A.D.V. Reddy, J.- The appellants, 25 in number who are accused in S.C. No. 31 of 1966 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Krishna, have been convicted for various offences under sections 147, 148, 302 read with section 34 on three counts and also under sections 324, 323 and 352, Indian Penal Code. On 19th March, 1966 at about 5 p.m., the bus APW 14 proceeding from Vijayawada to Jakkampudi was stopped by about 50 persons armed with spears and sticks about one or one and half furlongs south of Nandipativari choultry and as the driver, cleaner, checker and most of the other passengers ran away, six passengers, who stayed in the bus, viz., Adam, Jamalayya and Yesupadam (hereinafter referred to as deceased Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively) as well as P.Ws. 1 to 3 were attacked, as a result of which Adam (D-1) died on the spot and Jamalayya (D-2) and Yesupadam (D-3) died in the hospital on 20th March, 1966 at 2. p.m. and 21st March, 1966 at 9-10 p.m. respectively and P.Ws. 1 to 3 sustained injuries. The case for the prosecution is that on account of factions in the villages of Jakkampudi and Shahabada, the accused, of whom accused 5 to accused 8, accused 13 and accused 15 belonged to Shahabada and the rest to Jakkampudi, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of attacking and causing the death of three deceased, accused 1 to accused 14 and accused 18 arming themselves with spears, accused 5 to accused 17, accused 19 to accused 25 with stick, and committed rioting and in the prosecution of that common object attacked the three deceased as well as P.Ws. 1 to 3 as they were coming in the bus and caused the injuries on 19th March, 1966 as a result of which D-1, D-2 and D-3 died and P.Ws. 1 to 3 sustained injuries. The facts as disclosed by the evidence of the witnesses examined for the prosecution are that on the wake of introduction of democratic institutions a like the panchayatiraj and having an elected president of the co-operative society, came dissentions and strife to disturb the hitherto peaceful rural life in the villages of Jakkampudi and Shahabada, separated by a distance of 3 furlongs in Vijayawada taluk of Krishna district. Jakkampudi and Shahabada form one unit for the purpose of panchayat elections. Jakkampudi and Shahabada form one unit for the purpose of panchayat elections. In the panchayat elections of 1964, four were elected from Jakkampudi and three from Shahabada and they had unanimously elected Sri V. Mahadevayya as the sarpanch. There was a co-operative society called ‘Tadipalli Co-operative Credit Society’ and one Sri K. Subbaraju was its president. This society operated in the villages of Tadepalli, Shahabada, Ambapuram, Kottur and Jakkampudi and was supplying the manures necessary for agricultural operations. As there was no equitable distribution of the manures as amongst the villages, the re were complaints and in November, 1965, P.W. 1 and a resident of Jakkampudi as well as Sri Mahadevayya the sarpanch questioned the said Sri Subbaraju, President of the co-operative society as to why the manures are not being distributed properly. The president did not give any answer. This matter was therefore reported to the Block Development Officer at Vijayawada and he passed an order separating the allotment to Shahabada and Jakkampudi. This was not relished by Sri K. Subbaraju the president of the co-operative Society and from then onwards there were ill-feelings between the parties. The president then sought to influence five members of Jakkampudi Panchayat to move a no-confidence motion against the sarpanch Mahadevayya. He was intimated that the no-confidence motion will be moved on 9th March, 1966. The sarpanch Mahadevayya on account of the impending no-confidence motion resigned on 7th March, 1966 itself. This resulted in further ill-feelings between the parties. On 18th March, 1966 accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, 16, 17 and one Sadala Seetharamaiah presented a petition Exhibit P-6 to P.W.9, the Tribune Officer of Shahabada village, addressing it to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vijayawada taluk police station, alleging that deceased Nos. 1 to 3 as well as P.Ws. 1 to 3 and others armed with spears and knives were running along the bazaars from 10 a.m. till 6 p.m. that day abusing in vulgar language and threatening to kill or stab persons and challenging persons to come out if they have manhood and have been creating havoc in the village, on account of the grouse they bore by reason of the no-confidence motion moved against Vasireddy Mahadevayya the sarpanch that persons were hiding in their houses even without food or drink and therefore protection may be given to them. Then P:W. 9 and accused 17 went to Vijayawada taluk police station and presented the petition to P.W. 19 the Head Constable. P.W. 19 after making a general diary entry, proceeded to Jakkampudi village followed by H.C. 378 and an armed reserve party. At the village they found the life normal, contacted the petitioners and the respondents mentioned therein and took bonds from them to appear before the Sub-Inspector of Police on 19th March, 1966 at 10 a.m. and presented Exhibit P-33 report to the Sub-Inspector P.W. 26, who made an endorsement on the report directing P.W. 19 to make an enquiry and take suitable proceedings. On 19th March, 1966 in pursuance of the bonds executed by them, P.Ws. 1 to 3 as well as deceased Nos. 1 to 3 left Jakkampudi for Vijayawada at 9 a.m. by bus and there they met Mahadevayya at the Sub-Court. But Mahadevayya informed them that in pursuance of the bonds taken, they had also been to the police station and since the Circle Inspector was on leave and the Sub-Inspector was otherwise engaged, they were asked to come on the following Monday. P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the three deceased persons, however, went to the police station to mark their presence and they were asked to come on the following Monday for further enquiry. Thereupon they went to Kaleswararao market to catch a bus to go to Jakkampudi. They reached the market at about 3 p.m. but by then one bus had left and as they waited, the next bus came at about 4 p.m. and they boarded the bus. Accused 17 who also at the bus-stand with his cycle, on seeing them, left the busstand and proceeded towards Jakkampudi. Along with the three deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 3, there were P.Ws. 4 to 7 and in all about 20 passengers in the bus. As the bus was proceeding to Jakkampudi and reached a place about one or one and half furlongs to the south of Nandipativari choultry at about 5 p.m. about 50 persons armed with spears and sticks, including the accused, came from the eastern side of the road from among the thickly-grown tamarind trees, obstructed the bus from proceeding further and as the bus stopped, they asked the passengers to get down. Out of fright, the conductor P.W. 8, the cleaner, driver and checker and most of the passengers got down and ran away. P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the three deceased alone stayed in the bus. Out of fear that they might be beaten, they did not get down. Accused 1 to accoused 4 armed with spears got into the body of the bus and of them accused 1 to accused 3 speared Adam (D-1) and he fell down from the bus through the rear door. Accused 1 accused 2 and accused 4 stabbed Yesupadam (D-3) and he also jumped down from the bus and as he wanted to escape, accused 18 stabbed him outside the bus. While Jamalayya (D-2) was about to get down, accused 5 to accused 8 poked him with sticks and as he fell down, they again beat him with sticks. As P.W. 2 who is the son of the said