JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, convicting the Appellants under Sections 148, 326 and 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and one of them namely Appellant K. Prafulla Rao u/s 5 of the Explosive sustenances Act and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and various other terms of imprisonment. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 25-4-1981 in the morning hours the student leaders of K.S.U.B. College of Bhanjanagar had to take out a procession from the college premises. The Officer-in-charge of Bhanjanagar Police Station (P.W. 23) along with another Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 22) proceeded to the college premises in a motor cycle in order to perform patrol duty so as to maintain law and order. When they arrived at the gate of the college premises, they heard the sound of a bomb explosion from inside the college campus and noticed that students who had gathered there were running here and there. They parked the motor cycle at the college gate and rushed inside the campus. They found P.W. 8, Panchanan running towards the college gate and noticed that he was bleeding from injuries sustained by him. On enquiry, from him the police officers came to know that the Appellant exploded a bomb and brutally assaulted Santosh Bisoi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by means of Katis and Farsas. He was also assaulted by them. They arranged a rickshaw and sent P.W. 8 to Bhanjanagar hospital for immediate treatment. They further noticed that, Appellant Prafulla Rao, a local advocate came out of the college campus in a motor cycle and went away and a group of persons running away from the spot. They chased them and could catch Appellant Bhagaban who was the Secretary of; the college union. Thereafter they came near the cycle stand and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with multiple injuries on his person. They arranged for his removal to the hospital. P.W. 23 drew up F.I.R. (Ext. 16) on his own information and commenced investigation. During investigation he found that the deceased was declared dead in the hospital within a few hours and a clash had taken place among two groups of students within the college campus on account of union rivalry. They arranged for his removal to the hospital. P.W. 23 drew up F.I.R. (Ext. 16) on his own information and commenced investigation. During investigation he found that the deceased was declared dead in the hospital within a few hours and a clash had taken place among two groups of students within the college campus on account of union rivalry. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination, seizures were made, witnesses were examined and the injured were given, medical treatment. After close of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellants. 3. The Appellants took the plea that they were not involved in the alleged murder of the deceased. They were members of a political party named C.P.I (M) and, were falsely implicated at the instance of Sri Somanath Rath, the local Congress (1) leader and the president of the college governing body. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found all the charges framed against the Appellants, established except the charge under Sections 147 and 120-B, I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them as already referred to above. 5. P.W. 13, a Medical Officer of Bhanjanagar Hospital who conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased on the date of occurrence itself found the following injuries: (1) An incised injury of the size of 4' x 11/2' obliquely placed below the right nipple of 7th and 8th ribs. On dissection, he found that the liver was cut to the size of of 21/2' x 2' x 2' along the line of the wound. (2) An incised injury of the size of 4' x 2" vertically placed over the right scapular region cutting the muscles. On dissection it was found that the right pleura and the lung were cut posteriorly along the line of the wound. (3) An incised injury of the size of 6" x 3" bone deep transversely placed over the lower 1/3rd of posterior aspect of the right thigh. On dissection it was found that all posterior muscles along with the underlying big blood vessels were completely cut. (4) An incised injury of the size of 3" x 2" on the posterior medical aspect of the right thigh 4" above the knee. On dissection it was found, that the muscles were cut. (5) An incised injury of the medical aspect of the left the little finger. (4) An incised injury of the size of 3" x 2" on the posterior medical aspect of the right thigh 4" above the knee. On dissection it was found, that the muscles were cut. (5) An incised injury of the medical aspect of the left the little finger. (6) An incised injury of the size of 11/2" x 1" over the left shoulder joint. In his opinion, the injuries were ante mortem and were caused by sharp cutting heavy weapons. Injury No 1, 2 and 3 were fatal in ordinary course of nature and, each of them could cause death independently: The cause of death was due to haernorrhage and shock (vide, post mortem report, Ext. 5 ). Taking the aforesaid injuries into consideration the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. This finding was not challenged in appeal. 6. Mr. Palit, learned Counsel appearing for, the Appellants, raised the following contentions: (1) F.I.R. was drawn up by the investigating officer (p.w. 23) on his own information at 9.20 a.m. for an offence u/s 307 and not u/s 302, I.P.C. showing the time of incident between 9.20 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. The command size of 2" x 1" over the palm cutting the base of certificate (Ext. 13) was issued at 9 a. m. to the constable to watch the dead body in the hospital as told by P.W. 22. The discrepancy, in time was not explained by the prosecution. (2) The information given by the principal of the college (P.W. 17) was not treated as F.I.R. nor was it brought into the record. Had it been produced, it would have shown that the Appellants were not implicated in the incident; (3) The inquest report (Ext. II) does not show who were the assailants of the deceased; (4) The eye witnesses to the 'occurrence were dose associates of the deceased and inimical towards, the Appellants. Their version, therefore, cannot be believed; and' (5) In any event the injuries were inflicted not on the vital parts, of the body of the deceased and the Appellants had no intention to commit the murder. At best their intention was to injure the deceased. The presence of one of the Appellants, namely, Appellant Prafulla Rao, an advocate of Bhanjanagar, at the scene of the occurrence has hot been, established. Mr. At best their intention was to injure the deceased. The presence of one of the Appellants, namely, Appellant Prafulla Rao, an advocate of Bhanjanagar, at the scene of the occurrence has hot been, established. Mr. S.S. