BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 3. 1. 2001 passed by the IV addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur in Sessions case No. 177 of 1997, two appeals have been filed. Crl. A. No. 118 of 2001 has been filed by Al to A4 and Crl. A. No. l 19 of 2001 has filed by A5, A6, A7 and A 14. There are two revisions also filed against the acquittal of some of the accused being crl. R. C. Nos. 99 and 104 of 2001. All the four matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) ALL the accused, the deceased chava Subba Rao and P. Ws. l to 7 were residents of Kothmukkala Agraharam village in Narsaraopeta Taluk. The deceased and PWs. 6 and 7 are the sons of PW. l. P. W. 2 is the wife of P. W. 7. P. W. 3 is the elder sister of P. W. 2. P. W. 4 is the wife of p. W. 6. P. W. 5 is the daughter-in-law of p. W. 1 s junior father-in-law. The prosecution case was that mere were factions in the village from five decades. These factions got affiliated to political parties. The accused faction had affiliated to Telugu desam Party and the prosecution party had affiliated to Congress party. Earlier when one B. Chengaiah was the leader of the prosecution party faction, K. Kotaiah was the leader of the accused faction party. Kotaiah was murdered and in the said case, one Rajarushi the husband of PW1, and his junior and senior paternal uncles were accused along with their some others relations. Thereafter one Daruvuri Sivaiah the father of A3, was murdered and in the said case Viyyanka of P. W. I and his two brothers were accused. Subsequently one Ramakotaiah, the brother of father-in- law of P. W. I was murdered. In the said case a9, A12 and A17 were accused and the case ended in acquittal. In the meantime rajarushi, the husband of P. W. I, became the leader of prosecution party faction after the death of their leader Ramakotaiah. After the death of Rajarushi, one Ankamma rao became the leader of the prosecution party faction. Bollineni Raghava Rao, the father of A2 and the leader of the accused faction was murdered. There were many cases between two factions. After the death of Rajarushi, one Ankamma rao became the leader of the prosecution party faction. Bollineni Raghava Rao, the father of A2 and the leader of the accused faction was murdered. There were many cases between two factions. In this background, on the intervening night of 16/17. 6. 1995 P. W. I, her sons viz. , deceased and PWs. 6 and 7 along with pws. 2 and 3 and other daughters-in-law of p. W. I were sitting in front of the house of the deceased and were discussing about Gram panchayat Elections and withdrawal of nominations during 12 midnight. At that time all the accused armed with knives, axes and bombs attacked them. As soon as they came to the scene, Al hurled bombs and instigated others to hack them. The bomb exploded near PWs. 1 and 2 and they received injuries. While the prosecution witnesses were rushing into the house, the deceased dashed against P. W. I and fell down. Al axed him on the right temple. The remaining prosecution witnesses went inside the house, closed the door and were watching from the window as to what was happening outside. It was alleged that A2 axed the deceased on the right temple, A3 axed on the right cheek, A4 stabbed the deceased on right side of the stomach with a knife, A5 stabbed on the right side of the chest, a6 axed on the left side of the chest, A8 axed on the left fore arm, A7 axed on the right thigh, A 14 axed on the right leg below the knee and A22 axed on the dorsum of the right palm. All the accused hurled bombs on the house and went away from the scene. Then the deceased was taken to Government Head Quarters hospital, Narsaraopet in a tractor accompanied by PWs. l, 6 and 7 and some other witnesses. P. W. 15-doctor who examined the deceased sent an intimation- ex. P7 to the police. He gave first aid to the injured. P. W. 14-Inspector of Police, narsaraopet reached the hospital and recorded the statement of P. W. 1 under Ex. Pl. He registered a case in Cr. No. 91 of 1995 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the explosive Substances Act and issued f. IRs. to all concerned. P. W. 14-Inspector of Police, narsaraopet reached the hospital and recorded the statement of P. W. 1 under Ex. Pl. He registered a case in Cr. No. 91 of 1995 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the explosive Substances Act and issued f. IRs. to all concerned. As the condition of the injured was serious, he was shifted to government Hospital, Guntur. While undergoing treatment, the injured succumbed to the injuries at 7. 55 a. m. It was intimated to the police through Ex. P5. Thereafter investigation was conducted and charge- sheet was laid. ( 3 ) FOLLOWING charges were framed against the accused:"firstly: That Al to A9, All to A22 along with A10 who died on the night of 16/7th day of June, 1995 at about 1. 00 a. m. , in Kantha Mukkala Agraharam were a member of an unlawful assembly and did, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly viz. , in attacking the chava Subbarao (deceased) son of rajrushi, aged 35 years, Kothamukkala agraharam Village, commit the offence of rioting and at that time you were armed with deadly weapons - axes, knives, and country made bombs and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of the indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. SECONDLY: That Al to A9, Al 1 to A22 of you on the same day and at about the same time and place and during the course of same transaction as mentioned in charge No. 1 above, were members of an unlawful assembly along with A10 who died and in prosecution of your common object of such assembly did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Chava Subbarao (deceased) son of rajarushi, 35 years, Kotha Mukkala agraharam Village viz. , Al among you axed on the right temple; A2 axed on the right temple, A3 axed on the face, A4 stabbed with a knife on the stomach of the deceased, A5 stabbed with a knife on the chest, A6 axed on the chest, A7 axed on the right leg, A8 axed on the left hand, A 14 axed on right leg, A22 axed on the hand and the remaining accused hurled bombs and attacked the deceased chava Subba Rao and others and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. THIRDLY: That Al to A9, All to A22 along with A10 who died on the same day and at about the same time and place and during the course of the same transaction as mentioned in charge No. 1 above, were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of your common objection of such assembly, did an act - Al and A5 among you hurled bombs on Chavanagendramma (L. W. 1) wife of Rajarushi, aged 60 years, Kamma, and Chava Ramadevi (L. W. 2) wife of narasimha Rao, aged 25 years, Kamma, residents of Kotha Mukkala Agraharam and others with an intention and under such circumstances that if by that act you had caused the death of the Chava nagendramma (L. W. I) and Chava ramadevi, you would have been guilty of murder and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. FOURTHLY : That Al to A9, Al 1 to A22 of you along with A10 (who died) on