( 1 ) AN incident of considerable seriousness took place at a village by name Mallahalli in Nanjangud Taluk on 24-3-1986 at about 4 p. m. in the afternoon. It is admitted that there were two factions in the village, the accused belonging to one of them and the deceased, injured and witnesses belonging to the other one. We do not need to go into the history of the dispute which had something to do with a piece of land known as 'halepura garden'. We only refer to this in passing because the prosecution story is slightly different in so far as it is contended that on the morning of that day an altercation took place near the water tank between PW-1 Malligamma and the son of A-3 Jayaraj. In the course of that altercation, Jayaraj is alleged to have kicked PW-1 and in order to avoid a flare up some of the other ladies intervened and took her to her house. Sometime later in the day, her husband who is the deceased returned from the Court and as is to be expected, she not only narrated the incident but obviously made a big issue of it. It is clear from the reaction of the husband who immediately left the house and went in the direction of his brother's house to meet some other persons also, that he was agitated and that he was going to have it out with whoever was responsible for the insult and assault to his wife. We refer to this aspect of the matter because the prosecution not only highlighted it but has over played it; but in our considered view it is of considerable significance as we shall demonstrate lateron. According to the prosecution version, very shortly thereafter a commotion ensued and the deceased was seen running towards his residence and the accused who are supposed to have been armed finally assaulted him and the PWs allege that apart from a chopper which A-1 used, that the remaining persons used sticks and some of them even used stones in the assault. The nephew of the deceased by name Shankar tried to intervene and he also sustained some injuries though not of any consequence. PW-1 states that she naturally went to the rescue of her husband and that in order to avoid the assault she held her hand up and that she sustained some injuries. The nephew of the deceased by name Shankar tried to intervene and he also sustained some injuries though not of any consequence. PW-1 states that she naturally went to the rescue of her husband and that in order to avoid the assault she held her hand up and that she sustained some injuries. These are extremely trivial. The matter was reported to the nearest police station which is about 7 kms. away after about 2 hours and the police came to the scene after a considerable lapse of time. Their version is that the deceased and the injured Shankar as also PW-1 Malligamma were all seated there and were crying. They were finally taken to the closest hospital at Nanjangud where after initial treatment, the medical advise was that they should be taken to the K. R. Hospital at Mysore which was done. The deceased had sustained a number of injuries for which he was admitted to the hospital and his condition deteriorated as a result of which he died on the next day i. e. , 25-3-1986. The police arrested the accused and it is their contention that the chopper and the clubs were recovered pursuant to the statements made by some of the accused and on completion of the investigation as many as 17 accused were charge-sheeted. At the conclusion of the trial, A-1 to 6 were convicted on a host of charges essentially relating to unlawful assembly, rioting, causing hurt, murder and the like, whereas the other 11 accused were acquitted. That order has become final because the State has not challenged the acquittal. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel representing the appellants sought to capitalise on this aspect of the matter because one of the strongest arguments canvassed by him was that whereas as many as 17 persons were directly involved and implicated by the witnesses, that a scrutiny of the evidence indicated that there was virtually no case against 11 of them and he submitted that in not having filed an appeal the State has virtually conceded the position that they were falsely implicated. Starting from this premise, learned counsel submitted before us that this ground is sufficient to totally discard the evidence because it clearly shows that because of the factional rivalry in the village, that the desire was to implicate as many persons as possible and once it is demonstrated that the witnesses have no sanctity for the truth vis-a-vis 11 accused that it is impossible to base a conviction on their evidence by holding that they are reliable enough to sustain a conviction against the remaining accused. The learned S. P. P. has strongly refuted the submission and he points out that the incident was one of seriousness in which several persons participated, and if out of a large number of persons who are originally named due to the lapse of time and a variety of other reasons, the witnesses were unable to sustain the charges vis-a-vis some of them that this does not in any way water-down the evidentiary value of the credibility of those very witnesses as against the remaining persons. Justifying the grounds on which the State has not filed an appeal against the remaining 11 accused, learned counsel pointed out to us that if in the course of the trial which has been held after the lapse of about 8 years, it emerges that the evidence against some of the accused is weak or non-existent, the State is perfectly justified in letting