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, urged that two of the eye witnesses to the occurrence were themselves assaulted and injured by the Appellants when the deceased was mortally wounded by them. On no account their version can be doubted even though they belonged to the group of the deceased. Presence of Appellant Prafulla Rao cannot also be doubted in view of the fact that several witnesses saw him at the scene of the occurrence exploding either a bomb or a cracker and instigating the assailants. He was also seen by P.W. 23 leaving the college premises soap after the occurrence. The contentions require careful examination. 7. The F.I.R. (Ext. 16) shows that the occurrence took place on 25-4-1981 at 8.30 a.m. and the report was made at 9.30 a.m. The offences mentioned therein were under Sections 147, 148, 386, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and u/s 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Apprehending disturbance; P.W. 23 along with P.W. 22 came near the K.S.U.B. College Campus and they were present at one of the college' gates when the occurrence took place inside the campus preceded by explosion of a bomb or a cracker. He found Panchanan (P.W. 8) coming from inside the campus and proceeding towards the town with injuries. His body was drenched with blood. He also saw that Appellant Prafulla Rao rode away from inside the college campus in his motor cycle and students running helter-skelter. He caught hold of one of the Appellants Bhagaban and when he went inside the campus, be found another witness (P.W. 9) severely injured and the deceased lying in a pool of blood with several injuries on his body. Deceased Santosh was still breathing and was not yet dead Therefore, there was no occasion for P.W. 23 to lodge F.I.R. for an offence u/s 302, I.P.C. Be died subsequently at the hospital. Therefore, there does not seem to be any infirmity whatsoever for P.W. 23 lodging the F.I.R. for other offences referred to above and not u/s 302, I.P.C. of course subsequently it turned out to be a case under the aforesaid Section. Therefore, there does not seem to be any infirmity whatsoever for P.W. 23 lodging the F.I.R. for other offences referred to above and not u/s 302, I.P.C. of course subsequently it turned out to be a case under the aforesaid Section. S.N. Patra, Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 22) who had accompanied P.W. 23, stated in his cross-examination that at 9.15 a.m. he got information about the death of Santosh at hospital and at 9 a.m. he issued command certificate to watch the dead body. Mr. Palit pointed out the above evidence and submitted that if the F.I.R. was lodged for an offence u/s 307, I.P.C. at 9.30 a.m. it could not be possible that the deceased died at 9.15 a.m. Therefore, either the F.I.R. was inaccurate or the information received about the death of the deceased by P.W. 22 was incorrect. Looked superficially there appears to be some infirmity. But if the incident is viewed as it took place, there appears to be no infirmity at all. The occurrence took place at about 8.30 a.m. and soon thereafter the deceased was removed to the hospital where he died at 9.15 a.m. Obviously p.w. 23 was not in the hospital at the time of death. He was at the scene of the occurrence making investigation. The F.I.R. was received at 9.30 a.m. There must have been some time gap between recording of the F.I.R. and sending the same to the police Station where it was received. If the deceased was found dead on the spot itself, there was no impediment for P.W. 2, to record and register the F.I.R. for an offence u/s 302 along with other offences of the I.P.C. There was, however, a mistake committed by P.W. 22 by stating 9.00 a.m. as the time when he issued the command certificate to the police constable to watch the dead body. This is a minor mistake for which the infirmity of the F.I.R. cannot be assumed. The incidents took place in quick succession: within a span of about half an hour and so even if there may be some inaccuracy in timings it would not become material so as to doubt the prosecution, case at its inception. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the first contention of Mr. Palit and reject the same. 8. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the first contention of Mr. Palit and reject the same. 8. P.W. 17 was the Principal of the K.S.U.B. College on the date of occurrence. He stated that he was in room No. 40 where physics practical, examination was going on since 1 a. m. After 8.30 a.m. Panchanan (P.W. 8) and Simhasini (P.W. 15) came to him in connection with the first internal examination. He asked those students to meet Bijoy Kumar Patnaik, a lecturer of the college and they left. About 3 to 4 minutes thereafter he heard an explosion of bomb inside the college campus. He came out of the room and found P.W. 8 Panchanan coming from the side of the office of the Principal in an injured condition. He did not ask him anything. When he was standing near room No. 37; Sibaram Panda another lecturer came and informed him that. Santosh was on the verge of death and arrangement should be made for carrying him in Ambulance to the hospital. From the aforesaid evidence made in chief examination it will appear that he was not an eye witness to the occurrence. He did not even say that P.W. 8 had received severe bleeding injuries. He did not show any anxiety to go near the injured person and to arrange for his removal to the hospital for the treatment. He did not enquire as to why and how the occurrence had occurred