the same day and at about the same time and place and during the course of the same transaction as mentioned in charge no. l above, unlawfully and maliciously caused an explosion by country made bombs on the deceased Chava Subba rao (deceased), Chava Nagendramma (L. W. I) wife of Rajarushi, aged 60 years, kamma and Chava Ramadevi (L. W. 2) wife of Narasimha Rao, aged 25 years, kamma, residents of Kehta Mukkala agrahram Village and others and you thereby committed an offence under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive substances Act, 1908 and within my cognizance. " ( 4 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. " ( 4 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. After trial, Al to A7 and A 14 were convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. A5 was convicted under Section 302 ipc and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,0007- in default he has to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Al to A4, A6, A7 and A 14 were convicted under Section 302 read with 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 3,000/- in default they have to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. Al was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,0007- in default he has to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. A2 to A7 and A14 were convicted under section 324 read with 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,0007- in default they have to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. Al was convicted under Section 3 of the explosive Substances Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,0007- in default he has to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Al was also convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5007- in default he has to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Al to A7 and A14 were acquitted of the offence under Section 307 read with 149 ipc, A2 to A7 and A14 were acquitted of the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the explosive Substances Act and A8, A9, All to A13, A15 to A17 and A19 to A22 were found not guilty of the offences with which they were charged and they were acquitted. A10 and A18 had died during trial and the case against them abated. ( 5 ) P. W. I is the mother of the deceased. She stated that her son Subbarao was murdered 5 or 6 years before. She knew all the accused who were residents of her village. A10 and A18 had died during trial and the case against them abated. ( 5 ) P. W. I is the mother of the deceased. She stated that her son Subbarao was murdered 5 or 6 years before. She knew all the accused who were residents of her village. There were two factions in the village, one faction belonged to Congress party and another faction belonged to TDP. Her family belonged to Congress party and the accused party belonged to TDP. She gave relationships she had with other witnesses. She stated that on the day of occurrence her four sons and D. Nageswara rao (L. W. 9) were talking to each other with regard to the Panchayat Elections in front of their house beyond 12 midnight. The lights in the house were on. Her daughter-in-law Ramadevi (L. W. 2) was operated 14 days before. She was complaining about some pain. The witness, vijaya and Babi advised her to take some tablets. The witness went out and sitting on the pial of the house. At that time Al, A2, a3, A4, A5, A6, A17, E. Sambaiah A7, b. Kondala Rao A14, A13, A15, A21, All, a9, Sadineni Venkaiah (Alo-since died), a8, A18 (since died), A16, A19, A12, A20 and others came to their house. They were holding knives, axes and also had bombs. Al hurled the bombs and exhorted others to hack her family members so that there would not be any obstacle for them in the village. The bomb exploded near her. She received injuries on ankles of her both legs with splinters from the bomb. Her saree was also burnt. Her daughter-in-law ramadevi (L. W. 2) and Koteswaramma (L. W. 3) also received injuries. Ramadevi received injuries on her left leg and koteswaramma received injuries on her left hand. When they were trying to run into the house, the deceased Subbarao dashed against her in the process of running and fell down. Then Al axed her son on his right temple. The witness, her daughter-in-law, her son Bhadraiah and all others went inside the house, closed the doors and were watching what was happening outside through the window. When they were trying to run into the house, the deceased Subbarao dashed against her in the process of running and fell down. Then Al axed her son on his right temple. The witness, her daughter-in-law, her son Bhadraiah and all others went inside the house, closed the doors and were watching what was happening outside through the window. A2 axed her son also on the right temple, A3 inflicted a blow with an axe on his right cheek, A4 stabbed her son with a knife on his stomach on right side, A5 stabbed on the right side of the chest, A6 axed on the left side of the chest, a8 axed on the left fore arm, A22 axed on the dorsum of the right palm, A7 axed on the right thigh, A14 axed on the right leg below the knee. All other accused hurled bombs on their house and went away. After they went away, she along her family members came out and saw her son who was still alive. They brought a tractor from the house of Pathipati Sekhar and took her injured son to Government Hospital, narsaraopet. The injured was treated by the doctor. She was also examined by the doctor. Police came to the hospital and recorded her statement under Ex. Pl. It was read over to her and she affixed her thumb mark on it. On the advice of the doctor, they shifted the injured to government Hospital, Guntur. The incident occurred because of the disputes between the parties. She was examined by the police. Her saree was seized by police after the body of her son was taken to her village kathamukkala Agraharam for cremation. M. O. I was her saree. M. O. 2 was the lungi and M. O. 3 was the banian of the deceased. There were earlier disputes between the parties. One Bolineni Raghavara, father of the accused, was murdered earlier and her sons were prosecuted for that murder. At that time Raghavarao s wife was the Mandal President and Raghavarao s brother Purnachandra Rao was the government Hospital doctor at Narasaraopet. In her cross-examination she stated that though other people came along with the accused, she did not recognize them. She could not say how many others accompanied the accused. Out of them there were known persons and also unknown persons. In her cross-examination she stated that though other people came along with the accused, she did not recognize them. She could not say how many others accompanied the accused. Out of them there were known persons and also unknown persons. She could not give the names of other persons though they were known to her. Her parents native place is Irukupalem near sattenapalli. One Karanam Kotaiah was the leader of one party which was opponent to her family members and one Bolineni chengaiah was the leader of another faction to which her husband