JUDGMENT K.K. Usha, J. 1. Appeal is at the instance of accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 in Sessions Case No. 92 of 1991 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, Accused 6 and 10 were acquitted. Accused 1 and 4 were convicted under S.302 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Accused 2, 3, 5 and 7 to 9 were also convicted under S.302 read with S.149 I. P. C. and awarded sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. All the accused were found guilty and convicted for offences under S.143 and S.148 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under S.143 and for 2 years under S.148. They were also found guilty and convicted under S.447 and S.506(ii) I. P. C. and awarded punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 1 month and 5 years respectively. 9th accused was found guilty of offence under S.326 I. P. C. and accused 1 to 3, 7 and 8 were also found guilty of offences under S.326 read with S.149 I. P. C. and convicted thereunder. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. Accused Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 were convicted under S.342 I. P. C. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 and 9 were also convicted under S.342 read with S.149 I. P. C. They are all sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: The accused who are all Marxist Party workers chased deceased Manikandan, who was a worker of R. S. S., on 4-3-1991 at about 10 a.m. Manikandan got into the house of PW 1 and locked the door. Accused threatened PW 1 that unless Manikandan was sent out of the house, her house will be burned and she and members of her family would be done away with. They were not prepared to withdraw on the appeal made by PW 1. When they repeated their threat, PW 1 requested Manikandan to leave their house so as to save herself and members of her family. Manikandan thereupon came out of the house with folded hands and he pleaded the accused not to harm him. But accused 1, 5, 7 and 8 dragged him out of the compound of PW 1 to the road. Manikandan thereupon came out of the house with folded hands and he pleaded the accused not to harm him. But accused 1, 5, 7 and 8 dragged him out of the compound of PW 1 to the road. Accused 2 and 3 pulled out sticks from the fencing and beat Manikandan who tried to ward off the blows with his hands. At that time, 9th accused inflicted two cuts on his hand with a chopper and again inflicted 2 cuts on his leg. Manikandan thereupon fell on his face. At that time, accused 4 and 1 inflicted stab injuries on the back of Manikandan and other accused threw stones at him. Accused then fled from the scene towards the road to the temple. 3. PW 20, Sub Inspector of Police, Hemambikanagar, on getting information about some trouble going on at Vallikode, came to the place of occurrence at about 10.30 a.m. He found Manikandan lying on the road in front of the house of PW 1 with bleeding injuries. Manikandan was taken to the District Hospital, Palakkad and reaching there, he was declared dead. 4. PW 20 went back to the scene of occurrence and recorded First Information Statement, Ext. P1 from PW 1. A crime was registered and Ext. P29 is the F.I.R. PW 21 who took up the investigation, conducted the inquest. Ext. P4 is the inquest report and Ext. P5 is the scene mahazar. Photographs of the dead body as well as scene of occurrence were taken by PW 15 and PW 14 respectively. Post mortem was conducted by PW 17 and Ext. P26 is the post mortem certificate. Accused were arrested on 6-3-1991 and 7-3-1991. On the basis of information furnished by 1st accused, MO 2 knife was recovered as per Ext. P8 mahazar and MO 1 knife was recovered as per Ext. P7 mahazar as per the information furnished by the 4th accused. On the basis of the information furnished by 9th accused, MO 3 chopper was recovered as per Ext. P9 mahazar. Charge was framed against the accused under S.143, 148, 449, 506(ii), 342 and 302 read with S.149 I. P. C. All the accused pleaded not guilty. When questioned under S.313 of Cr. P. C., they repeated their plea of innocence. 5. P9 mahazar. Charge was framed against the accused under S.143, 148, 449, 506(ii), 342 and 302 read with S.149 I. P. C. All the accused pleaded not guilty. When questioned under S.313 of Cr. P. C., they repeated their plea of innocence. 5. The main contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution in this case is inadequate to come to the conclusion that the appellants have committed the offence as alleged against them. Since the deceased belonged to R. S. S. and since there was a rivalry between R. S. S. and Marxist Party, it was assumed that workers of Marxist Party were responsible for the death of Manikandan. On the basis of such assumption, according to the appellants, they were implicated in this case. Appellants attacked the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that it has been proved beyond shadow of doubt that they had committed murder of deceased Manikandan and other offences for which they stood charged. They contend that the evidence in this case would clearly show that there was nothing to point at the accused or at any rate in the nature of the evidence, it should have been held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. It is not argued before us that Manikandan did not die on 4-3-1991 of injuries as found in Ext. P26 post mortem certificate. The only dispute was whether the appellants were responsible for the injuries sustained by deceased Manikandan. 6. Prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6 as occurrence witnesses of whom PWs 3 and 4 turned hostile. PW 1 Madhavi, is the star witness of the prosecution who speaks to the entire incident as alleged by the prosecution. It is in her house, deceased Manikandan found shelter when he was alleged to have been chased by the accused. According to PW 1, on 4-3-1991 in the morning by about 10 o'clock, when she and her children were taking food, deceased Manikandan came running into her house and he locked the door. He was being chased by accused 1 to 10 all of whom belong to the same locality. She identified all the accused. She stated that the accused came together and they threatened to kill her and her children and set fire to her house. He was being chased by accused 1 to 10 all of whom belong to the same locality. She identified all the accused. She stated that the accused came together and they threatened to kill her and her children and set fire to her house. She asked Manikandan to go out of the house. Accused again threatened to set fire to her house. PW 1 told the accused that Manikandan would come out and that they may leave. But, they refused to go. She therefore requested Manikandan to get out of the house otherwise, she and her children would die. Manikandan thereupon got outside the house with folded hands. At that time, accused 1, 5, 7 and 8 together caught hold of Manikandan by his hands and dragged him away. Manikandan implored not to harm him. He was then taken to the road on the southern side of the gale. Accused 2 and 3 pulled out sticks from the fence and beat Manikandan which he warded off with his hands. Then, 9th accused gave one or two cuts on the hand of Manikandan. Blood started flowing out from the cut injury. There after, 9th accused gave one or two cuts on his legs also. Then, Manikantan fell on his face. Thereafter, accused 4 and 1 stabbed Manikandan on his back five or six times. Other accused threw stones at him. The accused then ran away towards the road to the temple with the knives and chopper. After some time, police came and Manikandan was taken in their jeep. She heard after that Manikandan has died. She narrated the incident to the police and the police wrote it down on which she signed. She identified her signature in Ext. P1 First Information Statement. According to her, Manikandan was killed due to party dispute. Police had questioned her two or three times and she showed the place of occurrence to the police. She identified MO 1 as the knife used by 4th accused, MO 2 as the knife used by 1st accused and MO 3 as the chopper in the hands of the 9th accused. According to her, some of her neighbours including Rajagopalan (PW 3), Dinaprabha, Mohanan, her neighbour Babu, his friend, Moidoon and those who were in the tea shop had witnessed the incident. 7. According to her, some of her neighbours including Rajagopalan (PW 3), Dinaprabha, Mohanan, her neighbour Babu, his friend, Moidoon and those who were in the tea shop had witnessed the incident. 7. On cross examination, she stated that when Manikandan came to her house, she was taking food along with her children and son inlaw Mohanan sitting in the kitchen which is on the south eastern part of her house. The gate of her house opening to the road is on the northern side. At the time of occurrence, her son inlaw Mohanan got afraid and ran away through the eastern side of the compound where there was no fencing. There are four rooms in between front portion of her house and the kitchen. She further states that when Manikandan went out of the house, she was in the kitchen. The distance between the frontage of her house and the fencing on the northern side is 20 ft. The height of the fence fells short of height of a man. The incident happened 8 ft, away on the southern side of the gate. There are windows on both sides of the door opening to the northern side of the house. When Manikandan went out of the house, she closed the door. According to her, she saw the incident through the window on the eastern side of the door opening to outside from the northern room of the house. PW 1 would swear that when the incident occurred, about 60 people had gathered at her gate. According to PW 1, her daughter, who was at home having come for her delivery, had not witnessed the incident. When the incident was going on, she had ran away to the neighbouring house with her baby. She admitted that her son Lakshmanan is an active worker of R. S. S. and Manikandan used to come to their house. 8. When the daughter of PW 1 was examined as PW 2. she has stated that when Manikandan got into their house, they were all having their food in the kitchen. She repeats the same version given by PW 1 as to how Manikandan was dragged out of their compound to the road and how he was beaten, inflicted cut injuries and stab injuries and how stones were thrown at him by the accused. She repeats the same version given by PW 1 as to how Manikandan was dragged out of their compound to the road and how he was beaten, inflicted cut injuries and stab injuries and how stones were thrown at him by the accused. According to her, after the accused ran away from the place, she went to her neighbouring house with her baby. Thereafter, the police came and she was questioned. But, in cross examination, she admits that till the entire incident was over, she was in the kitchen of the house and the door of the kitchen was closed. Mother was at the front of the house. After the incident, she opened the door and went out and what she has stated about the incident was in accordance with the information given by her mother. From her evidence, it is also seen that from the kitchen, opening is to another room on the northern side and not to outside and only through the northern room, one can get out of the house. It is therefore clear that the witness who was sitting in the kitchen throughout the occurrence, could not have seen the different overt acts alleged against each accused. Since PW 2 was only repeating what her mother told her regarding the incident, prosecution cannot derive any support from her evidence to prove that Manikandan died at the hands of the accused. We cannot agree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of PW 2 corroborates PW 1. 9. PW 3, who was examined as an eye witness, has deposed that he has not witnessed the incident. He was then declared as hostile and cross examined by the prosecution. He was confronted with his statements before the police to the effect that he had witnessed the entire incident including a quarrel between the deceased and 9th accused in front of the tea shop of Moideenkutty. He denied all the statements. According to him, on that day, he had gone to Valiangadi where he has a tea shop. 10. Moideenkutty (PW 4) owner of the tea shop, also turned hostile and denied having stated before the police that a quarrel had occurred between 9th accused and deceased in his shop on the morning and thereafter, he witnessed the entire incident. According to him, the incident happened at a distance of 20 ft. 10. Moideenkutty (PW 4) owner of the tea shop, also turned hostile and denied having stated before the police that a quarrel had occurred between 9th accused and deceased in his shop on the morning and thereafter, he witnessed the entire incident. According to him, the incident happened at a distance of 20 ft. from his tea shop that the incident could be witnessed if one stands in front of his tea shop, but on that day his shop was closed. The distance spoken to by him is not in accordance with Ext. P5 scene mahazar. 