inside the campus and how many persons were injured. He did not enquire as to who exploded the bomb and who were the assailants. His evidence in chief will show that being the head of the institution, be exhibited absolute indifference and entrusted others to do the job. In cross-examination he stated that he intimated the facts to the police station over phone prior to 9 a.m. He had inclination to ask P.W. 8 as to how he sustained the injuries, but did not do so because examination was going on in room No. 40 and there was none else with him. On 25-4-1981 he was examined by the police. He had given only one statement. He submitted a written report to the police with regard to the occurrence between 10 and 11 a.m. on the date of occurrence. On 25-4-1981 he was examined by the police. He had given only one statement. He submitted a written report to the police with regard to the occurrence between 10 and 11 a.m. on the date of occurrence. It will appear from the 'aforesaid evidence that the witness was not an eye witness, to the occurrence and submitted a written report between 10 and 11 a.m. to the police. This report was not the first report, because earlier the investigating officer (P.W. 23) who was present near the collage campus had himself written out the first information arid sent the same, for, registration to the police station at about 9.30 a.m. This being the position, neither the evidence of this witness is very material nor can it be said that the written report he had submitted could be of any use. When version of eye witnesses to the, occurrence is available, the report of a person who was not an eye witness to the occurrence could be of no value. Therefore, there is no merit in the second contention of Mr. Palit. 9. There is no legal obligation that unless the, names of the assailants are mentioned in the inquest report the prosecution case shall be viewed with suspicion. May be in some cases at the time of, making the inquest the names of assailants are neither known nor revealed, but subsequently during investigation their names are found out. In many cases at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. it is not even known who were the assailants of the deceased, but inquest is required to be made as early as possible, in any event at the first instance. Should it, therefore, be the proposition of law that the names of the assailants must be mentioned, in the inquest report and in the absence thereof the case of the prosecution should be doubted. The answer is it is not an absolute requirement of law that in the absence of mention of names of the, assailants in the inquest report the prosecution case shall be viewed with doubt and suspicion The third contention of Mr. Palit is equally untenable. 10. As rightly contended by Mr. Palit, there was strong party faction among some of the students of Bhanjanagar College. Palit is equally untenable. 10. As rightly contended by Mr. Palit, there was strong party faction among some of the students of Bhanjanagar College. Some of them seemed to hold different and rival political ideologies which became more obvious during the elections to the students union prior to the occurrence. The Appellants also suspected that the deceased had outraged the modesty of a young girl student, and so they wanted to teach him a lesson. It is thus obvious that there was ill feeling and enmity between the Appellants on one side and, the deceased and his associates including P.Ws. 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16 on the other. For this reason, however, the evidence of these witnesses cannot be right away discarded, more particularly because two of them, namely, P.Ws. 8 and 9 were seriously injured in course of the occurrence. But their evidence has to be very closely scrutinised. This proposition finds support from several decisions of the Supreme Court and of this and other High Courts. We would only refer to State of U.P. Vs. Ballabh Das and Others where it was observed that the evidence of interested witnesses is not like that of an approver which is presumed to be tainted and requires corroboration but is as good as any other evidence. In the absence of any independent witness, it is an absolutely wrong and perverse, approach to throw out the testimony of interested witnesses. That the law requires is that where the witnesses are interested, the Court should approach their evidence with care and caution in order to exclude the possibility of false implication. Once it is found by, the Court, on analysis' of evidence of an interested witness, that there is no reason to disbelieve him, then the mere fact that the witness is interested cannot persuade the Court to reject the prosecution case on that ground alone. 11. There was a prelude to the occurrence in, the evening, of the previous days i.e., conspiracy to do away with the life of the deceased. In this connection, the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6, is relevant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of these persons and held: This fact proves that the accused persons had the pre-planned common object to perpetrate the murder. The fact gives an idea that the accused persons conspired together to commit the crime. In this connection, the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6, is relevant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of these persons and held: This fact proves that the accused persons had the pre-planned common object to perpetrate the murder. The fact gives an idea that the accused persons conspired together to commit the crime. Having held as above, the learned Judge took the view that Section 148, I.P.C. was applicable and the charge u/s 120-B was redundant. P.Ws. 3 stated that on 24-4-1981 at about 6.00 p.m. he went to Khalasi Sahi for repair of his radio by one Deo. As the repairer told him that he would have to wait from some time, the witness went near the choultry to take tea in the shop of one Kaviraj. One Dora working as a peon in the office of the B.D.O., Bhanjanagar has his house near the choultry while taking tea he saw Pratap Patnaik, an advocate, Appellants Prafulla Rao, Subramaniyam, Chitta, Jagatmohan and Bhagaban and others coming out from the house of