeding from GMC, Bambolim to Calapur named Sai Shri Auto Work and there were a number of iron rods and pieces of pipes as fabrication work was also carried out there. In short, keeping in tune with his hostile testimony, he denied the prosecution case. Nonetheless, these contradictions were proved through PI Gaonkar Pw38. 97. Gopinath Pw10 stated that he was having a garage at Bambolim under the name and style as Jayshree Auto Works where he was undertaking the work of fabrication and welding owned by one Domnic and taken on rent by him. Since he was doing the welding and fabrication work, many pieces of pipes of different sizes were normally placed in the open portion of the garage which is by the left side of the road as one proceeds from Bambolim towards Panaji. 98. Anthony Pw11, a cousin of Salvador, since deceased, stated that he had gone to a tea shop near the Syndicate Bank, Caranzalem on the Easter day in the month of April,2011. At that time A1 Tigade came alongwith 10-12 persons and warned him saying whether he was becoming 'dada' and stated that he would kill him if he came to Calapur. At that time A1 Tigade came alongwith 10-12 persons and warned him saying whether he was becoming 'dada' and stated that he would kill him if he came to Calapur. He had questioned him on his statement upon which A1 Tigade started assaulting him with slaps and fist blows on his face and other parts of the body. His other friends then prevented A1 Tigade from further assaulting him. He had reported the matter to his mother but his mother advised him not to file any police complaint. He had stayed with his mother at Mapusa for a day and come back the following day. While he was proceeding on his motorcycle towards the house of his friend Randy at Taliegao, A1 Tigade came on a bike and blocked his way and threatened him by saying that if he came to Calapur he would assault him. At that time his cousin Salvador, since deceased, had reached the spot and questioned A1 Tigade as to why he was giving threats to him when A1 Tigade spoke with Salvador, since deceased, and then went away. On 26/08/2011 he received a phone call from his friend informing that his cousin Salvador, since deceased, was admitted in GMC Bambolim due to assault. On reaching GMC, he found Salvador, since deceased, in the casualty having cut injuries on his body and in a serious condition. His testimony is relevant to the prosecution case to show the nature of A1 Tigade and that he was harbouring hostility towards him and Salvador, since deceased, in particular. 99. Dr. Chimbolkar Pw16 had received a request letter from the Panaji Town Police Station on 03/09/2011 for blood grouping of A1 Tigade, A2 Krishna, A3 Sandeep and A4 Godwin. He had noted the identification marks of the four accused and sent them for blood grouping at the Blood Bank. On receiving the request of the Police and after obtaining the consent of the accused in writing, he had referred them for the blood grouping to the Blood Bank and received a report indicating that the blood group of A1 Tigade as B Rh-ve, A2 Krishna B Rh+ve, A3 Godwin as A Rh-ve and A4 Sandeep as A Rh+ve. His testimony was rebutted for want of any cross-examination. 100. His testimony was rebutted for want of any cross-examination. 100. Kadir Pw1 corroborated the version of PI Gaonkar Pw38 that he had acted as a pancha on 27/08/2011 in connection with the Arrest Panchanama of the accused with another. They were shown five persons and told that they were required to be placed under arrest. The first person who was directed to come near was A1 Tigade who was wearing a long sleeve shirt of white colour with blue and purple stripes and dark blue jeans. He searched and found that there was one brown colour wallet in the pant pocket, an ATM Card in his name, cash of Rs.3,000/- and two mobile phones one being a black colour NOKIA having Idea SIM card and the other was black colour Blackberry having a SIM card of Vodafone. The details of the mobile numbers were recorded though he could not recall the same. He had noticed reddish colour stains on the shirt of A1 Tigade who was then called upon to remove the same. There was reddish colour stains also on the jean pant which he was directed to remove. The shirt and jean pant was separately packed in polythene bags and then in an envelope, duly packed, sealed and signed in their presence. The mobile phones were also separately attached under the Panchanama. 101. PI Gaonkar Pw38 then called a 2nd person who disclosed his name as A2 Krishna who was wearing short sleeves shirt of white colour with some checks and dark blue jeans with label with words written 'Superman'. He too did not have any injury on his person like A1 Tigade. There was some reddish colour stains on the shirt and jeans pant and he was directed to remove both his clothes. The search on his person led to the recovery of a black NOKIA mobile with vodafone SIM card though he could not remember the number but recorded in the Panchanama. His shirt and jean pant were packed separately in polythene bags and then in an envelope duly packed, sealed and signed and attached under the Panchanama. The mobile phone too was also attached, but not sealed. The 3rd person who was called 4th by PI Gaonkar Pw38 was the juvenile who too had worn a jean pant and short sleeves white colour shirt, both bearing reddish colour stains. The mobile phone too was also attached, but not sealed. The 3rd person who was called 4th by PI Gaonkar Pw38 was the juvenile who too had worn a jean pant and short sleeves white colour shirt, both bearing reddish colour stains. His search led to the recovery of one Nokia dark colour mobile phone with Vodafone SIM card details of which were recorded in the Panchanama. There has been cracks on the screen of the mobile. His clothes were separately packed in polythene bags and then packed in an envelope, duly packed, sealed and signed by them while the mobile was only attached and not sealed. 