11. PW 5 resides at Palakkad, 15 miles away from the place of incident. According to him, he came to Vallikode to see 'vela' festival in a temple at Vallikode. He claims that his father's 'tharwad' is at Vallikode. 'Vela' in the temple was on 3rd March and the incident happened on 4th March. PW 5 would swear that Manikandan was his friend. He saw Manikandan in the temple and Manikandan invited him for tea. Thus, PW 5, PW 6 (Sudevan) and Manikandan went to the tea shop of PW 4. 9th accused was there in the tea shop. There was exchange of words between Manikandan and 9th accused. Pursuant thereto, 9th accused got up and left the place. Manikandan also followed him. PWs 5 and 6 remained in the shop. After three quarter of an hour, they saw Manikandan being chased by 8 to 10 persons. Manikandan got into the nearby house of Madhavi (PW 1) and closed the door. Those who were chasing Manikandan threatened to kill Madhavi and to set fire to her house. Later, he saw Manikandan coming out of the house with folded hands. Then four persons dragged him by hand to the road and two others pulled out sticks from the fence and beat Manikandan. 9th accused inflicted cuts on the hand and leg of Manikandan with a chopper. Manikandan then fell on his face. 4th and 1st accused then stabbed him. Then, all the others pelted stones at Manikandan and they ran away towards the side of the temple. He identified the accused as persons who chased Manikandan. He identified accused Nos. l, 4 and 9 by name. He has stated that deceased Manikandan was an R. S. S. worker and the accused are Marxist workers. 12. Then, all the others pelted stones at Manikandan and they ran away towards the side of the temple. He identified the accused as persons who chased Manikandan. He identified accused Nos. l, 4 and 9 by name. He has stated that deceased Manikandan was an R. S. S. worker and the accused are Marxist workers. 12. Even though PW 5 claims that he had come to see 'vela' in the temple at Vallikode as his father's tharwad was at Vallikode, in cross examination, he had to admit that he did not know the name or the location of his father's tharwad at Vallikode. He was born and brought up at Chakkanthara, that is 15 miles away from Vallikode. He admits that he does not go to Vallikode frequently. He claimed that he had visited the houses of Prabhu and Manikandan three months back. He is not a worker of R. S. S. and he knows only those who were introduced to him by Manikandan. Pointing out accused Nos. 9, 10 and 2 on different occasions one year back, Manikandan had told him that they are persons who wanted to beat him up. He admits that he does not know the house name and father's name of the accused. When he was confronted with his statement in the case diary, referring to accused 7 and 8 as Krishnan, S/o. Kali and Kavumparambil Krishnankutty, he denied having stated so to the Circle Inspector. He was also confronted with his statement to the Circle Inspector where he has given the father's name of accused 5 and 6. PW 5 further states that he came to know the name of PW 1 through Manikandan who is a friend of Vellayappan, son of PW 1. He has not gone to the house of PW 1 and according to him, the house of PW 1 faces towards the east. The above statement of PW 5 is directly against the evidence of PW 1 as, according to her, the house faces towards the north. At this juncture, it has to be pointed out that according to the First Information Statement given by PW 1, PW 5 was a guest her neighbour's house and PW 6 was his friend. Neither PW 5 nor PW 6 has a case that they had gone to the house of the neighbour of PW 1 as a guest or otherwise. 13. Ext. Neither PW 5 nor PW 6 has a case that they had gone to the house of the neighbour of PW 1 as a guest or otherwise. 13. Ext. P20 series of photographs would show that there is fairly thick tree growth on the northern and western side of the property of PW 1. If that be so, it is doubtful whether PW 5 could have seen anything which had happened inside the compound of PW 1 from the tea shop of PW 4 which is at a distance of 25 meters away from the place of incident and on the same side of the house of PW 1. His admission in the box that he does not know the house name or father's name of accused and at the same time his providing with the house name and father's name of the accused to the police in his case diary statements would give force to the argument of the appellants that PW 5 was not at all present in the locality on the day of occurrence and he is being fixed as an occurrence witness as part of the conspiracy to implicate the appellants. We well refer to the evidence of PW 5 identifying the weapons alleged to have been used by the accused at a later stage while considering the arguments on recovery under S.27. 14. PW 6, Sudeven, also does not belong to the locality where the incident happened. He claims that he came to Vallikode along with PW 5 to see the festival in the temple. Next day after the festival, they met Manikandan near the tea shop of PW 4 and Manikandan invited them to have tea, while, according to PW 5, they met Manikandan at the temple premises. PW 6 narrated how accused No. 9 came to the tea shop and all the other subsequent transactions more or less in the same way as described by PW 5. But, according to PW 5, after Manikandan went out of the tea shop following Unnikrishnan, they waited for three quarter of an hour in the tea shop before they saw Manikandan being chased by the accused. According to PW 6, ten minutes after Manikandan left the tea shop, he was seen being chased by the accused. But, according to PW 5, after Manikandan went out of the tea shop following Unnikrishnan, they waited for three quarter of an hour in the tea shop before they saw Manikandan being chased by the accused. According to PW 6, ten minutes after Manikandan left the tea shop, he was seen being chased by the accused. P W6 has no case that he and PW 5 were standing in front of the tea shop while the incident happened. But, according to him, the incident happened on the opposite side of the tea shop of PW 4 which is not in accordance with the prosecution