JUDGMENT Nesargi, J.- Four accused persons viz., Siddappa alias B. Siddaiah son of Pedda Obleshappa, Hanumanthappa son of Dasappa, Maranna son of Sanna Marappa, and A.K. Subbaiah son of Roddam Gangappa, all of Kyathagancherlu village, Pavagada Taluk, were tried by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1975, on the charges that they, along with the absconding accused Narayana Swamy of Cudappa, Andhra Pradesh, had, by about 5-30 p.m. on 29th May, 1975, committed the offences punishable under sections 143 ,148 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition to the above, A-1was charged with having committed the offences punishable under sections 302 and324 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act; A-2 was charged with having committed the offences punishable under sections 302 and324 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act; A-3 was charged with having committed the offences punishable under sections 324 and302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act; and A-4 was charged with having committed the offences punishable under sections 302 read with sections 149 and 324 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge convicted each one of them and sentenced them as follows: (1) for the offence under section 148 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for two years; (2) for the offence under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for one year, and fine of Rs. 250-00 and in default rigorous imprisonment for six months; (3) for the offence under section 324 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for two years; (4) for the offence under section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for two years; and (5) for the offence under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code-death. They have, in Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 1977, challenged the legality and the correctness of the convictions and sentences passed on them. The Sessions Judge has referred the case for confirmation of the death sentences, and the same is Criminal Referred Case No. 4 of 1977. 2. The deceased persons are Sriramulu, Subbaiah, Lingappa and Ramanjaneyalu. Ramanjaneyalu had sustained grievous injuries on 29th May, 1975. The Sessions Judge has referred the case for confirmation of the death sentences, and the same is Criminal Referred Case No. 4 of 1977. 2. The deceased persons are Sriramulu, Subbaiah, Lingappa and Ramanjaneyalu. Ramanjaneyalu had sustained grievous injuries on 29th May, 1975. He died in the general hospital, Tumkur, at about 7-45 p.m. on 30th May, 1975. 3. The prosecution case is that Sriramulu was a pro-naxalite and had a large following. He and his people were indulging in several crimes like murder, dacoity, robbery, mischief by fire etc., in the villages lying along the b order of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka near about Venkatapur, Yeggupalli (both in Andhra Pradesh) and Kyathagancherlu of Pavagada Taluk in this State. Sriramulu was having excise contract. A-1 Siddappa was also an excise contractor. There was unhealthy competition between them in this business and that had given rise to enmity between them. In view of this, at about 5-30 p.m. on 29th May, 1975, the bus bearing registration No. APA 2586 in which Sriramulu and his followers were travelling to go to Vollur as the marriage of Sarojamma daughter of P.W.-35 Ramagiri Narayanappa, related to Sriramulu, was to be performed on the next day, was waylaid near a culvert between Kyathagancherlu and Vollur, by placing stones across the road on the side of the culvert towards Kyathagancherlu, and a large group, in which the accused persons and the absconding accused were present, pelted stones and fired gun shots at the said bus after it came to a halt. The group proceeded towards the bus. Deceased Subbaiah alighted and asked A-1 what he meant by creating the galata A-1 shot at him and he fell into the drain by the side of the road. Ramanjaneyalu the deceased, P.W.37 Vetti Narasimhalu and Venkataramudu who is said to be P.W.36, alighted thereafter. They stood in front of the bus and folded their hands. Then they said Siddappa, why are you shooting like this“. A-1 Siddappa shot at them and all the three fell down having sustained injuries. At that time A-2 shot at Lingappa who was still in the bus and Lingappa died of gun shot injuries. When Sriramulu alighted, he also said Why are you shooting Siddappa” and A-1 shot at him, he fell down and then A-4 cut with an axe on the back of the neck of Snramulu. At that time A-2 shot at Lingappa who was still in the bus and Lingappa died of gun shot injuries. When Sriramulu alighted, he also said Why are you shooting Siddappa” and A-1 shot at him, he fell down and then A-4 cut with an axe on the back of the neck of Snramulu. Then A-4 picked up a big stone and dropped it on the head of Sriramulu. While P.W.29 Chinnasubbarayadu was alighting from the bus, he was shot at by A-3 He ran away having sustained injuries The remaining persons in the bus managed to get down and ran away helter skelter. P. W. 20 Byti Venkataramulu was also travelling in the bus. He remained seated in the bus By about 6-45 p.m. P.W.34 Narayanamma, wife of Sriramulu. and P.W 27 Gajjalanna younger brother of Sriramulu,27 came there from Vollur, where they had already gone, as they had heard in the village about