Judgment :- RENGASAMI, J. The reference R.T. No. 1/96 and C.A. 128/96 arise from the conviction and sentences imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil in S.C. No. 89/91 for the offences under Sections 418, 302, 302 read with 149 and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. 2. The learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellants viz. the appellants 1 to 5 each under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5, 000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months, appellants 3 to 5 each under Section 302 (2 counts) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10, 000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 18 months on each count 2nd appellant under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced to death and also to pay a fine of Rs. 15, 000/- in default to undergo 18 months R.I. subject to the confirmation of the High Court, appellants 1 and 2 each under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 10, 000/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I., 1st appellant under Section 302 read with 149 (3 counts) IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10, 000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 18 months, for each count 2nd, appellant under Section 302 read with 149 (2 counts) I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10, 000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 18 months for each count and appellants 3 to 5 each under Section 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10, 000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 18 months, with a direction for the sentences to run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge fixed a compensation of 25% payable to the legal heirs of each of the three carnage victims from out of the fine amount. 3. The brief facts as spoken by the witnesses examined on the prosecution side are as follows :- The appellants and the three deceased were residents of Karkadu village within the police limits of Suseendiram in Kanyakumari District. 3. The brief facts as spoken by the witnesses examined on the prosecution side are as follows :- The appellants and the three deceased were residents of Karkadu village within the police limits of Suseendiram in Kanyakumari District. They belonged to Hindu Sambavar Community, and the first deceased Sornappan was acting as the President of this community till the time of his death. The community President used to collect a subscription from the community men, for the purpose of celebrating the temple festival and also for the common expenditure in the village. These appellants who are the sons of one Arulanandham, were not paying the subscription. Two years before this occurrence, which took place on 7-10-1989 the said Arulanandham died and the first deceased Sornappan refused to allow the said Arulanandham being cremated in the cremation ground for the reason that his family had refused to pay the subscription to the community association. But the appellants some how, got the permission of the President Sornappan to cremate the body, on the assurance that they would pay the subscription after the cremation was over. But, contrary to their promise, subsequently also they failed to pay the subscription. The 4th appellant/4th accused requested the President Sornappan to issue a community certificate for which the President refused to issue. Therefore, they had grievance against the first deceased Sornappan. Because of the affront attitude of the appellants to pay the subscription for the welfare of the community on 19-6-1988, a meeting was convened under the Presidentship of Sornappan and these appellants were outcasted from participating any of the affairs of their community in Karkadu village, Exhibit P11 is the resolution passed by them. Therefore, there was enmity between these appellants and the first deceased Sornappan. 4. On 7-10-1989 at about 12.30 Noon, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and one Velu were standing east of Muthalamman koil in Karkani (sic) when he came near the place, where the appellants were standing, appellants 1 and 2 took out the country bomb concealed in their waist and appellants 3 to 5 took out the aruvals which were concealed within the folded dhotis above the Knees. The 3rd appellant shouted at the first deceased Sornappan that he would finish him on that day, and attached him with aruval on his face. The 4th appellant cut him on his left thigh and also on the back with M.O. 1 aruval. The 3rd appellant shouted at the first deceased Sornappan that he would finish him on that day, and attached him with aruval on his face. The 4th appellant cut him on his left thigh and also on the back with M.O. 1 aruval. The 5th appellant cut him on his chest. When the deceased fell down, these three appellants viz., appellants 3 to 5 cut him indiscriminately with the aruvals in their hands. The deceased No. 2 Ponnayyan and deceased No. 3 Esakkimuthu came running from southern side, shouting not to cut Sornappan. Appellants 1 and 2 threatened them with the Country bombs in their hands. They two seeing these persons with lethal weapons and afraid of them, began to run away. First they ran towards south and then west. But, these appellants chased them and appellants 1 and 2 threw country bombs towards them. The bombs fell near them exploded and Ponnayyan the second deceased, who was running after Esakkimuthu fell down in the shock. When he attempted to get up, the 5th appellant cut him in the fore head with the aruval in the hand. The 4th appellant cut him on his left thigh with M.O. 1 aruval. The 3rd appellant cut him on both the hands indiscriminately. The third deceased Esakkimuthu, who was running ahead, turned back and shouted not to cut Ponnayyan. Immediately, the second appellant threw a country bomb at Esakkimuthu, which exploded at his neck, causing fatal injuries. He fell down and died there itself. P.Ws. 1 to 3 and Velu, who were running after the appellants shouting at them would see Sornappan struggling for his life. In the meanwhile, all the appellants ran towards western side from there. P.Ws. 1 to 3 found Ponnayyan and Esakkimuthu lying dead on the spot itself. They wanted to save Sornappan and therefore stopped a taxi, which was coming in the main road and took him to Nagercoil Government Head Quarters Hospital, where PW 4, the Medical Officer attached to the said hospital, admitted him at 1.20 p.m. 5. P.W. 4 the Doctor found on Sornappan the following injuries :- 1. A vertical incised wound right side face extending from the right arbital margin upto the angle of mandible 4"x 2" x 1 "in dimension; 2. P.W. 4 the Doctor found on Sornappan the following injuries :- 1. A vertical incised wound right side face extending from the right arbital margin upto the angle of mandible 4"x 2" x 1 "in dimension; 2. An oblique incised wound from the anterior of iliac spine up to the 10th rib over the right side of the region of the abdomen 10"x 2" x 1" in dimension; 3. An oblique incised wound on the centre of the chest 4"x 1 1/2" x 1 "in dimension. A portion of the lung was protruding out; 4. A transverse incised wound 1"above the right elbow joint 2" x 4"x 1/4" in dimension at the anterior aspect; 5. A transverse incised wound just below the right Olecranon process 5"x 1" x 1" in dimension. Tendens cut end bone deep; 6. An oblique incised wound at his left middle of thigh 5"x 1" x 1"; 7. An incised wound over the left scapula of the back 5"x 1" x 1/2" muscles cut; 8. An incised wound cut on the right supra clavicular region 1 "x 1/2"x 1/4"; 9. An incised wound on the left shoulder 1/4"x 1/4" x 1/4" 10. Contusion over the posterior aspect of middle of left fore arm; 11. Right Humerus bone was found fractured; 12. A transverse incised wound over the secroiliac joint both sides 12" z 2"x 1/2" Exhibit P.2 is the copy of the accident Register. He sent intimation to Nagercoil Police Station. 