belonged. Bolineni ramaiah and Bolineni Rama Subbaiah are cousins of Chengaiah. Kotaiah was murdered. It was true that her husband rajarushi and his senior and junior paternal uncles were accused in the case of Kotaiah s death. Her Viyyanka and Narayana, his brother Venkateswarlu were also accused in that case. Chava Lingaiah is the 1st cousin of her father-in-law. Her husband Rajarushi and other accused were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and they served the sentence also. She was examined by the police twice, once at the hospital at Narasaraopet and second time at Guntur. There were factions even now. She had not stated before the police that all the people who accompanied the accused were residents of the same village as mentioned in Ex. Dl. She did not remember whether she gave any report to the police earlier in connection with other cases. Her father-in-law s brother Ramakotayya was also murdered. She did not remember whether A9, A12 and A17 were accused in that case. She also did not know whether that case ended in acquittal. It was true that she had given a report against A4, A8 to a12 and A17 alleging that they pelted stones on the house of Ankamma Rao and made an attempt on his life. That case ended in acquittal. It was true that she was a witness in a case of assault on Vempati Lakshmaiah which was registered against A4, A9, A12 and A17 and father of A2. That case also ended in acquittal. After the death of chengaiah, the leader of their party, her husband Rajarushi became the leader. Raghavarao was the leader of other faction. She had no concern with the affairs of panchayat or its elections. Panchayath elections were held within a week after the death of her son. That case also ended in acquittal. After the death of chengaiah, the leader of their party, her husband Rajarushi became the leader. Raghavarao was the leader of other faction. She had no concern with the affairs of panchayat or its elections. Panchayath elections were held within a week after the death of her son. Her sons were talking about elections only, but she did not know the details of their discussions. She did not participate in their conversation. After taking their meals, her son were discussing about the elections and the discussions went past midnight. She was sitting there for less than an hour. She was not an educated person. She did not know the dates. It took some time for them to shift her son to narasaraopet. She did not give the time as 1 a. m. as mentioned in Ex. D2 or in Ex. D3. She had not stated before the police that she had also participated in the discussions regarding Panchayat Elections as mentioned in Ex. P4. She had not received any axe injury. It was not true that she had not stated in her statement under Ex. Pl that it was her son Subba Rao who was axed by Al. (This is an omission from ex. Pl ). Her daughter-in-law Vijaya hails from Lingaraopalem near Yadlapadu and she was married 2 years earlier to her son Bhadraiah. She could give even the fathers names of all the accused. All her family members were living together. Some times there was a separate mess between the family members who were married. There was a galli in between the two houses which belonged to them. The house on southern side has got two door ways, one on east and other on west. There was no compound wall for either of the house. It was not true that there was a panchayat bazaar, but not a galli between the two houses. The galli was running from east to west. It was true that both the houses were not exactly opposite to each other, they were situated diagonally to each other. The northern house has got a compound wall towards northern side. Adjacent to it there is a Sivalayam. The northern house consists of two portions. One portion of the northern house Narasimha Rao was using and another portion Subbarao was using. They were facing east. The northern house has got a compound wall towards northern side. Adjacent to it there is a Sivalayam. The northern house consists of two portions. One portion of the northern house Narasimha Rao was using and another portion Subbarao was using. They were facing east. All their houses were thatched houses. They all ran into the house of Subbarao on northern side. They were sitting in front of both the portion of house. The door way was just 2 feet away. The cots were just in front of the door way. After receiving the injuries, the witness, Ramadevi and Koteswaramma ran into the house. All her sons also came into that house. There was only one window to the house of Subbarao. There was another window in the portion in which Narsimharao was living. On the date of occurrence they all dined together in the house of Narasimha rao. The deceased also dined with them. It, was long after sunset. She could not give the exact time when they,,took food. The window had fallen, and it was like a gap in the wall. She, Koteswarama, the deceased, her sons Narsimharao and Shankaraiah, srinivasarao, Baby (L. W. 10) went to the hospital in the tractor. Her daughters-in- law Ramadevi and Vijaya stayed in the house. Koteswaramma also remained at the house. On the same night they returned from guntur to the village along with the dead body. Ramadevi and Koteswaramma were at home. It was almost a day break and dawn, when they left for Guntur. They went in a car. Narasimharao and Bhadraiah (LWs. 7 and 6) also accompanied them to Guntur. The doctor examined her even before her statement under Ex. Pl was recorded. It was true that she had not stated in her statement under Ex. Pl or under Section 161 Crp. C. that her daughter- in-law and her sister Koteswarama also received injuries. While Subbarao was lying on the ground, he received injuries. The accused came from one direction, beat her son and went away in another direction. They came from southern side. They did not encircle her son Subbarao. The incident took place about 15 minutes. She had not raised cries from inside the house. At the time of inquest, she was also asked by the police whether she was present. The accused came from one direction, beat her son and went away in another direction. They came from southern side. They did not encircle her son Subbarao. The incident took place about 15 minutes. She had not raised cries from inside the house. At the time of inquest, she was also asked by the police whether she was present. She had not stated even at the time of inquest about ramadevi and Koteswaramma receiving injuries in the bomb blast. On that night she had not gone to the southern house and she was at the northern house only attending to her daughter-in-law Ramadevi. Ramadevi was in the hospital for 10 days and brought to home only 4 days earlier to the occurrence. She was discharged from the hospital in a good condition. She was complaining of pain due to sutures. There were no other complications. From the day ramdevi came from the hospital she was staying with her only. None of her family members had gone to sleep by the time of occurrence. Ankammarao succeeded her husband as leader of their faction. Ankammarao was not in the village on that day. He came to the