the incident. Both of them exclaimed to A-1 “What Siddappa, what a wrong you have done” At that A-1 shot at P.W.27 and P.W.27 fell down injured. In the meanwhile one Venkatasubbaiah (not examined) had gone to the police station at Thirumani, situated about 4½ miles away from the spot. P.W.39 M. C. Honne Gowda, Circle Inspector of Police, was present there as he had gone there for inspection. Venkatasubbaiah informed P.W.39 that firing by guns was going on between a group of naxalites of Andhra Pradesh and the public of Kyathagancherlu village and that one or two deaths might have taken place. Even before P.W.39 could record the statement of Venkatasubbaiah, Venkatasubbaiah ran away. P.W.39 made an entry to that effect in the station house diary and proceeded with the available staff, in a bus available at Thirumani, towards Vollur. In Vollur he met Sri K. G. Rudraswamy, Tahsildar of Pavagada, (not examined). P.W.39 took Sri Rudraswamy also in the bus and proceeded towards Kyathagancherlu. On the road he found P.W.34 Narayanamma and others proceeding in the very direction. It was about 7-15 p.m. He took them also in the bus and proceeded towards the spot. He reached there by about 7-45 p.m. Near about the spot, he found the bus bearing registration No. MYT 4602 standing. It was facing towards Kyathagancherlu. He found the bus bearing registration No. APA 2586 standing beyond the culvert, but facing towards Vollur. It was about 7-15 p.m. He took them also in the bus and proceeded towards the spot. He reached there by about 7-45 p.m. Near about the spot, he found the bus bearing registration No. MYT 4602 standing. It was facing towards Kyathagancherlu. He found the bus bearing registration No. APA 2586 standing beyond the culvert, but facing towards Vollur. The distance between the two buses was about 100 yards. He saw a stone barricade across the road in between the two buses. P.W.34 Narayanamma took him near the dead bodies of Sriramulu and Subbaiah. Subbaiah the deceased is the younger brother of Sriramulu. Venkataramulu who was in the bus taken by P.W.39, identified Lingappa. Ramanjaneyalu, P.W.37 Vetti Narasimhalu, P.W.27 Gajjalappa and P.W.36 Venkataramanappa were lying injured there. They were also identified by P.W.34. P.W.39 detained head constable No. 187 and police constables Nos. 402 and 510 to keep watch over the dead bodies. He hurriedly inspected the spot and took the afore-mentioned injured persons and P.W.20 Byti Venkataramulu to Pavagada hospital in the bus which he had brought from Thirumani. He reached there at about 11-30 p.m. Doddamani the staff nurse was present in the hospital. Doddamani admitted the injured in the hospital. P.W.39 recorded the statement of P.W.20 as per Exhibit P-34, went to Thirumani police station, registered a case in Crime No. 14 of 1975 under sections, 302 ,143 ,144 ,341 ,326 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 (1) of the Arms Act, issued first information report as per Exhibit P-49, and sent express reports because the Sub-Inspector of Police of Thirumani police station was on leave. By 1-00 a.m. on 30th May, 1975 P.W.30 Dr. Sarojamma commenced examining and treating the injured persons. She noted the injuries on the said persons in the accident register Exhibit P-11. She advised that P.W.36, P.W.37 and Ramanjaneyalu should be shifted to Tumkur hospital. In fact on 30th May, 1975 they were examined by P.W.38 Dr. Bheemasena Rao, in the general hospital at Tumkur. As already stated Ramanjaneyalu expired at about 7-45 p.m. on 30th May, 1975. P.W.39 sent requisition Exhibit P-1 to P.W.1 Dr. Ramakrishna Shetty to go to the spot and conduct post mortem examination over the dead bodies of Sriramulu, Sub-Daiah and Lingappa. Bheemasena Rao, in the general hospital at Tumkur. As already stated Ramanjaneyalu expired at about 7-45 p.m. on 30th May, 1975. P.W.39 sent requisition Exhibit P-1 to P.W.1 Dr. Ramakrishna Shetty to go to the spot and conduct post mortem examination over the dead bodies of Sriramulu, Sub-Daiah and Lingappa. P.W.39 held inquest proceedings over the said dead bodies, and P.W.1 reached the spot by 8-00 a.m. P.W.1 conducted post mortem examination over the dead bodies of Sriramulu, Subbaiah and Lingappa, and prepared his notes as per Exhibits P-4, P-7 and P-10, between 8-15 a.m. and 5-30 p.m. on that day. P.W.39 examined Nagappa (C.W. 25), Muthyalappa son of Venkatappa (C.W. 9), Vaddi Siddaiah (P.W.28), Rajanna son of Narasappa, Ramareddy (P.W.12), Muthyalappa son of Veerachannappa (P.W.26), Kondappa(P.W.25). Narayanamma (P.W.34). Thippamma wife of Subbaiah (C.W. 22), Chinnanarasappa brother of the deceased Sriramulu. Harison of Sriramulu, Muthyalappa, father of Sriramulu, Pothakka (C.W. 23) wife of the deceased Lingappa, Kondappa son of the deceased Lingappa, and others. On examining the bus bearing registration No. APA 2586, he found that it had been damaged all over the body because of the stone hits and gun shots. While recording the scene of offence panchanama, he seized grill and empty cartridges including some of 303 bore. On 31st May, 1975, he went to Yeggupalli in Andhra Pradesh and secured Chowdappa son of Oathappa, Muthyalappa (P.W.22). Kondanna (P.W.21), Chowdappa son of Thimmaiah (C.W. 6) Rajanna (P.W.23) and “found that they were all injured. He learnt that they had sustained the injuries during the very occurrence. He brought them to Thirumani, recorded