the matter rest having regard to this particular handicap. While we accept his argument vis-a-vis the non-filing of the appeal, we find it difficult to accept the contention as regards the credibility aspect. Mr. Chandramauli is perhaps justified when he starts by pointing out that if the very witnesses have implicated as many as 11 persons against whom ultimately the Court finds that there is no case, that one thing is clear viz. , that they are either allowing their imagination to take over, or more importantly that it is the hostility factor that has impelled them to grossly exaggerate. If the last of this is in fact representative of the true state of affairs, then again the serious issue arises as to whether one can place enough of reliance on these very witnesses for the purpose of sustaining convictions against as many as six of the others. If the last of this is in fact representative of the true state of affairs, then again the serious issue arises as to whether one can place enough of reliance on these very witnesses for the purpose of sustaining convictions against as many as six of the others. We do find that this factor coupled with several others which we shall presently set out would make it difficult to sustain a conviction on the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 3 ) MR. Chandramauli, learned counsel who represents the appellants has very carefully and meticulously taken us through the medical evidence and the two submissions he has made are summarised in so far as firstly he points out that none of the injuries on the deceased are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In fact, the majority of them are minor injuries. The learned S. P. P. immediately hastened to point out to the Court that there is a second category of cases wherein the injuries individually may not be sufficient in the course of nature to cause death but if there are a large number of injuries such as in the present case and if they (are) taken cumulatively they still add up to a situation where the victim looses a lot of blood and suffers intense pain shock, that combined effect of the injuries could have the same legal consequence as a serious one such as a stab through the heart. We do not dispute this proposition, but we have pointed out to the learned S. P. P. that as far as the deceased is concerned, that the medical evidence though it covers as many as 4 doctors PWs-19, 30, 35 and 36, still falls short of one essential requirement viz. , that there is no conclusive evidence from any of these doctors to establish that the injuries were sufficient to sustain a charge under S. 302, I. P. C and that the death was a direct result of these injuries. We need to take note of the fact that something like 11 or 10 hours have elapsed between the time of the incident and the time when the deceased received medical attention and the prosecution has not established the vital aspect viz. We need to take note of the fact that something like 11 or 10 hours have elapsed between the time of the incident and the time when the deceased received medical attention and the prosecution has not established the vital aspect viz. , as to what happened after the deceased was admitted to the K. R. Hospital and why was it that (sic) he died on 25-3-1986 despite the fact that there were no serious injuries on his person. Even the post-mortem evidence does not throw any satisfactory light on this. ( 4 ) COMING to the other two injured persons viz. , Shankar and Malligamma, the situation is even worse for the prosecution because even though these two persons have sustained some injuries neither of which are extremely serious. Mr. Chandramauli advanced an interesting argument which requires to be upheld. He took us very carefully through the evidence of PW-1 and the other six witnesses all of whom gave a consistent version of the incident and what he points out is that if one were to accept the prosecution case, that we have a situation whereby a large group of 17 persons who belong to the opposite faction one of whom was armed with chopper, several of others with sticks and the remaining one using stones, have virtually gone for the deceased and have also injured two persons who come to his assistance. Learned counsel demonstrates to us that even if this incident had lasted for hardly 3 or 5 minutes or even less than that, that the deceased would have not only died on the spot but that they would virtually made mince-meat out of him if he was the recipient of a violent attack from 17 persons. More importantly what the learned counsel points out to us is that merely because these witnesses have rendered parrot like version before the Court and are able to be sustain it even in the course of cross-examination that the Court need not accept it if the medical evidence totally falsifies the version. He points out to us that if the deceased was the sole recipient of an attack from 17 persons, that the same position would apply to Shankar who has gone to his assistance and equally so to Malligamma who has tried to shield her husband from the attack. He points out to us that if the deceased was the sole recipient of an attack from 17 persons, that the same position would apply to Shankar who has gone to his assistance and equally so to Malligamma who has tried to shield her husband from the attack. The fact that there are few insignificant injuries on these two persons, according to Mr. Chandramauli totally falsifies the theory that there were 17 persons involved in the assault and more