hospital on the next day after the post-mortem examination. Her son was not in a position to talk at all. While he was being taken to Guntur, his groaning also stopped. She did not tell anybody about the incident before she gave ex. Pl-statement to the police. She did not know the designation of the Police Officer who recorded her statement. She did not know whether any Magistrate came there before her statement was recorded. She saw the bombs in Tiffin carriers, numbering 4, without lids. She did not remember who was holding the Tiffin carriers among the accused. Al exhorted other accused to kill all of them. She could not say how many bombs were exploded. The house was not burnt because of explosion. She could not say who actually exploded the bomb. While they were all running into the house after explosion of bomb, Subbarao fell down. The axes used by the accused were being used for cutting frees. Subbarao was not seen by any doctor in the village. A2 was aged 18 or 19 years by the time of occurrence. He was studying at Guntur, but staying in the village. A22 is also of the same village. The axes used by the accused were being used for cutting frees. Subbarao was not seen by any doctor in the village. A2 was aged 18 or 19 years by the time of occurrence. He was studying at Guntur, but staying in the village. A22 is also of the same village. She did not know whether he was studying, but he was staying at home. It was not true that A2 and A22 were studying and staying at Guntur only. It was not true that al and A4 were residing at Narsaraopet for the last ten years prior to the occurrence and even by the time of occurrence they were residing there. All the axes were of similar type and weight. It was not true that a8 was working in a college at Narsaraopet at the time of occurrence. Injuries were inflicted with axes by using sufficient force. It was not true that A8 could not hold any axe at all. (There was some deformity in both the hands of A8.) It was not true that she had not stated before the police under Ex. Pl or under Section 161 Cr. P. C. statement that A3 inflicted a blow on the right side of the face of her son. The injury was inflicted with sharp edged side only. Raghavarao and A4 are co-brothers. It was not true that she had not stated before the police either in Ex. Pl or in 161 Cr. P. C. statement that A4 stabbed with a knife on the right side of the stomach. (This is also an omission.) Then there were other omissions which were recorded by the Trial court. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 is the daughter-in-law of p. W. I. The deceased was her brother-in- law. She stated that he was murdered five years before. Koteswaramma (L. W. 3) is her elder sister. She was married eight years prior to the occurrence. She knew all the accused. On the date of occurrence at midnight her husband Narsimharao and his brothers Bhadraiah, Srinivasrao and the deceased Subbarao and one Daruvuri nageswara Rao (LW. 9) were sitting in front of their house. PW1 was sitting on the pial of the house, whereas she and her sister Koteswaramma and co-daughters vijaya and Baby (L. W. 10) were sitting on the cots. 9) were sitting in front of their house. PW1 was sitting on the pial of the house, whereas she and her sister Koteswaramma and co-daughters vijaya and Baby (L. W. 10) were sitting on the cots. At that time Al to A3, A5, A4, A6, a8, A22, A7, A14, A21, A13, A15, A16, a18 (since died), A20, A19, A12, A17, all, A10 (since died), A9 came together holding knives and axes. They were also holding bombs in plastic tiffin carriers. Al exhorted others to kill all of them so that there would not be any obstacle in the village. He hurled a bomb. Then the witness and others ran out of fear and at that juncture the deceased Subba Rao dashed against P. W. I and fell down. Al axed Subba Rao on his right fore head. Out of fear they went inside the room and bolted the doors. At that time lights were glowing. A3 hacked Subbarao with an axe on his right cheek. A2 hacked him with an axe on his right temple. A4 stabbed him with a knife on his right stomach. A5 stabbed with a knife on the right chest. A6 hacked him on the left of his chest. A22 axed him in between his right thumb and index finger. A8 axed him on the left hand. A7 axed him on his right thigh. A14 axed him on his right leg below the knee. Others also beat him using axes and knives indiscriminately. They hurled bombs on the house. A15 hurled a bomb at the vacant site. After the accused went away, the witness and others saw the deceased groaning. P. W. I went and brought a tractor from prathipati Sekhar and took him to hospital at Narasaraopet. P. W. I, her husband narsimha Rao, Chava Bhadrayya, Seenu, nageshwararao and Chava Baby accompanied the injured. The witness remained at home. On the next day she came to know that her brother-in-law subbarao died at Guntur. She was examined by the police. She also sustained injuries due to bomb explosion and she went to narasaraopet where she was examined by the doctor. She received injury on her left leg whereas her sister Koteshwaramma received injury - on her left hand in the bomb explosion. The incident occurred because of old grudges between the factions in the village. She also sustained injuries due to bomb explosion and she went to narasaraopet where she was examined by the doctor. She received injury on her left leg whereas her sister Koteshwaramma received injury - on her left hand in the bomb explosion. The incident occurred because of old grudges between the factions in the village. In cross-examination she stated that two cots were laid in front of the house. All the five were sitting on one cot. She, Vijaya and other ladies were sitting on the other cot. The men folk returned home after sunset from agricultural work. There was an improvement in her health from the day she returned from the hospital till the date of occurrence. Cooking would be done in her house, although there was a provision in the portion occupied by Subbarao. There was no provision for cooking in the southern house where her mother-in-law was residing. She again stated that there was a provision for cooking in that house also. There was no partition and they were not separately cooking. Since it was summer, she was also in front of the house though she was sick. Even in summer there was work in the field and some crops were there in the field. They took food at usual time on that day. It was late in the night, but she could not say the exact time. She was examined by the police at her house on the next day morning. She had not stated before the police as in Ex. D6. It relates to mentioning of time of 1 a. m. Some other people also came along with the accused, but she did not know their names. They also belonged to her village. She could not identify them. She knew the difference between bucket and tiffin. She had not stated before the police as in Ex. D7 that plastic buckets were used for carrying bombs. When she was hale and healthy, she was in the habit of attending to agricultural work. Only one bomb was exploded in front of them. She had not gone