their statements and sent them to Pavagada hospital for treatment, through police constable No. 399. He secured P.W.8 Yellappa, driver of the bus bearing registration No. APA 2586 and P.W.10 Ramakrishna, conductor of the said bus, and recorded their statements. On 15th June, 1975, he handed over the investigation to P.W.41 M. Rangaswamy, Deputy Superintendent of Police. P.W.41 deputed P.W.39 to apprehend the accused. At about 4-00 p.m. on 26th June, 1975, he arrested A-1 near a coconut garden in Kyathagancherlu. A-1 had with him the D.B.B.L. gun M.O. 1. He produced A-1 and M.O. 1 before P.W.41. A-1 was also having pouch M.O. 19 and the cartridge belt M.O. 20 with him. P.W.41 deputed P.W.39 to apprehend the accused. At about 4-00 p.m. on 26th June, 1975, he arrested A-1 near a coconut garden in Kyathagancherlu. A-1 had with him the D.B.B.L. gun M.O. 1. He produced A-1 and M.O. 1 before P.W.41. A-1 was also having pouch M.O. 19 and the cartridge belt M.O. 20 with him. He arrested A-2 Hanumanthappa and A-3 Maranna on 6th July, 1975 and produced them before P.W.41 in Pavagada at 10-00 a.m. A-4 was arrested on 30th September. 1975 under a non-bailable warrant issued by the Magistrate, by head constable No. 87, and he was produced before the Court. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed. 4. A-5 Narayana Swamy of Cudappa is said to be still absconding. 5. The defence has contended that the prosecution has not established the alleged motive based on the unhealthy competition in the excise contract between Sriramulu and A-1, and that some other enemies of Sriramulu might have waylaid the bus and shot at it. Another contention of the defence, is that the incident must have taken place after sun-set i.e., during darkness on 29th May, 1975 and that none of these injured witnesses had sustained the injuries during the occurrence and they have come forward with their versions subsequently due to the fact that they are partymen of Sriramulu and his brother Subbaiah. Sri P. S. Devadas, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defence, argued that Exhibit P-34 is hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as P.W. 39 had already got the information, on his own showing, through Venkatasubbaiah and had undertaken investigation on the basis of that information. He also contended that the prosecution has held back material witnesses viz., C.Ws. 6, 9, 25 and 26 and, therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. One more contention of his is that the statements of P.Ws. 29, 36 and 37 were not recorded during the investigation and, therefore, their evidence is valueless in view of the principle laid by the Supreme Court in the decision in Ram Lakhan Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh1. One more contention of his is that the statements of P.Ws. 29, 36 and 37 were not recorded during the investigation and, therefore, their evidence is valueless in view of the principle laid by the Supreme Court in the decision in Ram Lakhan Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh1. Lastly he argued that almost all the witnesses speaking to the incident are either party men of Sriramulu or men of straw involved in many criminal cases, some of them for heinous offences and, therefore, their evidence ought not to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court, particularly when they have contradicted each other hopelessly. 6. The undisputed facts may be narrated as follows: P.W.35 Ramagiri Narayanappa was to perform the marriage of his daughter Sarojamma in the morning of 30th May, 1975 in Vollur village. He is related to Sriramulu and had invited Sriramulu and others to attend the marriage. By the evening of 29th May, 1975 P.W.34 Narayanamma and P.W.27 Gajjalappa were already in Vollur in connection with the said marriage. The four deceased and others proceeded to Vollur in the bus bearing registration No. APA 2586 from Yeggupalli. When the bus was about a few furlongs beyond Kyathagancherlu on its way to Vollur, it was stopped by its driver P.W.8 Yellappa as there was a stone barricade across the road on his side of the culvert. P.W.10 Ramakrishna was the conductor of the bus. The distance between Kyathagancherlu and Yeggupalli is one mile and the distance between Kyathagancherlu and Vollur is three miles. The distance between Vollur and Thirumani is two miles and between Thirumani and Pavagada eighteen miles. A group of persons pelted stones and fired shots at the said bus which was full of passengers-Sriramulu, Subbaiah, Ramanjaneyalu and Lingappa sustained gun shot injuries. Sriramulu, Subbaiah and Lingappa died on the spot. Raman janeyalu was lying unconscious near the bus having sustained gun shot injuries. He was treated in Pavagada hospital by P.W.30-Dr. Sarojamma during the night between 29th May, 1975 and 30th May, 1975, and shifted to the general hospital at Tumkur on the advice of P.W.30, where he was treated by P.W.38 Dr. Bheemasena Rao, and he expired at about 7-45 p.m. 7. We will proceed to examine the contention whether Exhibit P-34 is hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Bheemasena Rao, and he expired at about 7-45 p.m. 7. We will proceed to examine the contention whether Exhibit P-34 is hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The evidence of P.W.39 is that by about 6-30 p.m. on 29th May, 1975 one Venkatasubbaiah informed him in Thirumani