K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 6-8-2001, in S. C No. 39/1999 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, hindupur. By the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced A-l, A-3 to A-14, A-16, A-21 to A-23 to suffer imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 500 / - each in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 452 IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under section 435 IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months each under section 427 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge also sentenced A-l, A-5, A-6, A-10 and A-21 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 324 IPC. A-l and A-12 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under section 326 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced A-2 to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 ipc, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under section 452 IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of rs. 500/- in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under Section 435 IPC, and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 427 IPC. All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE substance of the charges against the accused was that on 10-12-1997, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, trespassed into the house of r. Sanjeeva Reddy (D-1) and R. Narsimha reddy (D-2), and caused their death. ( 3 ) THE case of the Prosecution is briefly stated as follows. P. W. 1 is the wife, P. W. 2 is the daughter and P. W. 4 is the elder brother of D-l. P. W. 3 is the daughter-in-law and p. W. 5 is the daughter of P. W. 4. ( 3 ) THE case of the Prosecution is briefly stated as follows. P. W. 1 is the wife, P. W. 2 is the daughter and P. W. 4 is the elder brother of D-l. P. W. 3 is the daughter-in-law and p. W. 5 is the daughter of P. W. 4. P. W. 6 is the daughter and P. W. 7 is the son of D-2. The accused, deceased and material Prosecution witnesses belong to Sasanakota village. There was political rivalry between Narasimha reddy (Village Administrative Officer) who belonged to the Congress Party and narasimha Reddy @ Appaiah who belonged to the Telugu Desam Party. The accused in the present case are followers of Appaiah. On 10-12-1997, P. Ws. 4,5 and the son of D-l were sleeping in the ground floor of their house, while P. Ws. 1 to 3 and D-l along with his another son Manjunatha Reddy were sleeping in the first floor of the house. At about 2. 30 a. m. they heard some "galata". They woke up and saw A-1 to A-9, A-14 to a-1 and A-22 to A-24 trespassing into the house by breaking open the doors. They dragged D-l into the hall. A-l, A-2, A-6, A-4 hacked the deceased. A-l drenched a banian cloth in kerosene, lit it and threw it on D-1. D-l died instantaneously. The accused damaged the household articles and burnt the motorbike of D-l. ( 4 ) P. WS. 6, 7 and D-2 were sleeping in their house. On hearing "galata", they woke up and saw the deceased trying to open the front iron grilled door of their house. Being frightened, D-2 went into his bedroom and closed the doors. Accused persons broke open the main door and entered into the house. P. W. 7 tried to stop them. A-l, A-3, a-21 and A-13 beat him. A-7, A-17, A-5, A-6, a-21 and A-13 broke open the bedroom. P. W. 6 tried to intervene. A-l, A-5, A-6 and a-13 caused injuries to P. W. 6. D-2 was attacked by some of the accused persons. D-2 died instantaneously. The accused also trespassed into the house of P. W. 8 and committed mischief in the house. About 25 accused persons entered into the house of p. W. 9 and caused injuries to this witness. The accused also entered into the houses of p. Ws. D-2 was attacked by some of the accused persons. D-2 died instantaneously. The accused also trespassed into the house of P. W. 8 and committed mischief in the house. About 25 accused persons entered into the house of p. W. 9 and caused injuries to this witness. The accused also entered into the houses of p. Ws. 11, 12 and 14 and caused damage to the household articles etc. At about 6. 30 a. m. police shifted the injured to a hospital. Police conducted usual investigation. They arrested the accused. A charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. Seventeen charges were framed against the accused. They pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 30 witnesses and marked 36 documents, besides m. Os. 1 to 61. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, challenging the correctness of which they preferred the present appeal. ( 5 ) THERE were two factions in the village. The Village Administrative Officer- narasimha Reddy and the Prosecution witnesses belonged to the Congress Party whereas the accused belonged to the Telugu desam Party. They were followers of appaiah. There were cases by and against both groups. Appaiah was murdered on 9-12-1997 ataboutll p. m. In retaliation to his murder all the accused ransacked the houses of the Prosecution witnesses and committed the murder of D-l and D-2 on 10-12-1997 at about 2. 30 a. m. Three eyewitnesses speak about the attack made on D-l and two eyewitnesses speak about the attack made on D-2. Accused persons ransacked their houses and damaged household articles. In the course of the same transactions, P. Ws. 6, 7, 9 and 10 sustained injuries. Police also registered a case against some of the prosecution witnesses as the assailants of appayya. It is in this background, the evidence of Prosecution witnesses has to be assessed in order to rule out any possibility of false implication of any of the accused persons. ( 6 ) P. W. 16 is one of the inquest mediators in respect of the inquest conducted on D-1. Ex. P-2 is the inquest report. Inquest mediators opined that D-l died as a result of the injuries to his person. P. W. 19 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of d-l and found as many as 17 injuries. She issued Ex. P-8-post-mortem certificate. Ex. P-2 is the inquest report. Inquest mediators opined that D-l died as a result of the injuries to his person. P. W. 19 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of d-l and found as many as 17 injuries. She issued Ex. P-8-post-mortem certificate. She found some semidigested food mixed with altered blood. She opined that D-l died due to the multiple injuries received by him. She further stated that the injuries could be caused by weapons like M. Os. 4,8 and 15. Nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony as regards the cause of the death of D-l. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the death of D-l was homicidal. ( 7 ) P. W. 18 is an inquest mediator for the inquest conducted on D-2. Ex. P-7 is the inquest report. The inquest mediators opined that D-2 died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. P. W. 25 conducted autopsy over the dead body of D-2 and found 16 injuries. Ex. P-25 is the post-mortem certificate. He opined that the deceased died of the multiple injuries noticed by him. His evidence as regards the cause of death of d-2 has remained unchallenged in the cross- examination. Therefore, we hold that the death of D-2 was also homicidal. ( 8 ) P. WS. 6,7,9 and 10 sustained injuries. P. W. 17 is the Doctor who examined these injured witnesses on 10-12-1997 in the morning. He issued Exs. P-3 to P-6 in respect of P. Ws. 9,7,6 and 10 respectively. According to the Doctor, P. W. 9 sustained lacerated and cut injuries apart from abrasion, whereas p. W. 7 sustained cut injury and lacerated injury. P. W. 6 sustained lacerated and cut injuries and P. W. 10 sustained fractures. The fact that these injured witnesses sustained injuries and some of them even grievous injuries has not been disputed or denied. Therefore, it cannot be said that these injuries are self-inflicted. P. W. 6 sustained lacerated and cut injuries and P. W. 10 sustained fractures. The fact that these injured witnesses sustained injuries and some of them even grievous injuries has not been disputed or denied. Therefore, it cannot be said that these injuries are self-inflicted. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that both the deceased persons were attacked by a mob of 300 to 400 persons on coming to know about the murder of their leader Appayya, that the eyewitnesses who speak about the attack on the deceased persons were attending a marriage at a different place at the relevant time and they were sent for and due to political rivalry they were falsely implicated in this case. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the observation report and the evidence of eyewitnesses to the incident would clearly go to show that the incident in question took place in the manner stated by the Prosecution. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the posture of the dead bodies would indicate that they were brought from some other place and kept at the respective houses of the deceased persons. ( 10 ) AS the incident in question has been seriously disputed by the learned counsel, it is appropriate to refer to the evidence of the witnesses on this aspect. ( 11 ) THE evidence of P. W. 30 would go to show that the dead body of D-1 was in sleeping posture with arms stretched close to the body and eyes and mouth closed and head facing the sky. He also found pool of blood in the upstairs of the house of the deceased and blood entered the pipe located in the northwest corner of the hall. Ex. P-2 inquest report shows that a