102. PI Gaonkar Pw38 had then called for the 4th person ahead who disclosed his name as Sandeep i.e. A4 Sandeep who had worn a white colour short sleeves shirt and black colour shorts and he too did not have any external injuries on his person. He was called upon to remove the shirt and the search of his person led to the recovery of a brown colour wallet containing Rs.115/- and one Nokia red colour mobile phone with Vodafone SIM card, details of which were recorded in the Panchanama and then his clothes were separately packed in polythene bags and duly packed, sealed in an envelope and signed by them while the mobile was only attached. He duly identified Sandeep as the Accused No.4 in Court. Lastly, PI Gaonkar Pw38 had called the 5th person who disclosed his name as Godwin who was wearing a white colour short sleeves T-shirt with a baby face on the front side and light blue Killer jeans. He too did not have any external injury on his person. He was called upon to remove his T-shirt and also the jean pant which were packed in polythene bags and then duly packed in an envelope and signed by them. The search of his person led to the recovery of a black colour Nokia mobile phone with Vodafone SIM card duly recorded in the Panchanama which he could not recall from memory. Attempts were made to tarnish his testimony with a brush of interestedness and being known to the deceased. He however ruled out that he was not moving around with Salvador, since deceased, and that he did not have any friendship or personal relationship with him. Attempts were made to tarnish his testimony with a brush of interestedness and being known to the deceased. He however ruled out that he was not moving around with Salvador, since deceased, and that he did not have any friendship or personal relationship with him. He had maintained in his cross-examination that the shirt and jeans pant of A1 Tigade and similarly the clothes of A2 Krishna, A3 Godwin and A4 Sandeep were stained with blood. 103. Kadir Pw1 had stated that they were shown a dark blue Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.GA-01-C-1233 outside the Police Station and were handed over the key of the car. PI Gaonkar Pw38 had opened the car and they had found some bag containing clothes besides one koita/chopper was also seen in the dickey of the car measuring 8.5 with wooden handle 3 inches in length. The blade of the koita was curved shape and the blade was quite broad and sharp on one side with blood stains on it. The koita was packed in the polythene bag then in an envelope and duly packed, sealed and signed by them. PI Gaonkar had attached a piece of paper on the Maruti car and also attached the keys which was signed by him, the second pancha and PI Gaonkar himself. He was unshaken on this vital aspect of the recovery of the koita from the dickey of the car and maintained that there were no blood stains in the car. There was no rebuttal of his testimony on these vital aspects. 104. PI Gaonkar Pw38 corroborated his version that he had requested him to act as a pancha to the attachment of the Maruti car which was parked in front of the Police Station upon being brought by SDPO, Panaji from Ambolim alongwith the accused persons. It was a blue colour Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.GA-01-C-1233 of which the keys were handed over to HC Khot Pw4 who had brought the car from the Ambolim Checkpost. On its examination, he had found four handbags containing clothes. On further minute examination he found one chopper (koita) in the rear dickey. He had measured the same and found to be 8.5 inches length, one side sharp and the blade at the flatter end near the handle being 1.5 inches broad. It had an iron handle bearing reddish mark appearing to be of blood. On further minute examination he found one chopper (koita) in the rear dickey. He had measured the same and found to be 8.5 inches length, one side sharp and the blade at the flatter end near the handle being 1.5 inches broad. It had an iron handle bearing reddish mark appearing to be of blood. The koita was duly packed in an auto press polythene bag, then in an envelope and duly packed, sealed and signed. The Maruti car in question alongwith the keys was attached under the Pachanama, a piece of paper containing relevant information duly signed by the panchas and himself was pasted and unrebutted in material particulars. 105. PC Naik Pw17 was attached to the Crime Branch as a Police photographer in 2011 and had visited the spot near the Science Centre, Miramar at 10.25 p.m. at the instance of the Panaji police and PSI Ramnathkar Pw37 was present alongwith staff and panchas at the spot and the panchanama was in progress. He noticed a Hundai I 20 car and took photographs at the spot at the instance of PSI Ramnathkar in various angles in connection with the Crime No.259/2011. He had prepared the CD and then forwarded to the Panaji Town Police Station. He had duly identified the photographs in Court and was not shaken in material particulars. Dr. S. Palyekar, Pw18 was the Medical Officer attached to the Blood Bank, Bambolim in 2011 when he received the sealed and labelled blood sample from the Forensic Department and that he had done the blood grouping of Salvador, since deceased, and found it to be Rh Positive. 