to sleep even by the time of occurrence. She was taking medicines after food. No medicines had been taken by her during night time. She did not remember the colour of the Tiffin carrier, therefore she could not state its colour. The accused came to their house on foot. She had not gone to sleep even by the time of occurrence. She was taking medicines after food. No medicines had been taken by her during night time. She did not remember the colour of the Tiffin carrier, therefore she could not state its colour. The accused came to their house on foot. She had seen them even before the bomb was exploded. She had seen the weapons held by different accused. She was not frightened though she had seen so many accused persons holding arms. She had not raised any cries during the occurrence. Nobody raised cries. Other accused, while inflicting blows with arms, did not raise cries. The deceased Subbarao also did not raise any cries. The bomb was exploded within 10 feet distance from them. She was lying on the cot at that time. She received injury on her left leg by the splinters of the bomb. Koteswaramma was sitting on her cot. The bombs was exploded by the side of cot towards her leg. There was a blanket on the cot. She did not observe whether there was any blanket on the other cot. It was Navaru cot. The blanket did not have any burns. Nobody was sleeping by the time of occurrence. P. W. I was staying in their house and also in southern house. She had come to the house on that day early in the evening. A15 exploded another bomb before going away. Nobody received any injuries as a result of that explosion. She had not stated before the police as in Ex. D8 that it was because of the bomb explosion by A15 she received injury on her left leg. After receiving injury due to explosion of bombs, they went into the house. They witnessed al inflicting blow on the deceased even before they went inside the house. There was a window to that house. There were iron rods to the window. But there were no iron rods to the window of Subbarao s house. There was a wooden frame to the window. She did not remember whether the iron rods to the window of Subbarao s house had been removed. Two portions were there even by the time she joined her matrimonial home. From the beginning there were no iron rods to the window of subba Rao s house. The accused came one by one, inflicted blows and went away. She did not remember whether the iron rods to the window of Subbarao s house had been removed. Two portions were there even by the time she joined her matrimonial home. From the beginning there were no iron rods to the window of subba Rao s house. The accused came one by one, inflicted blows and went away. It was not true that she had not stated before the police that A3 inflicted a blow on the face on its right side. It was not true that she had not stated that the blow inflicted by A4 was on the right side. It was not true that she had not stated before the police that A5 inflicted a blow on the right side. It was not true that she had not stated before the police that A6 and A22 similarly inflicted blows on the right side. The doors of either of the house were not bolted. There was one light each in both the portions. The lights were not switched off. They were ordinary electrical lights. There was a top light outside the house. There were two top lights to the two portions. They were also ordinary bulbs. All the four lights were glowing right from the evening and even by the time of occurrence. She had not informed about the incident to anybody till the police came. She had given a statement to the police and put her thumb mark. The police examined her, Vijaya and pushapavathi and recorded their statements. P. W. 3 stayed in their house for 15 days prior to the occurrence and also another 5 days after the occurrence. She and PW3 were taken to the hospital. They returned home after treatment. She did not know whether her brothers Venkateswararao and venkateswarlu were involved in number of criminal cases. She did not know whether her father was a convict and was in jail. The men folk were talking about Panchayat elections, but she did not know the details. Daruvuri Nagesward Rao (L. W. 9) also came into the house along with them and watched the occurrence. None of them requested the accused not to inflict any blows on the deceased. Police did not seize any clothes from her or from her sister (P. W. 3 ). There was minor bleeding from the injuries they suffered, but the clothes did not get stained. None of them requested the accused not to inflict any blows on the deceased. Police did not seize any clothes from her or from her sister (P. W. 3 ). There was minor bleeding from the injuries they suffered, but the clothes did not get stained. The axes used were meant for cutting trees. Only that type of axes were held by the accused. Her deceased brother-in-law also did not plead with the accused not to beat him. She did not observe the length of the knives used. The accused went away towards western side. Others also went along with the accused. The accused did not leave their weapons at the scene. By the time she returned from the hospital, P. W. I was at home. None of the accused had tried to enter inside the house. She denied the suggestion that P. W. I was not at the house on the date of occurrence and she had actually gone to her parents house on the previous day. Her mother-in-law was never involved in the panchayat Elections. She had not stated before the police as in Ex. D10 that her mother-in-law (P. W. I) also participated in the discussions relating to Panchayat elections. She was not aware whether there was any attempt to make a compromise between the two groups. She denied the suggestion that on the night of occurrence she was sleeping in the house and she was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. She denied the suggestion that she and PW3 had not received injuries during the course of occurrence. She denied the suggestion that they were storing bombs in their house. It was also not true that she and P. W. 3 sustained self inflicted injuries by exploding small bombs. ( 7 ) P. W. 3 is the sister of P. W. 2. She stated that four days before the occurrence P. W. 2 had undergone an operation and she was brought back to home. The witness had gone to the house of P. W. 2 to attend to her. She knew all the family members of her sister (P. W. 2 ). The deceased Subbarao was the brother-in- law of P. W. 2. He was murdered by all the accused five years before. On the day of occurrence late in the night Chava narasimharao (L. W. 7), Ch. She knew all the family members of her sister (P. W. 2 ). The deceased Subbarao was the brother-in- law of P. W. 2. He was murdered by all the accused five years before. On the day of occurrence late in the night Chava narasimharao (L. W. 7), Ch. Seenu (L. W. 8), bhadrayya (L. W. 6), the deceased and daruvuri Nageswara Rao (L. W. 9) were sitting together and talking to each other. She was also sitting along with P. W. 2, Chava baby (L. W. 10) and Vijaya (L. W. 4) on the cot. P. W. I was sitting on the pial of the