Dora. They proceeded towards Bhejiput. At 7.30 or 8.00 p.m. he returned home and found the above named persons near Bhanjanagar High School junction. He heard one of them telling that Santosh shall be finished tomorrow. He informed Sibaram Patra (P.W. 6) cloth merchant of Bhejiput to inform this fact to deceased Santosh. In cross-examination he stated that as he did not see the deceased on his way home, he did not himself inform the fact to him. He did not go to his house to inform the fact. It appears unnatural that to the hearing of this witness, one of the group of persons expressed that Santosh would be finished on the that day. Even if this witness heard of the fact, 'it was his duty to inform Santosh about the impending danger so as to caution him, but this was not done and the witness took the threat to the life of a young man lightly and casually. Therefore, the evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence. P.W. 4 stated that on 24-4-1981 at night he went to village Rajkund to attend a feast in the house of a friend. After it was over, he was returning with another named Musa Bisoi at about 10.00 to 11.00 p.m. through village Lalsingi near Bhanjanagar college. Therefore, the evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence. P.W. 4 stated that on 24-4-1981 at night he went to village Rajkund to attend a feast in the house of a friend. After it was over, he was returning with another named Musa Bisoi at about 10.00 to 11.00 p.m. through village Lalsingi near Bhanjanagar college. In the village, there is a house, named, Green chamber; where Appellant Jagatmohan was residing on rent. He saw that some cycles were kept in front of the Green chamber. After crossing three to four houses, he saw one Bijaya Kumar Dakua (not examined as a prosecution witness) coming out from his house. The witness asked him as to why so many cycles were there. Bijay Kumar Dakua told him that probably some meeting was going on. When he was talking to Bijay Kumar Dakua, he found Appellants Prafulla Rao, Subramaniyam, Chitta, Jagatmohan and Bhagaban and some others coming out from Green chamber. When they were in-front of the house, Appellant Subramaniyam told others that as per the decision, they would assemble on the next morning and they would finish Santosh and his companions. He did not inform this, fact to anybody. In cross-examination he stated that it was dark. He kept quiet arid did not inform the police. Even after the occurrence he did not voluntarily inform the police, but disclosed the fact before the investigating officer eight to ten days thereafter. It is needless to say that the evidence of this witness also does not inspire confidence, because one of the group in all probability could not have said on the village lane in front of Green chamber about the result of the meeting. If all these persons including the Appellants had assembled inside the Green chamber, to hatch a conspiracy to kill the deceased and his associates, it was not necessary for one of them to speak out in the open so as to enable others to hear their conspiracy. That apart, it was natural for the witness either to caution Santosh or inform the fact to the police which he did not do. Even immediately after the occurrence, he did not inform the fact to the investigating officer. So, his evidence is unbelievable. P.W. 5 stated that on 24-4-1981 at about 8.00 p.m. he went to a medical shop, called, Medico to purchase some medicine. Even immediately after the occurrence, he did not inform the fact to the investigating officer. So, his evidence is unbelievable. P.W. 5 stated that on 24-4-1981 at about 8.00 p.m. he went to a medical shop, called, Medico to purchase some medicine. The proprietor of the medical shop was one Kishore Chandra Panda. Appellants Subramaniyam, Jagatmohan and Pratap Patnaik, advocate, went to the residential portion of the house of the proprietor of the medicine shop. Appellants Prafulla Rao and Chitta and some others followed them. The proprietor asked the witness to wait for some time and went inside the house. He came after five minutes in the company of the aforesaid persons. Thereafter, he gave some medicine to the witness, asked his servant boy to sit in the medicine shop and went away with the aforesaid persons. While going" he heard them talking that they would take a final decision. The evidence of this witness does not help the prosecution in any manner. It was not necessary for those 'persons to speak openly that they will take a final decision meaning thereby to finish up the deceased. He also did not inform this fad: immediately to the police. Only after ten days of the occurrence, he disclosed the fact to the investigating officer. Like the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4, his evidence also does not at all inspire confidence. P.W. 6 stated that he has a cloth store at Bhejiput of Bhanjanagar town by the side of the main road leading from Bhanjanagar town to the college. He knew the Appellants, as well as the deceased. On 24-4-1981 between 9.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. he was in his cloth shop. Appellant Prafulla Rao, and his clerk, one Jena, went in a motor cycle towards the college. Appellants Subramaniyam and Chitta also went in cycle towards that side some time, after. Kishore Panda went towards the college in a rickshaw. Pratap Patnaik also went in a cycle. Appellant Jagatmohan went towards the college walking holding a cycle. P.W. 3 had told him earlier that these persons were talking amongst themselves that they would finish Santosh and requested him, to inform the fact to the deceased. He did not, however, inform the fact to Santosh. Pratap Patnaik also went in a cycle. Appellant Jagatmohan went towards the college walking holding a cycle. P.W. 3 had told him earlier that these persons were talking amongst themselves that they would finish Santosh and requested him, to inform the fact to the deceased. He did not, however, inform the fact to Santosh. In cross-examination he stated that P.W. 4 told him about the meeting in the house of Jagatmohan on the date of occurrence, after hearing which he was confirmed that these persons had conspired to kill Santosh. He was examined a long time after by