importantly he submits that it also falsifies the version that any of them could have been armed with a chopper. ( 5 ) AS regards the last aspect of the matter, again, heavy reliance is placed on the medical evidence. Learned counsel points out to us that the witnesses consistently mention that the chopper blow was given by A-1 on the head of the deceased and on other parts of the body and that none of the injuries sustained by the deceased are traceable to a chopper. Learned S. P. P. submits that the fine distinction between whether the wounds were lacerated either grevious or simple, has obviously been overlooked by the doctors because they have given varying descriptions. We are prepared to accept his explanation, but we still find that looking at the injuries ourselves, that it is impossible to accept that any of the injuries on the three persons could have been sustained from a chopper. Had the chopper been used, the injuries would have been incised. Also, learned counsel points out to us that the reference to a chopper has not been there at the earliest point of time but has emerged later on. ( 6 ) WE need to record that the learned S. P. P. did bring it to our notice that PW-36 has opined that injuries 7 to 10 would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Here again, we do find on a careful examination of injuries 7 to 10 that though the doctor has said so, that it would be extremely difficult to accept his opinion in this regard. ( 7 ) STARTING with this premise, learned counsel submitted that among the two sets of evidence viz. Here again, we do find on a careful examination of injuries 7 to 10 that though the doctor has said so, that it would be extremely difficult to accept his opinion in this regard. ( 7 ) STARTING with this premise, learned counsel submitted that among the two sets of evidence viz. , the oral evidence and the medical evidence, that the latter is the more reliable of the two and that the medical evidence must always be consistent with the oral evidence that it must add to it and be supportive. The reverse position is equally important in so far as if the medical evidence runs contrary to the oral evidence then a Court will, in the first instance, ascertain whe-ther it is possible to reconcile the two and if that is not possible then the casualty would undoubtedly be the oral evidence. That precisely is the situation in the present case. We have refrained from setting out elaborately the details with regard to the incident as deposed to by various witnesses but we need to mention that as far as the number of injuries and the nature of injuries are concerned, that it is totally and completely impossible to reconcile the oral evidence with the medical evidence. ( 8 ) MR. Chandramauli thereafter went to another head when he pointed out that it is well-settled law that where there are injuries on the accused that the prosecution must put forward a rational and plausible explanation for the same. This is the settled position, in law and in this background, he has emphasised to us that A-1 had injuries of some seriousness whereas A-2 had only some traces which could hardly pass for injuries. His point is that if A-1 had injuries of some seriousness, that it is obvious that he sustained these injuries in the case of the assault from the other side. The PWs are very silent, for obvious reasons, with regard to the true nature of the incident. According to them, it was a totally one sided affair and the learned S. P. P. submitted that this was precisely what happened because the deceased went to do an investigation and obviously went there in an aggressive mood which provoked the accused who chased him and beat him up. According to them, it was a totally one sided affair and the learned S. P. P. submitted that this was precisely what happened because the deceased went to do an investigation and obviously went there in an aggressive mood which provoked the accused who chased him and beat him up. We find it difficult to accept this explanation because having regard to the background of factionalism in the village, the moment the deceased went to question about the earlier incident regarding his wife, it is quite clear that his group would have supported him and if at all there was a flare-up, it is very clear that there would have been a number of persons on both sides and this is the only explanation for A-1 having sustained injuries. The learned S. P. P. submitted that having regard to the background of hostility and the amount of litigation that it was resulting in and also from the fact that a counter complaint had been filed that it was impossible for the witnesses to implicate themselves by admitting that it was A-2 who fought. He submits that in relation to the injuries inflicted on the deceased and on Shankar and on PW-1 that what happened to A-1 was insignificant and non-mentioning of how he sustained injuries could be attributable also to the lapse of memory due to the delay of 8 years between the incident and the trial. Had the witnesses pleaded that their memory had faded and that certain aspects of the incident are not very clear to them, we would have accepted the learned S. P. P. 