106. M. V. Inspector, Madkar Pw19 was attached to the office of the Director of Transport in 2011 when he was requested by the Panaji Town Police Station to carry out the inspection of the Hundai I 20 car bearing No.GA-08-F-0993 at the Police Station. He visited the Police Station on the same day, inspected the car and recorded his findings on the various damages namely to the front and rear windshield, front both head lights and side lights, front and rear bumper damages, damages to the engine bonnet, to the front right tyre fender, front left door glass, right both door and rear quarter glass damaged, rear dicky door damaged and dent marks on rear left door. The vehicle was test driven and found to be roadworthy. The vehicle was test driven and found to be roadworthy. He did not rule out the damages being caused if hit with a baseball stick, chopper and iron rod though not ruling out that the damages being caused in a vehicular accident. Dr. Banaulikar, Pw24 had received a request from the Panaji Town Police Station for blood grouping of Manjunath Pw30. He had obtained his consent in writing, referred him for blood grouping to the Blood Bank and received the report issued by Dr. Priolkar Pw26 as B Rh Positive. 107. PI R. Gawas Pw38 had initially made a request letter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji on 16/09/2011 to hold the TI parade in respect of the accused with regard to the witnesses namely Ms. Arifa, Matin Pw31, Manjunath Pw30, Mario Pw3 upon which the Chief Judicial Magistrate made an endorsement to the effect that “PI Panaji / PS to approach the Executive Magistrate”. He had then written a letter on 19/09/2011 to the Executive Magistrate, Panaji that a requesting to hold a TI parade in respect of the accused persons with regard to the same witnesses. He soon corrected himself with the letter was made to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate to conduct the ID parade and thereafter a memorandum was issued by the Deputy Commissioner directing the Executive Magistrate to hold the TI parade. He had written another letter to the Executive Magistrate dated 31/10/2011 for conducting the ID parade and a memorandum was issued accordingly with no rebuttal of his testimony. 108. In Shaikh Sintha Madhar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex held that the purpose of TIP is to ensure that investigation is going on the right track and it is merely corroborative evidence. Actual identification must be done in Court and that is substantive evidence. Also, there is no invariable rule that two accused persons cannot be made part of the same TIP. Joint TIP would thus, in no manner, affect the validity of TIP. If accused is already known to witness, the TIP does not hold much value and it is identification in Court, which is of utmost importance. In the instant case of conspiracy resulting in murder of doctor, evidently, there is no inordinate delay in conducting TIP. The daughter of the accused has identified all the accused in the Court as also in the TIP. 109. In the instant case of conspiracy resulting in murder of doctor, evidently, there is no inordinate delay in conducting TIP. The daughter of the accused has identified all the accused in the Court as also in the TIP. 109. In Malkhansingh(supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that failure to hold a TI Parade would not make the evidence of the identification in the Court inadmissible. TI Parade does not constitute substantive evidence, the substantive evidence being the evidence of identification in Court and TI parade provides corroboration to the sworn testimony of the witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused. In appropriate cases, the Court may accept the evidence of identification in Court even without insisting on such or other corroboration. Circumstances in which much evidentiary value cannot be attached to the identification of the accused in the Court, also stated. In a case of gang rape, where the evidence of the prosecutrix found to be implicitly reliable, it was held on the facts that the conviction of the accused – appellants in the absence of TI parade could be sustained on the basis of the identification of the appellants by the prosecutrix in the Court. 110. PI R. Gaonkar Pw38 had initially made a request letter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji on 16/09/2011 to hold the TI Parade in respect of the accused persons with regard to the witnesses namely Ms. Arifa, Matin Pw31, Manjunath Pw30, Mario Pw3 upon which the Chief Judicial Magistrate made an endorsement to the effect that “PI Panaji PS to approach the Executive Magistrate”. He had then written a letter on 19/09/2011 to the Executive Magistrate, Panaji with a request to hold a TI Parade in respect of the accused persons with regard to the same witnesses. He soon corrected himself that the letter was made to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to conduct the ID Parade and thereafter a memorandum was issued by the Deputy Collector directing the Executive Magistrate to hold the TI Parade. He had written another letter to the Executive Magistrate dated 31/10/2011 for conducting the ID Parade and a memorandum was issued accordingly with no rebuttal of his testimony. 111. Jt. He had written another letter to the Executive Magistrate dated 31/10/2011 for conducting the ID Parade and a memorandum was issued accordingly with no rebuttal of his testimony. 