big pool of blood was there underneath the head of D-l and it flooded through the hall and entered into the hall. If really the deceased had been killed somewhere and his dead body had been brought and kept in his house, there the pool of blood would not have been found. Similarly, Ex. P-7-inquest report in respect of d-2 shows that the bed on which the deceased was lying was stained with blood. Material objects which contained bloodstains were seized by P. W. 30 and they were sent to forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. Similarly, Ex. P-7-inquest report in respect of d-2 shows that the bed on which the deceased was lying was stained with blood. Material objects which contained bloodstains were seized by P. W. 30 and they were sent to forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. Ex. P-35,is the report in which it, has been stated that all the material objects contained blood and some of them contained blood of "a" Group and some of them "ab" group. Therefore, it is clear that the incident in question took place at the respective houses of the deceased persons. The contention that the deceased were killed somewhere and their dead bodies were kept at their houses is untenable and devoid of merits. ( 12 ) P. WS. 1 to 3 are eyewitnesses to the incident for the attack on D-l. P. W. 1 is the wife, P. W. 2 is the daughter, P. W. 4 is the brother of D-l and P. W. 3 is daughter-in-law of P. W. 1. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that these three witnesses were not present at the house of D-l on the date of incident. They were attending a marriage function at obuladevarapalli village on that day which was 40 kms. away and after coming know about the death of D-l, they were brought to the village at about 2. 30 or 3. 00 a. m. and after due deliberations Exs. P-1 was brought into existence. No doubt P. W. 1 admitted that there was a marriage scheduled to be celebrated in the said village, but she categorically stated that she was present in her house on the date of incident. She stated that on the date of incident at about 10 p. m. herself, her husband-D-1. P. Ws. 2 and 3, her son Manjunatha Reddy slept in the house and at about 3. 30 a. m. they heard some commotion and switched on the lights. She saw 15 persons breaking upon the doors of the up-stair room. Those persons were A-l to a-6, A-9 to A-14, A-16, A-22 and A-24. They dragged her husband to the hall from his cot. A-l hacked twice with an axe, A-2 hacked on the forehead and left chest, A-6 hacked with a sickle on the left eye, A-4 hacked with a sickle on the chest twice. Those persons were A-l to a-6, A-9 to A-14, A-16, A-22 and A-24. They dragged her husband to the hall from his cot. A-l hacked twice with an axe, A-2 hacked on the forehead and left chest, A-6 hacked with a sickle on the left eye, A-4 hacked with a sickle on the chest twice. A-16 drenched a banian with kerosene, lit it and threw it on d-l. A-16 also tried to pull her "mangalasutram" from her neck. Thereafter all the 15 accused persons shouted that they killed D-l and D-2 in retaliation to the murder of Appaiah. This witness went downstairs and saw A-7, A-8, A-25 to A-28, A-20, A-18 and A-23 there. At about 6 a. m. she gave ex. P-1-report. In her cross-examination she admitted that her husband had no personal enmity with the accused, but there was political rivalry between the two groups. She also admitted that 300 to 400 people surrounded her house at the time of the attack. All the supporters of Appaiah came out during that night and were chasing the people of the opposite group. Though she stated that she identified some of the accused in the downstairs, that cannot be taken to be true, in view of the fact she came down the stairs from the first floor only after the police arrived there. Therefore, it was not possible for her to see the accused persons who were present in the downstairs. She was subjected to grueling cross-examination but except some minor variations and discrepancies, nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony. Therefore, her presence at the scene of occurrence is established beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no evidence on record to show that she was at obuladevarapalli on the date of incident. ( 13 ) COMING to the evidence of P. W. 2, she was also sleeping in the upstairs along with her parents and her brother Manjunatha reddy. When they heard some commotion, they switched on the lights. A-l to A-4, A-6, a-9 to A-14, A-16 and A-24 entered into the room, dragged the deceased and hacked him. She also specifically stated that A-l hacked the deceased on the head with an axe, A-2 with an axe on the forehead and left cheek, a-6 on the left head with an axe, A-4 with