( 1 ) THE main question which has surfaced in both these appeals is whether the conviction and sentence of original accused persons of the offence punishable under Sec. 324, I. P. C. , in the impugned judgment and order in place of original charge under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34, I. P. C. , can be said to be justified ? Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 1993 is preferred by the State for enhancement invoking powers under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), whereas Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 1995 which is preferred by the original accused persons invoking powers under Sec. 374 of the Code which, as such, was originally preferred before the Sessions Court at surendranagar being Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1993 which came to be transferred and is given Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 1995. In substance, both the appeals arise out of one order of conviction and sentence between the same parties. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 1993 are the original accused; whereas appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 1995 are the same persons. Therefore, for the sake of co