Judgment :- BALAKRISHNAN, J. A long standing civil dispute culminated in violance and resulted in the death of two persons. A woman who had lost her husband in an earlier episode, when her children have grown up, made triumphant came back and vanquished her enemies by killing two of them, one at the prime of his youth and the other in early sixties. 2. Varkey, father of Thressiamma ownd 2.55 acres of property. Varkey died intestate and the property devolved on PW-1 - Mariamma, PW-3 - Thressiamma and their two sisters. PW-3 Thressiamma sold her share of property to the 4th accused - Chellamma in 1974. According to PWs-1 and 3, the extent of property sold to the 4th accused was only 45 cents whereas the 4th accused maintained that it was 63.5 cents. The dispute regarding the extnet of property sold to fourth accused - Chellamma was the reason for discord between the family of 4th accused and PW-1 - Mariamma. In 1975, Raman the husband of 4th accused was allegedly murdered by Kunhilo Ulahannan, the husband of PW-1, Ulahannan was tried by the Court of Sessions but he was acquitted of the murder charge. The family feud continued and there were series of civil litigations. 2(a). On 13-6-90, at about 5.45 p.m., P.W. 1 went to the disputed property to cut grass. When she was reaping the grass, the 4th accused Chellamma scolded her and asked her to stop the work, P.W. 1 did not accede to this demand and her husband Ulahannan, who was standing nearby encouraged P.W. 1 in doing the work. There was exchange of words between P.W. 1 and 4th accused and the other accused also came there. While so, the son of P.W. 1 Jose @ Joseph came that way through the nearby public pathway. On seeing him some of the accused exhorted that he should be killed. Jose was chased and he ran to the nearby property belonging to one Kuttappan Nair. According to the prosecution, Jose fell on the ground and he was over-powered by accused 2 and 3 and while they were holding him, the first accused - Gopalakrishnan inflicted stab injuries on the chest of Jose. P.W. 1 tride to intervene, then she was also stabbed by the first accused. According to the prosecution, Jose fell on the ground and he was over-powered by accused 2 and 3 and while they were holding him, the first accused - Gopalakrishnan inflicted stab injuries on the chest of Jose. P.W. 1 tride to intervene, then she was also stabbed by the first accused. Seeing this, Ulahannan-husband of P.W. 1 rushed to that place and while he was standing there, the 4th accused who was standing behind cut him with chopper and on sustaining this injury, Ulshannan slumped down and the 5th and 6th accused stabbed him on the chest. According to prosecution, the 4th accused again inflicted another cut on the neck of Ulshannan and then all the accused retreated from the place. 3. P.W. 22, the Sub-Inspector got information of the incident and he rushed to the place and made arrangements to take the injured to the nearby hospital. He asked a constable to guard the scene. Jose and Ulshannan were dead by the time they were brought to nearby Adimali Govt. Hospital and injured P.W. 1 was removed to a nearby private hospital P.W. 22 recorded the F.I, statement from P.W. 1 and FIR was registered at 12.30 a.m. on 14-6-90. On 14-6-90, he went to Taluk Head-quarters hospital and conducted inquest of the dead body of Jose and Ulshannan. At about 3.30 p.m. on the same day, he visited the scene of occurrence and prepared the scene mahazar. Some articles were also seized from the place of occurance. On 15-6-90, the investigation of the case was taken over by P.W. 23, the Circle Inspector. He questioned the various witnesses and recorded their statement. On 18-6-90, accused 1, 2, 5 and 6 were arrested and based on an alleged statement given by 5th accused, knives alleged to have been used in the commission of cime were recovered. Thereafter, P.W. 23, completed the investigation and charge-sheeted the accused. 4. On the side of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 23 were examined. Except P.W. 1, all other eye witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case and the conviction of these appellants is based on the evidence of P.W. 1 and the recovery of M.Os. 1, 2, 7 and 8 knives. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is challenged in this appeal. 5. 1 to 23 were examined. Except P.W. 1, all other eye witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case and the conviction of these appellants is based on the evidence of P.W. 1 and the recovery of M.Os. 1, 2, 7 and 8 knives. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is challenged in this appeal. 