case. He admits that he is a sympathiser of R. S. S. and he is an accused in a criminal case. According to him, while Manikandan was being cut and stabbed, other accused were standing around him and he claims that in spite of 10 accused surrounding Manikandan, he could see Manikandan being stabbed while he was lying on the ground. He has further stated that after the accused left the place, they did not go near Manikandan nor verify whether he was dead. They ran away from the place fearing that they would also be harmed. They did not inform the police also. PW 6 states that Manikandan had told him about the 9th accused but he does not know his house name. When he was confronted with his statement in the case diary that when questioned by the police, he had referred to 9th accused as Cherott Unnikrishnan, he denied the statement. So also, he claimed that he does not know to which place the first accused belongs and he does not know the names of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. He was then confronted with his statement in the case diary referring to accused Nos. 1 to 4 as Katteparambil Mani and his brothers Aaru, Kannan and Balan. In the same way, when he denies in the box that he does know the names of other accused, in his case diary statements, he has referred to accused Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 as sons of Velan, son of Kali and Kazhuparambil Krishnankutty respectively. 1 to 4 as Katteparambil Mani and his brothers Aaru, Kannan and Balan. In the same way, when he denies in the box that he does know the names of other accused, in his case diary statements, he has referred to accused Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 as sons of Velan, son of Kali and Kazhuparambil Krishnankutty respectively. So also, when he states in the witness box that he does not know the names of the accused who dragged Manikandan from the compound of PW 1 to the road, in his statement in the case diary with which he was confronted, he has referred to the names of accused 5, 6 and 8 as the persons who dragged Manikandan to the road. In his statement before the police, he has referred to accused 2 and 3 by name as persons who had pulled out sticks from the fence and beat the deceased. The evidence given by PW 6 identifying the weapons will be considered at a later stage. 15. Admittedly, PWs 5 and 6 belong to a place about 15 miles away from the place of occurrence. The reasons given by them to be present at Vallikode so as to witness the incident, are not fully convincing. Even the manner in which they became acquainted with Manikandan and how Manikandan was alleged to have referred to them about some of the accused one year prior to the incident as persons who intend to harm him, also look quite suspicions. They are referring to the accused with their house name and father's name etc., in the statements before police with which they were confronted in cross examination, render credibility to the case put forward by the appellants that the prosecution has framed them as witnesses in support of the prosecution case. 16. The conduct of PWs 5 and 6 after the incident is to be specially commented upon. According to both of them, they witnessed accused beating, cutting and stabbing Manikandan and saw Manikandan lying on the road with bleeding injuries. They also saw the accused running away from the place of occurrence. But, they did not go to the rescue of Manikandan either before or after he sustained injuries. The explanation offered by PW 6 is that they were afraid that they would also be harmed by the accused. They also saw the accused running away from the place of occurrence. But, they did not go to the rescue of Manikandan either before or after he sustained injuries. The explanation offered by PW 6 is that they were afraid that they would also be harmed by the accused. But, we find the above explanation is unacceptable as immediately after the incident, even according to PW 5 and PW 6, the accused had left the place. The conduct of these witnesses is extremely strange. According to them, they were invited for tea by Manikandan and it was from the tea shop, Manikandan went out following the 9th accused. PW 5 would state that they waited in the tea shop for three quarter of an hour and according to PW 6, their waiting was for ten minutes before they saw Manikandan being chased by the accused. Apart from the fact that they did not go forward to help Manikandan, according to these witnesses, after the incident, they did not even bother to find out whether Manikandan was dead or alive. They have not gone to the police station to report about the incident. On the other hand, both of them fled from the place of occurrence to their houses. This conduct of the witnesses, we find, is against normal human behaviour, and makes us suspicious about their story that they had witnessed the incident. In Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 21, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider a similar situation and it was held that such conduct on the part of the witness would make his evidence not of an inspiring nature. We find that the learned Session Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 before their testimony in support of the prosecution was accepted in toto. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that even the presence of PWs 5 and 6 at the scene of occurrence at the relevant point of time cannot he said to be natural and was therefore doubtful. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that even the presence of PWs 5 and 6 at the scene of occurrence at the relevant point of time cannot he said to be natural and was therefore doubtful. The several contradictions in their evidence, some of them very serious in nature, including those relating to their identification of the weapons, compel as to take the view that it will not be safe to rely on the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 to enter conviction against the accused. The doubt which we are entertaining regarding the presence of PWs 5 and 6 at the place of occurrence and also on the question whether they could have seen all that happened inside the compound of PW 1 should enure to the benefit of the accused. 