Jamalayya fell over his father and implored the accused not to beat him accused 9 and accused 10 beat P.W. 2 with sticks on his head and accused 15 pulled him away by catching hold of his hand. Then accused 1 and accused 3 speared Jamalayya again on the head and accused 4 speared P.W. 2 on the left fore-arm. As P.W. 3 was getting down from the bus, accused 11 beat him with a stick on is right hand. P.W. 1 was also attacked by accused, 1, 4 and 11. While accused 1 poked him on the right flank with a spear, accused 4 speared him on the left forearm at the elbow joint and accused 11 beat him on the calf of the right leg. While the attack was going on, accused Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 to 25 instigated the other accused to beat. P.Ws. 1 and 3 who had sustained injuries went away to their houses. Adam (D-1) died on the spot. P.W. 2 and his father Jamalayya (D-2) as well as Yesupadam (D-3) with bleeding injuries took shelter under a tamarind tree at a distance of 40 yards from the scene of offence. The accused had run away. P.Ws. 1 and 3 who had sustained injuries went away to their houses. Adam (D-1) died on the spot. P.W. 2 and his father Jamalayya (D-2) as well as Yesupadam (D-3) with bleeding injuries took shelter under a tamarind tree at a distance of 40 yards from the scene of offence. The accused had run away. P.W. 8, the conductor of the bus, who along with the driver, cleaner and the checker had run away from the scene of occurrence, boarded a bus that was proceeding to Vijayawada, got down at Kaleswararao market in Vijayawada and there P.W. 8 told the time-keeper of the attack on the bus by an armed gang of 50 people and their abandoning the bus and asked him to inform the owner of the bus and then went to the police station and give a report Exhibit P-4 merely stating that the bus was attacked by about 40 or 50 armed people and they had come away and that action may be taken. P.W. 18 the station Writer who received Exhibit P-4 also received a phone message informing him about the occurrence. He made a general diary entry Exhibit P-29. On Exhibit P-4 also he made a general diary entry Exhibit P-30 and sent two Head Constables and some constables to go and enquire into the matter and prevent the breach of peace. He the a informed by phone the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 26 who was at the Gollapudi I.L.T.D. Company. P.W. 26 the Sub Inspector of Police who received the message proceeding along with a Head Constable to the scene of offence. He met the other police party that were coming from the Police station. They all went to (he scene of offence and found the dead body of Adam (D-1) lying there and the bus abandoned near the road-side. Leaving a guard there the Sub-Inspector, P.W. 26 proceeded to the village and traced P.W. 1, took a statement Exhibit P-1 from him at about 10 p.m. Near the scene of occurrence under a tamarind tree, they found P.W. 2 as well as Jamalayya (D-2) and Yesupadam (D-3). They were taken by P.W. 17 a Police Constable in a van to the Government Hospital at Vijayawada arid they were admitted as inpatients. P.Ws. 1 and 3 were also sent to the hospital. They were taken by P.W. 17 a Police Constable in a van to the Government Hospital at Vijayawada arid they were admitted as inpatients. P.Ws. 1 and 3 were also sent to the hospital. P.W. 26 held the inquest on the dead body of Adam (D1) on 20th March, 1966 between 9 a.m., and 12 noon and examined P.Ws. 1 and 3 at the inquest. Exhibit P-7 is the inquest report. The body was then sent for postmortem examination. P.W. 10 the doctor at Vijayawada hospital examined Jamalayya (D-2) and found a number of lacerated and contused injuries on him and he was admitted into the hospital. She had also examined Yesupadam (D-3) and found incised and lacerated injuries on him and he was also admitted in the hospital for treatment. On P.W. 2, whom she examined, P.W. 10 found two contusions and two lacerated injuries. P.Ws. 1 and 3 who were sent to the hospital on 20th March, 1966 were examined by P.W. 13 the doctor and he found one incised injury and three contusions on P.W. 1 and a contusion on P.W. 3. P.W. 11 held the autopsy on the body of Adam and found one penetrating wound over the fell off anterior was the chest and two abrasions and a contusion and on dissection found injury on the left lung 2" in depth and he was of the opinion that the deceased(D-1) Adam had died of shock and haemorrhage, Exhibit P-15 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. P.W. 10 the doctor had sent a requisition to the Magistrate to record the dying declarations of Jamalayya (D-2) and Yesupadam (D3) P.W. 15 the Munsif Magistrate at Vijayawada recorded the dying declarations of both Yesupadam and Jamalayya, Exhibits P-23 and P-24 on the morning of 20th March, 1966. Jamalayya died on 20th March, 1966 at 4 p.m. P.W. 26, on intimation of his death went to the hospital and held an inquest over his dead body on 21st March, 1966 and examined P.W. 2 once again at this inquest. Exhibit P-34 is this inquest report. The body of Jamalayya (D-2) was then sent for postmortem examination. Jamalayya died on 20th March, 1966 at 4 p.m. P.W. 26, on intimation of his death went to the hospital and held an inquest over his dead body on 21st March, 1966 and examined P.W. 2 once again at this inquest. Exhibit P-34 is this inquest report. The body of Jamalayya (D-2) was then sent for postmortem examination. P.W. 14 who held the postmortem examination found on dissection a fissured fracture of the scull and also fracture of 7th, 8th and 9th ribs on the right side and has opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the multiple fractures. Exhibit P-21 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. Yesupadam (D-3) died on 21st March, 1966 at 10 p.m. On receipt of information P.W. 27, the Circle Inspector of Police held the inquest over his dead body on 22nd March 1966 at 12 noon. At the time of inquest, he did not examine anyone but read the dying declaration of Yesupadam recorded by the Magistrate and the statements of P.Ws. 1. and 3 as mentioned in the earlier inquest reports Exhibits P-7 and P-34. Exhibit P-35 is the inquest report relating to Yesupadam (D-3) His body was sent for postmortem examination and P.W. 12 the doctor who held the autopsy on his body on dissection found a fracture on the back side of the head, besides other injuries. He opined that the deceased died as a result of shock and haemorrhage. Ex. P-16 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. The accused were arrested between 27th March, 1966 and nth April, 1966 and after the completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed. The accused in their statements, though admitted ill-feelings on account of the non-confidence motion denied any knowledge of the offence. Accused 6 and accused 17 pleaded alibi. Accused 6 stated that he was at Tadepalli and accused 17 stated that he was at Vijayawada at the time of occurrence. No witness was examined in their defence. On a scrutiny of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, found that the case for the prosecution has been established beyond doubt, convicted accused 1 to 4 and accused 18 under section 148 Indian Penal Code and the rest under section 147 Indian Penal Code for rioting. No witness was examined in their defence. On a scrutiny of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, found that the case for the prosecution has been established beyond doubt, convicted accused 1 to 4 and accused 18 under section 148 Indian Penal Code and the rest under section 147 Indian Penal Code for rioting. With regard to the other offences committed, he convicted accused 1 to accused 3 for the