the investigating officer and till then he did not inform the fact to the police. His evidence like that of the other witness is unbelievable. Thus on a thorough consideration of the evidence of these witnesses, it is impossible to believe that the Appellants along with the others had hatched a conspiracy in the evening of the previous day of the occurrence for committing the murder of the deceased. This finding, however, will not in any way render the evidence of the eye witnesses to the occurrence redundant or unbelievable as to the common object or common intention of the assailants to commit the murder of the deceased and to assault P.Ws. 8 and 9. It is well settled in law that common intention or common object for committing an offence can he developed at the spur of the moment. In other words, without hatching a conspiracy in a regular fashion by sitting and deciding at a meeting, persons commit an offence or offences having developed common intention or common object, as the case may be, just before the occurrence. 12. P.W. 14, who was a Medical Officer of Bhanjanagar hospital, on the date of occurrence examined P.W. 8 Panchanan and found the following injuries: (1) A cut injury of the size of 21/2' x 1" x 3" on the anterior aspect of right shoulder joint. 12. P.W. 14, who was a Medical Officer of Bhanjanagar hospital, on the date of occurrence examined P.W. 8 Panchanan and found the following injuries: (1) A cut injury of the size of 21/2' x 1" x 3" on the anterior aspect of right shoulder joint. The margin was dean cut and there was profuse bleeding; (2) A cut injury of the size of 1" x 11/2" x l' on the middle of the lateral aspect of the right thigh: (3) One linear abrasion of the size of 6" extending upwards and backwards from the upper end of injury No. 2; (4) A cut injury of the size of 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the anterior and lower aspect of the right thigh. The margin was clean out and fresh bleeding was present; (5) An incised wound of the size of i" X 1/6" X 1/6" on the anterior medial aspect at the lower portion of the left thigh. The margin was clean cut; (6) An abrasion of the size of 1" x 1/4" on the lateral site of the left leg at the lower portion; and (7) A linear abrasion of the size of 2" on the anterior aspect of the left upper arm. According to his opinion, injury No. 1 was grievous and the others were simple. They could be caused by sharp cutting heavy weapon vide Ext. 6). He also examined P.W. 9 Pradipta on the same day and found the following injuries: (1) One incised wound of the size of 2' x 2" x 1" completely cutting the skin, tissues and lower end of ulna just above the wrist joint of the left side; (2) One incised wound of the size of 2' x 1" on the posterior medial aspect of the left forearm in the middle; (3) One transverse incised wound of the size of 5' x 2' x 1' on the left side of the dorsal aspect; (4) One incised wound 4' long on the dorsa-medial aspect of the right forearm 4' above the wrist joint; (5) One incised wound of the size of 1/2' x 1/4' on the base of the right little finger; and (6) One incised wound of the size of 1/2' x 1/2' on the ring, middle and index fingers of the right hand. According to his opinion, injury Nos. According to his opinion, injury Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were grievous and the rest were simple. They could' be caused by a sharp cutting heavy weapon (vide Ext. 7). There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of this witness which proves that P.Ws. 8 and 9 were found to have been injured and bleeding at about 9.00 a.m. on the date of occurrence. 13. P.W. 8 Panchanan stated about the movement of some of the students inside the college campus in the morning of the date of occurrence. Ultimately all of them came near a Krishna Chuda 'tree near the boys' common room, where the Appellants were standing. Of them, Appellant Subramaniyam was holding the flag of S.F.I. and all of them were shouting slogans, such as, Inqilab Jindabad, Santosh Bisoi Murdabad". Appellant Prafulla Rao brought out a bomb from a bag which was hanging on his shoulder and threw the same towards the deceased and his companions. The bomb exploded near the place where the deceased was standing. So, along with his companions he ran backwards. All the Appellants chased the deceased. Appellants Jagatmohan was armed with a butchers knife. Appellant Bhagaban was armed with an ordinary knife. Appellant Prafulla Rao instigated the other Appellants to kill the deceased. Appellant Jagatmohan dealt a cut blow on the back of Santosh by means of the butchers knife. When Santosh turned and showed his hand to ward off further blows, Appellant Chitta alias Prakash Rao dealt a cut blow on the left hand and two blows on the right thigh of Santosh by means of a Farsa. Santosh fell down on a heap of bricks shouting Marigali Marigali. Appellant Prafulla Rao further instigated to kill Santosh. Appellant Bhagaban dealt a cut blow on the left shoulder of Santosh, and Appellant Subramaniyam dealt another blow on the right chest by means of Farsas. When he came to the rescue of Santosh, Appellant Subramaniyam dealt a blow on the upper side of the right shoulder and dealt another blow on his left thigh. When he fell down there, Appellant Chitta dealt a blow by means of Farsa on his right thigh. When he came to the rescue of Santosh, Appellant Subramaniyam dealt a blow on the upper side of the right shoulder and dealt another blow on his left thigh. When he fell down there, Appellant Chitta dealt a blow by means of Farsa on his right thigh. So, out of fear he managed to escape through the backside of the staff common room; While he passed through the principal's room and was proceeding towards the main gate he met the Officer-in-charge of Bhanjanagar Police Station (P.W. 23) who was just entering the campus. P.W. 23 asked him as to what had happened, as blood was coming out from his body. He briefly narrated the incident to him. P.W. 23 sent him in a rickshaw to Bhanjanagar hospital. In cross-examination he stated that he saw the occurrence from the verandah in front of the staff common room. The duration of attack on Santosh was about two to three minutes. He shouted that Santosh was being killed. He was assaulted three to four feet away from where Santosh was assaulted. None came to his rescue. Except some minor inaccuracies here and there, broadly speaking his evidence does not suffer from any infirmity. 