17. Then, we are left with only PW 1 as the occurrence witness. Admittedly, her son is a worker of R. S. S. Deceased Manikandan also a worker of R. S. S. was a friend of her son. The prosecution case is that the accused murdered Manikandan due to political enmity. In this background, extreme caution has to be taken to find the accused guilty under S.302 I. P. C. solely on the basis of the evidence of PW 1, unless there are other corroborative evidence apart from PW 5 and PW 6. 18. According to learned Public Prosecutor, Ext. P1 First Information Statement given by PW 1 within about two hours of the occurrence, where she has referred to all necessary details regarding the accused and the part played by them, has strong corroborative force. So also, according to the prosecution, recovery of the weapons, MO 1, and MO 2 knifes and MO 3 Chopper pursuant to the information given by accused Nos. 4, 1 and 9 are strong circumstances justifying the conviction entered against the accused by the learned Sessions Judge. 19. It is contended by the appellants that Ext. P1 First Information Statement was not given by PW 1 at 12.15 p.m. on the date of occurrence at her house as claimed by the prosecution. On the other hand, it was created only later, signed from the police station and the First Information Report was sent to the Magistrate only on 5-3-1991. P1 First Information Statement was not given by PW 1 at 12.15 p.m. on the date of occurrence at her house as claimed by the prosecution. On the other hand, it was created only later, signed from the police station and the First Information Report was sent to the Magistrate only on 5-3-1991. According to the appellants, PW 1 whose son is an active worker of R. S. S., was tutored to give evidence implicating the appellants only for the reason that they are Marxist Party workers. It is seen that the First Information Report (Ext. P29) was signed by the Magistrate only on 5-3-1991, The seal is also that of 5-3-1991. In a different handwriting and ink, it is seen written: 6 p.m. 4-3-91'. On this basis the prosecution would contend that the First Information Report had reached the court on 4-3-1991. We find it difficult to accept the above contention as the prosecution is not able to explain as to who had made the endorsement on 4-3-1991. 20. A close examination of Ext. P1 raises a doubt as to whether it was given by PW 1 within two hours of the occurrence. Apart from giving the names of all accused and the sequence of the events in detail, she also gives a list of names of persons who, according to her, had witnessed the incident. They are Rajagopalan (PW 3) and his wife staying in front of her house, Mohan who is running a provision store, Babu, who was a guest in her neighbouring house and his friend, tea shop owner Moitheen and those who were in the lea shop. It is admitted by the prosecution that Babu and his friend referred by her are PW 5 and P W6. In their evidence, PWs 5 and 6 have stated that they witnessed the incident from the tea shop of Moideen which is at a distance of 25 meters from the place of occurrence, according to Ext. P5 mahazar. The definite case of PW 1 is that she had witnessed the whole incident from within her house through the window. Therefore, she could not have seen PWs 5 and 6 watching the incident from the tea shop. According to PWs 5 and 6, they did not go to the place of occurrence where Manikandan was lying injured nor did they even verify whether he was dead. Therefore, she could not have seen PWs 5 and 6 watching the incident from the tea shop. According to PWs 5 and 6, they did not go to the place of occurrence where Manikandan was lying injured nor did they even verify whether he was dead. On the other hand, immediately after the incident, they fled from that place to their houses. If that be so, how could PW 1 give a statement at 12.15 noon that Babu and his friend had witnessed the incident? Apart from the above, PWs 5 and 6 have no case that PW 5 was a guest in the neighbouring house of PW 1. On the other hand, they claim to have slept in the temple premises after the 'vela' and were invited by deceased for taking tea at Moideen's tea shop. 21. It is contended by the prosecution that crime No. as 36/91 has been given in the inquest report as well as in the post mortem report prepared on 4-3-1991, that crime number could have been given only at the time of registering First Information Report and therefore there is no merit in the contention that F.I. Statement was not recorded at 12.15 p.m. on 4-3-1991. This contention takes us to the serious irregularities in the inquest report Ext. P4 pointed out by the appellants. No part of Ext. P4 is seen written in the prescribed form. Plain sheets are used. The form prescribed was made available to us. It contains question Nos. 1 to 27 which are to be answered in the inquest report. In the first page of the prescribed form, it is specifically directed as follows: "(1) In framing this report the questions below should be carefully answered. (2) Questions 20 to 26 apply to the Railway Police. (3) Case diary forms should be used as inner sheets for answering these questions." Apart from the fact that the prescribed form is not used in Ext. P4, instead of case diary forms, plain paper is used as inner sheets for answering the questions. The prescribed form contains serial numbers. Apparently, the insistence to use such prescribed form and also the case diary forms as inner sheets is meant as a check to see that no tampering is possible with the inquest report at a later stage. In Ext. P4, the entire report is written on plain sheets. The prescribed form contains serial numbers. Apparently, the insistence to use such prescribed form and also the case diary forms as inner sheets is meant as a check to see that no tampering is possible with the inquest report at a later stage. In Ext. P4, the entire report is written on plain sheets. On going through the inquest report, we find that it does not contain the gist of the statements of eye witnesses. Going by Ext. P1, which, according to the prosecution, was available at the time when inquest report was prepared, PW 1 was an eye witness to the incident and she has given the names of several persons who, according to her, had witnessed the occurrence. Even the gist of the statement of PW 1 as an eye witness to the occurrence is not seen incorporated in Ext. P4 and it is not signed by any eye witness. On the other hand, her name is referred against question No. 4, 'by whom last seen alive, where and when and in whose company and whether he carried any valuable property with him'. The above question is answered as, 'Madhavi, w/o. Thankappan, 48 years, Palackalparambu, Vellikode and others saw Manikandan being manhandled by accused in this case, Mani, Aaru, Kannan, Balan, Rankan, Chandran, Krishnankutty, Krishnankutty, s/o. Chandrababu, Unnikrishnan and Kili Balakrishnan on 4-3-1991 at 10.15 a.m.'