murder of Adam(D-1) under section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. He also convicted accused 1, accused 3, and accused 5 to 8 for an offence under section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code for the murder of Jamalayya (D-2). Accused 1, accused 2, accused 4 and accused 18 were convicted under section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code for the murder of Yesupadam (D-3) and sentenced all of them to imprisonment for life on each of those counts. Accused Nos. 1, 4, 9, 10, 11 and 15 were also individually convicted for the injuries caused to P.Ws. 1 to 3 and under sections 352, 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code, and given various sentences ranging from one year to 3 years. Hence Appeal Nos. 753, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 868 and 869 of 1966 by the accused. As the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the rioting under section 147 and 148 and as he had convicted only accused 1 to accused 8 and and 18 for the offence under section 302 read with 34 and there is no conviction against the rest of the accused under section 149 Indian Penal Code, the State has preferred the appeal Crl. A. No. 992 of 1966. There can be no doubt that the three deceased in this case Adam, Jamalayya and Yesupadam, had died due to injuries sustained by them in an attack made on them with deadly weapons. While Adam was found dead on the spot where the alleged attack is said to have taken place i.e., on the road from Vijayawada to Jakkampudi one or one and half furlongs south of Nandipativari choultry, with injuries, the other two deceased Jamalayya and Yesupadam were also found under a tamarind tree adjacent to the said place by P.W. 17 the Head Constable and they were sent to the hospital P.Ws. 1 and 3 were found in the village by P.W. 26, the Sub-Inspector, with injuries and they were also sent to the hospital. The inquest on the dead body of Adam was held at the place of occurrence and the body was sent for postmortem examination. The evidence of the doctor P.W. 11 who held autopsy, as already stated shows that he had died due to the penetrating wound that had punctured the lung and that his death was due to shock and haemorrhage. P.W. 10, the doctor at the Viiayawada hospital who had examined Jamalayya and Yesupadam on their admission also found a number of injuries on them and they were admitted into the hospital for treatment. While Jaalayya died on 20th March, 1966, Yesupadam died on 21st March, 1966. P.W. 14 the doctor who held the autopsy on the body of Tamalayya had also opined that there were a number of fractures and be had died due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from these multiple fractures. P.W. 12, the doctor who held the autopsy on the body of the Yesuratnam (?) also stated that Yesuratnam (?) had also died due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from all the injuries found on him. Therefore it is clear that all the three deceased had died due to homicide. P.Ws. 1 to 3 had also been examined by the doctors, P.W. 10 and 13 and they were also found to have sustained injuries. There can also be no doubt that all the three deceased as well as P.Ws. 1 to 3 had sustained the injuries on account of the attack made on them at 5 P.M. on 19th March, 1966 at a place on the way from Vijayawada to Jakkampudi, one or one and half furlongs south of Nandipativari choultry. The assailants, whoever they were, were said to have come 50 strong armed with spears and sticks. Stopped the bus A P W 14 as it was proceeding towards Jakkampudi, then asked the passengers to get down and most of them got down and ran away on account of fright, and they had attacked the deceased Nos. 1 to 3 and P.Ws. 1 to 3 who stayed in the bus, on account of enmity, and caused the injuries as a result of which D-1 to D-3 died subsequently. We have the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and P.Ws. 1 to 3 who stayed in the bus, on account of enmity, and caused the injuries as a result of which D-1 to D-3 died subsequently. We have the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 with regard to the earlier part of the occurrence. Of the driver, conductor, cleaner and checker who are said to have travelled in the bus, only the conductor had been examined as P.W. 8. Out of the 20 passengers in the bus, besides, P.Ws. 1 to 3, the only other witnesses examined are P.Ws. 4, 5, 6 and 7. P.W. 8 the conductor along with the driver, cleaner and checker had run away from the place of occurrence as soon as the bus was obstructed by 50 or 60 persons who had armed and had asked the bus to be stopped and according to P.W. 8 they all ran towards Velgaleru boarded a bus and proceeded to Vijayawada and there he had told the time-keeper at the bus stand of what had happened and asked him to report, to the owner and then went to the Taluk Police Station and gave the report Exhibit P-4. In Exhibit P-4 he merely stated that the bus was stopped by 40 or 50 persons who had come armed with spears and sticks and they have all come running away as they were afraid and wanted action to be taken. He had not implicated any of the accused and he had not stated anything about the attacks made on the three deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 3. P.Ws. 4, 5, 6 and 7 also speak to the bus being surrounded, but they do not speak to their having seen the actual attack on the three deceased or P.Ws. 1 to 3, though they profess to identify some of the accused among the crowd. The fact that the bus in which the three deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 3 were travelling was stopped by a large number of people who had come armed and later the attack on the three deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 3 took place, cannot be denied. It was at the scene of occurrence itself that the dead body of Adam was found and a little furtheraway under a tamarind tree Jamalayya and Yesupadam who died subsequently as well as P.W. 2 with injuries were found. 1 to 3 took place, cannot be denied. It was at the scene of occurrence itself that the dead body of Adam was found and a little furtheraway under a tamarind tree Jamalayya and Yesupadam who died subsequently as well as P.W. 2 with injuries were found. Therefore the scene of accurrence and the time when the three deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 3 had sustained injuries can also be said to have been established. The next point to be determined is whether the accused are the culprits who had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and had committed rioting in the prosecution of their common object of causing the death of deceased Nos. 1 to 3 attacked them and inflicted injuries as a result of which deceased Nos. 1 to 3 diedand P.Ws. 1 to 3 sustained injuries. At this stage we may advert to the alleged irregularities committed in the investigation by the police which according to the learned Counsel for the defence is fatal to the prosecution case. The irregularities relate to the manner in which the inquest proceedings were conducted and the non-supply to the accused of the statements of witnesses recorded at the inquests held. At the inquest of Adam (D-1) held by P.W. 26 on 20th March 1966, P.Ws. 1 and 3 were examined as shown by Exhibit P-7 inquest report. After the death of Jamalayya (D-2) at the hospital. P.W. 26 held the inquest on the dead body on 21st March, 1966 and examined P.W. 2 as shown by Exhibit P-34 the inquest report. On the death of Yesupadam (D-3) on 21st March, 1966, P.W. 27 the Circle Inspector of Police held an inquest and at the inquest on 22nd March, 1966, he did not examine any witnesses but read the