14. P.W. 9, the other injured witness "Stated that near the college union office the Appellants were raising slogans Inqilab Jindabad, Santosh Murdabad. Appellants Chitta and Subramaniyam were carrying S.F.I. flags which were affixed at the top of Farsas. Appellant Prafulla Rao brought out a bomb from his bag and threw it towards the witness and others. As the bomb exploded, the students started running backwards. Appellant Prafulla Rao instigated the other Appellants to assault. The Appellants chased some of the witnesses and the deceased. Appellant Jagatmohan assaulted on the back of Santosh by means of a butchers knife. When Santosh turned to ward off the blow, Appellant Chitta; assaulted him on the left hand and the right thigh. Santosh fell down on a heap of bricks. The witness was standing near the Bhanja statute. Appellant Prafulla Rao further instigated to kill. Appellant Bhagaban assaulted on the right shoulder of Santosh by means of a Kati. Appellant Subramaniyam assaulted on the chest of Santosh. When P.W. 8 came to save Santosh, he was assaulted by Appellants Chitta and Subramaniyam. Appellant Jagatmohan chased the witness and assaulted him by means of the butchers knife on the left and right arms. Appellant Bhagaban assaulted on the right shoulder of Santosh by means of a Kati. Appellant Subramaniyam assaulted on the chest of Santosh. When P.W. 8 came to save Santosh, he was assaulted by Appellants Chitta and Subramaniyam. Appellant Jagatmohan chased the witness and assaulted him by means of the butchers knife on the left and right arms. After the assault was over Appellant Prafulla Rao advised the Appellants to leave the spot. The witness having sustained injuries was carried on a cycle of one of his friends, namely, Prafulla Mohapatra to the hospital. On the way, a rickshaw was found and by the rickshaw he arrived at the hospital for treatment. He lost his senses and was admitted as indoor patient. After discharge from Bhanjanagar hospital, he was again treated by Dr. Tejeswar Rao in M.K.C.G. Medical College Hospital, Berhampur, as his hand was not properly functioning. In cross-examination he stated that they apprehended' risk to their lives only after explosion of the bomb. On explosion of the bomb, he started running. While he was running and was on the western side of the Bhanja statue he saw Santosh being assaulted by Jagatmohan by means of butchers knife. He stopped his motion at a distance of 10 to 15 cubits from the place of assault. He did not go for rescue of Santosh for fear of his life. He was so much stunned that he even forgot to raise hue and cry. When Santosh and P.W. 8 were lying with their injuries, he left the place. His evidence in general is quite acceptable. 15. P.W. 10 was another eye witness to the occurrence. He was a class mate of the deceased. While he was proceeding towards the bey common room along with Santosh and other witnesses, he found the Appellants standing near Krishna Chuda tree in front of the college union office. Appellants Chitta and Subramaniyam were holding C.P.M. party flags at the top of Farsas. The Appellants raised slogans; such as, Inqilab Jindabad Santosh Bisoi Murdabad. Appellant Prafulla Rao brought out a bomb from his bag and threw the same which exploded one or two cubits away from them. On account of the explosion, they started running backwards in different directions. He ran up to an incomplete building near the Bhanja statute and watched the incident. He found that the Appellants were chasing Santosh. Appellant Prafulla Rao brought out a bomb from his bag and threw the same which exploded one or two cubits away from them. On account of the explosion, they started running backwards in different directions. He ran up to an incomplete building near the Bhanja statute and watched the incident. He found that the Appellants were chasing Santosh. Appellant Jagatmohan assaulted on the back of Santosh by means of a butchers knife. Appellant Prafulla Rao instigated to assault. When Santosh turned to ward off the blow by showing his left hand, Appellant Chitta assaulted him by means of a Farsa on the left arm and the right thigh. Santosh fell down on the ground. Appellant Subramaniyam assaulted him by means of a Farsa on the chest. Appellant Bhagaban also assaulted him on the shoulder by means of a Kati. When P.W. 8 intervened to save Santosh, he was assaulted by Appellants Chitta and Subramaniyam by means of Farsas on different parts of the body. Be also fell down on the ground. Appellant Bhagaban saw and rushed towards him. He managed to escape and went home. In cross examination he admitted that out of fear he went away to G. Udayagiri on the date of occurrence itself and stayed in his uncle's house. He returned to Bhanjanagar after two days. In cross-examination he gave further details of the assault. His evidence seems to be reliable and bereft of major discrepancies or improbabilities. 16. P.W. 15, another student of the college stated that while he was in the staff common room talking to a lecturer he heard explosion of a bomb and after some time he heard that Santosh Bisoi was being killed. He came out of the staff common room and saw that Appellant Jagatmohan was assaulting P.W. 9 by means of a butchers knife. Out of fear, he went inside the staff common room and told his teacher to save him. Some lecturers locked the door inside the staff common room and concealed the witness in bath room. At 12 o'clock police came and rescued him. In cross-examination, he stated that when P.W. 9 was trying to run away, he was assaulted. He inaccurately stated that the bomb exploded at 10.30 a.m. Except perhaps this minor inaccuracy there is nothing much to disbelieve his version. 17. P.W. 16 was another eye witness. At 12 o'clock police came and rescued him. In cross-examination, he stated that when P.W. 9 was trying to run away, he was assaulted. He inaccurately stated that the bomb exploded at 10.30 a.m. Except perhaps this minor inaccuracy there is nothing much to disbelieve his version. 