a sickle on the chest and the remaining accused beat with sticks. She also specifically stated that A-l hacked the deceased on the head with an axe, A-2 with an axe on the forehead and left cheek, a-6 on the left head with an axe, A-4 with a sickle on the chest and the remaining accused beat with sticks. A-16 drenched a banian in kerosene, lit it and threw it on the face of d-l. She admitted that she identified only those 15 persons who came to the upstairs. This witness also was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve her presence at the scene of occurrence. Except giving a suggestion that she along with lady members went to the marriage and Obuladevalaripalle on the date of incident nothing which could shatter her evidence has been elicited. ( 14 ) P. W. 3 is the daughter of P. W. 4. She was also sleeping along with P. Ws. 1,2 and d-l. She identified A-l, A-2, A-4, A-6 and other accused who came to the upstairs and dragged the deceased. She stated that A-l hacked the deceased twice with an axe, A-2 on the forehead and left cheek with an axe, a-6 on the left eye, A-4 on the left side of the chest twice with a sickle, and the remaining accused beat with sticks. Her husband was also an accused in the murder case of appaiah. Except suggesting that she was not presentin the house,nothinghas been elicited to discredit her testimony. P. W. 4 is the brother of D-l. According to them, he was sleeping in the downstairs at the time of incident. On hearing some "galata" in the village, they woke up and switched on the lights. 15 persons came to the downstairs. A-19, A-5, A-7, A-8, A-15, A-23 and A-25 broke open the doors and entered into the house. They were holding sticks in their hands. They pushed him aside. They broke open the iron safe and took away Rs. 10,000/- cash. Thereafter they went to the upstairs. After they left the place, he went to upstairs and found D-l in a pool of blood. He did not specifically state the overt acts committed by these accused persons in the upstairs. This witness, in our opinion, is a witness of truth and he deposed to the facts which were within his knowledge. Thereafter they went to the upstairs. After they left the place, he went to upstairs and found D-l in a pool of blood. He did not specifically state the overt acts committed by these accused persons in the upstairs. This witness, in our opinion, is a witness of truth and he deposed to the facts which were within his knowledge. If he wanted to perjure himself, he would have as well stated the attack made by the accused in the upstairs. P. W. 5 is the daughter of P. W. 4. She was sleeping in the ground floor. She stated that about 30 persons going to the upstairs and some persons downstairs. Due to the fear, she entered into the kitchen. A-18 to A-21, a-22, A-25 to A-28 entered into the kitchen and damaged the articles in the kitchen. While leaving, A-3, A-12, A-10, A-11, A-13 and A-14 damaged the motorcycle. Nothing has been elicited from this witness also to discredit her testimony. ( 15 ) P. WS. 6 and 7 speak about the attack on D-2. P. W. 6 is the daughter of D-2 and p. W. 7 is her brother. P. W. 6 stated that on the date of incident, she, her brother and her father were sleeping in the hall. Around 2. 30 a. m. , they heard some commotion. They woke up and switched on the lights. About 30 persons broke open the iron-grilled door and entered into the house. A-l caused injury on the right hand and A-2 dealt a blow on the head of P. W. 7. A-13 beat her elder brother with a stick on his right shoulder. A-21 dealt a sickle blow on the right leg of her younger brother. Remaining accused broke the TV and other household articles including kitchen wear. A-l, A-3, A-5, A-6, A-21 and a-13 broke open the bedroom door and entered inside the bedroom. She pleaded with the accused persons not to kill her father. They did not listen her. A-5 dealt a sickle blow on her left cheek, A-6 on her right fingers and right leg below knee. A-13 beat her with sticks on her head. A-l and A-6 dragged her aside. A-l attacked D-2 with an axe. A-5 dealt a sickle blow on D-2. A-6 dealt three blows on the head and A-21 dealt a sickle blow on the left eye. D-2 fell down. A-13 beat her with sticks on her head. A-l and A-6 dragged her aside. A-l attacked D-2 with an axe. A-5 dealt a sickle blow on D-2. A-6 dealt three blows on the head and A-21 dealt a sickle blow on the left eye. D-2 fell down. A-2, A-3, A-8, A-9 indiscriminately beat D-2. D-2 died instantaneously. The fact that this witness sustained injuries has not been disputed or denied. It has been suggested to her that she did not receive those injuries at her house. She was not aware of the murder of Appayya in the morning. On hearing commotion, she woke up and