dying declaration of Yesupadam recorded by the Magistrate and also the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 3 recorded at the earlier inquests under Exhibit P-7 and P-34 as shown by the inquest report Exhibit P-35. It is now the contention of the learned Counsel for the defence that this procedure adopted by P.W. 27 the Circle Inspector of reading the dying declaration and the earlier statements of P.Ws. 1 and 3 recorded at the earlier inquests under Exhibit P-7 and P-34 as shown by the inquest report Exhibit P-35. It is now the contention of the learned Counsel for the defence that this procedure adopted by P.W. 27 the Circle Inspector of reading the dying declaration and the earlier statements of P.Ws. 1 and 3 recorded at previous inquests, is highly irregular, as, according to him, what is contemplated under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code is the examination of eye witnesses at the inquest and not recording the prior statements or dying declarations of witnesses not examineed at the inquest. This contention is not tenable. The primary purpose and object of holding an inquest is to ascertain the cause of death whether it is accidental, suicidal or homicidal. For this purpose the police officer is directed to make an investigation and draft a report describing the wounds and stating in what manner or by what weapon or instrument such wounds appear to have been inflicted. This power given to him to investigate is not limited to the examination of eye witnesses only. If it is so limited, it disables him from finding out from whatever sources available, the cause of death. The contention is that section 175 Criminal Procedure Code limits the power given to the officer holding the inquest to summon the eye witnesses and examine them only. This is not correct as section 175 Criminal Procedure Code only empowers the officer to summon the witnesses to appear at the inquest for their examination. It is only an enabling provision and does not in any way cripple the powers of investigation in order to find out the apparent cause of death. It may be that eye witnesses may not be available and he may have to rely on other circumstances to find out the cause of death and he would be at liberty to explore those sources which reveal the information regarding the cause of death. We are not prepared to say what he should do or what he should not do with regard to the investigation at the inquest, as each case may give rise to different problems. It is not however, correct to say that investigation at the inquest should be limited to the examination of eye witnesses only. We are not prepared to say what he should do or what he should not do with regard to the investigation at the inquest, as each case may give rise to different problems. It is not however, correct to say that investigation at the inquest should be limited to the examination of eye witnesses only. However, whatever material is used at the inquest for coming to a conclusion regarding the cause of death, it must be clear and available to defence very often, even the statements of the witnesses examined at the inquest are not recorded. What is being done is filling up the columns by the condensed or concised version the gist of what all had been stated. For investigation under section 174 Criminal Procedure Code it is no doubt not incumbent on the police officer to record verbatime the statement as per the provisions of section 174 Criminal Procedure Code. As pointed out in In re Pentayya1, in so far as the scope of the inquest is for the limited purpose of ascertaining the cause of death, it is neither necessary that all eye witnesses should be examined at the inquest nor is it incumbent on the police officer to record verbatim and separately, the statements of each of the persons examined, by him under section 175 Criminal Procedure Code and investigation under section 174 Criminal Procedure Code should not be confounded or equated with an investigation into a cognizable offence which is governed by provisions of sections 160 and 161, Criminal Procedure Code. We may, however, point out that in the police standing orders standing order No. 635 (2) directs that statements of witnesses examined during the time of inquest should be reduced into writing in Form No. 72 and such statements should be made a record, separate from the investigation report, that they should be signed by the investigating officer and Panchayatdars and not by the deposing witnesses and standing order No. 645 (28) prescribes that the precedure for the despatch of the inquest report to the Court as prescribed in respect of the first information reports should be followed. These instructions, though they do not have a statutory force, have been designed with a view to safeguard clean investigation and as far as possible prevent further manipulations or improvements in the evidence. It ishighly desirable that these instructions are strictly followed. These instructions, though they do not have a statutory force, have been designed with a view to safeguard clean investigation and as far as possible prevent further manipulations or improvements in the evidence. It ishighly desirable that these instructions are strictly followed. But however we cannot say that the non-recording of statements, by itself, vitiates the proceedings or causes irreparable prejudice to the accused. With regard to the admissibility of the entries made in the inquest report based on the statements made by the witnesses examined at the inquest they suffer from the same infirmities as the statements made under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code in cases where the inquest is conducted under section 174 Criminal Procedure Code by a police officer. The inquest report is admissible to the extent of showing the apparent cause of death as provided under section 174 Criminal Procedure Code and the other entries will not be admissible in so far as they are statements made to a police officer except to the extent provided for under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code for purposes of eliciting contradictions from the witnesses in the course of their examination in Court in the manner provided under section 145 of the Evidence Act. If the statements of the witnesses examined at the inquest are reduced into writing they will facilitate the defence to elicit the contradictions. In case they are not reduced into writing and a gist of th;se statements, in so far as it is required to fill up each column in the inquest report, is incorporated, still it is open to the defence to cross-examine the witnesses who are said to have been examined there in relation to those entries to elicit contradiction with regard to the death or with regard to the person who had last seen him alive the person who had first seen him dead etc., Otherwise, the statements contained in the inquest report are not substantive evidence and ought not to be relied on to arrive at a conclusion whether they be against the defence or in its favour. With regard to the furnishing to the defence of the copies of the statements, if recorded at the inquest of witnesses examined therein, the defence is entitled to such copies being furnished to them as provided under section 173 (4), Criminal Procedure Code. With regard to the furnishing to the defence of the copies of the statements, if recorded at the inquest of witnesses examined therein, the defence is entitled to such copies being furnished to them as provided under section 173 (4), Criminal Procedure Code. In the present case, at the inquest of Adam (D-1) only P.Ws. 1 and 3 were examined and at the inquest of Jamalayya (D-2) P.W. 2 alone was examined by P.W. 26, the