police station that firing of guns was going on between pro-naxalites of Andhra Pradesh and the public of Kyathagancherlu and that one or two deaths might have occurred. He could not record the statement of Venkatasubbaiah as Venkatasubbaiah ran away. He made an entry in the station house diary and proceeded in a bus, taking with him available staff, to Vollur where he picked up the Tahsildar Sri Rudraswamy and proceeded towards Kyathagancherlu. On the way he picked up P.W.34 and others and reached the spot by about 7-45 p.m. The contention of Sri Devadas is that the information said to have been given by Venkatasubbaiah to P.W.39 relates to cognizable offence and the say of P.W.39 that he could not reduce it to writing because Venkatasubbaiah had run away, cannot be believed as Venkatasubbaiah has not been examined and a Circle Inspector of Police would not have acted in the manner stated by P.W.39. 8. Even though P.W.39 did not record the statement of Venkatasubbaiah, it cannot be disputed that he had made an entry, narrating the information, in the station house diary. That entry, according to him, was made by him at 6-30 p.m. It is not before the Court. If in fact the entry had showed different timing, it would have been called for at least at the instance of the defence. Therefore, we take it that the time shown against the entry is 6-30 p.m. The information said to have been given by Venkatasubbaiah does refer to one or two deaths and, therefore, it can be argued that the information relates to a cognizable offence. Now the question is whether such information would constitute first information within the meaning of the provisions in section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Now the question is whether such information would constitute first information within the meaning of the provisions in section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. In The State of Kerala v. Samuel1 a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has held that whether or not a particular statement would constitute the first information in a case, is a question of fact and would depend on the circumstances of that case, and that it can be stated as a general principle that it is not every piece of information, however vague, indefinite and unauthenticated it may be, that should be recorded as the first information for the sole reason that such information was the first, in point of time, to be received by the police regarding the commission of an offence. 10. In M. Rangarajulu Naidu and others v. The State2 it has been laid down that the question whether an information is first information or is one recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after investigation commenced and, is, therefore, hit by section 162 of the Code, depends on pure questions of fact as to when exactly investigation commenced. 11. We respectfully agree with the views expressed in the aforementioned decisions. On this very question the Supreme Court has, in the decision in Soma Bhai v. The State of Gujarat3 laid down that under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the first information is the earliest report made to the police officer with a view to his taking action in the matter, but a telephonic message of a cryptic nature would not constitute first information report. Venkatasubbaiah did not inform P.W.39 as to where actually the incident was happening. He was not even sure whether deaths had taken place and if deaths had taken place how many persons had died and who they were. He did not state to P. W. 39, that one or two persons, who, according to him, had died, had been murdered. Merely because he had stated that one or two deaths might have taken place, it could not have, in the very nature of things, conveyed to P.W.39, that a cognizable offence appeared to have been committed. He did not state to P. W. 39, that one or two persons, who, according to him, had died, had been murdered. Merely because he had stated that one or two deaths might have taken place, it could not have, in the very nature of things, conveyed to P.W.39, that a cognizable offence appeared to have been committed. We are clearly of opinion that the information conveyed by Venkatasubbaiah to P.W.39 was of such a nature as to alert P.W.39 to possible law and order problem because what was highlighted by Venkatasubbaiah was a tussle going on between two groups, viz., a pro-naxalite group and the public of Kyathagancherlu, which might have, according to Venkatasubbaiah, resulted in one or two deaths. This information could at best create suspicion in the mind of P.W.39, that some incident giving rise to law and order situation might have been going on and he was required to attend to it urgently so as to maintain public peace by bringing the situation under control. Hence, there is no wonder that P.W.39 collected available staff, caught hold of a bus and proceeded towards Kyathagancherlu. Sri Devadas vehemently argued that the prosecution ought to have examined Sri Rudraswamy, the Tahsildar of Pavagada, as his evidence would have been on higher footing when compared with the evidence of P.W.39 and would have provided material to test the say of P.W.39. Examination of Sri Rudraswamy would certainly have provided corroboration to the evidence of P.W.39. But the question is whether the evidence of P.W.39 requires to be corroborated before being relied upon