JUDGMENT K.J. Joseph, J. 1. The appellants in Crl. A. No. 13 of 1991 are accused 1 to 5 and 8 to 10 in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1989 on the file of the Sessions Court, Trivandrum. Crl. A. No. 15 of 1991 is filed by the sixth accused in the above sessions case. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment, we dispose of these appeals by this common judgment. This Court has issued notice in Crl. R. C. No. 50 of 1993 to alter the conviction from S.304 Part II to S.302 IPC. 2. There were eighteen accused in the case. Accused 7 and 11 to 18 were acquitted of all charges by the Sessions Judge. 3. The charges against the accused are that on 26-8-1987, at about 8.15 p. m. at Cheruvakkal Village in Thiruvananthapuram district near the house of deceased Gangadharan Nair, all the accused in the case, including the appellants herein, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of trespassing into the house of deceased Gangadharan Nair and murdering the inmates of house, in which Gangadharan Nair and his family were residing, and have committed mischief by fire and to cause loss to deceased Gangadharan Nair and members of his family and thereby committed offences punishable under S.143 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also charged for offences punishable under S.148, 447 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code read with S.149 IPC, They were further charged for offence punishable under S.302 read with S.149 IPC for committing murder of the above mentioned Gangadharan Nair. The accused were further charged for offence punishable under S.307 IPC for having attempted to cause death of PW 2, the wife of deceased Gangadharan Nair. It is also the prosecution case that the accused have committed offences punishable under S.427 and 436 read with S.149 IPC for having caused destruction of valuable articles in the house of deceased Gangadharan Nair and throwing stones to the house and for setting fire to the shed situated on the south western side of the house of deceased Gangadharan Nair and causing a loss exceeding Rs. 5,000/-. 4. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused including the appellants, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 18 and produced and proved Exts. P1 to P16. They also produced MOs. 5,000/-. 4. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused including the appellants, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 18 and produced and proved Exts. P1 to P16. They also produced MOs. 1 to 25 to prove the charges levelled against the accused. Even though no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, they marked Exts. D1 to D4 case diary contradictions to prove that the prosecution has not established the case against the accused. 5. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge found accused 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 had committed the various offences with which they were charged and found accused 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 guilty under S.143 and 147 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and six months respectively. The learned Sessions Judge found accused 1 to 5 and 8 to 10 guilty under S.148 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The learned Sessions Judge also found accused 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 guilty of offences under S.447 and 452 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and three years respectively. The learned Sessions Judge also found accused 1 to 5, 9 and 10 guilty under S.304(ii) IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The learned Sessions Judge found accused 6 and 8 guilty under S.304(ii) read with S.149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The learned Sessions Judge further found accused 1, 3 and 4 guilty of offence punishable under S.324 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The learned Sessions Judge also found accused 2, 5, 6 and 8 to 10 guilty under S.324 read with S.149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The learned Sessions Judge further found accused 1 to 6, 9 and 10 guilty under S.427 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The learned Sessions Judge found the 8th accused guilty under S.427 read with S.149 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The learned Sessions Judge further found accused 7 and 11 to 18 not guilty under S.302, 307 and 436 IPC and acquitted them of the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge found the 8th accused guilty under S.427 read with S.149 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The learned Sessions Judge further found accused 7 and 11 to 18 not guilty under S.302, 307 and 436 IPC and acquitted them of the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge also acquitted the sixth accused of the offence under S.148 IPC after finding that he is not guilty of the above charge, The convicted accused, viz., accused 1 to 5 and 8 to 10 have filed the present appeals against their conviction and sentence. 6. The prosecution case, as evidenced in Ext. P1 first information statement given by PW 1, son of deceased Gangadharan Nair, before PW 15, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, is that himself along with his parents, brothers and sisters with their family are residing in the house. He and his brother CW. 3 are R. S. S. members. According to him, on 26-8-1987, at about 8,15 p. m, when all the members of the family, including himself, his father Gangadharan Nair and his mother Krishnamma (PW 2), were viewing television programmes at their residence, PW 2, the mother, had seen some persons coming to their residence and she had informed that fact to the other members of the house. Immediately, PW 1 opened the door of the verandah room and he saw accused 1 to 6; and 8 to 10 and about twenty other persons coming to their house with iron rods, chopper, sticks, bricks and other deadly weapons in their hands, All those persons were members or sympathisers of Marxist Party. There