The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, witness testimonies, and recent Supreme Court decision on life imprisonment and remission powers to establish the guilt of the accused.

K.S. Jhaveri, J.

1. All these appeals arise from the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anand and therefore they are being disposed of by the present common judgment.

2. The appellants have challenged their conviction in Sessions Cases No. 64 of 2009 whereby the appellants came to be convicted vide judgment and order dated 09.09.2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anand. By the same impugned judgment and order the appellants came to be convicted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment and order directed the appellants to suffer imprisonment as under:

Section	Particulars of sentence
302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code	R.I. For life
392 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code	R.I. for 7 years
397 e/w 34 of Indian penal code	R.I. for 7 years

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1 That on 23.02.2003 at 8.30 in the morning, all the appellants were travelling in the car of the Jigneshbhai Natvarsinh Zala aged about 24 years as passengers bearing No. G.J. 23 M-2700 of Tavera make. Jigneshbhai Natwarsinh zala was travelling on national highway No. 7 and he was coming from Bombay and was going towards Anand. At that time, all the accused took lift in the Car and with their connivance the accused No. 1 has given knife blow. They have first tied the legs-hands and mouth of driver Jigneshbhai Natvarsinh Zala and inflicted blows upon him with a sharp aged weapon. The accused all together thrown away the body of Jitendrasinh Natwarsinh Zala on the sub way near the Canal at Moger Village to destroy the evidence. The complainant is the chaukidar who in turn informed the police of Vasad camp at Moger. In pursuance of this complaint, FIR being CR No. I - 13 of 2009 came to be registered with Vasad Police Station.

3.2 The investigation was taken up and after usual investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the appellants. The offences committed by the appellants were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court at Anand under Section 209 of the Code. Upon committal, the case came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 64 of 2009 in Sessions Court, Anand Charge came to be framed against the appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.3 During the trial, the prosecution had examined following witnesses;