6. P.W. 1 after admitting the first deceased Sornappan in the hospital went along with P.W. 2 to Suseendiram Police Station, where he gave the complaint, Exhibit 1 to the Sub Inspector of Police P.W. 16 for the occurrence. P.W. 16 registered the complaint in Crime No. 282/89 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 302 and also under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. He prepared the express report Exhibit P.27. Which was forwarded to the Court. In the meanwhile, P.W. 15 the Head Constable attached to Kottar Police Station received the injury message Exhibit P.26 sent from the hospital and transmitted the same to Suseendiram Police Station as the Jurisdictional Police limits was Suseendiram. But, he received a message from Suseendiram Police Station that already a complaint had been registered for the said occurrence. Therefore, P.W. 16 did not proceed to record the statement from the first deceased Sornappan. 7. But, he received a message from Suseendiram Police Station that already a complaint had been registered for the said occurrence. Therefore, P.W. 16 did not proceed to record the statement from the first deceased Sornappan. 7. P.W. 18 the Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil received the requisition Exhibit P.38 from the Medical Officer attached to the Head Quarters Hospital at 3.15 p.m. to record the dying declaration of Sornappan. On the same day he proceeded to the hospital and identified the injured person through the Doctor and recorded the statement of Sornappan under Exhibit P. 39. 8. P.W. 19 the Inspector of Police attached to Kanyakumari Circle received the wireless message with regard to the occurrence in Karkadu village and after registering the first information report in the Police Station he proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 3.30 p.m. He prepared a rough sketch Exhibit P-40 and prepared the observation mahazar Exhibit P-12 in the presence of P.W. 9. He conducted the inquest on the body of Ponnayyan in the presence of the Panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report Exhibit P-41. He also conducted the inquest on the body of the third deceased Esakkimuthu in the presence of the Panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report Exhibit P-42. The body of Ponnayyan was handed over to P.W. 12 for taking to the hospital for post mortem and the body of Esakkimuthu was handed over to P.W. 13 for the same purpose. In the presence of P.W. 9 and another, he seized blood-stained cement slab M.O. 7, sample slab M.O. 8 in the place, where the body of Ponnayyan was lying under Exhibit P-13 and in the place where the body of Esakkumuthu was lying, he seized blood stained cement slab M.O. 9 and the sample slab M.O. 10, the blood stained paddy grains M.O. 11, sample paddy grains M.O. 12, the blood stained stones M.O. 13, sample stones M.O. 14, cloth pieces M.O. 15 and the blood stained towel M.O. 16 under Exhibit P-14. In the place where Ponnayyan's body was lying, he seized the slab M.O. 17, which contained the mark of the explosive substances and a sample slab M.O. 18 under Exhibit P-15. He also seized the slabs containing the marks of explosive substances in the place where Esakkumuthu was lying, viz., M.Os. 19 to 25 under Exhibits P-16 to P-19 9. In the place where Ponnayyan's body was lying, he seized the slab M.O. 17, which contained the mark of the explosive substances and a sample slab M.O. 18 under Exhibit P-15. He also seized the slabs containing the marks of explosive substances in the place where Esakkumuthu was lying, viz., M.Os. 19 to 25 under Exhibits P-16 to P-19 9. P.W. 7, the Medical Officer attached to Nagercoil Government Headquarters Hospital, received the requisition Exhibit P-6 from the Inspector of Police P.W. 19 on 8-10-1989 at 1.30 a.m. to conduct the autopsy of the body of the second deceased Ponnayyan. He conducted the post mortem on 8-10-1989 at 9.30 a.m. and found the following injuries on the body of the deceased Ponnayyan. 1. An incised injury 28 cm. x 3 cm. starting from the lateral end of right eye, running right across the right eye, medial end of right upper eye lid, fore head and left side of the scalp 4 cm. above the left ear. The skull bone was found out throughout the length of the injury. The brain matter was also found cut to the depth of 1 c.m. throughout the injury 2. An incised injury 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. on the back of right fore arm near the wrist; 3. An incised injury on the lateral aspect of mid third of the left thigh 11 c.m. x 5 c.m. x 7 c.m. cutting through the muscles and reaching up to the bone; 4. An incised injury 5 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. on the extensor aspect of the left wrist. The doctor was of the opinion that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to the skull and brain and also the multiple injuries, 10 to 20 hours prior to the post mortem. Exhibit P-7 is the post mortem certificate issued by him. After autopsy, P.W. 12 recovered the shirt M.O. 2 and dhoti M.O. 3 of the deceased Ponnayyan and handed over at the Police Station. 10. P.W. 7 received another requisition Exhibit P-8 from the Inspector of Police to conduct the post mortem on the body of the third deceased Esakkimuthu on the same day. On 8-10-1989 at 11.00 a.m. the post mortem commenced on the body of Esakkimuthu and he found on him the following injuries :-1. 10. P.W. 7 received another requisition Exhibit P-8 from the Inspector of Police to conduct the post mortem on the body of the third deceased Esakkimuthu on the same day. On 8-10-1989 at 11.00 a.m. the post mortem commenced on the body of Esakkimuthu and he found on him the following injuries :-1. A lacerated injury 16 c.m. x 11 c.m. on the left side of the neck with burnt out edges and floor. The oesophagus and the trachea were severely contused. Major blood vessels carotid artery, jugular veins were found damaged. Fracture dislocation of atlanto azial joint with damage to the spinal cord; 2. Lower half of the left pinna (ear) found missing. The remaining part had burnt edges: Nothing abnormal in the internal organs, except the blood clots found on the right and left side of the brain. The hair from the scalp and the injured area of the skin and the tissues were preserved in formalin for expert opinion. P.W. 7 was of the opinion that the deceased should have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the neck injury and also the injury to brain and spinal cord 16 to 20 hours prior to the post mortem examination. Exhibit P-9 is the post mortem certificate. After the report received from the Forensic Laboratory with regard to the hair of the scalp and the skin, he issued the final report Exhibit P-10 stating that the deceased should have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the neck injury, brains, spinal cord probably caused by the explosive substances. P.W. 13 recovered the lungi M.O. 4, shirt M.O. 5 and Jetti M.O. 6 of the deceased Esakkimuthu and handed over them at the Police Station. 11. On 12-10-1989, P.W. 10, who heard about the place of hiding of these appellants in Marundhuvazh hill informed the Police about the appellants. P.W. 19 came with his men to the village and P.W. 10 accompanied them to the hill. They found appellants 1, 2 and 4 in hill and P.W. 19 arrested them at 7.00 a.m. on 12-10-1989. 