Sub-Inspector. But P.W. 26 says that he did not record their statements when they were examined at the inquests. P.W. 1, as can be seen by Exhibits D-2, D-3, D-4 and D-5, has admitted in the committal Court that his statement was recorded at the inquest. P.W. 3 also had admitted in the committal Court, as can be seen from Exhibit D-13, that his statement was written and was read over. P.W. 19 the tribune officer (Village Munsif) who is the scribe of the inquest report at the inquest of Adam (D-1) and one of the panchayatdars at the inquest, has stated that P.Ws. 1 and 3 were examined at the inquest and the Sub-Inspector recorded that statements of the witnesses and he is the scribe of the inquest report Exhibit P-7. P-W 20, the panchayatdar at the inquest of Jamalayya (D-2) stated that the Sub-Inspector recorded the statement of P.W. 2 On the face of this evidence, the statement of the Sub-Inspector, P.W. 26 that he did not reduce into writing the statements of those witnesses, cannot be accepted. Admittedly the copies of these statements have not been made available to the defence. The learned Counsel for the accused relies on the decision reported in Kottayya v. Emperor1 to the effect that where statements were never made available to the accused, an inference, which is almost irresistible, arises of prejudice to the accused. Admittedly the copies of these statements have not been made available to the defence. The learned Counsel for the accused relies on the decision reported in Kottayya v. Emperor1 to the effect that where statements were never made available to the accused, an inference, which is almost irresistible, arises of prejudice to the accused. He has also relied on the observations in In re Jayaram Reddy2, where it was stated that on the fact that the statements recorded at the inquest had been suppressed, there can be little doubt that it resulted in great prejudice to the accused, as the accused are deprived of a fair opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses in the light of their earlier statements, for testing the truth of the statements of the witnesses examined with reference to other statements made by them and that it is a valuable right which the Legislature has chosen to confer on the accused by enacting section 162, Criminal Procedure Code. As pointed out in W. Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, in all procedural laws, certain things are regarded as vital and full effect must be given to its provisions and except where there is something so vital as to cut at the root of jurisdiction or so abhorrent to what one might term natural justice, the matter resolves itself to a question of prejudice. Considering the question of supply of copies of the statements of the witnesses to the accused, the Supreme Court has this to say in Noor Khan v. State of Rajasthan.2 “The object of sections 162, 173 (4) and 207-A (3) is to enable the accused to obtain a clear picture of the case against him before the commencement of the inquiry. The sections impose an obligation upon the investigating officer to supply before the commencement of the inquiry copies of the statements of witnesses who are intended to be examined at the trial so that the accused may utilise these statements for cross-examining the witnesses to establish such defence as he desires to put up, and also to shake their testimony. The sections impose an obligation upon the investigating officer to supply before the commencement of the inquiry copies of the statements of witnesses who are intended to be examined at the trial so that the accused may utilise these statements for cross-examining the witnesses to establish such defence as he desires to put up, and also to shake their testimony. Section 161 (3) does not require a police-officer to record in writing the statements of witnesses examined by him in the course of the investigation, but if he does record in writing any such statements, he is obliged to make copies of these statements available to the accused before the commencement of proceedings in the Court so that the accused may know the details and particulars of the case against him and how the case is intended to the proved. The object of the provision is manifestly to give the accused the fullest information in the possession of the prosecution, on which the case of the State is based, and the statements made against him. But failure to furnish statements of witnesses recorded in the course of investigation may not vitiate the trial. It does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to try a case, nor is the failure by itself a ground which affects the power of the Court to record a conviction, if the evidence warrants such a course. The provision relating to the making of copies of statements recorded in the course of investigation is undoubtedly of great importance, but the breach thereof must be considered in the light of the prejudice caused to the accused by reason of its breach.” It is therefore necessary in this case to see whether any prejudice was caused to the accused by the non-supply of the statements recorded at the inquest. In this case, as already pointed out, P.Ws. 1 and 3 only had been examined at the inquest of Adam (D-1) and only P.W. 2 was examined at the inquest of Jamalayya (D-2) and no one was examined at the inquest of Yesupadam (D-3). These three witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, and 3 who had been examined at the inquests, had been examined prior to the inquest by the Sub-Inspector, P.W. 26. These three witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, and 3 who had been examined at the inquests, had been examined prior to the inquest by the Sub-Inspector, P.W. 26. He had gone to Jakkampudi after visiting the sceme of occurrence on 19th March, 1966 itself and according to him be had traced P.W. 1 at his house at 1 P.M. and recorded the statement Exhibit P-1. Copies of the separate statements of the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3 recorded earlier to the inquests had been furnished to the accused and in relation to these statements P.W. 26 had been questioned to elicit contradictions and omissions. With regard to the statements at the inquests also, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 having been questioned in cross-examination as to what they had stated. Under these circumstances we do not consider that an appreciable prejudice, so as to occasion failure of justice, has been caused. Next coming to the evidence adduced in the case, we have to find on the evidence whether a case against any of the accused of their complicity in the offences of which they are charged has been made out beyond doubt ? The evidence that incriminates the accused in this case consists entirely in the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. Of these P.W. 2 is no other than the son of Jamalayya (D-2). Admittedly all the three are members of the party of Mahadevayya and as such they are partisan witnesses. Therefore a tendency to implicate members of the other faction, although annocent, and rope in as many as possible including prominent leaders, cannnot be overlooked. Several principles have been laid down with regard to the appreciation of evidence of this type. It is observed in Nisar Ali v. State of U.P.1 that the well known Maxim “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus ” has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India, nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law, that it is merely a rule of caution and the doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances but it is not what may be called a mandatory rule of evidence. In Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar2, it