's submission in this case. Nothing of that sort has happened, because the witnesses have very confidently deposed about the whole of the incident, they do not plead any hesitation or lack of memory and they are very categorical with regard to everything except the important aspects as to precisely what started the whole incident and more importantly the obvious aspect viz. , that there would have been two groups involved and not only one. The injuries on A-1 are a tell-tale circumstance to an all important aspect which would indicate that the incident was a free for all and not a one way affair. This being the position, for whatever reason the PWs have suppressed the very vital aspect viz. , that there would have been two groups involved and not only one. The injuries on A-1 are a tell-tale circumstance to an all important aspect which would indicate that the incident was a free for all and not a one way affair. This being the position, for whatever reason the PWs have suppressed the very vital aspect viz. , the causes for the injuries on A-1 and this would certainly reduce their credibility and would shake whatever confidence the Court may have in their evidence. ( 9 ) THIS really summarises the major heads of controversy in this case. The learned S. P. P. submitted that there is no doubt about the fact that the incident did take place and we accept that position. He also submitted that there can be no doubt about the fact that several persons from the side of the accused were involved in the incident, but this is precisely where the difficulty arises in so far as 11 of them have already been acquitted and before we can convict the remaining six, we must be very certain with regard to all aspects of the case that would justify such a conviction. To this end the learned S. P. P. submitted that we have as many as six witnesses who conclusively and consistently identify all the six accused and he stated that if at least these six persons can be held to have taken part in the brutal attack, that the offences of forming an unlawful assembly, rioting and the like would be established. His next submission was that once these ingredients are established, that it does not matter as to which particular accused did what act because all of them would be equally liable for the consequence of whatever was done by the members of unlawful assembly. Again, we do not dispute the correctness in law of this argument, but we have slight hesitation in applying it to the facts of the present case, the first reason being that where the credibility of the witnesses is shaken, one cannot in the same breath accept their evidence with regard to identification, because that is synonymous with the implication. Again, we do not dispute the correctness in law of this argument, but we have slight hesitation in applying it to the facts of the present case, the first reason being that where the credibility of the witnesses is shaken, one cannot in the same breath accept their evidence with regard to identification, because that is synonymous with the implication. Secondly, where the bulk of the accused have been acquitted and some of them have been convicted and where we are not sufficiently satisfied about the total credibility of the witnesses, it would not be safe to hold that the evidence of these witnesses establish that it was these accused and not another persons who inflicted the injuries for which the accused are sought to be convicted. This may be a fine distinction but it is an important one and the law with regard to the appreciation of evidence requires that the Court has to bear these principles in mind. The last submission canvassed by the learned S. P. P. was that the catena of decisions relating to cases of unlawful assembly lay down that where under riotous situations it would be physically impossible for witnesses to attribute specific overt-acts or to depose about the weapon and the individual injury inflicted etc. , that the law holds the whole group guilty for whatever has collectively been done. This being so, the Courts have held that if two or more witnesses implicate an accused that this should be sufficient for a conviction. It is more or less on the basis of this principle that the trial Court has held these six accused persons guilty. We find an error in the application of that principle because it is a condition precedent that before the two or more rule is applied, that the basic evidence of the witnesses must pass the total credibility test. It is precisely in that area that the evidence in this appeal is lacking. ( 10 ) MR. Chandramauli did refer us to the series of decisions on various aspects of the law that arose for decision in this appeal but the principles are all well settled and in our considered view, it is not really necessary to reproduce those decisions in this judgment. ( 10 ) MR. Chandramauli did refer us to the series of decisions on various aspects of the law that arose for decision in this appeal but the principles are all well settled and in our considered view, it is not really necessary to reproduce those decisions in this judgment. Suffice it to say, that we have taken careful note of the submissions canvassed by both the learned counsel, the principles of law that can be culled out from these decisions that we have followed them carefully in the course of the hearing of this appeal. ( 11 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid situations, we find it impossible to sustain the conviction recorded against the six appellants. The findings recorded against the six appellants by the trial Court are accordingly set aside. ( 12 ) THE appeal is allowed. The convictions recorded against the six appellants are set aside. Appellants' learned counsel points out to us that the appellants are in custody, having regard to this situation, we direct that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .