R.M. CHHAYA, J.

1. THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Junagadh on 14.08.2003 in Sessions Case No.9 of 2002, convicting the appellants-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, Section 323 read with Section 149, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 ('B.P. Act' for short), and sentencing them in the manner stated hereinafter:

(i) u/s. 147 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment ("R.I." for short) for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment ("S.I." for short) for five days. (ii) u/s. 148 of the IPC to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default to undergo S.I. for seven days. (iii) u/s. 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo S.I. for one month. (iv) u/s. 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC to undergo R.I. for three months and pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to undergo S.I. for seven days. (v) u/s. 506(2) of the IPC to undergo R.I. for six months. (vi) u/s. 135 of the B.P. Act to undergo R.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.50/- each, in default, to undergo S.I. for five days.

2. THE sentences imposed upon the appellants-accused were ordered to run concurrently. According to the prosecution, deceased-Hayat ("the deceased" for short) and accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 ("A1", "A2" and "A3" respectively for short) are the ordinary residents of Village Motakotda, Tal. Visavadar, Dist. Junagadh. The deceased was engaged in the vocation of selling tea on retail basis in a stall situated in local limits of Village Motakotda. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 05.08.2001 at about 8:30 a.m. while the deceased was at his stall, the accused, armed with deadly weapons like iron pipe, sword, gupti and dharia, with an 'intention' and 'motive' to kill the deceased, came near his tea stall and hackled and challenged him to come out from the stall. That on seeing the accused, armed with deadly weapons, out of fear, the deceased attempted to run away. However, the accused ran after him and assaulted with weapons, which were in their possession. It is further the case of the prosecution that the deceased received serious injuries. It is the case of the prosecution that on 03.08.2001 i.e. just two days before the date of incident, the deceased had some quarrel with A1 at about 2:30 p.m. and the deceased had rebuked A1 and, because of the said quarrel, the accused, by constitution of an unlawful assembly, conspired to do away the deceased and with that common object, had assaulted the deceased and thereby committed the offences, as aforesaid. It is also the case of the prosecution that brother of the deceased, namely, Yunusbhai Osmanbhai Pathan (PW-16), who was present at the scene of offence and who is the original informant, also ran after the accused. However, the accused threatened him not to interrupt and A1 also assaulted PW-16 and gave a blow with pipe, which fell just below his knee of the left leg. Thereafter the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Junagadh in a rickshaw and on examination he was declared dead. An FIR was lodged alleging the aforesaid offences against the present accused-appellants. On the basis of the FIR above-mentioned, the police started investigation and on completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellants. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Visavadar, on receipt of such charge-sheet so submitted by the police, committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh as the case was being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The learned Judge, on appearance of the accused-appellants and on perusal of the materials available on record, including the police papers as w