house. The male persons were talking about Panchayat Elections. All the accused came holding axes, knives and also bombs in plastic tiffin carriers and Al exhorted other accused to kill all of them so that there would not be any obstacle for them in the village. Al hurled a bomb which exploded and due to the splinters of the bomb, she, P. W. I and P. W. 2 received injuries. Out of fear they all ran into the house and in that process the deceased fell down. Then Al axed the deceased on his right fore head. The witness and others went inside the house, bolted the door from inside and were watching what was going outside through the opening in the wall. They observed that A2 axed the deceased on his right temple. A3 axed him on his right cheek. A4 stabbed Subbarao with a knife on his stomach. A5 stabbed the deceased on his chest with the knife. A6 axed him on his left side chest, below the shoulder. Rest of the accused attacked the deceased indiscriminately with axes and knives. A 15 hurled a bomb. After that the accused went away, P. W. I and Bhadrayya (L. W. 6) went to Pathipati Sekhar and brought a tractor and shifted the injured to Narsaraopet. Narasimharao (L. W. 7), bhadrayya (L. W. 6), Seenu (L. W. 8), daruvuri Nageswara Rao (L. W. 9), P. W. I, chava Baby (L. W. 10) accompanied the injured Subba Rao in the tractor. On the next day she was examined by the police. On the next day she and P. W. 2 went to government Hospital Narsaraopet for treatment of the injuries received by them in the bomb explosion and they were examined by the doctor. On the next day she was examined by the police. On the next day she and P. W. 2 went to government Hospital Narsaraopet for treatment of the injuries received by them in the bomb explosion and they were examined by the doctor. In cross-examination she stated that she was married 15 years before and was staying in Munsifvaripalem. She contracted 2nd marriage after discarding the 1st husband. She had children. They were aged 18 and 14 years respectively. She was living jointly with her father, in- laws and others. She did not know whether her father was a life convict and was in central Prison, Rajahmundry for some time. P. W. 2 and her co-daughter were on cordial terms. Her parents place was Agraharam. She went there after P. W. 2 was admitted in hospital. They were in the hospital for 9 days. After return from hospital she stayed in the house of P. W. I for 10 days. During this period she used to go to her father s house now and then. She could not say the time as she was not having sense of time. It was late in the night the incident occurred. She had not gone to sleep before the occurrence on that night. She had not stated before the police that she was sleeping on the cot at the time of occurrence as mentioned in Ex. D 11. She had not stated before the police as mentioned in Ex. D12 that she was staying in Kethamukkala agraharam for two months before the occurrence as her sister had undergone operation. It was not true that she had not stated before the police about the discussion of Bhadrayya, Narsimharao, Sreenivasrao and D. Nageswara Rao (LQWs. 6 to 9) about the Panchayat Elections and also about her presence at the scene of occurrence. She knew all the accused in Kethamukkala agraharam. She had not stated before the police as in Ex. D3 that it was A3 who exhorted others. It was not true that she had not stated before the police that it was a1 who hurled the bombs. She had not observed the colour of the tiffin carrier holding the bombs. She saw four persons holding the tiffin carriers with bombs, but she could not say exactly who were holding them. She had not seen bombs at any time. She had not observed the colour of the tiffin carrier holding the bombs. She saw four persons holding the tiffin carriers with bombs, but she could not say exactly who were holding them. She had not seen bombs at any time. There was no blanket spread on the cot as they were sitting. She, P. W. 2, vijaya and Baby were sitting on the other cot. None of the accused attempted to push the doors of the house where they were hiding. It was not true that she had not stated before the police that A3 inflicted the blow on the right cheek. It was also not true that she had not stated before the police regarding specific overt acts committed by. Al, A2, A4 to A6 and A15 upon the deceased. Her clothes were not burnt due to bomb explosion. ( 8 ) P. W. 4 is also daughter-in-law of p. W. I. The deceased was her elder brother- in-law. She knew all the accused. Her brother-in-law Subbarao was killed 5 years before. On the day of occurrence in the night while lights were glowing, her brothers-in-law Narasimharao, Subbao, sreenivasarao and her husband Bhadraiah and Daruvuri Nageswara Rao (L. W9) were sitting on the cot and were discussing about the Panchayat Elections. P. W. I was sitting on the pial. She, P. W. 2, P. W. 3 and baby (L. W. 10) were sitting on the other cot talking to each other. Late in the night all the accused came holding axes, knives and also bombs in the tiffin carriers. Al exhorted others to kill them so that there would not be any obstacle for them. He hurled a bomb at them which exploded and pws. 1 to 3 received injuries. Al axed the deceased Subbarao on the right temple. The witness and others went inside the house out of fear. A2 axed the deceased on his right cheek. Similarly A3 also hacked the deceased on the lower side of right cheek. A4 stabbed the deceased on the right side of stomach. Rest of the accused indiscriminately beat the deceased. The witness and others went inside the house, bolted the doors from inside and observed the occurrence through the window. The accused thereafter went away. Similarly A3 also hacked the deceased on the lower side of right cheek. A4 stabbed the deceased on the right side of stomach. Rest of the accused indiscriminately beat the deceased. The witness and others went inside the house, bolted the doors from inside and observed the occurrence through the window. The accused thereafter went away. A tractor was brought and the deceased Subbarao was taken to Narasaraopet by her husband bhadraiah, P. W. I, and Narasimharao, sreenivasarao, Nageswara Rao and Baby (LWs. 7 to 10) accompanied the deceased. On the next day police came and she made a statement before the police. PWs. 2 and 3 were taken to the hospital by the police. In cross-examination she stated that she was not related to her husband prior to the marriage. She was an illiterate woman. She had no sense of time. She had not stated before the police as mentioned in Ex. D15 that it was 1 a. m. when the occurrence took place. She did not know the accused earlier to her marriage. She did not remember the names of all the accused though she knew them. She knew the names of only four accused out of 22 accused. She knew al to A4 by name also. She did not know whether there was any relationship between these four accused and other accused. Al 1 was an old man and so also a13. All the accused were holding weapons. There were plastic buckets. She did not observe the colour of the bucket because there were many