Conviction for murder upheld based on consistent witness testimony, and acquittal appeals require high scrutiny, with previous enmity not negating witness credibility.

1. These two appeals are arising from one common judgment Ex. 53 dated 31st July, 1995 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur (who will be referred to as the learned Judge of the Trial Court) in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1994 by which accused Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 1995 came to be convicted, while respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 1995 came to be acquitted, and therefore, with the consent of both the parties, these two appeals are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 1995 and who stood trial in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1994, have by filing Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 1995 under S.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"), challenged the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence by which accused No. 1 is convicted under S.235(2), CrPC for the offences punishable under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For short " IPC ." and also under S.135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short the "B.P. Act") and is sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for an offence punishable under S.302 of and is also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for seven days for an offence punishable under S.135 of the B.P. Act for contravention of notification issued under S.37(1) or the B.P. Act.

The accused No. 2 is convicted under S.235(2) of CrPC for offences punishable under S.302 read with S.34 of IPC and also under S.135 of the B.P. Act, and is sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for an offence punishable under S.302 read with S.34 of and is also sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for seven days for an offence punishable under S.135 of the B.P. Act for contravention of notification under S.37(1) of the B.P. Act.
For both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 , the learned Judge of the Trial Court ordered to run all the sentences, concurrently.

3. The State of Gujarat has, by filing Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 1995 under S.378(1) of CrPC, challenged the correctness and legality of the aforesaid judgment Ex. 53 dated 31st July, 1995 rendered by the learned Judge of the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1994 by which original accused Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. respondents came to be acquitted.

4. As per the case unfolded by the complainant PW 1 Thakor Virchandji Vihaji in his complaint Ex. 39, the facts of the prosecution case can be summarized as follows : -

5. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the real brothers, while accused No. 4 is their father, Jivrajaji Vihaji (deceased) was a younger brother of the complainant. The complainant and the deceased both were staying separately in one field which is known as "Kamodiya - ni - Vatvalu Khetar" (for short "the field") situated on the outskirts of village Deka of Deesa Taluka in Banaskantha District. The eastern part of that field was in possessio