11. On 12-10-1989, P.W. 10, who heard about the place of hiding of these appellants in Marundhuvazh hill informed the Police about the appellants. P.W. 19 came with his men to the village and P.W. 10 accompanied them to the hill. They found appellants 1, 2 and 4 in hill and P.W. 19 arrested them at 7.00 a.m. on 12-10-1989. On interrogation the 4th appellant gave a confession statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Exhibit P-20 and he led the police party to a nearby rock from where he took out M.O. 1 arruval from the crevice of the rock, and it was seized under Exhibit P-21 mahazar, the first appellant also gave a confession, the admissible portion of which is marked as Exhibit P-22 and he took the police party and P.W. 10 to the house of one Selladurai. Within the compound of the said Selladurai, he pointed out a place in the open and he also took out an unexploded country bomb kept within a tin container and it was seized under Exhibit P-23 mahazar. 12. P.W. 19 dipped the unexploded bomb into a bucket of water M.O. 28 to diffuse the bomb. He arrested appellants 1, 2 and 4 and remanded them to judicial custody. 13. On 12-10-1989 at 8.30 a.m. Sornappan, who was undergoing treatment in the hospital died. P.W. 5, the Doctor attached to the hospital, sent the death intimation Exhibit P-3 to the Police Station. P.W. 16, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Suseendiram after the receipt of Exhibit P-3 intimation, prepared the special report, Exhibit P-28 altering the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for the death of Sornappan. 14. P.W. 19 the Inspector of Police on intimation held the inquest on the body of Sornappan on the same day and prepared the inquest report, Exhibit P-43. He handed over the body with a requisition Exhibit P-4 to P.W. 14 for handing over it to the Doctor to hold autopsy. 15. P.W. 6, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil, received the requisition Exhibit P-4 from the Inspector of Police P.W. 19 to conduct the post mortem. He handed over the body with a requisition Exhibit P-4 to P.W. 14 for handing over it to the Doctor to hold autopsy. 15. P.W. 6, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil, received the requisition Exhibit P-4 from the Inspector of Police P.W. 19 to conduct the post mortem. He commenced the autopsy on the body of Sornappan on 12-10-1989 at 4.30 p.m. He found all the injuries in all the areas mentioned in Exhibit P-2 but in the sutured form, apart from a sutured injury in the left ankle created during the time of surgery. The internal examination revealed the cutting of maxilla on the right side and also the cutting of the humerus bone corresponding to in Injury No. 5. The sternum also was found cut corresponding to injury No. 7, in addition to the injuries to the ribe 3, 4 and 5. The left illac bone and sacrum were found cut, corresponding to injury No. 11. The scapula was found cut corresponding to injury No. 12. He also was of the opinion that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the multiple injuries. Exhibit P-5 is the post mortem certificate issued by him. 16. On 12-10-1989 the Inspector of Police sent the requisition Exhibit P-29 to the Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil to cause the sending of the articles seized by him to the Forensic Laboratory for forensic examination. The Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Nagercoil sent those materials under a covering letter Exhibit P-30 to the Forensic Laboratory. On 12-10-1989 the Inspector sent a requisition Exhibit P-31 to send the hair taken from the scalp and the flesh taken from the body of Esakkimuthu to Forensic Laboratory for chemical examination. The Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Nagercoil forwarded them under the covering letter, Exhibit P-32 to Forensic Laboratory. The Inspector sent another requisition Exhibit P-33 to send the blood stained cement slabs, tar portion and also the exploded pieces for forensic examination and the Judicial Magistrate No. 3 forwarded them also under Exhibit P-34 covering letter. Exhibits P-35, P-36 and P-37 are the reports received from the Forensic Laboratory. As P.W. 19 Inspector was transferred, his successor P.W. 20 took up the investigation on 10-12-1989 and he continued the investigation. Exhibits P-35, P-36 and P-37 are the reports received from the Forensic Laboratory. As P.W. 19 Inspector was transferred, his successor P.W. 20 took up the investigation on 10-12-1989 and he continued the investigation. He sent a requisition Exhibit P-24 to P.W. 11 the Assistant attached to the Forensic Laboratory, Kanyakumari District to disintegrate the unexploded bomb seized under Exhibit P-23. He opened it and separated the jute cord, cotton pieces, small pebbles, waste papers and also the explosive substances. M.O. 26 series are the materials he removed from the bomb. The materials were handed over to the Inspector of Police, and they were kept in a plastic container. M.O. 27 Exhibit P-25 is the report prepared by him for separating the materials from the unexploded bomb. As P.W. 20 also was transferred, P.W. 21 his successor took up the investigation. He obtained the sanction from the Collector of Kanyakumari District against appellants 1 and 2 to prosecute them under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, Exhibit P-44 is the draft sanction issued by the Collector and the copy of the same is Exhibit P-45. 17. After completing the investigation, P.W. 21 filed the final report against the appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 (3 counts) I.P.C., and also under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. 18. The Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. 19. The learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari framed as many as eight charges against these appellants for the offences under Sections 148, 302, 302 read with Section 149 and also under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and when these appellants were questioned, they pleaded not guilty. 20. The learned Sessions Judge conducted the trial and examined all the witnesses produced before him. After the examination of the witnesses, he also questioned the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. At the time of argument, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge felt that the sanction Exhibit P-44 issued by the office of the Collectorate was not a valid order and therefore, he thought that he could not proceed with the case further. After the examination of the witnesses, he also questioned the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. At the time of argument, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge felt that the sanction Exhibit P-44 issued by the office of the Collectorate was not a valid order and therefore, he thought that he could not proceed with the case further. As he felt that the trial was illegal and relying upon the decision in Gopal Krishna Pal v. State, 1951 AIR(Pat) 185 : 1951 (2) CrLJ 1504), the learned Sessions Judge quashed the entire proceedings relating to the trial of the case by his order dated 3-3-1994 and directed for obtaining the proper sanction to prosecute the appellants under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, to enable the Court to proceed with the trial of the case. 21. Therefore, a fresh sanction was obtained under Exhibit P-46 from the Collector, Kanyakumari and the fresh trial commenced before the Successor Sessions Judge. 22. The learned Sessions Judge examined as many as 21 witnesses afresh. After the evidence on the prosecution side for the second time the accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. calling upon them to explain the incriminating circumstances found against them in evidence of the prosecution witnesses. All the appellants simply denied their complicity in the crime and had stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case. They examined two witnesses, viz., the retired Tahsildar D.W. 1 to speak about the issue of the community certificate to the 4th appellant marked as Exhibit D-1 and the Editor of the Tamil Daily Malai Malar (D.W. 2) to speak about the publicity of a news column in the Malai Malar issue dated 7-10-1980, and marked, Exhibits D-1 to D-18 on their side from the previous deposition of the prosecution witnesses23. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the entire evidence available on record, found these appellants are guilty of the offences under Sections 148, 302 (3 counts) and 302 read with 149 and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and dealt with them in the manner we have stated above. Hence the reference for the death sentence against the second appellant as well as the appeal by the appellants have come before together. 24. Before we proceed to consider the merit of the prosecution case of the soundness of the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. Hence the reference for the death sentence against the second appellant as well as the appeal by the appellants have come before together. 24. Before we proceed to consider the merit of the prosecution case of the soundness of the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. We entertain a very serious doubt as to the sanity of the learned Sessions Judge is order dated 3-3-1990 quashing the trial of the entire proceedings, for the reason that sanction was not obtained for trying the offence under the Explosive Substances Act. The learned Sessions Judge has not referred to any provision of law as to his competency for quashing the proceedings relating to the trial conducted before him. But he had referred to a decision reported in Gopal Krishna Pal v. State, 1951 AIR(Pat) 185 : 1951 (52) CrLJ 1504) wherein the accused was tried exclusively for the offence under the Explosive Substance Act. As sanction was not obtained under Section 7 of the said Act, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in that case quashed the proceedings. The High Court of Patna had approved the action of the lower Court in quashing the proceedings, as sanction was not obtained for the trial of the case. But, unfortunately, the learned Sessions Judge in this case had failed to note the marked distinction, viz., the case before him was not purely for the offence under the Explosive Substances Act, but also under the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which do not require any sanction for trial. Except for the charge No. 5 relating to the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act for which sanction under Section 7 of the said Act is required, all the other charges were framed by the learned Sessions Judge, under the Indian Penal Code. When the offences are combined both triable without sanction and with sanction, the learned Sessions Judge could have considered whether it was proper on his part to quash the entire trial including for the offences relating to the Indian Penal Code which he was competent to try without anybody's sanction. There are catena of decisions holding that even if the prosecution had failed for want of sanction, it will not amount to acquittal and there will be no bar to proceed against the accused after obtaining a valid sanction. There are catena of decisions holding that even if the prosecution had failed for want of sanction, it will not amount to acquittal and there will be no bar to proceed against the accused after obtaining a valid sanction. In Baij Nath Prasad v. State of Bhopal, 1957 AIR(SC) 494, 1957 (63) CRLJ 597, 1958 (2) LLJ 475, 1957 SCJ 405, 1957 (1) SCR 650 the Apex Court while quashing the trial for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, for want of sanction has held that the previous trial does not bar a subsequent trial of the accused under the provisions of the Corruption Act read with S. 161, I.P.C., after obtaining the proper sanction25. This Court also in Muthukrishan v. State, 1990 CrLJ 2570 (rendered by one of us, i.e., Janarthanam, J.) has held that a previous trial without the requisite sanction is no bar to a fresh trial with sanction for the same offence and on the same facts. Therefore, when the position is so, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have quashed the entire trial of the case for the reason that sanction was not obtained for the offence under the Explosive Substances Act. So far as the trial relating to the offences under the Indian Penal Code, it cannot be stated that the trial was not valid as he was fully competent to try the offences. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge could have applied his mind and rendered the verdict in so far as the charges relating to the offences under the Indian Penal Code were concerned; and either discharged or closed the trial in so far as the charge No. 5 relating to the Explosive Substances Act, for want of sanction and also could have directed for a fresh trial in so far as that offence was concerned. Unfortunately, without any foresight, he had quashed the entire trial, putting the prosecution to such an ordeal for a second trial that too after a lapse of six years. By a little bit application of mind, he could have avoided this ex facie illegal order and saved the previous time of the Court and the witnesses. As we find no provision under the Code, empowering the learned Sessions Judge himself to quash the valid proceedings on his own file, we are unable to support the order of the learned Sessions Judge, quashing the proceedings. As we find no provision under the Code, empowering the learned Sessions Judge himself to quash the valid proceedings on his own file, we are unable to support the order of the learned Sessions Judge, quashing the proceedings. Any how, the position is clear now, that the quashing of the trial in so far as relating to the offence under the Indian Penal Code is not valid and therefore, the subsequent trial is only an unnecessary repetition of the same work once again putting the same witnesses in the box, who have repeated their testimony in spite of the handicap of loss of memory due to lapse of six long years. However, the evidence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, before quashing of the proceeding still remains to be the substantive evidence in this case26. Now coming to the merit of the prosecution case, three eye-witnesses have been examined to speak about the occurrence and the participation of these accused persons in the crime. It was contended by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vanamamalai that though the evidence reveals that there were some more persons present in the place of occurrence, the prosecution has chosen to examine only the close relatives of the deceased persons and as these witnesses cannot be treated as independent witnesses, it has to be taken that the prosecution has suppressed the evidence of the independent witnesses without examining them. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 disclose that apart from them, one Velu also was present, but Velu is none else than the father of P.W. 1. Therefore, he also is a relative of the deceased, because P.W. 1 is the nephew of the first deceased Sornappan and brother in law of the third deceased Esakkimuthu. The second deceased is the uncle to P.W. 1. P.W. 2 is the brother of the 3rd deceased Esakkimuthu. But there is no evidence to hold that P.W. 3 is related to any of the victims. Even though P.W. 2 in his evidence would state that when he and other witnesses were running behind the appellants/accused one Bhagavathi Ammal and Samy also came after them, that will not be a proof to accept that those two persons also witnessing the occurrence from the beginning, because they came only subsequently and were running behind P.W. 2 and others. P.W. 1 in his evidence would say that he and others when went near Ponnayyan and Esakkimuthu, they found them dead and this was witnesses by Balamurugan, Samy and Harichandran (P.W. 3). We have already mentioned about P.W. 3 and Samy, who were present along with P.W. 1 from the beginning. But Balamurugan's name is not mentioned for his presence from the beginning. So, he must have come only subsequently. That