people. Besides the accused there were 18 people. Though she had seen other accused earlier also, but she did not know their names. All the four bombs were used. As the bombs were exploded in the open space, their huts were not damaged. The bombs were used in the beginning and also while they were going. It was not true that she had not stated before the police that A3 inflicted a blow on the right side and similarly A4 also inflicted a blow on the right side. Other accused attacked the deceased indiscriminately. P. W. I received an injury while she was standing. Similarly PWs. 2 and 3 also received injuries while they were standing. A1 to A4 also participated in the indiscriminate attack on the deceased. She observed Al to A4 inflicting blows from inside the house. Other accused attacked the deceased indiscriminately. P. W. I received an injury while she was standing. Similarly PWs. 2 and 3 also received injuries while they were standing. A1 to A4 also participated in the indiscriminate attack on the deceased. She observed Al to A4 inflicting blows from inside the house. The witness and others did not raise any cries nor plead with the accused not to attack the deceased, due to fear. She had not stated before the police that bombs were hurled on their houses as mentioned in Ex. D16. She had not accompanied the deceased Subbarao to the hospital. She had not stated before the police as mentioned in Ex. D17 that she and Pushpavathi had taken P. Ws. l to 3 to the Hospital at Narsaraopet. It was not true that she had not stated before the police about Bhadraiah, Narasimharao, sreenivasarao, Nageswara Rao and Baby (LWs. 6 to 10) accompanying the deceased to the hospital. None of the villagers had come to their house to enquire from them about the incident even after the deceased was taken to the hospital. She had not revealed the facts to anybody till the police examined her. She had joined her husband a year before the occurrence. It was not true that at the time of occurrence she was at her parents place as she was newly married. She had been married three years prior to the occurrence, but she had joined her husband a year prior to the occurrence. It was not true that she had come to the village only after she came to know about the occurrence. She came to know about the death of her brother-in-law Subbarao on the next day of morning at about 10. 00 or 11. 00 a. m. , at guntur. ( 9 ) P. W. 5 stated that she knew PWs 1 to 4 and the accused. Her house was about 2 or 3 baras away from the house of p. W. I. She knew the deceased who was killed by Al and others five years before. On the night of occurrence after taking food she slept in her house. On hearing bomb explosion and commotions she came out of her house and went near the house of p. W. I. She saw A1 inflicting an injury with an axe on right fore head of the deceased subbarao. On the night of occurrence after taking food she slept in her house. On hearing bomb explosion and commotions she came out of her house and went near the house of p. W. I. She saw A1 inflicting an injury with an axe on right fore head of the deceased subbarao. A2 similarly axed the deceased on his right cheek. A3 also axed on the lower side of right cheek. Other accused indiscriminately axed the deceased and she went to her house out of fear. On the next day morning police came and examined her. She made a statement before the police. Her husband s sister is Parvathi and she is the wife of Daruvuri Nageswara Rao (L. W. 9 ). The witness s husband was an accused in some criminal cases. She had not heard any cries, but she came out of the house on hearing bomb explosions. She did not know thenamesof remaining accused besides A1 to A3she had seen only A1 to A3 and other She had seen the accused from a distance of about 10 to 15 feet. Her husband was not in the village and he returned to the village on the next day morning after her statement was recorded. She had two children who were staying with her. She did not go to the Hospital at Narasaraopet. She had not stated before the police as in Ex. D18 that she also accompanied the injured to the hospital. She had not informed the occurrence to anybody except the police. ( 10 ) P. W. 6 is the son of P. W. I and brother of the deceased. He stated that he knew all the accused. His elder brother subbarao was killed 5 years and 4 months before. There were two factions in the village belonging to T. D. P. and Congress. The witness belonged to Congress party and their leader was Ankamma Rao. The accused belonged to T. D. P. and A3 was its leader. On the night previous to withdrawal of nominations for Panchayat Elections, his brothers Narasimharao (L. W. 7), Subbarao- deceased, he, Srinivasarao (L. W. 8) and d. Nageswara Rao (L. W. 9) were sitting on a cot in the vacant site in front of their house. His mother was sitting on the pial of the house. On the other cot PWs. 2 to 4 and Baby (L. W. 10) were sitting. His mother was sitting on the pial of the house. On the other cot PWs. 2 to 4 and Baby (L. W. 10) were sitting. At midnight after 1. 00 a. m. , all the accused came holding axes, knives and 4 plastic buckets with bombs. Then Al exhorted others to kill them so that there would not be any obstacle for them and hurled a bomb. The bomb exploded near his mother and she sustained injuries on her both ankles. The saree was also semi-burnt. Similarly PWs. 2 and 3 also received inujuries due to explosion. Out of fear the witness and others were rushing into the house. At that time his brother Subbarao dashed against his mother and fell down. Then A1 axed the deceased on right temple. In the meanwhile they went into the house, bolted the doors and were observing what was happening outside by peeping through window. They observed A2 also inflicting blows with an axe on the right temple of his brother. A3 axed him on his face. A4 stabbed him with a knife on the right side of stomach. A5 stabbed his brother with a knife on his chest. A6 axed him on the chest. A7 axed his brother on his leg. A22 axed him on his hand. A8 axed him on his left hand. A 14 axed him on his leg. All other accused indiscriminately attacked him with axes and exploded bombs. Thereafter the accused went away. The witness and others came out of the house and brought a tractor from one Pathipati Sekhar. Then he, P. W. I, his brother Narasimharao (L. W. 7), Sreenu (L. W. 8), Nageswara Rao (L. W. 9), his sister-in-law Baby (L. W. 10) took the deceased in the tractor to the government Hospital, Narsaraopet where they were advised to take him to Government hospital, Guntur. His brother died around 8. 