The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the credibility of the witness's identification, corroboration of evidence, and the rejection of defense arguments regarding contradictions and the reliability of the ballistic report and T.I. Parade.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. MENGDEY, J.

1. Both the present appeals have been preferred by the respective appellants challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.09.2015 passed by the 7th (ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 90 of 2007 (Main) with Sessions Case No. 51 of 2009, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 394, 397 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-B)A, 27 and 29 of the Arms Act. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, the present appellants had been sentenced imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of 2 years is imposed. For the offence under Section 394 of the IPC, the present appellants had been sentenced rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further 2 years simple imprisonment is imposed. For the offence under Section 397 of the IPC, the present appellants had been sentenced rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years. For the offence under Section 341 of the IPC, the present appellants had been sentenced simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month. Beside this, both the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 25(1)(B-A) of the Arms Act and present appellants had been sentenced simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year. For the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the present appellants had been sentenced simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and for the offence under Section 29 of the Arms Act, the present appellants had been sentenced simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year. All the sentences imposed upon the appellants run concurrently.

2. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same common judgment and order, both the captioned appeals are taken up for final disposal by this common judgment.

3. The short facts giving rise to filing of present appeals are as under:

3.1 On 04.11.2004, the first informant viz. Malde Ramsinh Chavda and his brother Karsan @ Kana Ramsinh Chavda were traveling from Rajkot to Jamnagar in Tata Safari Car bearing Registration No. GJ-10-N-8668. The said car was driven by the brother of the first informant viz. Karsan @ Kana Ramsinh Chavda. At about 10.30 p.m. when they were passing through the highway and reached near Dhunvav Village, at that time, their vehicle was intercepted by 2 persons riding on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-3-AF-2286. Both the persons, who had intercepted the said vehicle Tata Safari Car, wanted to loot the vehicle belonging to an Anganiya pedhi moving on Morbi to Rajkot route. They were in need of some vehicle for commission of the said loot and therefore, with an intention to commit loot of the said vehicle being Tata Safari Car, they had intercepted the said vehicle. After the said vehicle being Tata Safari Car stopped, both the aforesaid persons stopped the motorcycle near Tata Safari Car and asked the first informant as well as his brother to hand over the said Tata Safari Car to them. The first informant as well as his brother protested against the said persons, and thereupon, both the aforesaid persons took out the fire arms which they were carrying and fired upon the first informant as well as his brother. The brother of the first informant sustained severe injuries in the incident and succumbed to the same. The accused persons thereafter, fled from the scene with the Tata Safari car.

3.2 The offence in this regard was registered on 05.11.2007 with Panch ‘A’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar being C.R. No. I-122 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 394, 397, 341 of the IPC, Sections 25(1-B), 27 and 29 of the Arms Act and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.

4. During the course of investigation, the present appellants were apprehended in connection with the said offence after the period of 2 years from the date of incident. The investiga