JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. When the Court has taken up the matter for hearing, the Court has taken into consideration the previous order as well as the fact that learned advocate Mr. M.J.Buddhbhatti has now expired and therefore, we allow his son Mr.J.M.Buddhbhatti, who seeks permission to appear in place of his father and represent the case of the respondents. It is also reported by him that respondent No.2 has now expired. Accordingly, present Appeal stands abated qua respondent No.2.

2. At the request of learned Advocate for both the sides, Criminal Appeal as well as Criminal Revision Application, both are taken up for joint hearing and disposal.

3. The Present Appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the acquittal recorded by the judgment and order dated 10.05.1995 passed in Sessions Case No.291 of 1993 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the respondents-accused have been acquitted for the offences under Section-302, 307 read with Section 34 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The Sessions case arises out of an incident which took place on 13- 09-1993 for which F.I.R. ca