was rivalry between the numbers of Marxist Party on one side and the members of B. J. P and R. S. S on the other side. PW 1 apprehended a sudden attack by those persons. Immediately, he put all other members of the family, except the father and mother, in the room on the northern side and closed and bolted the door attached to the said room to the verandah. Gangadharan Nair and PW 2, father and mother, were put in the western room where the television set was installed. But the door of that room could not be closed. The accused came to the house, broke open the front door in the verandah and trespassed into the verandah. Gangadharan Nair and PW 2, father and mother, were put in the western room where the television set was installed. But the door of that room could not be closed. The accused came to the house, broke open the front door in the verandah and trespassed into the verandah. After entering the verandah, the first accused shouted to do away with all the persons therein. Immediately they entered the western room they forcibly dragged Gangadharan Nair and his wife PW 2 from the western room to the verandah and the tenth accused with MO 22 weapon and accused 3 and 4 with MOs 6 (chopper) and 21 (knife) inflicted injuries on Gangadharan Nair. The first accused beat the father with MO 5 iron rod and the other accused also beat Gangadharan Nair using the weapons in their hand. He had also stated that injuries were inflicted on PW 2 also and after inflicting injuries on Gangadharan Nair and PW 2, the accused drew them into the court yard on the southern side of the house. Thereafter, some of the accused went inside, broke the photos, television set and the clock in the verandah and their attempt to eater into the northern room where PWs 1 and others were hiding, did not succeed. He has also stated that while the father and mother were attacked by the accused, some of the other accused threw stones at the father and mother and some others attempted to break open the doors and windows of the house. The people inside the house raised a hue and cry. Thereafter, they set fire to the cattle shed after breaking the electric bulbs on the southern and eastern sides of the building. The persons inside the house also destroyed all the furniture found on the verandah of the house. The cattle shed was destroyed by fire completely and thereafter all the accused left the place. It is the further case of PW 1 in Ext. P1 that he along with others biding in the northern room came out and found the father and mother lying in a pool of blood in the courtyard, PW 1 immediately went for fetching a car. But he could not fetch the car since he was informed that the accused were waiting nearby. P1 that he along with others biding in the northern room came out and found the father and mother lying in a pool of blood in the courtyard, PW 1 immediately went for fetching a car. But he could not fetch the car since he was informed that the accused were waiting nearby. Thereafter, a police patrol jeep had come and Gangadharan Nair, his wife PW 2 along with PW 1 and PW 5 and CW 3 were taken in the jeep. They reached the Medical College Hospital by about 10.15 p. m and at about 12 midnight, the father succumbed to the injuries and the mother was admitted in ward No. 9, According to him, the incident had taken place due to political rivalry between Marxists and R. S. S workers. He had also given detailed description regarding the various weapons alleged to have been used by the accused in the commission of the offence. 7. As stated above, the statement was given by PW 1 and in support of the prosecution case, they had examined PWs 1 to 5 as eye witnesses. After considering the evidence adduced by the eye witnesses, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the appellants - accused are guilty of the various offences found against them and they were convicted and sentenced accordingly. 8. The matter was elaborately argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants - accused and also on behalf the respondent State by the learned Director General of Prosecutions, who is also the Public Prosecutor. We heard the matter in great detail. 9. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the Trial Court are absolutely illegal, unjust and against the evidence adduced in the case. The learned counsel submits that there is absolutely no reliable and legal evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused. The evidence adduced in the case has not proved the charges levelled against the appellants. The learned counsel submits that there is absolutely no reliable and legal evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused. The evidence adduced in the case has not proved the charges levelled against the appellants. It is also submitted that there is not even a consistent version regarding the incident alleged to have taken place on 26-8-1987 by the so called eye witnesses examined in the ease by the prosecution and going by the evidence on record in the case, the conviction entered into by the learned Sessions Judge is absolutely illegal and unjustified. The learned counsel also submits that Ext. P1 first information statement given by PW 1 itself is a concocted document and the same was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded in the said document. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the same was not available at the time of inquest and the names now seen in Ext. P1 were incorporated only after the inquest was over. It is also submitted that the first information report prepared by PW 15, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, is not in conformity with Ext. P1 first information statement given by PW 1 and there are contradictions regarding the weapons alleged to have been used by the accused and also the overt act attributed to each parson arrayed as accused in the case. The learned counsel further submits that there is no consistent tent case for the regarding the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence stated in Ext. P1 statement is purposefully altered in the evidence by all the eye witnesses examined in the case except the maker of the first information statement viz, PW 1, and, therefore, the learned counsel submits that no reliance can be placed on Ext. P1 statement or Ext. P1(a) report prepared by PW 15 and to convict the accused on the basis of such report. The learned counsel further submits that there is no proper identification of the accused with reference to the overt act alleged to have been committed by them in the incident. The evidence of the eye witnesses mutually contradicts each other. P1(a) report prepared by PW 15 and to convict the accused on the basis of such report. The learned counsel further submits that there is no proper identification of the accused with reference to the overt act alleged to have been committed by them in the incident. The evidence of the eye witnesses mutually contradicts each other. There are embellishments and omissions in the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 given it Court regarding the overt act alleged to have been committed by the accused and those omissions amount to contradictions. According to the learned counsel, the witnesses had given an entirely different version about the incident when questioned by the investigating officer and those contradictions are very material affecting the credibility of their evidence given in Court and, therefore, the learned counsel submits that no reliance can be placed on their evidence to sustain the conviction imposed on the appellants. The learned counsel further submits that the prosecution had introduced false evidence to mislead the Court by examining PW 5 as an occurrence witness. Whereas, his presence was spoken to by PW 1 and the story given by PWs 1 and 5 as occurrence witnesses cannot be relied on to convict the accused. 10. The learned Director General of Prosecutions, on the other hand submits before us that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond any doubt. The evidence adduced in the case, according to the Director General of Prosecution, is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused. He has also submitted that the accused, who were on inimical terms with PW 1 and his brother CW 3, had committed trespass into the house of PW 1 and deceased Gangadharan Nair with the common object of murdering PW 1 and members of his family. In furtherance of the common intention, they murdered Gangadharan Nair and inflicted serious injuries on PW 2 and, therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are perfectly justified in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. He, therefore, submits that no interference is called for by this Court in these appeals against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge on the appellants. 11. As can he seen from Ext. He, therefore, submits that no interference is called for by this Court in these appeals against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge on the appellants. 11. As can he seen from Ext. P1, the said statement was given by PW 1 before PW 15 Assistant Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Medical College Police Station on 27-8-1989 at 1.00 p.m. (in the midnight of 26-8-89). The object of recording a first information statement is to obtain early information regarding the offence and to record the circumstances existed at the time when the same was given and before any embellishment crept in the said statement. The purpose of the first information statement is only to set the law in motion for initiating criminal investigation. Therefore it has to be examined whether the police got information which reasonably gave room for them to suspect the commission of an offence for starting the investigation. The first information report is never treated as a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for corroborating or contradicting its maker when he appears in Court as a witness. Its value must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. The first information report is not intended to be treated as the final word of the prosecution in the matter. But, when the first information report is found to be one which was brought into existence after due deliberations long subsequent to the time it bears, the consequence of such an embellishment would be fatal to the prosecution. In AIR 1980 SC 638 (Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala) the Supreme Court took the view that the entire fabric of the prosecution case would collapse if the first information report is held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence after due deliberations and consultation. In the decision reported in AIR 1993 SC 2641 (Padmanabhan Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala), the Supreme Court held that if no reliance can be placed on the first information statement, the very basis of the prosecution case becomes doubtful and on account of the tainted nature of investigation, it would not be safe to rely upon the evidence led by the prosecution. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in JT 1994 (3) SC 440 (Mehraj Singh v. State of U.P.) took the view that the first information report in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The Supreme Court also held that to see whether the first information report was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts are to look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the first information report by the local Magistrate. If the report is received by the Magistrate late, it can give time rise to an inference that the first information report was not lodged at the time noted in the first information report. To get over this difficulty, the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatching the report or the receipt of the same by the Magistrate. The second external check can be its reference to the inquest report. Even though the inquest report prepared under S.174 CrPC is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, details of the first information report and the gist of the statements recorded during request proceedings are to be perused and the details of the first information report should get reflected in the inquest In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, the evidence adduced in the case has to be analysed. According to the prosecution, PW 1 had given Ext. P1 statement at 1. 