JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 14, 1993 passed by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 300 of 1992 whereby it reversed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur acquitting the four appellants (hereinafter referred to as A1 to A4 ) of the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and convicted them thereunder.

2. Shorn of details the prosecution case is as follows :

(a) On February 2, 1990, at or about 6 A.M. Suresh Bhute (the deceased) along with Madhav Chauhan (P.W. 1), Gangadhar Badwaik (P.W. 2), Vijay Babre (P.W. 3), Lok Nath Bhure (P.W. 8) and others went to Nagpur airport to receive Ashok Dhawad, who was the sitting M.L.A. from Nagpur. After receiving him they went to his house at Ganeshpeth. At or about 8 A.M. Ashok Dhawad asked his supporters, including the deceased and the above witnesses, to assemble at Yeshwant Stadium at 11 A.M. as from there he would go to the Office of the Collector to file nomination forms for the next elections. They then left the place to board their respective vehicles. While P.W. 8 and Suresh went to board the jeep of P.W. 2, P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 went towards the car of the former. When P.W. 8 and Suresh were about to get into the jeep, A1 to A4 accosted them and started assaulting Suresh with knives. To thwart such assault P.W. 8 started throwing brick-bats towards them, but in vain. On being so assaulted when Suresh fell down in a pool of blood the miscreants fled away. P.Ws. 3 and 8 immediately removed him to the hospital in the jeep of P.W. 2 where he was declared dead.

(b) In the meantime, Ashok Dhawad had rung up Ganeshpeth Police Station and reported the murder. On receipt of that message P.S.I. Motilal Jadhav (P.W. 11) rushed to the spot and from there to the hospital. At the hospital he met P.W. 8 who narrated the incident to him. Accompanied by P.W. 8, P.W. 11 then went to the police station and recorded his complaint (Ext. 56). P.W. 11 then went back to the spot and prepared a site plan (Ext. 45). From there he seized two pairs of chappal, blood-stained blade of a knife and some blood-stained earth. He then went back to the hospital and after holding inquest upon the dead body of Suresh forwarded it for post-mortem examination. Dr. Ashok Tonk (P.W. 7) held the autopsy and found 55 incised wounds on the person of the deceased. He opined that the death was due to injuries sustained on vital parts of the body.

(c) A1 and A2 were arrested on the same day while A3 and A4 were arrested on the day following. At the time of their arrests A1 and A3 were found to have injuries on their persons and A1, A2 and A3 blood stains on their clothes. Therefore, they were referred to the medical officer for examination and their clothes were seized. Pursuant to the statements made by A1 and A2, P.W. 11 recovered two blood stained knives from a public latrine and the house of A2 respectively. The seized clothes of the deceased and of A1 to A3 and the knives were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) for examination. After receipt of reports of the examination and completion of investigation Police submitted charge sheet against A1 to A4 and in due course their case was committed to the Court of Session.

3. A1 to A4 pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against them and contended that they were falsely implicated.

4. To prove its case the prosecution examined 16 witnesses of whom P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8 figured as eye-witnesses. P.Ws. 1 and 2 however did not fully support the prosecution case, in that, they did not name or identify A1 to A4 as the assailants though in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. they named them and hence they were declared hostile.

5. From the judgment of the trial Court we find that on consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it first observed the fact that an incident of the type alleged by the prosecution occurred on Fe