witnessed the present incident. As the attack was made in her house at about 3 a. m. , there was every possibility for her to witness the incident. On hearing the commotion, they switched on the lights and, therefore, in the illumination of the lights, there was every possibility for her to see the incident. P. W. 7 is another injured witness. He was sleeping along with d-2 in the house. He stated that when A-l to a-4 and A-23 along with some other accused persons attempted to break open the door. He tried to prevent them. He warded off the blow due to which he sustained injury to his right hand. A-3 dealt a stick blow to his right shoulder. One Ramanji also beat him with sticks on his right shoulder. A-21 hacked on his right leg with sickle. A-7 and A-l 7 damaged the household articles. A-5, A-6, a-21 and A-13 broke open the doors of the bedroom. P. W. 6 tried to block them. Then a-l, A-6, A-13 beat P. W. 6. A-l and A-2 dragged her aside. Then A-l beat the deceased with an axe on the forehead, A-5 on the mouth with a sickle, A-6 thrice with a sickle on the head, A-21 on the left eye, and a-2, A-3 and A-8 beat the deceased indiscriminately with sticks. This witness is the son of D-2 and they were sleeping in the own house and at 3 a. m. the attack was made. His presence at the scene of occurrence is quite natural. Nothing has been elicited from this witness also to discredit his testimony. ( 16 ) P. W. 8 speaks about the presence of a-l, A-2, A-6 to A-9. His presence at the scene of occurrence is quite natural. Nothing has been elicited from this witness also to discredit his testimony. ( 16 ) P. W. 8 speaks about the presence of a-l, A-2, A-6 to A-9. He stated that these accused along with some others came to his house and entered into the house. On seeing them his father escaped from the back door of the house. As they did not find his father, they damaged the house. This witness learnt about the murder of Appayya in the morning and his father is one of the accused in that case. Though he admitted that A-l, A-2, A-6 to A-9 were not followers of Ayyanna, but the fact that they belonged to the TDP Party of which the local leader was Appaiah has not been disputed or denied. Except giving a suggestion that1 the accused named by him did not trespass into his house, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. P. W. 9 speaks about the causing of injuries to him by A-l, A-3, A-21, A-22, a-6, A-13, A-10 and A-21. He belongs to the congress Party and the accused belong to the TDP and their leader was Ayyappa. No doubt he is closely related to both the deceased persons, but that does not mean that his evidence has to be disbelieved on that ground. He speaks only against some of the accused who trespassed into his and damaged the household articles. P. W. 10 is the wife of P. W. 9. She stated that A-l beat her husband on legs and hands with an iron rod. A-3 on the hand, A-6 on the right hand with a sickle. A-10 on the head with an iron rod. When A-13 attempted to beat her husband with a sickle, she intervened due to which A-13 withdrew the blow. Being the age of 74 years she does not appear to have any reason to speak false. Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of this witness also to discredit her testimony. ( 17 ) P. W. 11 speaks about A-l to A-8 trespassing into her house and enquiring about her husband. As her husband was not available in the house, they damaged the articles. Except a suggestion that none came to her house and damaged the household articles nothing has been elicited from her testimony. ( 17 ) P. W. 11 speaks about A-l to A-8 trespassing into her house and enquiring about her husband. As her husband was not available in the house, they damaged the articles. Except a suggestion that none came to her house and damaged the household articles nothing has been elicited from her testimony. P. W. 12 was present along with her husband in her house. At about 2. 30 a. m. , they heard some "galata". A-l to A-3 and some other accused persons entered into her house and searched for her husband. They could not find him. They damaged some household articles and left the place. P. W. 13 saw the accused coming from the side of the house of Chandramouleswara Reddy towards her house. So, she went inside the house and closed the doors. Her husband and her brother-in-law left the house from backdoor. The accused persons broke open the door and gained entry into the house. A-7 to A-12, A-27 and A-28 entered into the house. They damaged some household articles and kitchen wear. P. W. 14 speaks about the accused entering into her house. Her husband had been to Ananthapur on that night. The accused persons searched for her husband. They could not find him. They damaged