111. Jt. Mamlatdar Fernandes Pw27, was an Executive Magistrate attached to the Tiswadi taluka who was requested by the PI Town Police Station on 19.09.2011 to hold a test identification parade in respect of five persons namely Yatin Tigade, Krishna Naik, Godwin Misquita, Sandeep Shinde and Ashroff Shaikh. She was directed by the Dy. Collector communicated vide the memorandum dated 21.09.2011 to hold a T.I.Parade and fixed the same in the first instance on 16.11.2011 at 3.30 p.m. in the court premises where the identifying witnesses were Arifa Khan, Matin Pw31, Manjunath Pw30 and Mario Pw3. She followed the procedure as prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the details mentioned in the Memorandum and started the parade. Thereafter, she had called the witnesses one by one and accordingly Manjunath had identified accused No.1 Tigade and accused No.2 Krishna during the parade while the other witnesses failed to identify the accused on the premise that they could not remember the assailants. She was assisted by two panchas Prabhu and Dhulapkar during the entire procedure and thereafter handed over the custody of the accused persons to the Panaji Police Station. She had fixed the T.I.Parade of A3 Godwin and A4 Sandeep on 18.11.2011 at 3.30 p.m. in the court premises and the identifying witnesses Arifa Khan, Abdul Matim Pw31, Manjunath Pw30 and Mario Pw3 were present. She had followed the procedure as per the Criminal Procedure Code and the details were mentioned in the memorandum about the manner in which the accused were brought and kept and the witnesses were brought and kept and how the T.I.Parade was conducted. 112. Jt. Mamlatdar Fernandes Pw27 stated that Manjunath Pw30 identified A3 Godwin and accused A4 Sandeep during the T.I.Parade while the other two witnesses failed to identify the accused and stated that they would not be in a position to identify them since though they had seen the accused they failed to identify the assailants. During this T.I.Parade too she was assisted by two panchas Daniel and Varadkar. She had followed the entire procedure as disclosed in the memorandum and as per the Criminal Procedure Code and forwarded it besides the report prepared by her to the Police. During this T.I.Parade too she was assisted by two panchas Daniel and Varadkar. She had followed the entire procedure as disclosed in the memorandum and as per the Criminal Procedure Code and forwarded it besides the report prepared by her to the Police. Her testimony was totally unrebutted and therefore, the unwarranted labouring over her testimony by the ld. Sessions Judge was neither called for nor justified to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. It is another matter that the accused might have substance in their case that the delay in holding of T.I.Parade was detrimental to their case inasmuch as there was possibility for the accused being seen by the identifying witnesses between the day of the crime and the day of the parade, almost three months later. That however, does not discount for the unwarranted for commentary by the learned Sessions Judge in holding of the T.I.Parade when there was nothing amiss in the statement of Pw27 Fernandes and her unrebutted testimony on the touchstone of cross examination. 113. Manjunath Pw30 had further come on record that A1 Tigade was wearing long sleeves blue, white and pink colour vertical stripes and jean pant. He was called in the court premises of the Mamlatdar at 3.30 p.m. On 11/11/2011 and at that time he identified a short boy who first came at the spot concealing weapon as the juvenile Ashroff. He was again called for identification on 16/11/2011 and at that time, he identified A1 Tigade and A2 Krishna and he was again called on 18/11/2011 when he identified A3 Godwin and A4 Sandeep. He confirmed that A2 Krishna was wearing white, short sleeves shirt having black vertical stripes and blue jeans pant where as A3 Godwin was wearing white colour, t-shirt round neck having picture of baby face, and jeans pant and A4 Sandip was wearing white round neck t-shirt having vertical stripes of different colours and 3/4th white colour pant. He had duly identified each of the articles attached by the Police including his own clothes, the clothes worn by A1 Tigade, those worn by A2 Krishna, A3 Godwin and A4 Sandeep. Besides, he had made a startling revelation that after his statement was partly recorded in the Court, the juvenile Ashrof had come infront of his house on 30/11/2014, questioned him about the case and threatened him that he should withdraw the complaint. Besides, he had made a startling revelation that after his statement was partly recorded in the Court, the juvenile Ashrof had come infront of his house on 30/11/2014, questioned him about the case and threatened him that he should withdraw the complaint. Accordingly he was given police protection as per the directions of the Court. 114. Manjunath Pw30 in all fairness admitted that he had not descried the type of clothes worn at the time of the incident nor the clothes worn by the accused and Salvador, since deceased. He fairly relented that he was not called by Police to identify the weapon till they were shown in the Court but mentioned that they had used koita, baseball bat, danda and iron pipe to mount the assault on him and Salvador in particular. Besides, he had shed light on the fact that both had taken his motor cycle which was available by the side of the road at Miramar while conceding in fairness that he was not aware of what happened to the motor cycle of Mario Pw3. His admission that he had not described the details of the remaining four accused in his complaint to the Police would make the identification of the accused Nos.2 to 4 and the juvenile difficult to accept particularly considering the fact that the T.I.Parade was conducted almost three months after the incident and there were no particulars of their features or identifying marks to identify them at such a later date in Court. It is another matter that he categorically denied the suggestion that he was shown the accused in the Police lock-up prior to the panchanama. The fact remains that he had clearly identified A1 Tigade at the scene of crime and about the remaining accused he had made a reference in his complaint to the Police. 