17. P.W. 16 was another eye witness. He corroborated the evidence of P.W. 5, 8 and 9 with regard to the assault on the deceased, as well as on those two witnesses, by the Appellants and Appellant Prafulla Rao exploding a bomb and instigating the other Appellants to kill. He saw the incident from behind the compound wall enclosure surrounding the Bhanja statue through holes. He has given a very vivid description of the assault. With reference to his evidence, it is necessary to point out from the evidence of P.W. 17, the principal that if anybody sits inside the compound wall of the Bhanja statue, he will not be visible to a person from outside, but he can see the outsiders through the holes. He specifically stated that if anybody sit in kneel down position inside the compound wall, the outsiders cannot easily see him, but he will be able to see outsiders from inside. If the evidence of both these witnesses is read as a whole, it will appear that P.W. 16, an associate of the deceased and the other eye witnesses most probably hid himself behind the boundary wall and through the holes saw the entire incident. Therefore, it is not possible to disbelieve his version. 18. P.W. 11 was a Reader of Bnanjanagar college. He stated that at about 8.30 a.m. on the date of occurrence, he saw P.W. 23 and one Junior Sub-Inspector of Police of Bhanjanagar Police Station standing at the northern gate of the college. He was having some formal talk with them when he heard slogans from inside the college campus. Then he heard an explosion from inside the campus. Out of fear, he ran away to the office of the C.T.O. on the other side of the road and noticed that students were running away in different directions from the college premises. After some time he came inside the collage campus through the northern gate and saw P.W. 9 with bleeding injuries near the Bhanja statue. He also saw that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood near a half constructed building. After some time he came inside the collage campus through the northern gate and saw P.W. 9 with bleeding injuries near the Bhanja statue. He also saw that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood near a half constructed building. There is nothing to disbelieve this witness. 19. P.W. 20 was a Junior Sub-Inspector of Police of Bhanjanagar Police Station on 25-4-1981 be stated that from inside the college campus he seized some remanents of an exploded bomb, such as, small pieces of torn clothes, torn ribbons, torn papers, small pieces of black stones and one camel brand match by seizure list (Ext. 9). 20. P.W. 22 was also a Junior Sub-Inspector of Police of Bhanjanagar Police Station on 25-4-1981. He stated that on that day at 8.20 a.m. he accompanied P.W. 23 to Bhanjanagar college on patrol duty. At 8.30 a.m. both of them arrived at the college gate. He heard the explosion of a bomb inside the collage campus and saw that students were running hither and thither. So, both the police officers parked their motor cycles in front of the gate of the college and entered inside the campus. They found P.W. 8, who was seriously injured and bleeding, coming out of the southern gate. P.W. 23 asked him as to how he sustained the injuries. P.W. 8 named the Appellants as the assailants of Santosh and himself. He also stated that Appellant prafulla Rao exploded bomb and instigated the assault. P.W. 23 sent P.W. 8 in a rickshaw to the hospital for treatment. He found that Appellant Prafulla Rao, an advocate, rode away from inside the campus in a motor cycle through the northern gate. P.W. 23 caught hold of. Appellant Bhagaban while he was running away. He also sent injured Santosh in a jeep to the hospital and also despatched Appellant Bhagaban to the police station with the witness and another Havildar. There is nothing to disbelieve this part of his evidence. 21. P.W. 23 caught hold of. Appellant Bhagaban while he was running away. He also sent injured Santosh in a jeep to the hospital and also despatched Appellant Bhagaban to the police station with the witness and another Havildar. There is nothing to disbelieve this part of his evidence. 21. P.W. 23, the Officer-in charge of Bhanjanagar Police Station and the investigating officer, corroborated the evidence of P.W. 22 and stated that P.W. 8 who was found in an injured and bleeding condition coming out from the college campus, on enquiry, informed that Appellants Chitta, Subramaniyam, Bhagaban, Jagatmohan and others threw a hand bomb and brutally assaulted Santosh by means of Katis and Farsas and that Santosh was laying with severe cut injuries. Appellant Prafulla Rao, an advocate was also present and was instigating. He himself was assaulted by these persons by means of Katis. The witness sent him to the hospital in a rickshaw. When he further proceeded, he saw that Appellant Prafulla Rao went out of the college campus in his motor cycle and the small group of students running away from near the cycle stand. He chased and caught hold of Appellant Bhagaban who was the Secretary of the college union. He came inside and found. Santosh being seriously injured was lying in a pool of blood. He sent him to the hospital in a jeep. He also got information that besides Santosh and P.W. 8, another student (P.W. 9) had also received, serious injuries due to assault with Katis and Farsas by the Appellants and had already left the college campus for the hospital. He drew up plain paper F.I.R. (Ext. 16) on the spot and sent the same for registration to the Police station. In cross-examination he stated that he wanted to record the statements of P.Ws. 8 and 9 who were injured, but they expressed their inability to make statement and the Medical Officer also informed him not to disturb them at least for two days. He drew up the F.I.R. partly based on his knowledge and partly based on information gathered from witnesses and lather sources. He admitted that he did not send the remanents of the bomb to the ballistic expert. There is nothing much in his evidence so as to disbelieve his version. 22. He drew up the F.I.R. partly based on his knowledge and partly based on information gathered from witnesses and lather sources. He admitted that he did not send the remanents of the bomb to the ballistic expert. There is nothing much in his evidence so as to disbelieve his version. 