in regard to the aforementioned aspect. We have already referred to the entry in the station house diary at Thirumani police station. The fact that P. W. 39 produced Ramanjaneyalu, P.W.37, P.W.27 and P.W.36 in the hospital at Pavagada before 1-00 a.m. on 30th May, 1975, cannot at all be disputed as the same is borne by the record maintained by P.W.30, Dr. Sarojamma, in Exhibit P-11. Sri. Devadas strongly urged that the evidence of P.W.30 in regard to the entries made by her in Exhibit P-11, is rendered highly suspicious as she has admitted in her cross-examination that she had meddled with the entries later on so as to make out that the injuries sustained by some of the said injured persons were charred injuries. Sri. Devadas strongly urged that the evidence of P.W.30 in regard to the entries made by her in Exhibit P-11, is rendered highly suspicious as she has admitted in her cross-examination that she had meddled with the entries later on so as to make out that the injuries sustained by some of the said injured persons were charred injuries. We are not at this stage attaching any importance to the description of the injuries as given by P.W.30 in Exhibit P-11. We are taking into consideration only the time at which P. W. 30 treated the injured persons. She has stated that it was at 1-00 a.m., and she is corroborated by the entries. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.30 to show that the entry showing 1-00 a.m., in Exhibit P-11 has been in any way meddled with by P.W.30 at any time subsequently. The fact that Ramanjaneyalu, who was undisputedly injured during the occurrence, was taken by P.W.39 and produced before P.W.30 in Pavagada, leaves no doubt in our mind that P.W.39 had reached the spot in receiving the information about the incident. That information must be the one given by Venkatasubbaiah. Examination of Sri. Rudraswamy, the Tahsildar, would have, at the most, furnished supplementary material to the effect that P.W.39 had picked him up at Vollur and had taken him to the spot and P.W.39 attended to the things narrated by P.W.39. In view of what we have found on the basis of the material alien to the evidence of P.W.39, we are clearly of the view that non-examination of Sri Rudraswamy cannot affect the prosecution case on this aspect of the matter and as such the argument of Sri Devadas has to fail. As the information given by Venkatasubbaiah was vague, indefinite and appeared to be unauthenticated, as already found by us, it could not have been, in view of the settled, principle of law, regarded as the first information within the meaning of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, we reject the contention of Sri Devadas that Exhibit P-34 is hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the information given by Venkatasubbaiah constituted first information and what P.W.39 did after receiving the information of Venkatasubbaiah, was in the course of investigation of the offences disclosed by the information of Venkatasubbaiah. 12. Therefore, we reject the contention of Sri Devadas that Exhibit P-34 is hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the information given by Venkatasubbaiah constituted first information and what P.W.39 did after receiving the information of Venkatasubbaiah, was in the course of investigation of the offences disclosed by the information of Venkatasubbaiah. 12. We will now proceed to examine the contention of Sri Devadas in regard to non-examination of C.Ws. 6, 9, 25 and 26, and non-recording of the statements of P.Ws. 29, 36 and 37. 13. P.Ws. 29, 36 and 37 and Ramanjaneyalu are said to have been produced in Pavagada hospital sometime prior to 1-00 a.m. on 30th May, 1975 by P.W.39. We have held that this fact has been satisfactorily established in view of the evidence of P.W.30, supported by the entry made by her (in regard to time only) in Exhibit P-11, the accident register. Ramanjaneyalu was unconscious and he remained unconscious till he expired by about 7-45 p.m., on 30th May, 1975 in the general hospital at Tumkur. His statement could not have been recorded by P.W.39. Nothing prevented P.W.39 from recording the statements of P.Ws. 36 and 37 who were not unconscious when produced in Pavagada hospital and also when sent to the general hospital at Tumkur. Even P.W.41, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who took up investigation from P.W.39, did not record their statements. Neither P.W.39 nor P.W.41 contacted P.W.31, Dr. M. Obanna at Dharmavaram after P.W.22, Muthyalappa was secured and examined, though they must have come to know that P.W.22 had taken treatment from P.W.31 at Dharmavaram and that the head constable attached to Dharmavaram police station had recorded the information given by P.W.22. These facts leave no doubt in our mind that the investigation in this case has been conducted in a slovenly and indifferent manner. But, at the same time, it is clear that P.Ws. 36 and 37 had figured as witnesses to the occurrence during the investigation made by P.W.39. It is laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Lakhan Singh's case1, relied upon by Sri Devadas, as follows: “It is true that no enmity or grudge is suggested against this witness, but we find that this witness was not even examined by the police nor was he cited in the charge-sheet. It is laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Lakhan Singh's case1, relied