household articles. P. W. 15 also speaks about the accused entering into house of his daughter-in-law P. W. 14. ( 18 ) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the FIR in this case was hit by Section 162 Cr. P. C. as it came into existence during investigation by the police. He has also contended that there was delay in lodging the FIR and also sending it to the Magistrate s Court. P. W. 1 stated that p. W. 5 informed Parigi Police about the incident in between 2 and 3. With regard to the lodging of Ex. P-1, P. W. 1 stated that the police themselves prepared Ex. P-1 to her narration. P. W. 29 scribed Ex. P-1. The names of the accused referred to in Ex. P-1 were given by P. W. 4. Except the names, rest of the contents of Ex. P-1 were narrated by her to the police. According to P. W. 2, she scribed ex. P-1. P. Ws. 6 to 5 also stated that P. W. 2 scribed Ex. P-1. But the fact remains that ex. P-1 were given by P. W. 4. Except the names, rest of the contents of Ex. P-1 were narrated by her to the police. According to P. W. 2, she scribed ex. P-1. P. Ws. 6 to 5 also stated that P. W. 2 scribed Ex. P-1. But the fact remains that ex. P-1 was given by P. W. 1 to P. W. 30. The evidence of P. W. 30 would go to show that on coming to know about the commotion at sasanakota village, he went there. He felt that there was serious law and order problem in the village. He went to the house of D-2 and D-1 and obtained Ex. P-1 complaint and sent it to the police station for registration. P. W. 27 received it at 8 a. m. and registered a case and sent copies of the FIR to all concerned. The police came to know about the incident in the village at 3 a. m. Then p. W. 29 rushed there in the first instance by about 4. 30 a. m. He came to know about the death of the two deceased persons and also appaiah. As there was serious law and order problem in the village, he could do nothing in such situation. Therefore, he had to necessarily wait for arrival additional force. In these circumstances, he would not have dared to record statement from any of the witnesses, as there was tension in the village. With regard to the telephonic information, there is no evidence on record as to what was the exact information received by P. W. 29. Any cryptic information about the incident need not be an FIR. The main investigating officer, P. W. 30, stated that he went to the village and came to know about the murders. Unless it is shown that specific information about the incident was given to the police and on the basis of the information they registered a case or made an entry in the general diary, it cannot be said that the FIR in this case was hit by Section 162 Cr. P. C. ( 19 ) COMING to P. W. 4 giving the names of the accused. P. W. 1 was not an eyewitness to the incident that took place in the downstairs. She only saw the accused who entered into the bedroom of her husband in the upstairs. P. C. ( 19 ) COMING to P. W. 4 giving the names of the accused. P. W. 1 was not an eyewitness to the incident that took place in the downstairs. She only saw the accused who entered into the bedroom of her husband in the upstairs. If her evidence is read in entirety, it is clear that she did not know the names of some of the accused and she came to know their names through P. W. 4. As the accused belonged to the same village, though she knew some of the accused, she did not know their names. Because she admitted that the names of the some of the accused were given by P. W. 4, it does not mean that she was brought from the marriage function hall and ex. P-1 was fabricated through her. She categorically stated that except the names of the accused, the contents in the FIR were narrated by her. Therefore, on the basis of the admission that P. W. 4 gave the names of the accused, it cannot be said that she was not an eyewitness to the incident. ( 20 ) AS regards the delay in receiving the fir by the Court, admittedly Ex. P-1 reached the Magistrate s Court at 4. 40 p. m. though the Court was located at a distance of 15 to 20 kms. from Parigi police station. As there was serious law and order problem in the village, police from neighboring police stations were also summoned and they were controlling the law and order in the village. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the delay was deliberately caused with a view to foist a false case against the accused. ( 21 ) IT has now to be seen whether the accused shared the common object. The accused persons are 27 in number. They were, according to the witnesses, armed with weapons like axes, sticks, knives and sickle. s. After coming to know about the death/of appaiah, they trespassed into the houses, ransacked the house and damaged the household articles of those they thought were responsible for the murder of Appaiah. They also committed the murder of the two deceased persons and caused injuries to some of the Prosecution witnesses. s. After coming to know about the death/of appaiah, they trespassed into the houses, ransacked the house and damaged the household articles of those they thought were responsible for the murder of Appaiah. They also committed the murder of the two deceased persons and caused injuries to some of the Prosecution witnesses. It is pertinent to refer to a decision in between Rajendra shantaram Todankar v. State of Maharashtra wherein the Apex Court has held in paragraph 14 as follows:"section 149 of the Indian Penal Code provides that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offence. The two clauses of Section 149 vary in degree of certainty. The first clause contemplates the commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly which can be held to have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. The second clause embraces within its fold the commission of an act which may not necessarily be the common object of the assembly nevertheless the members of the assembly had knowledge of likelihood of the commission of that offence in prosecution of the common object. The common object may be commission of one offence while there may be likelihood of the commission of yet another offence the knowledge whereof is capable of being safely attributable to the members of the unlawful assembly. In either case every member of the assembly would be vicariously liable for the offence actually committed by any other member of the assembly. A mere possibility of the commission of the offence would not necessarily enable the Court to draw an inference that the likelihood of commission of such offence was within the knowledge of every member of the unlawful assembly. It is difficult indeed, though no impossible, to collect direct evidence of such knowledge. A mere possibility of the commission of the offence would not necessarily enable the Court to draw an inference that the likelihood of commission of such offence was within the knowledge of every member of the unlawful assembly. It is difficult indeed, though no impossible, to collect direct evidence of such knowledge. An inference may be drawn from circumstances such as the background of the incident, the motive, the nature of the assembly, the nature of the arms carried by the members of the assembly, their common object and the behaviour of the members soon before, at or after the actual commission of the crime. Unless the applicability of Section 149 - either clause - is attracted and the Court is convinced, on facts and in law both, of liability capable of being fastened vicariously be reference to either clause of Section 149 of IPC merely because a criminal act was committed by a member of the assembly every other member thereof would not necessarily become liable for such criminal act. The inference as to likelihood of the commission of the given criminal act must be capable of being held to be within the knowledge of another member of the assembly who is sought to be held vicariously liable for the said criminal act. " ( 22 ) THE object of the accused persons was to kill those who murdered Appaiah. Admittedly the deceased persons belonged to the opposite party. The above facts clearly suggest that their object was to cause the death of the deceased persons and also attack the persons of the opposits group. ( 23 ) COMING to the individual overt acts, the learned Sessions Judge referred to the evidence of witnesses who attributed overt acts against the accused in paragraph 60 of his judgment. After going through the discussion of the evidence made by the learned Sessions Judge, we find no reasons to deviate from the findings. The medical evidence is also in corroboration. with the ocular testimony of the witnesses. We totally agree with the findings of the learned Sessions judge as far as the individual overt acts committed by the accused are concerned. Therefore, we feel it unnecessary to repeat the discussion which was already made by the learned Sessions Judge. The medical evidence is also in corroboration. with the ocular testimony of the witnesses. We totally agree with the findings of the learned Sessions judge as far as the individual overt acts committed by the accused are concerned. Therefore, we feel it unnecessary to repeat the discussion which was already made by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 24 ) IT has been contended that since the doctor found undigested food in the stomach of D-l, the death of the deceased might have taken place about 11 p. m. and, therefore, the prosecution has not come forward with the correct version