The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles from Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra to determine the intention of the accused and the appropriate conviction under the IPC.

K.S. Jhaveri, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants-original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 2-8-2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer and Third Fast Track Court, Anand, in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2006 (Old Sessions Case No. 289 of 2000) whereby original accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC' for short) and simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under section 323 read with section 34 of IPC. They were, however, acquitted for the offence punishable under section 135 of B.P. Act. Both the sentences were ordered to concurrently. They were given set off for the period undergone in jail.

2. Short facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 19-9-2000 at about 7.30 p.m., in the field of Chhatrasinh Rupsinh Parmar situated in the border of Village Kalu Sidhapur, Taluka Borsad, District Anand, all the accused with a common intention to kill Hartansinh Himmatsinh Sindha, took him into the field and accused No. 2 caught hold of hands of the deceased, accused No. 1 gave kick blows on vital body of the deceased by catching hold of his neck and other accused also gave kick blows on the deceased and one of the accused gave stick blow on Gajraben. Thereafter, Hartansinh succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. A complaint was, therefore, filed against the accused. In pursuance of said complaint, investigation started and as there appeared prima facie case against the accused, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.

2.1 As the offence was triable exclusively by Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter charge was framed against the accused which was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution was asked to prove the guilt against the accused.

2.2 To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined following witnesses:

P.W. No.	Name of witness	Exhibit No.
1	Dr. Siraj Firozbhai Vhora	10
2	Ranubhai Hartansing	19
3	Pratapsinh Prabhatsinh Sindha	21
4	Ramsing Vajesing Sindha	25
5	Laxmanbhai Bhemabhai Rabari	27
6	Dhirsinh Raisinh Chauhan	29
7	Rakeshbhai Parshottambhai Patel	30
8	Rameshbhai Budhabhai Thakore	32
9	Gajraben Hartansinh Sindha	42
10	Dr. Sohanlal Devilal Dhakroliya	44
11	Maheboobkhan Rasulkhan Pathan	48
12	Anil ruddhsinh Jorubha Zala	50

2.3 The prosecution also relied on following documentary evidence:

Sr. No.	Description	Exhibit No.
1	Charge	3
2	Post mortem note	12
3	Post mortem and cause of death certificate	13
4	FIR	20
5	Panchnama of scene of offence	22
6	Inquest panchnama	26
7	Panchnama of cloth	28
8	Panchnama of recovery of stick	31
9	Panchnama of clothes of Gajraben	33
10	Certificate issued to Gajraben by Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Kathana	46
11	Medical treatment papers of Gajraben	47
12	Muddanal note	54
13	FSL receipt	55
14	FSL letter	60
15	FSL report	61
16	Serological Report	62

2.4 After filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the impugned judgment and order was delivered by the trial court giving rise to the present appeal by the original accused.

3. H