upon by Sri Devadas, as follows: “It is true that no enmity or grudge is suggested against this witness, but we find that this witness was not even examined by the police nor was he cited in the charge-sheet. In a grave charge like the present, it will not be proper to place reliance on a witness who never figured during the investigation and was not named in the charge-sheet. The accused who are entitled to know his earlier version to the police, are naturally deprived of an opportunity of effective cross-examination and it will be difficult to give any credence to a statement which was given for the first time in Court after about a year of the occurrence. We cannot, therefore, agree that the High Court was right in acceptance the evidence of this witness as lending assurance to the testimony of other witnesses on the basis of which alone perhaps the High Court felt unsafe to convict the accused.” As P.Ws. 36 and 37 have figured in the investigation as witnesses to the occurrence, the afore-mentioned decision would have no application. The argument of Sri Devadas, that no weight can be attached to the evidence of P.W.29 also in view of the afore-mentioned principle, cannot hold water because his name is cited in charge-sheet as witness No. 51. 14. In regard to C.Ws. 6, 9, 25 and 26, it is true that the prosecution has not examined them. But the records show that C.Ws. 6, 9 and 25 were given up by the prosecution by filing a memo, on 20th August, 1977, during the trial. C.Ws. 6 and 25 were given up as they were unnecessary and C.W. 9 was given up as having turned hostile. C.W. 26 has been given up by filing a memo on 22nd August, 1977, i.e., during the trial on the ground that it was not necessary to examine him. The defence did not request the Court that it wanted to examine or cross-examine the said witnesses though memos, were filed with the knowledge of the Counsel for the defence. In the decision in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jaggo(alias) Jagdish1, the witness concerned had not been called to Court by the prosecution for being examined, but was given up as not supporting the prosecution. In the decision in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jaggo(alias) Jagdish1, the witness concerned had not been called to Court by the prosecution for being examined, but was given up as not supporting the prosecution. C.W. 9 was summoned and was present in Court when the Public Prosecutor gave him up by filing the memo, dated 20th August, 1977. In view of this fact, there is considerable difference between the facts in Jaggo (alias) Jagdish's case2, and this case. 15. In Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Punjab3 it is laid down as follows: “There is no rule that a witness, who was not produced in the committal proceedings cannot be examined in the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court can, under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, examine witnesses who were not examined before the committing Magistrate. If such a witness is treated as a prosecution witness and is examined by Court itself, it would be at best an irregularity curable by section 537, Criminal Procedure Code. The only question that is to be considered in such a case is whether the accused has been prejudiced by the procedure, whether he was taken by surprise and whether prejudice was occasioned by such surprise. The proper time to object to such procedure is at the trial itself. The Explanation to section 537, requires a Court to take into consideration the fact whether any objection on the score or irregularity could have been raised at an earlier stage.” The Supreme Court held on facts that there was no prejudice caused to the accused. 16. In Narain and others v. The State of Punjab4it is observed as follows: “The test whether a witness is material for the present purpose is not whether he would have given evidence in support of the defence. The test is whether he is a witness essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based. Whether a witness is so essential or not, would depend on whether he could speak to any part of the prosecution case or whether the evidence led disclosed, that he was so situated that he would have been able to give evidence of the facts on which the prosecution relied. It is not that the prosecution is bound to call all witnesses who may have seen the occurrence and so duplicate the evidence. It is not that the prosecution is bound to call all witnesses who may have seen the occurrence and so duplicate the evidence. But apart from this, the prosecution should call all material witnesses and if a material witness has been deliberately or unfairly kept back, then a serious reflection is cast on the propriety of the trial itself and the validity of the conviction resulting from it, may. be open to challenge.” 