5. The counsel for the appellants Sri Sukumaran Nair strenously contended before us that F.I. statement did not originate at the time and place given therein and it was concocted later i.e., after the preparation of inquest report. This contention is based on two circumstances. Firstly, it is pointed out that F.I.R. reached the Magistrate only at 10 p.m. on 14-6-90 and secondly that, in the inquest report at column 12(1) the names of the assailants are not mentioned. According to P.W. 22, he recorded the F.I. statement at 10.30 p.m. on 13-6-1990. The F.I.R. was registered at 12.30 a.m. on 14-6-90. The place of occurance is about 35 kms. away from the police station. On the next day he want to Adimaly Government Hospital and held inquest over the dead bodies and also prepared the scene mahazar. According to him, he entrusted the F.I.R. with the station writer for being despatched to the Magistrate. He denied the suggestion that he preparred the F.I.R. on the next day. As the F.I.R. reached the Magistrate on the next day, we do not think that there was any delay in registering the F.I.R. 6. It was argued that in the inquest report at column 12(a) the names of the accused are not mentioned, and therefore it is probable that F.I. statement might have been recorded after the inquest. First of all, the question to be considered is whether the names of assailants should be mentioned in the inquest report. 7. In an earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported in Podda Narayana v. State of A.P. AIR 1975 SC 1252 : (1975 Cri LJ 1062) it was held that (Para 11) "Proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited scope. The object of the proceedings 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 object of the proceedings 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 is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174. Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to mention these details in the inquest report." This decision was later referred to with approval in Khujji v. State of M.P. AIR 1991 SC 1853 (See paragraph 8 at page 1859-1860. : (1991 Cri LJ 2653 at p. 2660). 8. In another decision reported in Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 1962 : (1975 Cri LJ 1734), it was observed by the Supreme Court that, the names of four accused out of nine were missing in the body of the inquest report and this omission was not explained and therefore, it lead to the probability that F.I.R. must have been prepared after the preparation of inquest report. That is a case where there were nine accused persons and the names of five accused were mentioned in the inquest report. The A.S.I. has no valid explanation for the same. It was also found by the court that F.I.R. was registered subsequently. Therefore, the observation of the Supreme Court is to be understood in that background. We do not think that this decision lays down the principle that the inquest report should contain the names of the accused. 9. Our attention was drawn to another decision reported in Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188 : (1995 Cri LJ 457). We do not think that this decision lays down the principle that the inquest report should contain the names of the accused. 9. Our attention was drawn to another decision reported in Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188 : (1995 Cri LJ 457). In that case, the Supreme Court observed that, in order to find out whether the F.I.R. had been registered in time, there are various checks and one of the external check is the reference of the same in the inquest report and the absence of details in the inquest report is indicative of the fact that prosecutions story was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the F.I.R. came to be recorded later on, after due deliberations and consultations and was then antetimed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged F.I.R. If on a reading of the inquest report it is clear that the names of the assailants are not mentioned and nevertheless, the F.I.R. gives all the names of the assailants, then it would lead to an indication that F.I.R. might have been registered after the inquest report. 10. The inquest report is prepared under Sec. 174 of Cr.P.C. when an officer in charge of police station receives information that a person has committed suicide or has been killed by another or died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion, that some other person has committed the offence, he shall inform the matter to the nearest Executive Magistrate to hold inquest. A criminal case is registered on the basis of information and investigation is commenced under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. and the information is recorded under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter inquest is held under Section 174. The purpose of inquest is to find out the apparent cause of death. The corpus delicti and its surroundings afford ample materials for scientific evaluation to find out the cause of death and it would also help to identify the perpetrators of the crime. In the State of Kerala, inquest report is drawn up on the basis of prescribed procedure in a pro-forma supplied to the officer in charge of police station and under column 12 of the pro-forma there are two clauses as (a) and (b). In the State of Kerala, inquest report is drawn up on the basis of prescribed procedure in a pro-forma supplied to the officer in charge of police station and under column 12 of the pro-forma there are two clauses as (a) and (b). Column 12(a) is to note, 'If any person is suspected, who and why ?' and 12(b) to note, 'was deceased insured in company ?'