Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2006 (old Sessions Case No. 222/2003) by the Addl. Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Anand, recording conviction of the appellants-accused for offence under sec. 307, 323 r/w sec. 114 of Indian Penal Code and imposing sentence as stated in detail in the impugned judgment and order.

2. The facts of the case, briefly summarized, are as follows:

"2.1 As it transpires from the material and evidence on record, on 5.10.2002 at about 7 p.m. a luxury bus of Lucky Travels was stopped by the complainant on the ground that the driver of the bus had borrowed Rs. 2,000/-. However, the accused persons, as stated in detail in the complaint, came on motorcycles and after verbal altercation culminated into the incident of assault with lathis fitted with rings used normally by the Bharwad community, for which an FIR being C.R. No. I-104/2002 came to be registered with Tarapur Police Station.

2.2 After the investigation was over, the charge-sheet was filed and as the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charge for the offences as stated above and proceeded with the trial.

2.3 In order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined the witnesses including the complainant victim and the doctors and also produced documentary evidence and medical evidence which shall be referred to in the judgment hereinafter.

2.4 After recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded Further Statement of the accused persons under sec. 313 of the CrPC.

2.5 After hearing the learned APP as well as the learned advocate for the defence, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded the conviction of the appellant accused and sentenced him as stated in detail in the impugned judgment and order.

2.6 It is this judgment and order which has been assailed in the present appeal by the appellants on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal, inter alia, that the court below has committed an error in appreciating the material and evidence and has failed to consider the vital aspect of injuries and that it was not pre-meditated."

3. Heard learned advocate Shri BT Rao for the appellants-accused and learned APP Shri HL Jani for the respondent-State.

4. Learned advocate Shri Rao referred to the testimony of the complainant, PW-1, at exh. 16 and his complaint at exh. 17. He also referred to the testimony of PW-2, exh. 20, and testimony of PW-3, exh. 23 and also the testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 at exhs. 24 & 25 respectively. He pointedly referred to the testimony of Shyamlal, driver of the luxury bus, PW-15 at exh. 50, who has turned hostile. Learned advocate Shri Rao referring to the testimonies of these witnesses submitted that there are discrepancies. He submitted that PW-3 who is also injured has stated that he as well as PW-1 Bharatbhai were taken to the government hospital for treatment and the complaint was given thereafter. He further stated that he has not gone to the police station. He has also stated that the doctor has not asked about the names of the assailants. Learned advocate Shri Rao submitted and he has also stated that he had not stated about the names of the assailants accused. Similarly, he referred to the testimony of PW-1 Bharatbhai at exh. 16 and submitted that though he is said to have stated about the assault by the accused persons, in the cross-examination he has stated and admitted that the doctor had not asked as to who had caused the injury or assaulted him. Further, he is said to have stated to the doctor that in the quarrel he has received the injury but the names were not given. Further, he has stated that he was conscious and thereafter he had gone to the police station for lodging the complaint. He has further admitted about the genesis of t