is why P.W. 1 has mentioned his name only when he referred to the death of Ponnayyan and Esakkimuthu. From these circumstances, it is very clear that Balamurugan and Bagavathiammal should have come only subsequently. Any how, the fact remains that P.W. 3 is not related to any of the victims and therefore, there is no reason to reject his testimony on the ground of any relationship. P.Ws. 1 to 3 have uniformly stated that when the first deceased Sornappan was coming from South and came near the appellants, appellants 3 to 5 taking out the aruvals which were concealed within the folded dhotis, pounced upon him and cut Sornappan one after another indiscriminately. These three witnesses have stated the parts of the body on which the injuries were inflicted by appellants 3 to 5. The occurrence was by about 12.30 noon as spoken by the witnesses and there was nothing strange for the presence of these witnesses because all these witnesses are residents of the same village, having their houses nearby and therefore, nothing could be said for their presence in the scene of occurrence. As the second deceased and third deceased were also residing at some distance from the scene of occurrence, naturally they might have come of the scene of occurrence on hearing the alarm voice raised by Sornappan. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 shows that when those two persons, viz., Ponnayyan and Esakkimuthu came there shouting not to cut Sornappan, appellants 1 and 2 threatened them with the country bombs in their hands and they also chased them. Therefore, it appears to save their lives of both of them ran towards south and thereafter towards west, where there is a lane and the appellants 1 and 2 following them had thrown the country bombs, which were in their hands. All the three witnesses have narrated that three bombs were hurled at them, but they did not injure Ponnayyan and Esakkimuthu. All the three witnesses have narrated that three bombs were hurled at them, but they did not injure Ponnayyan and Esakkimuthu. Ponnayyan, who was running behind Esakkimuthu fell down in the shock when he saw a bomb exploding close to him. The evidence reveals that when he attempted to get up, the 5th appellant first cut him on his fore head followed by appellants 3 and 4 cutting on his left thigh and hands. As Esakkimuthu, who tried to escape, happened to see these appellants cutting Ponnayyan, he seems to have shouted not to cut Ponnayyan and this has enraged the appellants, making the second appellant to hurl a country bomb directly on his body causing the fatal injury on the neck. The body of Ponnayyan was lying in front of the house of one Kamal and the body of Esakkimuthu was lying in front of the house of one Muthu Krishnan. These three eye-witnesses, though they were afraid of intervening in the pernecious actions of the appellants, as they were having dangerous weapons in their hands, they were able to see each and every part played by these appellants till the last event when they took out the life of Esakkimuthu. These eye witnesses were cross-examined both before the quashing of the proceedings and also subsequently elaborately and no blemish worth mentioning in the evidence of these witnesses has been brought to light to suspect their testimony, except certain contradictions which we would refer now. It was elicited from P.W. 1 that he did not state in the previous trial that P.W. 2 also accompanied him to the Police Station and that he did not say that he went to the Police Station in the same taxi in which Sornappan was taken to the hospital. As mentioned above, the previous evidence remains still as substantive evidence and on a perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 in the previous trial it is not as if P.W. 1 had not stated that P.W. 2 did not come to the Police Station. In the previous deposition it has been stated that P.W. 2 was on the way to the Police Station and when P.W. 1 was coming in the taxi, he did not stop the taxi but proceeded to the Suseendiram Police Station straight where P.W. 2 had joined him. Therefore, it makes clear that though P.Ws. In the previous deposition it has been stated that P.W. 2 was on the way to the Police Station and when P.W. 1 was coming in the taxi, he did not stop the taxi but proceeded to the Suseendiram Police Station straight where P.W. 2 had joined him. Therefore, it makes clear that though P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not go to the Police Station together from the hospital, the evidence reveals that P.W. 1 first went in a taxi and P.W. 2 subsequently joined him in the Police Station. No doubt, P.W. 2 in the previous trial has stated that he did not go to the hospital along with P.W. 1 and others, who took Sornappan to the hospital. But in subsequent trial, he has stated that P.W. 1, Samy and himself took Sornappan in a taxi to the hospital. Even though the original evidence of P.W. 2 was that he did not join with P.W. 1 and Samy to take Sornappan to the hospitals, there is possibility for P.W. 2 to go subsequently and probably thinking it in his mind, in the second trial he might have stated that he also went to the hospital along with others. It cannot be stated that he would not have gone to the hospital at any time subsequently when especially they are all closely related. As the second trial was conducted six years after the occurrence, he might have stated that he accompanied Sornappan along with others, though he might have gone to the hospital subsequently. P.W. 2 has also stated in the evidence of the previous trial that he went to the Sunseendiram Police Station and when P.W. 1 gave the complaint, he was also present and he attested it, though it was suggested to him that the complaint was recorded only in the village. On a perusal of the contradictions elicited from P.Ws. 1 and 2 with regard to the testimony given by them in the previous trial, we find that they are very minor and flimsy and they cannot be taken as material contradictions affecting the case of the prosecution. Therefore, we find no reasons to reject or disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 327. 1 and 2 with regard to the testimony given by them in the previous trial, we find that they are very minor and flimsy and they cannot be taken as material contradictions affecting the case of the prosecution. Therefore, we find no reasons to reject or disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 327. The evidence of the eye-witnesses show how all the appellants were standing together and how they reacted when the first deceased Sornappan was coming from south and the participation of the appellants 1 and 2 by throwing the country bombs, while the other appellants were cutting the deceased 1 and 2, by lethal weapons. Therefore, this conduct of the appellants bring out the common object of the appellants to murder Sornappan and subsequently this common object has developed on seeing the deceased Ponnayyan and Esakkimuthu as they came to the rescue of the first deceased Sornappan. 