( 1 ) THESE bunch of 4 appeals have been preferred by the appellants original accused - convict persons challenging the judgement and order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 37 of 1996 on 13. 2. 1998. The Additional Sessions Judge sitting at Rajpipla has tried the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147. 148, 149, 302, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 35 of the Bombay Police Act. At the conclusion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held all the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life, for the offence under Sections 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. All the appellants accused also have been sentenced and ordered to undergo SI for one month for offence punishable under Sections 147 and 148 of I. P. C. for each of the offence. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.>

( 2 ) (I) Practically, all the accused, except accused No. 3, have preferred two appeals against the very judgement and order. As found from the record, original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 i. e. Jivanbhai Talsibhai, Darubhai Talsibhai, Ashwin Bhavsingbhai have filed Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1998, original accused No. 4 i. e. Vinodbhai Jivanbhai has filed Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 1998, Original accused Nos. 2 and 5 being Darubhai Talsibhai Vasava and Ashwinbhai Bhavsingbhai Vasava have filed Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 1998 and Original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 being Jivanbhai Talsibhai Vasava, Harshadbhai Jivanbhai Vasava and Vinodbhai Jivanbhai Vasava have filed Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 1998. So obviously the appeal filed first in time need to be treated as admitted by the Court and have been considered as appeal preferred by the concerned appellants accused against the judgement and order i. e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 195 of 1998, 271 of 1998 and 509 of 1998 and second memo of the very appellants i. e. Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 1998 and Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 1998 qua original accused No. 1 - Jivanbhai Vasava and original accused No. 4 Vinodbhai Jivanbhai Vasava have been treated as redundant. Appellant No. 3 - original accused No. 3 has preferred only one appeal with two other co-accused and that appeal is Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 1998. One of the memo of appeal has been filed by the advocate engaged by the appellants accused persons and rest of the memos have been received by the Court through jail. 2 (II) initially, as requested by the appellants accused, the appellants were given assistance of advocate, appointed by the Court but on the day of hearing of the appeals finally, the counsel appearing for the accused Mr. K. R. Rawal and Mr. B. S. Patel have submitted that they have instructions not to appear in the matter and respective appellants of the appeal want to engage other counsel. Mr. Brahambhatt, learned advocate, thereafter has appeared for the appellants and has submitted and accepted, before us, that he has instructions to appear on behalf of all the appellants accused persons, who are in jail at present. 2 (III) on verifying the proceedings and record, it is noticed that one of the appellants namely Darubhai Talsibhai Vasava is absconding since 25. 8. 2000 and obviously therefore, Mr. Brahambhatt had no instructions on his behalf. Undisputably, these group of accused appellants had requested the court to provide assistance of a counsel, so that they can represent their case before the court in a proper way. This request advanced by them at the time of admission hearing of the appeal, was accepted and the appeals of the respective appellants have been admitted by the Court. Now, the court has decided to appoint Mr. Brahambhatt to present the case of absconding accused in place of advocate Shri B. S. Patel, initially appointed by the Court. Mr. Brahambhatt has readily accepted to argue on behalf of all the app