00 a.m. on 27-8-1989 i.e. in the midnight of 26-8-1989, the date of the incident. PW 15 recorded the statement of PW 1. He gave evidence that immediately he has sent express report about the same to all the superior officers, including PW 17 Circle Inspector of Police, Petta Police Station. But it has come out in evidence that even before recording Ext. P1 statement, he had received information regarding the incident in the police station from the mobile police squad within minutes after the incident had taken place. He had also given evidence that immediately after the receipt of the above information, police force was sent to the scene of occurrence. P1 statement, he had received information regarding the incident in the police station from the mobile police squad within minutes after the incident had taken place. He had also given evidence that immediately after the receipt of the above information, police force was sent to the scene of occurrence. PW 15 further gave evidence that express report regarding the wireless message received from the police squad was sent to PW 17. It has come out in evidence of PW 15 that the first information regarding the incident received is the information by wireless message and the same was recorded in the general diary kept in the police station. But the said information has not been placed before the Court and the general diary also kept away from the court. It is in evidence that the Sub Inspector of Police and the Circle Inspector of Police (PW 17) immediately went to the place of occurrence, after giving necessary instructions to PW 15, to record the statement in case any person gives such a statement. The evidence of PW 15 regarding giving of instruction had been admitted by PW 17 also in court. He also admitted that he went to the place of occurrence in the night of 26th itself. Thus, it is clear that before PW 1 went to the police station and gave Ext. P1 statement, definite information about the incident was received in the police station by PW 15. It has also come out that PW 15 received information regarding the death of Gangadharan Nair due to the injury sustained by him in the incident from the Medical College Hospital within few minutes of the incident and this was informed to PW 17 by wireless message by PW 15. But the said information received by PW 15 and recorded in the general diary kept in the police station was not made available to the Court. As a matter of fact, such information was kept away from the court by the prosecution. It is in evidence that PW 17 west to the place of occurrence after receiving information regarding the incident. But they did not record the statement of any of the persons in the house of PW 1 regarding the incident till PW 1 went to the police station by about 1.00 a.m. and gave Ext P1 statement. It is in evidence that PW 17 west to the place of occurrence after receiving information regarding the incident. But they did not record the statement of any of the persons in the house of PW 1 regarding the incident till PW 1 went to the police station by about 1.00 a.m. and gave Ext P1 statement. The above conduct of the investigating agency gives suspicion regarding the genuineness of the first information report. 12. It has come out in evidence of PW 17, the Circle Inspector, that he had taken charge of investigation of the case by 9.15 a.m. on 27-8-1987 by preparing Ext. P13 inquest at the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum. The inquest over the dead body of Gangadharan Nair started at 9.15 a.m. and same was ended by 11.15 a.m. on the same day. The inquest was prepared by PW 17, the investigating officer himself. It has come out in the evidence of PW 15 that express report regarding the incident had been given to the Sub Inspector as well as to the Circle Inspector of Police. It has also come out in evidence that a copy of the first information report also had been forwarded to the Circle Inspector of Police and the Circle Inspector visited the scene of occurrence on the night of 26-8-1987 itself. He has made arrangements for guarding the scene of occurrence. Therefore, at the time when PW I7 prepared the inquest on 27-8-1987, he was having a copy of the first information report prepared by PW 15 on the basis of Ext. P1 statement given by PW 1, wherein he had mentioned the names of accused 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 as the assailants along with twenty other persons, In spite of the availability of the said information regarding the assailants. in Ext. P13 inquest in Column xii (a) against the entry 'if any person is suspected, who and why'. PW 17 had stated only 'yes'. He had not stated the names of any of the accused in the inquest report. In the same way, as against the entry in Column xvi in Ext. P13 inquest report, viz 'opinion as to the cause and manner of death', PW 17 had stated only that he died due to the injuries inflicted'. PW 17 had stated only 'yes'. He had not stated the names of any of the accused in the inquest report. In the same way, as against the entry in Column xvi in Ext. P13 inquest report, viz 'opinion as to the cause and manner of death', PW 17 had stated only that he died due to the injuries inflicted'. In the said column also, PW 17 did not mention the names of any of the accused in the case. If as a matter of fact, PW 17 was having the copy of the first information report with him at the time when he conducted the inquest would definitely expect the names of the accused being mentioned in columns xxi(a) and xvi in Ext. P 13 inquest. The prosecution has not offered any explanation regarding the non mentioning of the names of any of the accused in the inquest report. The explanation offered by the learned Director General of Prosecution