22. It is now necessary to consider the complicity of the Appellants in the murder of Santosh and in the assault on P.Ws. 8 and 9. Discussion of oral evidence will show that Appellant Prafulla Rao did not participate in the actual assault on any of these persons, although he was present. He was not only seen by some of the witnesses at the scene of occurrence, but also found by P.Ws. 22 and 23 leaving the college campus in his motor cycle. The evidence against him is that he exploded a bomb and instigated the other Appellants to assault and commit the murder. It is to be discussed how far the prosecution has proved by evidence that he exploded a bomb and abetted commission of the crime. Several witnesses stated that there was an explosion. So, explosion of some substance cannot be disbelieved. In order to find this Appellant guilty u/s 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, it must further be found that he was in his possession an explosive substance which he threw and exploded. What is explosive substance is to be found from Section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 4(d) of the Indian Explosives Act. According to the evidence of P.Ws. 20, there was seizure of small pieces of torn clothes, torn ribbons, torn papers and small pieces of black stones from the place of explosion. These materials, as well as earth from the place of explosion, were not sent for chemical examination so as to find out if any of these materials contained chemicals described in Section 4(d) of the Indian Explosive Act. A cracker also explodes and makes a big sound resembling that of explosion of a bomb, but it does not mean that thereby an explosive substance is exploded so as to be punishable u/s 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. He might as well have exploded a cracker. Thus the prosecution has failed to establish that Appellant Prafulla Rao possessed an explosive substance and exploded it at the scene of 'occurrence. He might as well have exploded a cracker. Thus the prosecution has failed to establish that Appellant Prafulla Rao possessed an explosive substance and exploded it at the scene of 'occurrence. Therefore, an offence u/s 5, thereunder against him has not at all been established. The next item of evidence is that some of the witnesses stated/that he shouted to assault and kill. On this evidence alone, it would not be proper to find this Appellant guilty of a serious charge of murder. Mere presence at the scene of occurrence will not either implicate him. May be, he was present at the scene of occurrence to observe the starting of some sort of procession on behalf of the students union of the college, for which P.Ws. 22 and 23 were waiting, at the college gate for maintenance of law and order. So, taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not established any, of its charges against Appellant Prafulla Rao, and he is entitled to be acquitted. 23. So far as the other four Appellants are concerned, there is clinching evidence of many eye witnesses to the occurrence to the effect that they brutally assaulted the deceased by means of dangerous weapons, such as, butchers knife, Kati and Farsas. There was such a concerted attack on him that it was not possible on his part to run away and escape. Because the assault was concentrated on him, P.Ws. 8 and 9 escaped death by sustaining some injuries, otherwise they would have been cut to pieces by the Appellants. It is true that these Appellants on one side and the eye witnesses to the occurrence on the other belonged to two rival groups of students of the college, but their evidence is such that the same cannot simply be disbelieved. Being students they were naturally present within the college campus during morning hours It was unlikely that outsiders were present so as to lend independent corroboration Examinations were going on and so naturally the college teachers were busy in the examinations. In these-circumstances, the evidence of these eye witnesses cannot be discarded for want of independent corroboration. Mr. Palit urged that the Appellants had no intention of committing the murder and wanted to teach Santosh and his associates a lesson. In these-circumstances, the evidence of these eye witnesses cannot be discarded for want of independent corroboration. Mr. Palit urged that the Appellants had no intention of committing the murder and wanted to teach Santosh and his associates a lesson. Therefore, at the worst, they committed an offence u/s 304, I.P.C. But Section 304 cannot be attracted to the case, because none of the exceptions of Section 300 exists. On the other hand, the Appellants came prepared to assault with sharp cutting deadly weapons and indiscriminately assaulted the deceased and P.Ws. 8 and 9. Had they any intention of teaching Santosh and his associates a lesson, they would have dealt slaps and fist blows or at best assaulted by means of sticks. But coming prepared to the college campus with such weapons will lead to the only conclusion that they intended to kill. Undoubtedly all of them were misguided youth and had no parental control. They thought that because they belonged to a particular Political party, it was their privilege to use arms against others who did not agree with them. These thoughts landed them in this trouble. Therefore, they must suffer the consequences of their own acts. A clear case under Sections 302 and 326 read with Section 34, I.P.C. has been made out against them. 24. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part. Appellant Prafulla Rao, is acquitted of all charges and be set at liberty forthwith. The charges so far as the other Appellants, namely, K. Subramaniyam Rao, K. Chitta alias Prakash Rao, Jagatmohan Dash and Bhagaban Hota are concerned, are slightly altered and they are convicted for having committed offences under Sections 302 and 326 read with Section 34, I.P.C., and each of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the earlier offence and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the later offence. The sentences are to run concurrently. J.M. Mahapatra, J. I agree. Appeal is allowed. Final Result : Allowed