28. The first deceased Sornappan has given a dying declaration before the Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil under Exhibit P-39 at 3-15 p.m. (sic) on the date of the occurrence. In Exhibit P-39 he has stated that by about 12.30 noon on that day six persons attacked him due to the communal dispute and he also has mentioned the names of accused 2, 3 and 4 first as the persons who attacked him and thereafter, mentioned the names of three persons, viz., accused 1, 5 and one Suriyan. It was argued by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vanamamalai that even though the prosecution case is that only these appellants, who are five in number had participated in the occurrence, the first deceased Sornappan had mentioned six names including the name of the Suriyan exposing that he wanted to implicate all the sons of Arulanandham and therefore, the dying declaration Exhibit P-39 cannot be given weight and from this expression of the deceased Sornappan in Exhibit P-39, there was a conspiracy to implicate all the members of the family of Arulanandhan. No doubt, the name of one person, who was not present in the scene of occurrence also has been mentioned in Exhibit P-39. But, we must understand the mental condition of the first deceased Sornappan both at the time of the occurrence and also at the time of the dying declaration. He was coming from southern side towards northern side, without knowing what was going to happen to him. But, we must understand the mental condition of the first deceased Sornappan both at the time of the occurrence and also at the time of the dying declaration. He was coming from southern side towards northern side, without knowing what was going to happen to him. The evidence discloses that these appellants suddenly pounced upon him when he was unaware of the situation and therefore, he might not have even fully realised what was happening to him when he was indiscriminately cut by the appellants 3 to 5. As these five appellants were standing together and three of them had attacked Sornappan, we cannot say now that the deceased ought to have correctly counted all those, who were standing there, when he was attacked and given the correct numbers when he was giving dying declaration, at the time when he was in the agony of death. Only in the flash of the moment he might have visualised the situation and knew that the sons of Arulanandhan were standing there. Therefore, in the faint impression that all the sons of Arulanandham were standing there, he might have stated that the other son of Arulanandham viz., Suriyan also was present there, though it was a mistake. However, this mistake can be excluded, because the eye-witnesses who were present, were able to identify only these five appellants. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the prosecution had intended to rope in all the sons of Arulanandham in this occurrence. As a matter of fact, when the first deceased Sornappan was taken to the hospital, he had stated to P.W. 4 that known persons had cut him. Therefore, at the time of giving Exhibit P-39 dying declaration, he would not have omitted those known persons and introduced the names of some others, who were not connected with the occurrence. Any how, though there is a mistake in the memory of the deceased Sornappan, while mentioning the participants of the occurrence in Exhibit P-39 dying declaration, the description of the names of the five appellants is sufficiently corroborated by the other testimony available on record. When the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the dying declaration are taken together, it is beyond doubt that these appellants were the perpetrators of the carnage29. The medical evidence also fully supports the ocular testimony. When the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the dying declaration are taken together, it is beyond doubt that these appellants were the perpetrators of the carnage29. The medical evidence also fully supports the ocular testimony. P.W. 4 in Exhibit P-2 has mentioned as many as 12 injuries and the injuries on the face, left thigh, back and the chest are also mentioned. The injuries in these parts have been spoken by P.Ws. 1 to 3. The witnesses have stated that after the cut in the chest by the 5th appellant, Sornappan fell down and thereafter, all the three again had cut him indiscriminately. Therefore, this version also is amply corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 4 and also P.W. 6 the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem. Similarly, P.W. 7, who did the post mortem on the body of Ponnayyan, has mentioned in his certificate Exhibit P-7 as many as four injuries and the injury on the fore head causing damage to the brain was the fatal injury. All the three witnesses have spoken about the cutting of Ponnayyan with an aruval by the 5th appellant on his fore head to the full length extending from left to right. These witnesses have spoken about the cutting by the appellants 3 to 5 on his thigh and also on the hands. The injuries were found by P.W. 7 on these parts. Therefore, the ocular testimony relating to the attack on Ponnayyan also has been amply corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W. 7 who did the post mortem of Esakkimuthu also has stated in his final report Exhibit P-10 that Sodium and Nitrate Chemicals were detected in the hair taken from the body of Esakkimuthu. He also has mentioned in Exhibit P-9 post mortem certificate that the lacerated injury found on the left side of the neck had burnt edges and in the left ear also a portion of the ear was found missing and the remaining part had the burnt edges. Therefore, the nature of the injuries found on Esakkimuthu with burnt cut edges and the presence of Sodium and Nitrate Chemicals in the injuries and also on the hair taken form the scalp corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. Therefore, the nature of the injuries found on Esakkimuthu with burnt cut edges and the presence of Sodium and Nitrate Chemicals in the injuries and also on the hair taken form the scalp corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that the country bomb was thrown at the deceased Esakkimuthu and he died due to the explosion of the country bomb in the vital part, viz., in the throat. The evidence of the three Doctors, viz., P.Ws. 4, 6 and 7 fully support the ocular testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 as to the manner in which these three deceased, viz., Sornappan, Ponnayyan and Esakkimuthu were attacked by these appellants30. The evidence of P.W. 10 is that he gave information to the police as to the hiding place of the appellants 1, 2 and 4 in Marundhuvash hill and on 12-10-1989 the Inspector of Police P.W. 19 arrested the said appellants at about 7 a.m. in the said hill and on interrogation, the first appellant gave a confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Exhibit P-22 leading to the recovery of the unexploded bomb in the open space within the compound wall of one Selladurai. P.Ws. 10 and 19 in their evidence would state that after the statement by the first appellant, he took them to the house of one Selladurai in Karkadu village and took out a container burried in the open space within the compound wall of Selladurai and that container contained a country bomb which was seized by the Inspector under Exhibit P-23 mahazar, P.W. 19 also had deposed that he kept this bomb within a bucket of water to diffuse the same. Later on P.W. 11 was asked to examine the bomb and he after diffusing the bomb, separated its parts containing the jute, cotton cloth, waste paper, small pebbles and explosive substances. M.O. 26 series are those materials found within the unexploded country bomb. The Inspector P.W. 19 recovered M.O. 17, M.O. 19 and M.O. 21 the slabs containing the sample of the explosive substance in different place, where Ponnayyan the second deceased was lying dead under Exhibits P-15, P-16 and P-17. The cotton pieces Jute, paper, yarn and small pebbles M.O. 23 series also were recovered under Exhibit P-18 in the place were the body of Ponnayyan was lying. The cotton pieces Jute, paper, yarn and small pebbles M.O. 23 series also were recovered under Exhibit P-18 in the place were the body of Ponnayyan was lying. The forensic report Exhibit P-35 reads that in some of these materials, Sodium and Nitrate were detected and in some items Aluminum Sulphate, Arsenic and Sulphide were detected, though the residues of the explosion were not detected. Any how, the materials mentioned above are chemical substances used to explode the bombs and therefore, it is proved that in the scene of occurrence, the country bombs were used. The first appellant/first accused had country bomb in his possession though it was kept burried within the compound wall of the Selladurai as is evident from Exhibit P-23. The learned senior counsel Mr. Vanamamalai contended that as the evidence of P.W. 19 discloses that the bomb was recovered within the compound wall of Selladurai, the first appellant cannot be said to be the person in possession of the exploded bomb at that time, and he also has commented upon for not arresting the said Selladurai. P.W. 19 in his evidence has stated that the said Selladurai had absconded. Any how, as the first appellant was able to take out the country bomb, which was kept burried under the earth in a particular place, it is certain that he was in the habit of handling the explosive substance. Therefore, the evidence of the eye-withesses P.Ws. 1 to 3 that the appellants 1 and 2 had thrown the bombs while chasing the deceased Nos. 2 and 3 gets fully corroborated from the medical evidence and the recovery of the bomb under Ex. P-2330A. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vanamamalai contended that there was no provocation for the appellants to resort to this violence all of a sudden on 7-10-1989 because even according to P.W. 8 the appellants were outcasted on 19-6-1988. When these appellants were not provoked in 1988 when they were outcasted there was no reason for suddenly taking vengeance on Sornappan on 7-10-1989 and therefore, there was no reason for these appellants to suddenly hatch out a conspiracy to do away with the first deceased Sornappan. When these appellants were not provoked in 1988 when they were outcasted there was no reason for suddenly taking vengeance on Sornappan on 7-10-1989 and therefore, there was no reason for these appellants to suddenly hatch out a conspiracy to do away with the first deceased Sornappan. The learned senior counsel further argued that even though P.W. 8 would say that as the deceased Sornappan had refused to give community certificate to the 4th appellant the enmity got aggravated, whereas, the evidence of D.W. 1 the Tahsildar and Exhibit P-17 show that the 4th appellant had obtained the community certificate from Tahsildar even on 9-3-1989 and therefore, there could not have been any sudden urge for these appellants to finish Sornappan. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that there was news column in Exhibit P-18 Tamil daily Dhina Malar publishing the news that in the kodai festival on account of certain dispute, the country bombs were used and this news make it clear that the occurrence should have happened on account of the dispute in the kodai festival and therefore, these appellant could not be responsible for the murder of the victims deceased. 31. One more argument in this connection raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that there was a civil litigation between Sornappan and one Bhame who claimed right in the vacant land that one Yesu Adimai and Anthonimuthu also had disputes and the houses of Yesu Adimai and Anthonimutu were demolished by the President of the community Sornappan, causing provocation to them and therefore when there were so many enemies for Sornappan, there was possibility for the attack on Sornappan by his other enemies. No doubt, Exhibit P-11 shows that the appellants were outcasted even on 19-6-1986, which was about one year before the occurrence. P.W. 8 has also stated that the deceased Sornappan refused to give community certificate to the 4th appellant. D.W. 1 the Tahsildar in his evidence would state that even though the Tahsildars used to issue community certificate, some times they verified the community certificate issued by the Village President for the purpose of issuing community certificate. Therefore, the 4th appellant might have requested Sornappan to issue the community certificate before he obtained Exhibit P-17. D.W. 1 the Tahsildar in his evidence would state that even though the Tahsildars used to issue community certificate, some times they verified the community certificate issued by the Village President for the purpose of issuing community certificate. Therefore, the 4th appellant might have requested Sornappan to issue the community certificate before he obtained Exhibit P-17. As he was not given the community certificate and his family members also were completely outcasted as per the resolution passed on 19-6-1988, naturally there must have been unhealing ill feelings for the members of the appellants' family against the deceased Sornappan as he had even refused to give permission to cremate the body of the appellants' father Arulanandham in the cremation ground. After the resolution under Exhibit P-11 dated 19-6-1988, the ill feelings must have been simmering in the mind of the appellants. Even thought there is no clear evidence for the provocation of the appellants for their action on 7-10-1989, the simmering ill feelings burning in their heart, might have created an occasion for wracking vengeance, even for any petty matters, which the deceased Sornappan might not have even noted and that must have known only to the appellants, the affected parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no occasion for these appellants to cause violence on 7-10-1989. The paper publication in Exhibit P-18 that violence broke out in kodai festival is not authenticated news as admitted by P.W. 2 and he would say that without verifying the news and some times the news they heard, irrespective of it's correctness the same was published in the newspaper. Therefore, the news column in Exhibit P-18 as though the occurrence took place in the kodai festival cannot replace the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Any how, the motive has come out from the evidence of P.W. 1 and also P.W. 8 for the standing ill feelings for these appellants throughout against the first deceased Sornappan31A. The learned senior counsel Mr. Therefore, the news column in Exhibit P-18 as though the occurrence took place in the kodai festival cannot replace the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Any how, the motive has come out from the evidence of P.W. 1 and also P.W. 8 for the standing ill feelings for these appellants throughout against the first deceased Sornappan31A. The learned senior counsel Mr. Vanamamalai contended that in the wound certificate Exhibit P-2, it was told to the Doctor that the occurrence had taken place at 11.00 a.m. in Karkadu, but whereas now in the evidence it has been stated as though the occurrence took place only at 12.30 Noon and to cook up the time and also to avoid the explanation for the delay in giving the complaint to the police at 2.15 p.m. the prosecution has let in evidence as though the occurrence took place at 12.30 Noon and there is considerable delay in setting the law in motion. He also would argue that no explanation has been offered by the prosecution for the delay in lodging the complaint at 2.15 p.m. though the occurrence had taken place at 11.00 a.m. as per Exhibit P-2. If the occurrence had taken place at 11.00 a.m., there was no reason for admitting Sornappan in the hospital at 1.20 p.m. The evidence discloses that soon after the occurrence as Sornappan was struggling for life, immediately a taxi which was passing, through the village was stopped and he was taken to the hospital. There could not have been any reason for keeping Sornappan in the village itself till 1.20 p.m. if the occurrence had taken place at 11.00 a.m. Therefore, it is very clear that some time before the deceased was admitted in the hospital, the occurrence should have happened. The evidence of P.W. 2 discloses that Nagercoil hospital is at the distance of 6 K.Ms. from Karkadu village. This distance could have been crossed in a taxi within 20 or 25 minutes. Therefore, the prosecution version that the occurrence had taken place by about 12.30 Noon appears to be more probable and