115. Basvraj Pw32 had acted as a pancha on 27/08/2011 alongwith Krishna at the request of PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 at Miramar near Science Center in an attempt to murder case. The place was on the Miramar Dona Paula Road where they were shown one I-20 car which was covered with tarpaulin and guarded by two Constables. The tarpaulin was removed from the car at the time of Panchanama which was facing towards Miramar beach and was silver in colour bearing registration no.GA-08-F-993. The place was on the Miramar Dona Paula Road where they were shown one I-20 car which was covered with tarpaulin and guarded by two Constables. The tarpaulin was removed from the car at the time of Panchanama which was facing towards Miramar beach and was silver in colour bearing registration no.GA-08-F-993. They had noticed both the front head lights were broken and the bumper was damaged on the left side. The right front side door glass was damaged on the left side and so too the right front side door glass. The left side front portion of the vehicle was found pressed or dented and on the rear side the number plate was visible. The rear windscreen was also broken. There was dent on the rear portion of the car which was being hit by a rod. They noticed blood stains on the ground near the left rear door of the car. The said blood was collected with the help of cotton gauze which was then placed in a plastic pouch, inserted in an envelope, packed, sealed and signed and so too the glass pieces collected, packed sealed and signed as before. 116. Basavraj Pw32 stated further that he noticed one ladies sandal lying next to the driver’s portion which was placed in an envelope, packed, sealed and signed. Blood was found on the front left door which was collected with the help of a cotton gauze, then placed in the plastic pouch, inserted in an envelope, packed, sealed and signed as before. They found the RC book of the vehicle in the tool box but could not recall the name of the registered owner. They noticed blood stains and glass pieces near the footrest which blood was collected with the help of cotton gauze and duly packed, sealed and signed as before and so too the glass pieces. A bag of light golden/ maroon colour was found on the rear seat with blood on it. It was opened and they found cash of Rs.100/- and one identity card in the name of Arifa Khan, ATM Card, and other articles inside which he could not recollect. These things were placed in the bag which was packed, sealed and signed. A Maroon colour dupatta which was found on the back seat was similarly packed, sealed and signed. It was opened and they found cash of Rs.100/- and one identity card in the name of Arifa Khan, ATM Card, and other articles inside which he could not recollect. These things were placed in the bag which was packed, sealed and signed. A Maroon colour dupatta which was found on the back seat was similarly packed, sealed and signed. The car was then attached under the panchnama when some measurements were taken and also photographs. He duly identified the Panchnama and the photographs and more particularly each of the articles duly packed and sealed in his presence alongwith the signatures, packing and seals. There was no serious rebuttal of his testimony despite his cross-examination at length thereby corroborating the case of the prosecution in material aspects barring minor discrepancies. 117. Krishna Pw28 had acted as pancha with his friend Basavraj on 27/08/2011, near the Science Centre at Miramar at the instance of PSI Kalangutkar Pw37. They were shown a silver colour car on the road coming towards Miramar side which was covered with tarpaulin and tied with rope. The tarpaulin was removed in their presence and at which time they noticed it was an I20 car bearing No.993. The rear window glass was broken and glass pieces were found inside the vehicle. He could however not recollect whether there was damage on the top portion of the vehicle. Nonetheless, on his memory being refreshed, he confirmed that the side mirror of the car was damaged and besides, there were clothes in the car scattered and which were attached. They had noticed blood near the car on the ground and the said blood stains were collected with a piece of cotton and placed in a bag. He could not recall if there were damages to the head light, bumper on the front, driver side door, the glass of the door or whether there were any blood stains above the rear bumper. Since he claimed want of memory, he was confronted with the statement in the panchanama and the contradictions marked since as per the case of the prosecution, he was found hostile to its case and otherwise departing from the prosecution case in material particulars. 118. Since he claimed want of memory, he was confronted with the statement in the panchanama and the contradictions marked since as per the case of the prosecution, he was found hostile to its case and otherwise departing from the prosecution case in material particulars. 