BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. Since, both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 24.01.2011, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal, Godhra, rendered in Sessions Case No. 184 of 2009 and Sessions Case No. 119 of 2009, they were heard together and this common judgment is being pened.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 995 of 2013 arises out of the Sessions Case No. 184 of 2009, whereby, the Sessions Court has convicted the accused-appellant Lalabhai Mohanbhai Nayak, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof to undergo, further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Whereas, the Criminal Appeal No. 1465 of 2011, filed by the appellant-State arises out of the Sessions Case No. 119 of 2009, whereby, the Sessions Court has acquitted the co-accused- Opponent Mohanbhai Dhanjibhai Nayak, for the offence punishable under Section 114 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that, as per the case of the prosecution, on 26.03.2009, the complainant Bhikhiben Naranbhai Nayak, lodged a complaint with Rajgadh Police Station, alleging, inter-alia, that on 26.03.2009 at about 08:00 a.m. her brother Dashrath and one Lalabhai Mohanbhai Nayak had gone for labour work and they returned at about 06:00 p.m. At about 09:30 p.m. when her brother was sitting on the couch outside their house, the said Lalabhai came there and asked her brother Dasrath to come with him to his house. At about 10:15 p.m. the said Lalabhai came abusing Dashrathbhai. He was asking Dasrathbhai as to why, he was not repaying the money borrowed by him. It was, further, alleged in the complaint that, at that point of time, her neighbours, Isubbhai Pathan, and his son Mehboob Isubbhai Pathan were present and they asked them not to fight. However, Lalabhai got enraged and his father Mohanbhai caught hold of Dasrathbhai and the said Lalabhai inflicted blows of ‘Kosh’ (a sharped tipped instrument used for digging) on the head of Dasrathbhai, as a result thereof Dasrathbhai died on the spot. The accused, then, fled away therefrom.

4. The complaint of the complainant came to be registered as I-C.R. No. 44/2009 at the Rajgadh Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act against the accused Lalabhai and Mohanbhai.

It appears that the accused Lalabhai was absconding, and therefore, the IO, on completion of the investigation had initially submitted a charge-sheet against the accused Mohanbhai only in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Goghamba, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 311 of 2009. The accused, Lalabhai, came to be arrested subsequently and therefore, the IO concerned submitted a supplementary charge-sheet qua Lalabhai before the very Court, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 474 of 2009. Since, the Sessions Court had the powers to conduct the trial for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, both the cases were committed to the Sessions Court, Panchmahal at Godhra (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). The trial Court framed the charge against both the accused vide Exhibit-6 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

Since, both the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, the trial was conducted.

5. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, over and above producing the documentary evidence, to prove its case.

On the completion of the evidence by the prosecution, the statements of both the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, came to be recorded, wherein, both the accused denied the allegations levelled against them and stated that they were falsely implicated in the case. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, co