that it may be an omission on the part of the investigating officer is quite unacceptable to us. So also, we are not inclined to accept his submission that it may be due to the inexperience of the investigating officer the names of the accused were not mentioned in Ext. P13 inquest report. The investigating officer was examined in the case as PW 17. But he has no such case that he omitted to mention the names of the accused in the relevant columns of Ext. P 13 due to inexperience. He did not give any explanation before the Trial Court regarding that aspect. Even though the inquest report prepared under S.174 CrPC. is aimed at serving a statutory function to lead credence to the prosecution case, the details of the first information report and the gist of the statements recorded during inquest proceedings, etc. are very material. The details of the first information report should get reflected in the inquest. Admittedly, PW 17 did not make mention the names of any of the accused in Ext. P13. If, as a matter of fact, PW 17 had the copy of the first information report with him at the time when he prepared Ext. P13, he would have definitely made mention the names of the accused in the relevant columns. This conduct on the part of the investigating officer gives suspicion regarding the genuineness of Ext. P1(a) first information report. 13. P13, he would have definitely made mention the names of the accused in the relevant columns. This conduct on the part of the investigating officer gives suspicion regarding the genuineness of Ext. P1(a) first information report. 13. In the absence of any valid and satisfactory explanation for the said serious omission, we ere inclined to accept the contention raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that, till Ext. P13 inquest report was prepared, the names of the accused were not fixed and the prosecution was gaining time to pick and select suitable persons as accused in the case, in this connection, it is also pertinent to note that in Ext. P12 wound certificate issued by PW 14 doctor in respect of the injuries found on tile body of PW 2 on 26-8-1987, the names of the persons who inflicted the injuries also not seen stated by PW 1 or his brother CW 3 or PW 5 who alleged to have brought PW 2 to the hospital for treatment. This fact also lends support to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that Ext P1 is ante timed and came into existence only long after Ext. P13 inquest report was prepared by PW 17. 14. In this connection, it is also worth to note that even though Ext. P1 statement and Ext. P1(a) first information report were seen recorded at 1.00 a.m. on 27-8-1989 and they did contain the initials of the learned Magistrate, the time at which the first information report was received by the Magistrate is not seen in Ext. P1. The court seal also has not been seen affixed in the first information report. In Ext. P1 the names of only nine accused had been mentioned, viz. accused 1 to 6 and 8 to 10. No further details regarding the particulars of those accused were given in Ext. P1. But, subsequently, Ext. P15 report was sent by PW 17 on 1-9-1987, wherein the Circle Inspector of Police had given all details regarding all the 18 accused against whom he had laid charge before the Magistrate, PW 1 had given evidence that he had not furnished any details regarding the other accused other than the one mentioned in Ext. P1. But, subsequently, Ext. P15 report was sent by PW 17 on 1-9-1987, wherein the Circle Inspector of Police had given all details regarding all the 18 accused against whom he had laid charge before the Magistrate, PW 1 had given evidence that he had not furnished any details regarding the other accused other than the one mentioned in Ext. P1. PW 17, the Circle Inspector of Police, also gave evidence that none of the witnesses questioned by him had stated the particulars of the accused to him, but he found out their address, father's name and the place of their residence during investigation and that prompted him to file Ext. P15 report before the Magistrate. One fails to understand how the investigating officer gets complete address of all the accused who alleged to have participated in the occurrence without the witnesses informing the investigating officer and furnishing details regarding the accused. In the light of the above state of facts, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that Ext. P1(a) first information report is a concocted document and the same is ante timed and produced in Court only after preparing Ext. P13 inquest report and after due deliberation regarding the names of the accused to be implicated, had to be accepted. 15. It has also come out in evidence that except PW 1, the other witnesses examined in the case to prove the occurrence viz. PWs 2 to 5, could not identify all the accused who participated in the incident. Admittedly, PWs 2, and 3 did not have sufficient eye sight at the time when they were examined in Court. There is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that at the time of incident PWs 2 and 3 had fulleye sight. PWs 2 and 3 had wrongly identified many of the accused in Court while giving evidence in the case. Admittedly, no identification parade was conducted by the investigating officer during the investigation, Many of the accused were seen by PWs 2 to 5 only in Court after they alleged to have seen them on the date of incident. Under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellants in the case were properly identified by PWs 2 to 5 as the real assailants who participated in the incident. Since PW 1 had identified only 9 accused in Ext. Under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellants in the case were properly identified by PWs 2 to 5 as the real assailants who participated in the incident. Since PW 1 had identified only 9 accused in Ext. P1, no credence can be given to his identification of all accused in court. 