118. Krishna Pw28 also claimed want of memory whether PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 had opened the tool box of the dash board and removed the RC Book showing the registration number of the car in the name of one Badrruddin. All these material contradictions in his statement on the presence of glass pieces scattered on the rear side of the car, availability of blood, attachment of the dupatta, sandles etc. were duly brought on record and later on proved through the testimony of the investigating officer. Therefore, even assuming at the highest that this witness resiled from the case of the prosecution it does not reflect from the testimony on record; the omissions and contradictions being proved through the investigating officer notwithstanding. This witness was vascillating who at one time claimed want of memory in identifying the condition of the vehicle, the position of the glass pieces, the extent of damages, the position of the blood stains etc. etc. and at the other time, identifying the attached articles and his signatures on the parcels attaching the same. 119. Gupta Pw33 stated that he had acted as a pancha witness on 27/08/2011 alongwith another person at Bambolim and a rough record was prepared. He was thereafter taken to the Police Station where his signature was obtained. Since he claimed want of knowledge and memory, his memory was refreshed and when he still declined to remember what was the panchnama to which he acted as a Pancha witness. In any event, this punchnama related to the attachment of the clothes of the injured Manjunath Pw30 and Salvador, since deceased, one being seriously injured and the other deceased in the said melee. Even accepting for a moment that he was hostile to the case of the prosecution there is nothing amis inasmuch as there was no singular dispute of the fact that Manjuath Pw30 was seriously injured and Salvador had sustained fatal injuries in the course of the assault on the night of 26/08/2011 near the Science Center at Miramar. 120. Even accepting for a moment that he was hostile to the case of the prosecution there is nothing amis inasmuch as there was no singular dispute of the fact that Manjuath Pw30 was seriously injured and Salvador had sustained fatal injuries in the course of the assault on the night of 26/08/2011 near the Science Center at Miramar. 120. PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 had corroborated the version of Basavraj Pw32 that he had conducted the Pachanama of the scene of crime in his presence and of another and besides showed that the photographs were taken by the police photographer and the scientific assistant had lifted the exhibits from the scene of crime. The spot of assault was on the left side of the main tar road proceeding from Dona Paula to Miramar. He removed the tarpaulin cover and the yellow rope which was placed at the scene for guarding the scene of crime. The Hyundai car which was found on the spot was facing towards Miramar beach having registration no.GA-08-F-993, silver colour with both headlights damaged. There was a dent in vertical shape on the bumper above the left side headlight and the same was done with a hard object. The front windshield of the car was damaged, there was a dent on the upper portion of the driver's side door and glass panel of the driver's side door was broken apart from the glass window of the rear right door. The other glass of the door was partially damaged and appeared to be done with a hard object. There was a dent on the rear side of the car, there was a cut on the bumper of the car above the registration number plate again caused by the same sharp object. There were dried blood stains above the rear bumper below the name ‘Hyundai’. There was blood stains at the lower part of the left rear door and there were some cut marks with some scratches caused by some sharp object. He had noticed blood stains below the car beneath the left rear door which was collected with the help of the cotton gauze and then duly packed, sealed and signed. He had collected the control sample from the spot which was similarly packed, sealed and signed. 121. He had noticed blood stains below the car beneath the left rear door which was collected with the help of the cotton gauze and then duly packed, sealed and signed. He had collected the control sample from the spot which was similarly packed, sealed and signed. 121. PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 further corroborated the version of Basavraj Pw32 that the glass panel of the front left door was broken, handle of the said door was damaged with sharp objects and there were scratches below the handle extending towards down again appearing to be done with a sharp object. He had opened the driver side door and found blood stains on the driver’s seat, on the panel of the car near the driver's seat, blood was seen scattered on the broken front windshield of the car, on the dashboard and on the left front door. He had also noticed pieces of glass scattered on both seats, underneath the front seat and on the dashboard. He had collected the blood samples from the panel of the car, near the driver's seat with the help of cotton gauze which was then placed in a polythene autopress bag, in turn placed in an envelope, which was packed, sealed and signed as before. He had collected glass pieces with blood stains from the dashboard of the car which was similarly sealed, packed and signed and he had also cotton gauze which was duly sealed, packed and signed. He had opened the tool box at the dashboard and found RC book bearing no.GA-08-F-0993 registered in the name of Badruddin Can resident of Verna, Salcete, Goa which he took in his custody. He opened the right rear door of the car and found glass pieces scattered on the rear seat and under the seat of the car and on the mattress. Besides, blood stains were seen on the rear left door and on the attachment between the front seats of the car. He had collected glass particles with blood from the mattresses below the rear seat which was duly packed, sealed and signed. 