acceptable. The evidence of P.W. 2 discloses that Nagercoil hospital is at the distance of 6 K.Ms. from Karkadu village. This distance could have been crossed in a taxi within 20 or 25 minutes. Therefore, the prosecution version that the occurrence had taken place by about 12.30 Noon appears to be more probable and acceptable. Probably at the time when Sornappan was admitted in the hospital, he might have given the approximate time as 11' clock and we need not give much weight to this time especially when it was given by the victim, who was in the agony of pain due to the multiple injuries on him. Any how, the immediate conduct of these witnesses taking Sornappan to the hospital establishes the truth that the occurrence could have happened only after 10 Noon32. P.W. 1 has spoken in his evidence that after admitting Sornappan the hospital, he returned back to Suseendiram and thereafter he gave the complaint in the Police Station. No doubt, there is a discrepancy as to time at which it was given. P.W. 16 in his evidence had stated that P.W. 1 appeared before him at 2.45 p.m. on 7-10-1989 and gave the statement, Exhibit P-1. But in Exhibit P-1 the Sub-Inspector while making the endorsement in the statement, has mentioned that statement was recorded by him on 7-10-1989 at 1.45 p.m. As his evidence is that P.W. 1 appeared before him at 2.45 p.m., there is no possibility for recording the statement Exhibit P-1 at 1.45 p.m. and therefore, the endorsement mentioning the time is a mistake. However, at the foot of the endorsement, he has mentioned that Crime Number 282/89 was registered under the relevant provisions at 2.15 p.m. Any how, from the evidence of P.W. 16 that the complaint was registered only at 2.45 p.m., it appears that P.W. 1 after admitting Sornappan in the hospital had taken some time to return to Suseendiram to lodge a complaint, Exhibit P-1. The F.I.R. also had reached the Judicial Magistrate's Court at Nagercoil at 4.30 p.m. on the same day. Therefore, we find that there is no delay in lodging the complaint. The quick action of the witnesses and also the police in sending the F.I.R. to the Court without delay really confirm that what was spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 3 must be true and correct. 33. Therefore, we find that there is no delay in lodging the complaint. The quick action of the witnesses and also the police in sending the F.I.R. to the Court without delay really confirm that what was spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 3 must be true and correct. 33. On a thorough consideration of the entire evidence available before us, we have no suspicion as to the prosecution case in respect of the offences alleged under the Indian Penal Code. 34. But, so far as the offence under Section 3 of the Explositve Substances Act, there is no independent evidence as to the sanction granted by the District Collector. The sanction Ex. P-46 has been marked through the Investigating Officer P.W. 21 and he did not know anything relating to the papers perused by the Collector for granting the sanction Ex. P-46. Unfortunately, the prosecution had not chosen to examine any witness connected to the sanction Ex. P-46 in the office of the Collectorate. A mere production of the sanction order by itself is not sufficient to hold that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind and considered the reasons for giving such sanction. This aspect is completely lacking in this case and therefore, we are unable to hold that Exhibit P-46 is a valid sanction granted by the Collector for the prosecution of the appellants 1 and 2. Therefore, we do not propose to support the findings of the learned Sessions Judge with regard to the charge No. 5 finding the appellants 1 and 2 guilty of the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. But in so far as the other offences are concerned, as mentioned above, the evidence is satisfactory, reliable, convincing and more clinching. Under these circumstances, we fully agree with the learned Sessions Judge for holding the appellants guilt of the offences for the other charges except charge No. 5 relating to the Explosive Substances Act35. With regard to the sentence, the learned Sessions Judge has imposed the death penalty and a fine of Rs. Under these circumstances, we fully agree with the learned Sessions Judge for holding the appellants guilt of the offences for the other charges except charge No. 5 relating to the Explosive Substances Act35. With regard to the sentence, the learned Sessions Judge has imposed the death penalty and a fine of Rs. 15, 000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 18 months on the second appellant for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for the reason that he had attacked the third deceased Esakkimuthu by using the country bomb and according to the learned Sessions Judge, the bomb culture should be curbed and dealt with severely and therefore, he considered that this is a rarest among the rare cases to award the death sentence. But we are unable to share this view of the learned Sessions Judge to award death penalty for the use of the country bomb by the second appellant against the deceased Esakkimuthu. It is true that the cruel act of these appellants had resulted in the loss of three valuable lives and this gory act of violence should have shaken the entire public of Karkadu, as the brutal attack and resulted in the loss of three lives. But when the learned Sessions Judge had chosen to impose only the life imprisonment to the other appellants for the offences under Section 302, I.P.C. we do not justify in awarding the death sentence for the second appellant alone for the reason that he used the country bomb to attack the deceased Esakkimuthu. Therefore, we find that the death sentence can be modified into one of life imprisonment. Further, for the offences under Sections 302 and 302 read with 149, I.P.C. against other appellants, the learned Sessions Judge has imposed each life imprisonment, apart from the fine of Rs. 10, 000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 18 months. Therefore, for the second appellant also the same sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10, 000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 18 months are sufficient for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. relating to Charge No. 4. So far as the first charge for the offence under Section 148, I.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge has imposed the sentence of 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5, 000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I. We do not find any reason to modify these sentences 36. So far as the first charge for the offence under Section 148, I.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge has imposed the sentence of 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5, 000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I. We do not find any reason to modify these sentences 36. In the result: 1. Appellants 1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and thereby they are acquitted of the Charge No. 5; 2. The conviction of the second appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. is confirmed, but the sentence of death and a fine of Rs. 15, 000/- in default to undergo 18 months R.I., imposed on the 2nd appellant under Charge No. 4 is modified into one of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10, 000/- in default to undergo 18 months R.I.; 3. The conviction and sentence as had been imposed on the appellant for other offences under Charge Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 are confirmed; 4. The compensation of 25% payable to the legal heirs of each of the three carnage victims as fixed by the Court below is confirmed; and 5. The Referred Trial 1/90 and the appeal C.A. 128/96 are accordingly disposed of.