. As answer to question No. 10, 'abstract of evidence of other persons examined', the gist of the statement of none of the eye witnesses has been given. There is no reference to the accused chasing the deceased to the house of PW 1, their threat to PW 1 and her family when the deceased locked himself inside their house, the details of the overt act on the part of each accused, beating the deceased with sticks pulled out from the fence and stoning him etc., eventhough all these details are seen given in Ext. P1. Against question No. 12, 'if any violence, apparently why what weapons', the answer given is, 'prima facie, it is seen that the injuries are inflicted by cutting with chopper and stabbing with knife'. For the question 12(a), 'if any person is suspected who why', no answer is seen given. It is true that reference is made to the accused in the answers against question Nos. 4, 9, 10 and 11. For the question 12(a), 'if any person is suspected who why', no answer is seen given. It is true that reference is made to the accused in the answers against question Nos. 4, 9, 10 and 11. Question No. 9 relates to identification by relatives, question No. 10 is, 'abstract of evidence of other persons examined' and question No. 11 is, "apparent cause of death'. In answer to these questions, referring to the statement of Sukumaran, brother of the deceased and one Prabhakaran, who were not witnesses to the occurrence, it is stated that they came to know that the accused who are marxists, had murdered Manikandan due to political animosity by cutting and stabbing him. Same answer is given against question No. 11 also. There is no reference to the accused beating the deceased or stoning him. If Ext. P1 was available at the time of preparation of inquest report, there was no reason to omit all the details regarding the incident as given by PW 1 to be included in the inquest report. So also, the details regarding the overt act of each accused could have been given cm the basis of Ext. P1 statement. According to the appellants absence of these details would create a serious doubt whether Ext. P 1 was available at the time when the inquest report was prepared. The contention raised by the appellants is that it was assumed that the murder was committed by workers of Marxist Party and on the basis of such assumption, the names of the accused were included and Ext. P1 was prepared only later, after deliberations assigning separate role to each accused. Since that process was not completed at the time of preparation of Ext. P4 inquest report, details of the overt act alleged against each accused are not mentioned therein. So also, there is no reference about beating of the deceased and stoning him by the accused. The mere fact that crime number is given in the inquest report, it cannot he taken that at the time when inquest was conducted, Ext. P1 had come into existence. Firstly it is submitted, in the inquest report which is prepared in its entirety in plain paper without using the prescribed form, there is no difficulty in giving a crime number at a subsequent stage. P1 had come into existence. Firstly it is submitted, in the inquest report which is prepared in its entirety in plain paper without using the prescribed form, there is no difficulty in giving a crime number at a subsequent stage. Secondly it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that as soon as the crime is reported, a number is assigned and which number could be made use of in the inquest report as well as in the post mortem report. It is submitted that there is no evidence in this case to show that the F.I. Report was sent along with the body when it was sent for post mortem. There is also no explanation forthcoming regarding the delay in sending the F.I. Report to the court. 22. In L/NK Meharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, JT 1994 (3) SC 440, Supreme Court had occasion to consider the effect of delayed submission of the First Information Report in the court as also the inquest report prepared without incorporating all the necessary details. It was observed as follows: "It also does not contain the names of the eye witnesses or the gist of the statement of the eye witnesses. It does not reveal as to how many shots had been fired or how many weapons had been used. The inquest report is not signed by any of the eye witnesses, although the investigating officer has categorically asserted that Kamlesh and Shiv Charan were present at the place of occurrence when he visited and he recorded their statements. It he had not actually recorded their statements, there is no reason why the details which we have found missing from the inquest report should not have been there. There is yet another factor which is very relevant. The prosecution led no evidence to show as to when did the copy of the FIR, Special Report, which was required to be despatched under the statutory provisions of S.154 Cr. P. C. read with 157 Cr. P. C. promptly, to the Magistrate was actually despatched. There is no evidence either to show as to when the copy of the FIR was received by the Magistrate. PW 8 has remained singularly silent on this aspect of the case. P. C. read with 157 Cr. P. C. promptly, to the Magistrate was actually despatched. There is no evidence either to show as to when the copy of the FIR was received by the Magistrate. PW 8 has remained singularly silent on this aspect of the case. According to PW 3, the police inspector had taken her thumb impression at the site, but the prosecution has withheld that document from scrutiny of the courts, for reasons best known to it...... It was the duty of PW 8 to explain as to on which document he had obtained the thumb impression of the widow of the deceased at the spot and produce that document for scrutiny of the courts. He did not do so." On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that it is not necessary to give the names of eye witnesses and show all the details of the overt acts committed by the accused in the inquest report. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853 , where the following observation in earlier judgment in Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1975 SC 1252 was followed: "A perusal of this provision would clearly show that the object of the proceedings under S.174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted appears to us to be foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under S.174. In these circumstances, therefore, neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to have mentioned these details in the inquest report." He further submitted that the inquest in this case was conducted not at the place of occurrence but at the mortuary in the hospital and therefore an account of eye witnesses" statement or their signature could not find a place in the inquest report. Therefore, according to him, the prosecution case cannot be rejected only for the reasons of the alleged defects in the inquest report But, the learned Public Prosecutor could offer no explanation as to why the prescribed forms were not used in preparing the inquest report. 22A. It is true that merely on the basis of certain defects in the inquest report, the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown over board. But, we deprecate the manner in which inquest report is prepared in this case. Not only that, case diary forms were not used as inner sheets for answering the questions, the prescribed form was not utilised for the opening sheets also. The entire report was written on plain sheets and there is justification in the apprehension expressed by the appellants that any page except the last one, could have been substituted later. The various defects in the inquest report pointed out by the appellants, eventhough not fatal to the prosecution case, would show that report was prepared without due care and caution. 22B. In the present case, PW 1 has deposed that two days after the incident, she had gone to the police station and signed certain papers. There is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the prosecution as to the nature of the documents in which PW 1 had occasion to sign in the police station. According to the prosecution, Ext. P1 statement was taken from her residence. The failure to explain the nature of the document which she had signed in the police station creates a doubt as to whether Ext. P1 was prepared at the police station at a later point of time. 22C. Reference to PWs 5 and 6 and others in Ext. P1 as persons having witnessed the incident when PW 1 could not have seen them witnessing the incident, coupled with the statement of PW 1 that she had signed papers at the police station two days after the death of Manikandan and also the delay in sending F.I. Report to the court enhance the degree of probability of the version put forward by the defence that Ext. P1 was not given by PW 1 at 12.30 on 4-3-1991 as claimed by the prosecution but only at a later point of time and that the appellants are implicated therein only because they are workers of Marxist Party. P1 was not given by PW 1 at 12.30 on 4-3-1991 as claimed by the prosecution but only at a later point of time and that the appellants are implicated therein only because they are workers of Marxist Party. Since defence has been successful in creating a serious doubt as to whether Ext. P1 was brought into existence after due deliberations subsequent to the time it bears, it may not be safe to rely on the same as a corroborative material to support the evidence of PW 1. 23. According to the prosecution, recovery of the weapons MO 1 and MO 2 knives and MO 3 chopper, eventhough may not strictly come under S.27 of the Evidence Act, will be an incriminating circumstance lending credence to the prosecution case under S.8 illustration (i) Evidence Act. Accused Nos. 1,3 to 6 and 9 were arrested on 6-3-1991 at 7 a.m. and the other accused were arrested on 7-3-1991 at 6.10 p.m. According to the prosecution, MO 1 knife with which 4th accused stabbed Manikandan was recovered under Ext. P7 mahazar at 4.25 p.m. on 6-3-1991 from the property of one Pazhanan pursuant to information given by the accused, MO 2 knife was recovered from the same place at 4 p.m. on 3-6-1991 under Ext. P8 mahazar pursuant to information given by the 1st accused who, according to prosecution, stabbed Manikandan with it. Under Ext. P9 mahazar MO 3 chopper with which 9th accused is alleged to have cut the deceased, was recovered at 4.55 p.m. on 6-3-1991 from the same place on the basis of information given by the accused. PWs 10 and 11 were examined as witnesses to Exts. P7, P8 and P9 mahazar. PW 10 was declared as hostile. According to PW 11, he signed in Exts. P7, P8 and P9 as he was asked by the police to sign in those papers as evidence of their visit to Paniampadam to enquire about some trouble happened there. PW 11 is not seen declared as hostile. It is submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the evidence of PW 21 the investigating officer, is sufficient to accept Exts. P7, P8 and P9. Reliance is placed on Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 SCC (Cri) 56 in support of the above contention. Even if this contention is accepted, prosecution has a further hurdle to face for using recovery under Exts. P7, P8 and P9. Reliance is placed on Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 SCC (Cri) 56 in support of the above contention. Even if this contention is accepted, prosecution has a further hurdle to face for using recovery under Exts. P7, P8 and P9 as corroborative evidence. 