ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.

1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred Criminal Appeal No.894 of 1995 under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) against the judgment and order dated 10.05.1995, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No.256/1994, whereby all five respondents, original accused, have been acquitted of the charge for the offences punishable under Section 302, 147, 148, 149, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.

2. Criminal Revision Application No.250 of 1995 has been preferred by the original complainant against the above referred judgment of the Sessions Court.

3. Respondent original accused No.5 Budha Rajabhai Rabari died on 15.08.2006. This fact has been recorded in the order dated 19.10.2015, passed by this Court and the appeal qua the said respondent stands abated. A copy of the Death Certificate of respondent No.5 is on record.

4. It further appears that the learned advocate for the revision petitioner – original complainant, has also passed away. Therefore, Notice was issued to the revision petitioner, which has been served. However, none appears for the revision petitioner pursuant to the service of Notice. It has also been brought on record that Hanifkhan Hasankhan Pathan, the revision petitioner and original complainant, died on 30.06.2016. A copy of the Death Certificate in this regard has been placed on record. The legal heirs of the revision petitioner have not approached this Court in order to prosecute the revision petition. However, in order to ensure that the interest of the complainant side is not prejudiced, detailed arguments by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor have been addressed and all grounds available to the prosecution side have been covered. The revision petition and the appeal pertain to the year 1995 and no fruitful purpose would be served if they are not heard and decided only for want of representation on the part of the revision petitioner, especially when the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is present to plead the case of the prosecution in the criminal appeal, the scope of which is much wider than that of a revision application under Section 397 of the Code.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.07.1994, at about 10:30 PM, the murder of Firozkhan Yusufkhan (deceased) took place. On that day and at the relevant point of time, PW2 Hanifkhan Hasankhan Pathan, uncle of the deceased and the complainant, was returning to Bhavnagar from Nadiad in his taxi. The complainant drove his taxi from Rupam Talkies, via Haluria Chowk. When he reached Crescent Chowk at 10:30 PM, he saw that respondent No.1 Anil Maganlal Rajput, had caught hold of his nephew, Firoz. Respondent No.2 Bharat Ranabhai Bharwad and a person called Vipul, both having knives, were giving knifeblows to the deceased. Respondent No.2 was giving blows with the knife on the neck of the deceased. At that time, two unknown persons who were present there, started saying that “he should be killed and not left alive”. Firoz sustained knife blows and started bleeding from his neck and fell to the ground. Several persons gathered there and the five accused persons ran away. At that point of time, Aiyubkhan Hamidkhan (PW4) was also standing there and witnessed the incident. The complainant did not know the names of the two unknown persons but knew that they were residents of Bhavnagar and could recognize them on sight. Thereafter, one Babul Ibrahimbhai was passing by in his autorickshaw, which was stopped by the complainant. He made the deceased lie down in the rickshaw and told Abdulbhai Samadbhai (PW3) to take him to the Hospital for treatment. The complainant went to inform his brother (father of the deceased) regarding the incident. After doing so, he went to the Hospital, where he was informed that his nephew, Firoz, had died.

6. As per the case of the prosecution, the motive for the cr