. As against column 12(a) nothing has been stated and as against column 12(b) it is mentioned that, 'not known'. Based on this, it was argued that, had there been an earlier F.I. statement and registration of F.I.R. disclosing all details regarding the assailants, column 12(a) would have been filled up by P.W. 22 in Exts.P. 26 and P 27 inquest reports. But it may be noticed that at the time of inquest, statement of three witnesses have been recorded. It is true that these witnesses are not eye witness to the occurance of the incident, but they gave a detailed statement regarding the incident. The names of all the assailants have been mentioned and it seems that, that was why P.W. 22 did not fill up column 12 (a). Under such circumstances the non-mentioning of the names of the suspects does not lead to the inference that FIR was registered subsequent to the inquest report. If the appellants had any case that F.I. statement was prepared after the inquest report, at least a suggestion should have been made to P.W. 22. The contention of the appellants that it was absolutely necessary that under column 12(a) the names of the assailants should have been mentioned by the officer who prepared the inquest report can not be accepted and the appellants have also not made out a case that F.I.R. was concocted latter. 11. As already noticed, the prosecution case solely rests on the evidence of P.W. 1 P.W. 3 though hostile has spoken to a part of the incident. P.W. 2 is a friend of deceased Jose. He is alleged to have reached the place of occurance along with deceased Jose. He did not support the prosecution case and gave a versin that there was confrontation between the accused persons on the one hand; and the deceased and P.W. 1 on the other. The version given by P.W. 2 does not appear to be correct. 11(a). He is alleged to have reached the place of occurance along with deceased Jose. He did not support the prosecution case and gave a versin that there was confrontation between the accused persons on the one hand; and the deceased and P.W. 1 on the other. The version given by P.W. 2 does not appear to be correct. 11(a). The evidence of P.W. 1 requires a through scrutiny. P.W. 1 is admittedly, a highly interested witness. According to her, while she was cutting the grass, the 4th accused told her to stop the work. It seems that P.W. 1 was doing this work in order to assert her right in the property. Some days ago, P.W. 1 had made an application before the R.D.O. objecting to the change of mutation effected in favour of fourth accused regarding the disputed property. That application was rejected on the previous day. Therefore, it is evident that P.W. 1 went to cut the grass in a defiant mood to assert her right and there ensued wordy altercations between the fourth accused and P.W. 1. The first part of the incident is the coming of deceased Jose to the scene and he being chased. According to P.W. 1, all the accused chased Jose and he fell on the ground and accused 2 and 3 held him to the ground and first accused stabbed him. It is difficult to accept this version, especially in view of the testimony given by P.W. 3 who partly supported the prosecution. According to P.W. 3, when Jose came to the place through the public road, he was seen by the accused and all of them chased him and Jose ran to the neighbouring compound of Kuttappan Nair and the definite case of P.W. 3 is that the first accused pushed him down and stabbed. The involvement of second and third accused is not mentioned by P.W. 3 Even P.W. 1 on cross-examination admitted that when the first accused was stabbing deceased Jose, accued 2 and 3 were standing nearby. The overt act played by second and third accused, i.e. holding the deceased Jose to the ground is not spoken to by P.W. 1 during cross examination. The second and third accused were not armed with any weapons. We have serious doubts regarding the involvement of these accused. They are certainly entitled to the benefit of that doubt. 12. The overt act played by second and third accused, i.e. holding the deceased Jose to the ground is not spoken to by P.W. 1 during cross examination. The second and third accused were not armed with any weapons. We have serious doubts regarding the involvement of these accused. They are certainly entitled to the benefit of that doubt. 