was observed by Subbarao, J. (as thethen was as follows: “The maxim ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus‘(false in one thing, false in every thing) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries and embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest.” It is therefore clear that merely because the case for the prosecution is false to a certain extent, the whole case cannot be rejected. It is the duty of the Court to see which of the witnesses can be relied on and to draw its inferences and conclusions from their testimony. In Abdul Ghani v. State of Madhya Pradesh3, it was observed as follows: “Though the prosecution witnesses have not told the whole truth, though it is not possible to get an absolutely true picture of the events from their evidence, where it is not possible to say that the prosecution case is a complete fabrication and where it appears that certain murders have resulted from a riot in which some at least of the several accused have taken part the Court should make an effort to disengage the truth from the falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff It is an error to take an easy course of holding the evidence discrepant and the whole case untrue. Of course, the story given by the eye-witnesses has to be carefully scrutinised and unless it can be said with reasonable certainty that a certain person took part in the riot, the benefit of doubt has to be given to him.” In cases where the witnesses deliberately implicate innocent persons or when their evidence is found to be false in regard to the material particulars, it is not safe to act on their testimony. Therefore, in factious fights, the caution of a high degree of certainty is required and each case depends on the evidence let in therein and the scrutiny that has to be made is with regard to the veracity of each witness. In the present case, the only three eye witnesses examined are partisan witnesses and their evidence is attacked as being full of improbablities, inconsistencies and contradictions. It is contended that about 50 persons armed with spears, and sticks had come and stopped the bus and when the driver, conductor, checker, cleaner as well as most of the passengers got down and ran away, it is very unlikely that the three deceased and three injured alone would have stayed in the bus to be attacked and the incident is not likely to have happened as stated by them. Of the driver conductor, cleaner and checker of the bus, only the conductor has been examined as P.W. 8. His evidence is that immediately on the bus being stopped by the 50 or 60 persons who had come armed with sticks and spears, they and the passengers got down from the bus and ran away, that after running to a distance of four furlongs, he the checker, driver and cleaner got into bus APG No. 2766 that was coming in the opposite direction and proceeded to Vijayawada and after getting down at Kaleswarao Market, he reported the matter to the time-keeper and then went to the taluk police station and gave the report Exhibit P-4. In Exhibit P-4 also he has not stated anything about any of the accused or any of the injured as he had not seen the occurrence. P.Ws. 4 to 7 who are the only persons examined out of the 20 passengers in the bus, say that they had also got down the bus and had run away as they had got frightened and they do not also say anything about the occurrence. According to P.Ws. 1 to 3 they stayed in the bus out of fright that they would be beaten. This does not stand to reason as it would be easier to get at them and attack them if they continued to stay in the bus instead of trying to escape. According to P.Ws. 1 to 3 they stayed in the bus out of fright that they would be beaten. This does not stand to reason as it would be easier to get at them and attack them if they continued to stay in the bus instead of trying to escape. It is only after the attack on them had started, they say that they have tried to get down and some more injuries have been inflicted on them. There is some force in the contention that this version is not quite probable. The evidence of P.W. 3 with regard to what had happened is not also consistent with the other evidence in the case. Their evidence now is that as soon as the bus was stopped, accused 1 to accused 4 armed with spears got into the body of the bus and accused-1 to accused 3 speared Adam (D-1) and he fell from the bus through the rear doorway by the side of the conductor. This occurrence is alleged to have been witnessed by P.W. 3 also. But in Exhibit D-16 in the committal Court, he had stated that immediately after the bus stopped, he ran away. Exhibit D-17 again in his statement in the committal Court where he has stated as follows: "The mob did not enter the bus till I ran away, I got down the bus and ran away, I did not stop there. After I ran away, I do not know what happened in the bus." Yet in the trial Court he says that scenting that they the armed mob come there with a view to beat them they stayed in the bus, that accused-1 to accused-4 got into the bus and among them accused 1 to accused 3 stabbed Adam (D-1) with spears and Adam (D-1) rolled out of the bus through the rear door-way and then he got down from the bus through the middle door and when he attempted to run away accused-11 beat him with a stick on his right hand and then after receiving the blow he ran towards his village. This evidence has obviously come as an afterthought. His testimony with regard to the assault on Adam (D-1) cannot be relied on. Besides P.W. 4, P.Ws. This evidence has obviously come as an afterthought. His testimony with regard to the assault on Adam (D-1) cannot be relied on. Besides P.W. 4, P.Ws. 1 and 2 had also stated that accused-1 to accused-3 had speared Adam (D-1) which should mean that there should have been at least three incised wounds on the person of Adam (D-1). P.W. 11 the doctor who conducted the autopsy on his body and who issued the postmortem certificate to Exhibit P-15, found only one penetrating wound 2" in length on the left anterior wall of the chest and out of the three other injuries found on him two are abrasions and one is a contusion. According to him only the penetrating wound would have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like a spear. This evidence falsifies the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that accused 1 to accused 3 had inflicted spear injuries on Adam (D-1). As only one spear injury was found on Adam (D-1), it is not also possible to attribute that injury to any of the three accused 1 to 3. In this state of evidence, it cannot be said that the case against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 that any or all of them having caused the fatal injury to the deceased has been made out beyond doubt. With regard to the injuries caused to Jamalayya (D-2), there is only the evidence of P.W. 1 and 2, as P.W. 3, even according to him had run away and had not witnessed the attack on Jamalayya (D-2). According to P.W. 2 now, as his father Jamalayya (D-2) wanted to escape through the door-way by the side of the driver, accused 5 to accused 8 beat him with sticks and as he fell on his father imploring them not to beat, he was beaten by accused 9 and accused 10 with sticks on his head and A-16 pulled him away and thereafter accused 1 and accused-3 pierced Jamalayya (D-2) on the head with spears while accused 4 stabbed the witness (P.W. 2) with a spear on his left fore-arm. This version is not fully corroborated by P.W. 1, the only other witnesse examined with regard to this occurrence. This version is not fully corroborated by P.W. 1, the only other witnesse examined with regard to this occurrence. P.W. 