17. In Swaran Singh and others v. The State of Punjab4 it is laid down as follows: “It is not the law that the omission to examine any and every witness even on minor points, would undoubtedly lead to rejection of the prosecution case Or drawing of an adverse inference against the prosecution. The law is well-settled that the prosecution is bound to produce only such witnesses as are essential for unfolding the prosecution narrative. In other words, before an adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn, it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the witness who had been withheld were eye-witnesses who had actually seen the occurrence and were therefore material to prove the case. It is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply witnesses after witnesses on the same point; it is the quality rather than the quantity of the evidence that matters.” C.Ws. 6, 25 and 26 have been given up by the Public Prosecutor as unnecessary by riling memos, dated 20th August, 1977 and 22nd August, 1977, within the full awareness of the Counsel for the defence. Nothing prevented the defence from submitting of the Court that it wanted the said witnesses for cross-examination. In fact though the prosecution did not want to examine P.W. 13, Obleshappa, P.W. 14, Anjappa and P.W. 15, Govindappa, the defence wanted the said witnesses for cross-examination and because of that they were tendered for cross-examination and their evidence was recorded. We find only the cross-examination portion in their deposition. In this very connection, it is noteworthy that the defence wanted the evidence of D. Seshadri, head constable, who, at the time of the incident, was attached to Dharmavaram Police Station, to be recorded and as such he was summoned and examined as Court Witness No. 1. His deposition shows that examination-in-chief was conducted by the defence Counsel, and cross-examination was also conducted by the defence Counsel. His deposition shows that examination-in-chief was conducted by the defence Counsel, and cross-examination was also conducted by the defence Counsel. These facts show that it is not as if the defence was not aware of its rights when the Public Prosecutor gave up C.Ws. 6, 25 and 26 as unnecessary. 18. In Pal Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh1 it has been held as follows: “After the High Court had believed the eyewitnesses Nos. 1 and 2 and having found that their testimony was absolutely creditworthy and truthful, it could not have rejected the prosecution case merely because some of the eye-witnesses mentioned in the First Information Report were not examined. In such cases, the question which has to be determined is not whether the absence of the examination of the independent witness would vitiate the prosecution case by itself, but whether the evidence actually produced is reliable or not. Once the Court has given a finding of fact that the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable and trustworthy, the infirmities arising out of non-examination of witnesses will not be sufficient to put the prosecution out of Court.” 19. Considering the facts of this case, and bearing in mind the principles laid down in the afore-mentioned decisions, we are of the view that several witnesses to the occurrence having been examined by the prosecution, examination of C.Ws. 6, 25 and 26 would have amounted to multiplying witnesses while the law is that the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence, has to be considered. Therefore, what is to be considered is whether the evidence of the witnesses already examined is reliable or not, and if reliable, whether wholly reliable or partly reliable. We have no hesitation in holding that no prejudice has been caused to the accused by non-examination of C.Ws. 6, 9, 25 and 26. ***** 20. In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that the incident had taken place round about 5-30 p.m., and there was sufficient light for the persons who were in the bus and near about the spot, to identify anyone known to them from amongst the miscreants. ***** 21. In view of the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances, which have been satisfactorily established and in view of the nature of the injuries sustained by P.Ws. ***** 21. In view of the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances, which have been satisfactorily established and in view of the nature of the injuries sustained by P.Ws. 23, 24, 26 and 37 and also in view of the evidence of P.W. 22 about P.W. 36 having travelled in the bus when the incident took place, we have no hesitation in holding that the presence of these persons and others in the bus when the occurrence took place, is satisfactorily established. 22. Sri Devadas argued that all the above said persons are interested witnesses and their evidence ought not to be accepted without satisfactory corroboration. That to the extent they have interest in Sriramulu and his brothers, there can be no two opinions. But that fact by itself does not make them interested witnesses in the real sense of the term. Who is an interested witness is dealt with by the Supreme Court in the decision in Dalbir Kaur and others v. The State of Punjab1. It is held therein that a close relative, who is a very natural witness in the circumstances of a case, cannot be regarded as an ‘interested witness’ and that the term ‘interested’ postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other reason. ***** 23. The findings reached in the preceding paragraphs show that the prosecution has satisfactorily proved that A-1 to A-4 have committed the offences “punishable under sections 302 read with 149 ,324 read with 149 ,427 read with 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge has convicted them for having committed the offence punishable under section 148 read”with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. We are unable to understand this. He