122. PI Kalangutkar Pw37 had also revealed that he had noticed a brown colour bag on the rear seat and on observations it was found that the bag had two zips and noticed reddish colour stains appearing to be of blood near the zip. 122. PI Kalangutkar Pw37 had also revealed that he had noticed a brown colour bag on the rear seat and on observations it was found that the bag had two zips and noticed reddish colour stains appearing to be of blood near the zip. He had opened the zip and found an identity card in the name of Arifa Khan of Suster's Total Solution Service having photographs, cash of Rs.100/-, one black and orange colour Sony Ericsson Mobile phone in switched off mode, MDL of Arifa Alam Khan, PAN Card of Arifa and ATM Cards in the name of Arifa of SBI Bank, Corporation Bank, HDFC Bank. The belongings were removed and placed in an autopress polythene bag and the brown colour bag was then inserted in a polythene bag and then in an envelope, which was duly packed, sealed and signed. The brownish colour dupatta was found on the rear seat of the car which was removed and placed in a polythene bag, then in an envelope and duly packed, sealed and signed as before. A white plastic colour polythene bag was found on the rear seat of the car having written on one side 'Fallari Collections' and on the other side 'Mustafa Collections' containing white and maroon colour lady's clothes, which was placed in a polythene bag, then in an envelope and duly packed, sealed and signed. Two lady's sandals were found below the front left seat of the car of white and black colour having no.37 and words 'Total' written on the sole of the sandal which was then inserted in a polythene bag and then in an envelope which was duly packed, sealed and signed. He has observed the car from inside and noticed cut marks at the top roof of the car and the same appeared to be done with a sharp object. 123. PSI Kalangutkar Pw37 had then attached the car under the Panchanama while the photographs of the scene of offence were clicked by one Constable Naik. The Scientific Assistant had assisted him in lifting the exhibits from the spot which were attached under the Panchanama and explained to the Panchas who affirmed that it was correctly recorded. 124. Sandeep Pw36 was the pancha to the attachment Panchanama of the clothes at the GMC Hospital, Bambolim on 27/08/2011 at the instance of PSI Kalangutkar Pw37. The Scientific Assistant had assisted him in lifting the exhibits from the spot which were attached under the Panchanama and explained to the Panchas who affirmed that it was correctly recorded. 124. Sandeep Pw36 was the pancha to the attachment Panchanama of the clothes at the GMC Hospital, Bambolim on 27/08/2011 at the instance of PSI Kalangutkar Pw37. The Doctor on duty had shown the two boxes and told them it contained the clothes of Majunath Pw30 and Ghalu, since deceased. On opening the first box, the clothes of Manjunath Pw30 being a white colour shirt having yellow stripes, stained with blood and with a cut marks were found. There was a white banian and then the shirt and the banian were placed in a polythene bag, then in an envelope thereafter duly sealed in their presence which was signed by them and other pancha Gupta Pw33. The second box was opened and found to contain a jean pant which was soaked with blood. The jean pant was of Benneton company and other details were recorded in the Panchanama. The clothes were then placed in polythene bag, then in an envelope which was duly packed, sealed and signed. He could identify the clothes if shown to him and duly identified in Court alongwith the packing, seals and signature with no rebuttal of his testimony barring minor discrepancies. 125. The Sessions Judge had fallen in error to hold that the prosecution had not established motive inasmuch as there was a clear statement by Manjunath Pw30 that there was an earlier incident of assault between A1 Tigade and Salvador, since deceased and erred in concluding that the motive was not proved. The Sessions Judge committed a grave error by discarding the evidence of an eye witness Manjunath Pw30 ignoring that there was direct evidence too apart from circumstantial evidence to prove the case of the prosecution against A1 Tigade in particular. The Sessions Judge unduly drew an adverse inference for not examining Ms. Arifa despite the fact which was available from the material on record that she had travelled abroad and was not available for the prosecution for examining her as one of its witnesses. The Sessions Judge unduly drew an adverse inference for not examining Ms. Arifa despite the fact which was available from the material on record that she had travelled abroad and was not available for the prosecution for examining her as one of its witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge fell in error to hold that the prosecution case was not reliable on the premise that there were inconsistencies in the complaint viz-a-viz the evidence on record and ignoring the fact that they were not major as to affect the substantive evidence on record. There was a serious lapse on the part of the Trial Court to hold that the cause of death of Salvador, since deceased, was due to septicemia which was a mere hypothesis by ignoring the substantive occular and medical evidence on record. Septicemia may have developed later on but that was on account of the assault by sharp, heavy and deadly weapons. The learned Sessions Judge gave undue credence to the truncated version of Dr. Fernandes Pw2 that septicemia could be caused due to unhygienic conditions of the hospital ignoring his other substantive evidence on the nature and extent of the injuries on Salvador, since deceased, which were necessarily fatal in the ordinary course of nature. The learned Sessions Judge gave undue importance to minor discrepancies, omissions and contradictions which were bound to occur when there was a gap of time between the date of occurrence and the actual deposition in the Court. The learned Sessions Judge considered the case of the prosecution in a casual manner giving undue credence to the minor discrepancies and omissions in the deposition which do not unsettle the proof of assault committed by the accused thereby resulting in a judgment which is vitiated and warranting a reversal by this Court. 126. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the Sessions Judge is an outcome of an improper appreciation of the evidence and is capricious apart from the conclusions being contrary to the evidence on record. The judgment is based on conjectures and surmises and is an outcome of ignoring the cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence of the witnesses coupled with the medical evidence. The judgment is based on conjectures and surmises and is an outcome of ignoring the cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence of the witnesses coupled with the medical evidence. The Sessions Judge ignored the medical evidence clearly indicating the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by Salvador, since deceased, and erroneously concluded that the death was due to septicemia as a result of unhygienic condition in the hospital purely on the basis of a hypothesis suggested by the defence. There has indeed been a miscarriage of justice inasmuch as the view taken by the learned Single Judge is an impossible view in the given set of facts and circumstances. We have, therefore, been constrained in the light of the settled law to reappreciate and review the entire evidence on record and even constrained to take a different view. The decision of the learned Sessions Judge would definitely have to be reversed to meet the ends of justice despite being conscious of the fact that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Yet, there is no scope for any doubt creeping in, in the light of the discussion as before. 127. The circumstances relied upon on behalf of the prosecution are conclusive in nature and exclude every other hypothesis except the complicity of A1-Tigade in committing the offence under Section 302 IPC. The chain of circumstances and the evidence is complete, inasmuch as there is no scope for any reasonable grounds to conclude about the innocence of A1-Tigade in particular looking also to the fact that there is an element of doubt insofar as the other accused nos.2 to 4 are concerned particularly when they were not identified by Manjunath Pw30 nor described about their particulars in the complaint unlike A1-Tigade. Besides, he had identified A2 to A4 in the course of the TI parade held after a lapse of more than three months for which there was no reasonable justification at the instance of the prosecution. 128. From the discussion of the entire evidence on record it has therefore to be concluded that the respondent nos.2 to 4 cannot be said to be the co-accused with A1 Tigade in the commission of the crime. 128. From the discussion of the entire evidence on record it has therefore to be concluded that the respondent nos.2 to 4 cannot be said to be the co-accused with A1 Tigade in the commission of the crime. We are therefore inclined to acquit them of the offences publishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 426 and 302 r/w. 149 I.P.C. It goes without saying that on a discussion of the facts, the evidence under the circumstances on record have clearly established that the prosecution has established its case against the respondent no.1–Tigade beyond all reasonable doubt for having committed the offence under Section 302 IPC. It goes without saying therefore that before awarding the sentence, the respondent no.1 is required to be heard on the quantum of sentence. The Bail Bonds of the respondent no.1 shall stand cancelled. He shall be forthwith taken into custody. 129. Heard Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor who contended that considering the manner in which the incident took place in a crowded place, it was apparent that the same was preplanned and the accused had least regard for the society. Therefore, no leniency had to be shown to the respondent no.1 - Tigade. Shri Anoop Gaonkar, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent no.1-Tigade contended that being young a lenient view ought to be taken. 130. We have heard the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent no.1 and find that no mitigating circumstances have been set out to take a lenient view in the matter while awarding the quantum of sentence. In the light of these observations, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 15/09/2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, South Goa Margao in Sessions Case No.43 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside in respect of the respondent no.1 who is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine in the amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months. (iii) The acquittal of the respondent nos.2 to 4 by the Sessions Court is upheld. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine in the amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months. (iii) The acquittal of the respondent nos.2 to 4 by the Sessions Court is upheld. (iv) The respondent no.1 shall surrender to his Bail Bonds. (v) Since the respondent no.1 has not made himself available before the Court till date despite the directions to surrender, warrant to issue for the arrest of the respondent no.1 and commit him to jail in terms of Section 418 CrPC. The Bail Bond shall stand forfeited. (vi) The muddemal property shall not be disposed off until the appeal is decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court. (vii) An authenticated copy of the judgment and order be issued to the respondent no.1 forthwith after the payment/ deposit of the requisite charges for the same.