( 1 ) WE would like to mention here that accused No. 2 Daya Jina gave a complaint to the Police Officer on 16-7-1982 which was given mark A by the learned trial Judge at the time on recording evidence but at the time of delivering judgment the learned trial Judge relying upon the decision of this Court in RABARI KHIMA GANDA V. STATE OF GUJARAT 20 G. L. R. 847 held that the said complaint is not hit by section 162 Cri. Pro. Code and therefore admissible in evidence. The evidence of P. S. I. Tirmiji P. W. 15 Ex. 57 shows that he took over the investigation of this case on 16-7-1981 at about 3-30 P. M. and on that day he arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2 and attached the muddamal weapons and blood stained clothes of accused No. 1 and then arrested accused Nos. 3? 4. and 5 and then attached the muddamal weapons from them and then recorded the complaint mark A of accused No. 2 Daya Jina. This evidence shows he did further investigation in the matter and then submitted charge-sheet to the Court on 14-10-1981. This shows that the P. S. I. Tirmiji was the investigating officer in this case. His evidence at para. 13 also shows that after arresting accused Nos. 1 and 2 he recorded