has also convicted A-1 to A-3 for having committed the offence punishable under section 25 (1)(a) of the Arms Act read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Here again it is ununderstandable to us. The prosecution itself has shown that A-1 did possess a licence to hold M.O.1. He has used M.O.1 for illegal purpose and with an illegal object. Therefore, the offence proved against him fall under section 27 of the Arms Act. Here again it is ununderstandable to us. The prosecution itself has shown that A-1 did possess a licence to hold M.O.1. He has used M.O.1 for illegal purpose and with an illegal object. Therefore, the offence proved against him fall under section 27 of the Arms Act. It is not the case of the defence that A-2 and A-3 had licences to hold guns, but it is proved that they had held guns and that they had made use of those during the occurrence. Hence, it is proved that each one of them committed the offence punishable under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. Therefore, A-4 cannot be convicted for having committed the offence punishable under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. A-4 is entitled to be acquitted of this charge, vis., under section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act. In place of the conviction and sentence passed on A-1, A-2 and A-3 for having committed the offence punishable under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, they are to be convicted as follows: (1) A-1 for having committed the offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act; (2) A-2 for having committed the offence punishable under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act; and (3) A-3 for having committed the offence punishable under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. In place of the conviction of the accused persons for having committed the offence punishable under section 148 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, they are to be convicted for having committed the offence punishable under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. In place of the conviction of each one of the accused for having committed the offence punishable under section 427’ of the Indian Penal Code, each one of them is to be convicted for having committed the offence punishable under section 427 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 24. The prosecution has failed to establish the. motive for committing the offences. It has failed to produce any material to show the back ground for this attack on the bus which was conveying the deceased and the injured persons. The Court is left with conjectures about these aspects. 24. The prosecution has failed to establish the. motive for committing the offences. It has failed to produce any material to show the back ground for this attack on the bus which was conveying the deceased and the injured persons. The Court is left with conjectures about these aspects. In the absence of this material, it is not, in our opinion, possible to hold that there exist special reasons for awarding sentence of death. The Sessions Judge has failed to grasp this aspect of the matter while imposing death sentence. The gist of the reasons given by the Sessions Judge are that the crime committed is ghastly and premeditated. It is by now well-settled that these would not be special reasons within the meaning of section 354 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 25. In view of the findings recorded as aforementioned, we pass the following order; (1) The reference made by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1975 (Criminal Referred Case No. 4 of 1977) is rejected. In lieu of the sentence of death, the sentence of imprisonment for life on each one of the accused for having committed the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, is imposed; and (2) The appeal of A-4 is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence passed on him on the count of the charge under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, are set aside. He is acquitted of that charge. 26. In regard to the remaining counts of charges, each one of the accused is convicted and sentenced as under: (1) for the offence under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for two years; (2) for the offence under section 427 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for one year, and fine of Rs. 250-00 and in default rigorous imprisonment for six months; and (3) for the offence under section 324 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for two years. In addition to the above, A-1 is convicted for having committed the offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act. and A-2 and A-3 are each convicted for having committed the offence punishable under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. We direct that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. In addition to the above, A-1 is convicted for having committed the offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act. and A-2 and A-3 are each convicted for having committed the offence punishable under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. We direct that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 27. Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 1977 is disposed of accordingly. S.V.S. ----- Convictions confirmed sentences modified.