16. Learned counsel is perfectly justified in making the submission that there is no consistent case for the prosecution regarding the place of occurrence. In Ext. P1 statement, it is stated by PW 1 that the entire incident regarding the infliction of injuries both on deceased Gangadharan Nair and PW 2 took place on the verandah of the house and both of them received injuries while they were dragged from the western room to the verandah. It is only thereafter, according to Ext. P1 statement, some of the accused drew them to the southern courtyard. This version regarding the place of occurrence is fully supported in Ext. P3 scene mahazar prepared by PW 17 on 27-8-1987, wherein also, PW 17 had stated the place of occurrence as the verandah of the house. Again this version is supported in Ext. P2 plan prepared by the Village Officer, wherein also the verandah was shown as the place of occurrence. PW 1 also gave evidence in support of his earlier statement Ext. P1, wherein ho had stated that his father Gangadharan Nair and his mother PW 2 sustained all the injuries while they were dragged from the western room to the verandah of the house. According to him, the deceased as well as PW 2 received all the injuries while they were in the verandah of the house. PW 17 also had clearly stated in his evidence that the incident had taken place in the verandah of the house. But, from the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4, we get a different version regarding the place of occurrence. According to PW 2, accused 1, 2 and 3 trespassed into the western room and forcibly brought the deceased and PW 2 from the said room to the verandah and the first accused beat the deceased with MO 5 iron rod. According to PW 2, accused 1, 2 and 3 trespassed into the western room and forcibly brought the deceased and PW 2 from the said room to the verandah and the first accused beat the deceased with MO 5 iron rod. But, according to PW 2, accused 1 to 3 then forcibly dragged the deceased and herself to the courtyard on the southern side and it was in the courtyard the second accused beat the deceased with MO 10 and the third accused cut him with MO 6 chopper. She has also stated that accused 4, 5, 10, 8 and 9 inflicted injuries on Gangadharan Nair while he was lying in the courtyard. She has also stated that she also sustained injuries while she was in the southern courtyard. Thus, it can be seen that the evidence of PW 2 shows that she sustained injuries while she was dragged to the courtyard by the accused and deceased Gangadharan Nair received some injuries while he was in the verandah and the remaining injuries while he was put in the courtyard. 17. But PW 3, the daughter in law, gave evidence to the effect that accused 1 to 10 got inside the western room where the television was installed and brought deceased Gangadharan Nair and PW 2 forcibly to the verandah and the first accused gave a blow with MO 5 iron rod on deceased Gangadharan Nair. Thereafter, accused 1 to 3 caught hold of him and drew him to the western courtyard where the remaining accused inflicted various injuries on the deceased. She had also stated that accused 4, 5 and 10 caught hold of PW 2 and drew her to the southern courtyard and they inflicted injuries on her body. The evidence of PW 4 completely contradicts the version in Ext. P1 and the version given by PWs 2 and 3. According to her, only accused 1, 2, and 3 went to the western room, caught hold of the deceased and PW 2 and brought them to the verandah, where accused 1 to 3 inflicted injuries on the deceased. Thereafter, the accused brought Gangadharan Nair from the verandah and put him in the southern courtyard and the remaining accused inflicted injuries on him while he was in the courtyard, But, according to PW 4, it was thereafter the second accused beat PW 2, the mother, in the verandah. Thereafter, the accused brought Gangadharan Nair from the verandah and put him in the southern courtyard and the remaining accused inflicted injuries on him while he was in the courtyard, But, according to PW 4, it was thereafter the second accused beat PW 2, the mother, in the verandah. On the other hand, PW 2 has no case that she sustained any injuries while she was in the verandah. It is the further case of PW 4 that thereafter accused 1 to 3 dragged PW 2 also from the verandah to the southern court yard and the remaining accused had inflicted injuries on her while she was in the courtyard Thus, according to the evidence adduced in the case, there is absolutely no consistent version regarding the actual place of occurrence. It has come out in evidence that it is not possible to see the incident happened in the courtyard from the northern room where PW 1 and others were hiding at the time of incident. The building has an open verandah on all the four sides and there is a courtyard also on the southern side of the house. The verandah had a length of about 20 ft. and breadth of about 7 to 8 ft. The entrance of the house is to the southern verandah room, which is enclosed on the southern side with half wall and wire mesh above it, and with a door in its middle for entrance from the southern courtyard. The said door is made up of wooden planks upto the level of half wall and wire mesh above that. There is one room each on the eastern and western sides of the verandah room with entrance from the verandah room. On north of the verandah room is a hall room. Further to the north of that room is another room. There are windows attached to the northern room with opening to the verandah room and PWs 1 to 4 had stated that they have witnessed all the incident took place in the courtyard through the windows of the northern room. On north of the verandah room is a hall room. Further to the north of that room is another room. There are windows attached to the northern room with opening to the verandah room and PWs 1 to 4 had stated that they have witnessed all the incident took place in the courtyard through the windows of the northern room. The learned trial Judge also found that it is not possible to witness the entire incident that had taken place in the courtyard with meticulous details by standing in the northern room Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, submitted that the prosecution has purposefully changed the scene of occurrence from the courtyard to the verandah in Ext. P1 through PW 1 to enable PW 1 to state that he saw the entire incident taken place both in the verandah and for PWs. 2 to 5 to see the occurrence in the courtyard. But, in the light of the evidence given by PW 1 and supported by the evidence of PW 17, the entire incident had taken place in the verandah only, whereas according to the PWs. 2, 3, 4 and 5, major portion of the incident had taken place in the southern courtyard and, therefore, we are inclined to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has failed miserably to prove that the incident had taken place in the veranda of the house, as stated in Ext. P1 first information statement. 