12. The next point to be considered is the involvement of 4th accused - Chellamma. The case of the prosecution is that she inflicted two cut injuries on the neck of deceased Ulshannan. Admittedly, Ulshannan was a healthy person having a height of six feet. Under normal circumstances, it is not possible for the 4th accused to inflict a cut injury on the neck of such a person, and at the time of evidence P.W. 1 gave a twist to her version, and deposed that Ulshannan was standing on a property which was lying at a lower level and 4th accused Chellamma was standing by the edge of the higher compound and from that position she inflicted the cut injuries on deceased Ulshannan. It may be noticed that Ulshannan was armed with a knife. There were five male assailants. There is no cae that Ulahannan was caught hold of by others or that he was not in a position to move his body. It is highly improbable that the 4th accused who is a woman would have been in a position to advance towards Ulshannan and inflict the cut injuries on his neck. There is inherent probability in the varsion given by P.W. 1. It may also be noticed that there is long standing dispute between P.W. 1 and the fourth accused. It is quite possible that P.W. 1 would have been much anxious to implicate the 4th accused. The circumstances are to be viewed in a larger perspective. When five able bodied person along with their mother came to the scene for a confrontation, the male children would always try to see that their mother does not come to the fore-front of the fight, especially when their opposite parties are seen to be armed with weapons. Therefore, we are unable to accept the version of P.W. 1 regarding the involvement of 4th accused-Chellamma. 13. The learned Sessions Judge has relied on the recovery of weapon on the basis of the disclosure statement given by 5th accused. Therefore, we are unable to accept the version of P.W. 1 regarding the involvement of 4th accused-Chellamma. 13. The learned Sessions Judge has relied on the recovery of weapon on the basis of the disclosure statement given by 5th accused. It is a composite disclosure statement relating to all the weapons allegedly used for the commission of the crime. Such a statement can not be said to be a confession which could be admitted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 14. As regards the involvement of first, fifth and sixth accused, there is ample evidence and we do not find any infirmity in the evidence of P.W. 1. The first accused inflicted stab injuries on the body of deceased Jose. Ext. P 13 is a post mortem certificate issued by P.W. 16. There were three incise injuries on the body of deceased Jose. The first injury is on the chest and this injury pierced the sternum at its middle and the description of the internal injury shows that right ventrical was pierced. It is stated that injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the evidence of P.W. 1 is clear and convincing on this aspect. Therefore, we confirm the conviction and sentence of first accused Gopalakrishnan. 15. As regards the fifth accused - Thulesidharan and 6th accused - Muraleedharan, they caused fatal injuries on the body of deceased Ulahannan. He had sustained thirteen injuries. Injury No. 5 penetrated through the 4th and 5th ribs and injury No. 4 also was on the chest 2 cms, below the right ripple. There was an injury to the lower part of the middle lobe of the lung and injury No. 4 and 5 were stated to be injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There were other injuries also. The 5th and 6th accused were responsible for causing these fatal injuries. The evidence of P.W. 1 is convincing on this aspect. So we confirm the conviction and sentence of fifth accused - Thalasidharan and sixth accused - Muraleedharan. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the criminal appeal partly, and hold that the second accused Kishorekumar third accused - Santhosh, and the 4th accused Chellamma, are not guilty of the charges framed and they are acquitted of all the charges. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the criminal appeal partly, and hold that the second accused Kishorekumar third accused - Santhosh, and the 4th accused Chellamma, are not guilty of the charges framed and they are acquitted of all the charges. The conviction and sentence of first accused Gopalakrishnan, 5th accused - Thulasidharan and 6th accused - Muraleedharan is altered form Sec. 302 r/w Sec. 149 I.P.C. to Sec. 302 r/w Sec. 34 I.P.C. and each of them is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Their sentences under Sections, 143, 144, 147, 148, 324 and 341 IPC are not sustainable. So they are acquitted of the above charges. The bail bonds executed by second, third and fourth accused are cancelled. The criminal appeal is partly allowed as stated above. Appeal partly allowed.