of the incident. In State of U. P. v. Rasid. It is held as follows:"it is not as if every human being without exception goes to ease himself first thing on the day break, there may be innumerable reasons not to do so, therefore, presence of semi digested food in the stomach of the deceased is not absolute proof of the fact that deceased must have died before day break. While we do agree that this can be a factor to be taken into consideration it cannot be such a prime important factor as to overrule the acceptable oral evidence which is available on record. ( 25 ) BASING on the" contents in the stomach, it cannot be said that the death of D-l had taken place at 11 p. m. There is no evidence on record as to at what time D-l had his dinner, so as to conclusively hold that by about 3 a. m. there should have been no undigested food left in the stomach of D-l. Therefore, this contention is untenable. The doctor found no food in the stomach of D-2. There is no evidence on record to show the time at which D-2 had taken food. It might be that he had not taken food at all on that night for a variety of reasons. But, just because there was no food or there was undigested food, it cannot be said that the incident in question took place at some other time. ( 26 ) IT is in the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses that the accused committed house trespass, damaged household articles and agricultural produce. Exs. P-9 to P-13, exs. P-27 to P-34 would go to show the recovery of weapons and the damaged properties from the houses of the witnesses. ( 26 ) IT is in the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses that the accused committed house trespass, damaged household articles and agricultural produce. Exs. P-9 to P-13, exs. P-27 to P-34 would go to show the recovery of weapons and the damaged properties from the houses of the witnesses. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence on this aspect. The arrest of the accused and recovery of weapons at the instance some of the accused would also lend corroboration to the Prosecution case. The evidence of p. W. 30 who arrested some of the accused in the presence of P. Ws. 24 and 26 would also go to show that some material objects were seized in pursuance of the disclosure statements made by the accused and it is not shown that the recoveries have been effected from the place accessible to public. Therefore, the recoveries made in this case can be believed. ( 27 ) IT has been contended that A-16 and a-23 are impaired persons, because P. W. 1 admitted that the vision of A-l 6 was impaired and A-23 met with an accident. Therefore, it is contended that it might not be possible for them to participate in the attack. One cannot ignore the fact that their leader was murdered and they were furiated and took up the arms and the disability of these accused was not such severe which disabled them from participating in the offences. ( 28 ) BASING on the evidence on record, the lower court gave a categorical finding that a-l to A-16, A-21 to A-23 participated in the crime. The lower Court has given a categorical finding that A-15 did not participate in the offence, because except P. W. 14 no other witness spoke about-his presence. Likewise, the trial Court also gave benefit of doubt to a-l 7 to A-20, A-24 to A-28. the reasons for acquitting these accused have been cleanly stated in paragraph 83 of the judgment. There is no need for us to deviate from the well- reasoned findings of the learned Sessions judge. Coming to the findings of the trial court with reference to the charges, we perused the record and the judgment. On proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the accused were found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge. We find no reasons to deviate from those findings. Coming to the findings of the trial court with reference to the charges, we perused the record and the judgment. On proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the accused were found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge. We find no reasons to deviate from those findings. ( 29 ) THE main fabric of the case with regard to the attack on both the deceased persons is established beyond all reasonable doubt. Some variations or improvements made by the witnesses would not affect the prosecution case. They are due to lapse of time and may be due to normal errors committed by every man. Because of these improvements or contradictions, it cannot be said that the witnesses were not present at the time of incident. ( 30 ) AFTER going through the evidence on record we find no infirmity or manifest error committed by the learned Sessions Judge. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court.