1 says that as Jamalayya (D-2) tried to escape by the side, door, accused-5 to accused-8 beat him with sticks and P.W. 2 fell over his father imploring them not to kill, and then accused-9 and accused-10 beat P.W. 2 with sticks, that then he (P.W. 1) himself was attacked. In Exhibit P-24 which is the dying declaration of Jamalayya (D-2) recorded by P.W. 15 the Munsif-Magistrate of Vijayawada on 20th March, 1966, he appears to have stated that accused 3 dragged him out of the bus and accused 1, 5 6, 9,10 18, 19, 20 and others pierced him and beat him with spears and sticks. There is absolutely no mention of accused 3 inflicting any injury on him with a spear. On the other hand he has implicated a number of others. The learned Counsel for the defence seeks to rely on the statement in column 11 (a) of the inquest report Exhibit P-34 relating to the inquest held on Jamalayya (D-2) to the effect that accused 1 to accused 4 and others pierced him, to contend that neither in the dying declaration nor in the evidence it is stated that accused-2 and accused-4 stabbed D-2 Jamalayya. But as stated already, it is a matter that would, have been brought out in the cross-examination of the witnesses and as long as this has not been done this cannot be a statement in favour of the defence. The Medical Evidence also is not consistent with the injuries found on the deceased. P.W. 10 the doctor who admitted Jamalayya (D-2) into the hospital on the night of 19th March, 1966 on being brought by a constable, found as many as 11 injuries on his person, but none of these injuries are found to be incised wounds. All of them are either lacerated wounds, contusions or abrasions. It is not stated by P.W. 2 that accused-1 and accused-3 beat Jamalayya (D-2) with stick-portion of the spears. His positive evidence is that accused-1 and accused-3 pierced his father on his head with the spears. There is no such injury on him. All of them are either lacerated wounds, contusions or abrasions. It is not stated by P.W. 2 that accused-1 and accused-3 beat Jamalayya (D-2) with stick-portion of the spears. His positive evidence is that accused-1 and accused-3 pierced his father on his head with the spears. There is no such injury on him. P.W. 14 the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Jamalayya (D-2) also does not say that any of the injuries could have been caused by the spear-head portion of the spear. Therefore the medical evidence is also not consistent with the evidence of P.W. 2 with regard to the attack on Jamalayya (D-2) by accused-1 and 3 with spears. With regard to the attack on Yesupadam (D-3) according to P.W. 1 after attacking Adam (D-1), they turned to Yesupadam (D-3) and accused-1, accused-2 and accused-4 stabbed him (D-3) and he jumped out of the bus through the rear door way and there he was beaten by accused-5 to accused-8 with sticks. P.W. 2 the only other witness who speaks to the occurrence, on the other hand, says that accused-1 accused-2 and accused- began stabbing Yesupadam (D-3) with spears and as he wanted to escape accused-18 also stabbed him. But in Exhibit P-23 the dying declaration of Yesupadam (D-3) himself, it was stated that he was dragged out by accused-3 and accused-18 and accused-21 attacked him with spears while, accused Nos. 2, 4, 9, 10, 19, 22, 24 and 25 beat him with sticks. Thus the dying declaration is in complete variance with the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, the alleged eye witnesses. While according to P.W. 1, accused-1, accused-2 and accused-4 stabbed Yesupadam (D-3), P.W. 2 would say that accused-1, accused-2, accused-4 and accused-18 stabbed him, whereas in the dying declaration we find that the deceased (D-3) had not included accused-1, accused-2 and accused-4 at all among the persons who stabbed him with spears. He had stated that accused-18 and accused-21 alone pierced him while some others beat him. The beating also is not referred to by P.W.s 1 and 2. The medical evidence is again at variance with the oral evidence in the case. He had stated that accused-18 and accused-21 alone pierced him while some others beat him. The beating also is not referred to by P.W.s 1 and 2. The medical evidence is again at variance with the oral evidence in the case. P.W. 10 the doctor who examined Yesupadam (D-3) when he was first admitted in the hospital, has spoken to five incised injuries on the person of Yesupadam (D-3) but he says that four of these injuries are not stab injuries and the other incised injury which is injury No. 3 in the wound certificate Exhibit P-12 issued by him also, according to him, could not be caused by a stab but by beating the victim. P.W. 2 has gone to the extent of saying that each of the assailants stabbed Yesupadam (D-3) twice. According to the doctor, however, there are no such stab injuries at all and that the injuries, though some of them are incised, are not stab injuries. P.W. 12 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on Yesupadam (D-3). According to him also the five incised injuries could not have been caused by stabbing the victim with spears. There is thus not only discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of these two eye witnesses, but their tesimonies are also in complete variance with the medical evidence in the case. We next come to the alleged attack on P.Ws. 1 to 3. P.W. 1 has now stated that as he was in the bus witnessing the attack on Adam, Jamalayya and Yesupapam (D-1 to D-3) and on P.W. 3, accused-1 poked him on the right flank on the upper portion with a spear and as he turned towards the accused, accused-4 pierced him with a spear on the left forearm on the backside above the left elbow-joint and as he got down the bus, accused-11 beat him with a stick on the right leg calf and then accused-16 out of pity stated that he (P.W. 1) being o!d should not be beaten and asked him (P.W. 1) to get away and therefore he went away to the village. In Exhibit P-1 the report taken from him by the sub-Inspector (P.W. 26) also he has made a similar statement. But in the Committal Court, he did not say that accused-11 attacked him at all. In Exhibit P-1 the report taken from him by the sub-Inspector (P.W. 26) also he has made a similar statement. But in the Committal Court, he did not say that accused-11 attacked him at all. He was examined at the inquest and it has been elicited in his cross-examination that he had not mentioned accused-9 and accused-10 also among his assailants at the time of inquest. But in Exhibit P-7 the inquest report over the dead body of Adam (D-1), it is mentioned that from the direct evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 it appears that accused-4 pierced P.W. 1 with a spear and accused-1 accused-9 and accused-10 beat him with sticks. There is no reference to accused-1 causing injury to him by poking with a spear. It was stated that accused-1, accused-9 and accused-10 beat him with sticks. P.W. 13 the doctor who examined P.W. 1 found only one incised injury on P.W. 1. With regard to the attack on (P.W. 2,) according to (P.W. 2) as he fell over his father, who was attacked with spears and sticks, accused-9 and accused-10 beat him with sticks on his head and accusfd-15 pulled him away and thereafter accused-4 stabbed him with a spear on his left fore-arm. But the doctor P.W. 10 who examined him and issued the wound certificate Exhibit P-13 did not find any stab injury on him. P.W. 3 stated that as Adam (D-1) was attacked with spears by accused-1 to accused-A3, and rolled out of the bus, he also got down from the bus through the middle door-way and when he attempted to run away, accused-11 beat him with a stick on the right hand and he ran away towards the village. In the Committal Court