24. According to PW 5, on coming to know about the arrest of the accused on 6-3-1991, he went to police station along with PW 6 by about 3 o'clock in the afternoon and was shown MO 1 and MO 2 knives, MO 3 chopper and MO 4 and MO 5 sticks. The weapons were seen laid on a table in the police station and PW 5 noted blood on the knives and chopper. Going by the evidence of PW 21, MO 1, MO 2 and MO 3 were recovered under Exts. P7, P8 and P9 mahazar only after 4 p.m. on 6-3-1991. If that be so, PW 5 could not have seen the weapons at 3 p.m. in the police station. On the other hand, if, as a matter of fact, he has seen the weapons at 3 p.m. in the police station, then, it would support the case of the appellants that the entire recovery proceedings are stage managed by the prosecution and cannot be relied on as an incriminating material against the appellants. When PW 5 swears that he found MO 1 and MO 2 knives blood stained, Ext. P30 certificate of chemical analysis would show that there was no human blood on MO 1 and MO 2. Regarding sticks, MO 4, MO 5 and MO 14 series and stones MO 6 series, PW 6 would swear that police took these MOs in a jeep to the house of the witness on 5-3-1991 and they were shown to him from the jeep. He claims to have noted blood on the stones when PW 21 has no such case. According to PW 6, on 5-3-1991, he and PW 5 went to the police station by about 3 p.m. and saw PW 5 being shown the weapons and sticks, whereas the recovery under Exts. P7, P8 and P9 were only after 4 p.m. on 6-3-1991. According to PW 6, on 5-3-1991, he and PW 5 went to the police station by about 3 p.m. and saw PW 5 being shown the weapons and sticks, whereas the recovery under Exts. P7, P8 and P9 were only after 4 p.m. on 6-3-1991. Thus, the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 raises serious doubt as to whether recovery of the weapons MO 1, MO 2 and MO 3 could be treated as an incriminating circumstance lending credence to the prosecution case. Under such circumstances, benefit of doubt should go to accused. We therefore hold that recovery of the weapons is of no help to substantiate the prosecution case either under S.27 or S.8 of the Evidence Act. 25. Now, we will consider whether the evidence of PW 1 without any corroboration, is sufficient to prove the prosecution case and sustain the conviction against the appellants. As mentioned earlier, PW. 1's son is an R. S. S. worker and he was friendly with the deceased who was also an active worker of R. S. S. It is true that merely on the above ground, the evidence of PW 1 need not be rejected. But, certain aspects of the evidence of PW 1 give an impression that she is deposing to suit the prosecution case deliberately. She had admitted that at the time of occurrence, there were about 60 people collected in front of her gate. If that be so, it is doubtful whether she could see the entire incident a she had narrated in the box. The injuries were inflicted on the deceased outside her compound. The place of occurrence is on the southern side of the gate opening from her compound to the road. There is a fence on the northern side of her compound by the side of the road. It is true that she has stated that her house is slightly on a higher plane than the road. But, even then, if the accused were inflicting the injuries on the deceased by surrounding him and if there were about 60 people collected at the place of occurrence as stated by her, it is highly improbable that she could see all the details of the overt acts alleged to have been committed by the accused. But, even then, if the accused were inflicting the injuries on the deceased by surrounding him and if there were about 60 people collected at the place of occurrence as stated by her, it is highly improbable that she could see all the details of the overt acts alleged to have been committed by the accused. She admits in cross examination that she could not say on which ankle of the deceased the 9th accused inflicted cut injuries as it was not possible for her to see. If that be so, it is doubtful whether she could have seen accused 4 and 1 inflicting stab injuries on the deceased, as, by that time, the deceased had fallen down and he was surrounded by all the accused. 26. As mentioned earlier, she has stated that after the incident, she had gone to the police station and she was shown the chopper and knives with which the injuries were inflicted on the deceased. It is improbable that she could have seen these weapons clearly from inside the house so as to identify the same later. Ext. P20 series of photographs would also show that there are plant growth by the side of the fence between the compound of PW 1 and the road. She has stated in cross examination that she knows Babu staying at Chakkanthara. But, she does not know his friend Sudevan. It is relevant to note at this juncture the reference made by her in Ext. P1 F.I. Statement about Babu as a guest in her neighbouring house and his friend. As mentioned earlier, PWs 5, and 6 have no case that PW 5 was a guest in the neighbouring house of PW 1. PW 5 does not claim that he is acquainted with PW 1. He has stated that he has not gone to her house and he knew the name of PW 1 as was mentioned by Manikandan. While PW 1 says that she does not know Babu's friend, when examined as PW 6, Babu's friend Sudevan has stated that he knows PW 1 having seen her in the vegetable market and that he had gone to her house four five months back to inform about the death of the son of one Chandran. Taking into consideration the entire evidence of PW 1, we find that it does not inspire confidence. Taking into consideration the entire evidence of PW 1, we find that it does not inspire confidence. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused. 27. In the result, we hold that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt. Accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 28. According to the prosecution, accused Nos. 1, 5, 7 and 8 dragged deceased Manikandan from the house of PW 1 to the road. Accused 2 and 3 beat him with sticks and all the above mentioned accused along with accused 1, 4 and 9 stained the deceased. Accused 2, 3, 5 and 7 to 9 were convicted under S.302 read with S.149 I. P. C. Even if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is accepted in its entirety, we do not find that prosecution has made out a case against these accused for convicting them under S.302 read with S.149 I. P. C. Learned Public Prosecutor also did not seriously contend for sustaining the conviction of the above mentioned accused. We therefore find accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 to 9 are not guilty of the offence under S.302 read with S.149 I. P. C. and that the prosecution has not proved their guilt beyond shadow of doubt in respect of other offences alleged against them. The conviction and sentence imposed against them are set aside and they stand acquitted. As far as accused Nos. 1 and 4 are concerned, we find that prosecution has not proved their guilt beyond shadow of doubt and they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The conviction and sentence imposed against them are also set aside. Appellants, namely, accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 stand acquitted. They will be set at liberty forthwith. The criminal appeal stands allowed as above.