18. In this connection, the contention raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the first information report, Ext. P1(a) is contrary to the first information statement, Ext. P1 given by PW 1 also has to be considered. According to the learned counsel, there is material difference regarding the weapons alleged to have been carried by the accused while they were proceeding to the house of the deceased Gangadharan Nair. PW 1 has given detailed description regarding the weapons he had seen in the bands of some of the accused in the first information statement. PW 15 who recorded such statement incorporated the above description in the first information report, We see no material difference in the description of the weapons alleged to have been carried and used by the accused as given by PW 1 in Ext. P1 statement and recorded by PW 15 in Ext. PW 15 who recorded such statement incorporated the above description in the first information report, We see no material difference in the description of the weapons alleged to have been carried and used by the accused as given by PW 1 in Ext. P1 statement and recorded by PW 15 in Ext. P1(a) first information report. But we see sufficient force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no material for PW 15 to attribute any overt act to the 2nd accused in Ext. P1(a) first information report, PW 1 in Ext. P1 statement had not mentioned the name of A2 and his involvement with any weapon. But PW 15 had recorded in the first information report regarding the participation of the 2nd accused as well as the weapon used by him. Learned counsel for the appellant is therefore, justified in his submission that the first information report had been prepared not in accordance with the statement given by PW 1 before PW 15. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants is perfectly justified in his submission that mere is no consistent case for the prosecution regarding the incident. Different versions had been given by different witnesses in the case regarding the incident. As stated earlier, according to Ext. P1 and the evidence of Ext. PW 1, the entire incident happened in the verandah only and not in the southern courtyard But according to PW 2, another injured, only A1 beat deceased Gangadharan Nair with MO 5 iron rod in the verandah and all other accused inflicted injuries on deceased Gangadharan Nair, only in the courtyard. This version is supported by PW 3 also. But according to PW 4, not only A1, but A2 and A3 also inflicted injuries on deceased Gangadharan Nair from the verandah itself and it is only thereafter, they drew him to the southern courtyard and inflicted injuries on him. This version is contrary to the versions spoken to by PW 1 on the one hand and PWs 2 and 3 on the other hand. 20. So also according to PW 2, the injured, she sustained all the injuries after putting her in the southern courtyard. But PW 4 gives an entirely different version regarding the manner and place where PW 2 sustained the injuries. 20. So also according to PW 2, the injured, she sustained all the injuries after putting her in the southern courtyard. But PW 4 gives an entirely different version regarding the manner and place where PW 2 sustained the injuries. According to PW 4, A2 beat PW 2 in the verandah itself and it is thereafter, A1 to A3 drew her to the courtyard wherein the accused inflicted the injuries on her. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove how and in what manner deceased Gangadharan Nair and PW 2 sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants. There is no consistent version regarding the incident spoken to by the eyewitnesses in the case and the evidence adduced is mutually contradictory and therefore, no reliance can be placed on such evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellants in this case. In a case where prosecution leads 2 sets of evidence each one of which contradicts the other it is difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court had considered the evidentiary value of such evidence tendered by the witnesses in its decision in Harchand Singh and another v. State of Haryana ( AIR 1974 SC 344 ) wherein the Supreme Court has held that "It would thus appear that the eyewitness upon whose testimony the prosecution wants to sustain the conviction of the appellants is shown to be an unreliable witness by the other evidence produced by the prosecution. The present is a case wherein one set of prosecution evidence condemns the other set of evidence produced by the prosecution. In the above state of affairs, we find it difficult to secure a firm ground upon winch to base the conviction of the accused appellants." 21. The function of the Court in a criminal trial is to find whether the person arraigned before it as the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. For this purpose, the court scans the material on record to find whether there is any reliable and trustworthy evidence upon the basis of which it is possible to convince to pass the conviction of the accused and to hold that he is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. For this purpose, the court scans the material on record to find whether there is any reliable and trustworthy evidence upon the basis of which it is possible to convince to pass the conviction of the accused and to hold that he is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. If in a case prosecution leads 2 sets of evidence, each one of which contradicts and strikes at the other and shows it to be reliable, the result would necessarily be that the court would be left with no reliable and trustworthy evidence upon the conviction of the accused might be based. Inevitably, the accused would have the benefit of such a situation. 22. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW 5 also to sustain the conviction of the accused. But the evidence of PW 5 did not inspire confidence. His presence in the scene of occurrence was pressed into service only to give a colour that independent witnesses also had witnessed the incident. Admittedly, he is residing 15 kms. away from the residence of Gangadharan Nair. He is an active R. S. S. worker and a close friend of PW 1. It is in evidence that PW 1 also is an active worker of the R. S. S. The reason for his presence at the scene of occurrence at 8.15 p. m. is quite surprising and the explanation offered by PW 5 for his presence is quite unacceptable. Even though his presence at the scene of occurrence was spoken to by PW 1, his coworker, the same was not supported by the oilier eye witnesses examined in the case. Learned Sessions Judge also rightly disbelieved the evidence given by PW 5 when he had deposed that he had witnessed the incident hiding himself in the tapioca cultivation in the southern courtyard. By introducing PW 5 as an eye witness, the prosecution attempted to adduce false evidence in court to secure a conviction of the accused in the case. The learned Sessions Judge also rightly disbelieved the evidence of PW 5, PW 5 alongwith PW 1 had implicated many persons as accused in the case. The learned Sessions Judge also found that accused 7 and 11 to 18 had not committed any offence. It has come cut in evidence that PWs 1 and 5, that they have falsely implicated some of the accused as among the assailants. The learned Sessions Judge also found that accused 7 and 11 to 18 had not committed any offence. It has come cut in evidence that PWs 1 and 5, that they have falsely implicated some of the accused as among the assailants. If the prosecution would go to the extant of implicating innocent persons by giving false evidence in the case, the same would go against the entire prosecution case. Admittedly, in this case, there was enmity between PW 1 and his brother on one side and members of the marxist party including the appellants on the other side due to political rivalry. 23. In this connection, it has to be taken note of that the appellants brought down Exts. D2 to D4 series of C. D. contradictions and those contradictions are very material and adversely affect the veracity of the evidence given by those witnesses in the court. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to find that it is quite unsafe to sustain the conviction of the accused in the light of the evidence of PWs 1 to 4. 24. No reliance can be placed on the recovery of some of the weapons, alleged to have been used by the accused and recovery on the basis of the statement given by some of the accused. It has come out in the evidence of PW 17 that accused 1, 2, 3, 5 and 9 were arrested on 1-9-1987 and accused 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 to 14 and 16 to 13 appeared before court on 8-10-1987. It is the further case of the prosecution that MO 5 iron rod was recovered as per Ext. P4 mahazar on the basis of Ext. P4(a) statement given by the first accused and DW 8 was the attesting witness to the said mahazar. MO 6 chopper was recovered as per Ext. P 4 mahazar by PW 17 on the basis of Ext. P5(a) statement given by the 3rd accused and the said recovery was witnessed by PW 9. MO 7 iron rod was recovered by Ext. P 6 mahazar prepared by PW 17 on the basis of Ext. P6(a) statement given by the 5th accused and PW 10 is the witness for the said mahazar. MO 8 kuruvadi was recovered by PW 17 under Ext. P7 mahazar on the basis of Ext. MO 7 iron rod was recovered by Ext. P 6 mahazar prepared by PW 17 on the basis of Ext. P6(a) statement given by the 5th accused and PW 10 is the witness for the said mahazar. MO 8 kuruvadi was recovered by PW 17 under Ext. P7 mahazar on the basis of Ext. P7(a) statement given by the 9th accused and PW 11 was the attesting witness for the said mahazar. But the said recovery cannot be considered under S.27 of the Evidence Act since in the statement alleged to have been made by the accused which lead to the recovery, there is no concealment of any weapon by any of the accused and therefore, on the basis of such a recovery, it is quite unsafe to sustain the conviction of the accused. 25. In the light of the evidence adduced in the case and the findings i that we arrived at, the prosecution has not proved by legal evidence that the accused/appellants had committed any of the offences with which they were charged. The prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants inflicted the injuries on deceased Gangadharan Nair and on PW 2 as alleged by the prosecution. The evidence adduced in the case is not sufficient to fix the guilt of the appellants. The appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 26. In the above circumstances, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Sessions Judge are unsustainable and the same are therefore, set aside and the appellants - accused are acquitted of all the offences levelled against them. The accused are directed to be set at liberty forthwith in case their continued detention jail is not required in any other case. The appeals are allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are set aside. Since this Court found that the accused appellants are not liable for commission of any offence, much less an offence under S.302 IPC. there is no scope for interference against the conviction of the accused in the suo motu revision initiated by this Court in Crl. R. C. No. 50 of 1993. The reference is answered accordingly.