he had stated, as shown by Exhibit D-19 that somebody beat him on his right shoulder with a stick. He did not say that it was accused-11 that beat him. He was examined at the inquest of Adam (D-1) and though his statement was not separately recorded, as the columns in the inquest report have been filed upon the examination of this witness and P.W. 1 at the inquest, he was cross-examined with regard to the oral statements made by him at the said inquest. He has stated there that accused 11, accused-12 and Accused-13 beat him (P.W. 3) with sticks. He has stated there that accused 11, accused-12 and Accused-13 beat him (P.W. 3) with sticks. The doctor P.W. 13 who examined him had found a contusion on the right biceps. However, his statement in the Committal Court that somebody beat him shows that he was not certain as to who had beat him and in his statement at the time of inquest of Adam, he had implicated three persons and now he had stated that it is accused-11 that had beat him, because there was only one injury found by the doctor as per the wound certificate. According to the prosecution as the attack was going on, a number of the accused were instigating the others. According to P.W. 2, accused Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 who were standing armed with sticks, also cried out ‘beat.‘But P.Ws. 1 and 3 who are the other two eye witnesses do not speak to the same. P.W. 2 himself in his statement Exhibit D-10 under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, had only stated that accused-21 to accused-25 were saying ‘beat him.‘P.W. 5 who had run away from the bus, merely says that as she was going in the fields, she heard cries ‘...............‘, from the said side of the Bus. She admitted that she is related to Mahadevayya the leader of the opposite faction. The evidence available in this case regarding this instigation is also not consistent. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that wherever the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and that of the doctors vary and are inconsistent, that evidence need not be accepted, but by taking the largest common factor, whatever tallies in the evidence may be accepted and guilt or innocence of accused may be determined. This is a most dangerous and completely unsatisfactory mode of assessing the evidence. Such a yard-stick will completely mis lead and lend to mis carry assessment of evidence and is likely to involve even innocent persons. In a case of this type where the only three eye-witnesses examined are of partisan character and the danger of deliberate involvement of innocent persons of the opposite faction is ever present, a yard-stick of this type is bound to lead to miscarriage of justice. In a case of this type where the only three eye-witnesses examined are of partisan character and the danger of deliberate involvement of innocent persons of the opposite faction is ever present, a yard-stick of this type is bound to lead to miscarriage of justice. What is to be seen is though the evidence of partisan witnesses cannot be rejected by reason of its being partisan or otherwise interested, as already pointed out, great care and caution is necessary in scrutinising their evidence and when they are found to be completely above board to the satisfaction of the Court and their evidence is also corroborated by other circumstances in the case reliance can be placed on such evidence. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 disclosed that they are trying to implicate and involve as large number of persons of the opposite faction. In the state of evidence it cannot be said with any amount of certainty as to who is the real culprit and who is not. There was also delay in giving the report. Exhibit P-4 was given by (P.W. 8) the conductor who had run away from the scene of occurrence. But in this, except the bare fact that 40 or 50 people armed with sticks and spears came raising cries and stopped the bus, whereupon they became afraid and left the bus there and ran away, the other circumstances relating to the attack on the deceased are very conspiciously absent. The first report about the incident is said to have been given by (P.W. 1) who is said to have been traced by the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 26) in the village Jakkampudi at 10 P.M. It is in this that the details of the attack on each of the deceased and (P.Ws. 1 to 3) are given. It was put to (P.W. 26) that this statement was really recorded at 2 a.m. that night and not at 10 p.m. on 19th March, 1966. 1 to 3) are given. It was put to (P.W. 26) that this statement was really recorded at 2 a.m. that night and not at 10 p.m. on 19th March, 1966. In Exhibit P-1 and also in Exhibit P-32 the First Information Report that was registered on receiving Exhibit P-1, the time given is altered showing that it was registered at 10 p.m. whereas the probability is that it was registered only at 2 a.m. (P.W. 1) in Exhibit (D-1) statement made by him in the Committal Court, has admitted that by the time Exhibit P-1 was drafted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, it was 2 a.m. The suggestion for the defence is that Mahadevayya the leader of the opposite faction had arrived at K. Jakkampudi from Vijayawada in the early hours and that after his arrival that Exhibit P-1 report was drafted. Whether that was true or not, the fact that there is an alteration and the admission by P.W. 1 in the earlier preceedings that this was drafted only at 2 a.m., lend considerable force to the contention of the defence that all the names as the assailants and the parts attributed to them in Exhibit P-1 were introduced after confabulations. The inquest ever the body of Adam (D-1) was held only thereafter and it was then that (P.W’s. 1 and 3) were examined. There was therefore considerable time for the prosecution witnesses to build up their own case involving as many members of the opposite faction as possible. There was time enough for them to tutor the injured Jamalayya (D-2) and Yesupadam (D-3) and it was admitted by P.W. 9 that even before the inquest was held over the body of Adam (D-1) on the morning of 20th March, 1966 he, along with (P.W. 1), Mahadevayya and others went in a police van to Government Hospital at Vijayawada and after going to the hospital (P.W. 1)and Mahadevayya had a talk with Yesupadam (D-3) and Jamalayya (D-2) and only on their return that the inquest on Adam (D-1) appears to have been held where P.Ws. 1 and 3 were examined. These are facts that throw suspicion on the veracity of the witnesses and the truth of the prosecution evidence. 1 and 3 were examined. These are facts that throw suspicion on the veracity of the witnesses and the truth of the prosecution evidence. In a case of this type where the entire evidence consists of the testimony of three eye-witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 3),which is admittedly of a partisan character, where their evidence is riddled with improbabilities and discrepancies and bear the mark of tutoring and where the evidence of these witnesses stands uncorroborated even by other circumstantial evidence implicating the accused it is very unsafe on this type of evidence to convict the accused of the offence they are charged with. We therefore find that a case beyond doubt against the accused of the charges framed against them has not been made out and they are entitled to an acquittal. The convictions and sentences of all the accused on all the charges are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges against them. They will be released forthwith, if in custody unless required otherwise. G.S.M. ----- Crl. Appeal No. 992 of 1966 dismissed. Rest allowed. Accused acquitted.