00 a. m. He was examined by the police and he stated the same facts to the police. It was because of old grudges between the factions the incident occurred. The witness and others were falsely implicated in the case of murder of A2 s father. In cross-examination he stated that. Ankammarao s in-laws place is Narasaraopet, though they originally belonged to Turkapalem. It was because of old grudges between the factions the incident occurred. The witness and others were falsely implicated in the case of murder of A2 s father. In cross-examination he stated that. Ankammarao s in-laws place is Narasaraopet, though they originally belonged to Turkapalem. It was true that he, his brothers, Ankamma Rao and Daruvuri Nageshwara Rao were accused in the murder case of A2 s father. There were altogether 11 accused in that case. He and P. W. I went and brought a tractor from Pathipati Sekhar. Sekhar is the brother of Prathipati Koteswara Rao, prathipati Sekhar s daughter Sridevi was given to Rambabu, but this marriage took place only a year before. There were two factions in the village, one belonged to TDP and another belonged to Congress. Ankammarao was the leader of their faction. It was not true that he and his brother narasimharao (L. W. 7) were prosecuted on the charge that they hurled bombs against Mandal Revenue Officer, but he added that they were acquitted in that case. A6 was otherwise known as Kadiyala ramayya. He did not remember whether a6, A8, A10, A12 and A17 were also accused in other case filed by him. That case also ended in acquittal. It was true that he, Ankammarao, his brother Sreenu, narasimharao and Chava Rambabu were accused in a case filed at the instance of A6. But that case ended in acquittal. He did not remember whether Sadineni venkateswara Rao, father of All, gave evidence against him. He did not know the relationship of Daruvuri Venkata Rao and A8. It was true that at the instance of a17 a case under Section 307 IPC was filed against him. In that case father and mother of A2 besides A7 were witnesses. On the date of occurrence he returned home in the evening from the land. He studied up to V class. He was examined by the police at Government Hospital, Guntur. He did not know the designation of the officer who examined him. He did not reveal the facts to anybody before he made a statement to the police. He and others reached Guntur around 7. 00 or 7. 30 p. m. His brother died around 8. 00 a. m. None of his villagers came to Government Hospital, Guntur. His mother was not concerned with Panchayat elections. She did not participate in the discussions. He and others reached Guntur around 7. 00 or 7. 30 p. m. His brother died around 8. 00 a. m. None of his villagers came to Government Hospital, Guntur. His mother was not concerned with Panchayat elections. She did not participate in the discussions. He did not remember whether he stated before the police that his mother had participated in the discussions as mentioned in Ex. D20. The discussion was with regard to dummy nominations filed by their people. He had not stated before the police as mentioned in Ex. D21 that the discussion was with regard to compromise between two parties. He did not know whether A3 filed a nomination. One Orsu bullaiah was the candidate for Sarpanch on behalf of T. D. P. and Vemula Subbarao was their candidate. He did not know who filed nominations in the accused party. He himself had not filed any nomination. They had started discussion around 10. 00 p. m. While they were discussing, his mother came and sat there. They were only discussing about the withdrawals. It was not true that Ankamma Rao and he were the only leaders of their party. None of the candidates had withdrawn the nominations on the next day. It was not true that there was no discussion at all. It was true that vemuri Subbarao who was their candidate had won the post of Sarpanch. There were never any talks about compromise in between the two factions in the village. Raghavarao was the Sarpanch twice. About 25 people had come to attack and out of them he could recognize 22 accused. He knew all the people of his village. He could not say who among the accused were holding buckets with bombs. He had not stated before the police as mentioned in ex. D23 that the bombs were brought in 4 tiffins. The knife held by A4 was 1 1/2 feet in length. The blade portion was exposed by the time he saw. It would be of 2 inches width. Different types of knives were brought. The axes were almost of similar type. He knew the axes used for cutting fuel sticks. That type of axes were only brought. A4 inflicted one blow. Other accused also inflicted single blows only. As the police did not ask him, he did not state whether A4 inflicted a blow on the right side. Different types of knives were brought. The axes were almost of similar type. He knew the axes used for cutting fuel sticks. That type of axes were only brought. A4 inflicted one blow. Other accused also inflicted single blows only. As the police did not ask him, he did not state whether A4 inflicted a blow on the right side. He was examined by the police at the time of inquest only. Then he added that he was examined by the police at Narsaraopet before going to Guntur, but no statement was recorded at Narsaraopet. A constable was there in the hospital at Narasaraopet. He did not give any report to the police, though informed the police about the incident. He did not state at the time of inquest that A8 axed the deceased on his left leg. He did not ask PWs. 2 and 3 to accompany him to the hospital though they were injured. He had not seen the injuries at that time. He had not stated before the police as in Ex. D24 that he had taken PWs. 2 and 3 also to the hospital at Narsaraopet. It was not true that he was a rowdy sheeter in Narasaraopet Police station. He remained all through with his deceased brother till he died. They did not give any first aid to the deceased at home. He was groaning. He did not regain consciousness. He had been married about 3 years before the occurrence. He was released on bail in Rahavarao s murder case in May, 1994 by the High Court. It was not true that just two months prior to the occurrence he married P. W. 4. There was no partition of the properties, but he was staying in the southern house. They had partitioned the land, but they were having common mess. The partition took place after the death of his brother Subba Rao. Then he stated that they had common mess, but were residing in different portions. The southern house was registered in the name of Srinivasrao (L. W. 8 ). The mess was in the house of Narsimharao only. The southern house also has got a window. It was not true that from the southern of the house one could see what was happening in front of other house. It was not true that the deceased was a weak person. The mess was in the house of Narsimharao only. The southern house also has got a window. It was not true that from the southern of the house one could see what was happening in front of other house. It was not true that the deceased was a weak person. He was sitting facing towards east. He saw the accused from a distance of about 20 feet. At that time the accused were holding weapons in their hands. Due to fear only they all went inside the house. Soon after their arrival A1 hurled a bomb and when they were trying to run away, A1 axed the deceased, then he fell down. He did not see who exploded other bombs. No bombs landed on them. He had not stated before the police that bombs were hurled on them as in Ex. D25. ( 11 ) P. W. 7 is the husband of P. W. 2 and brother of the deceased. He knew all the accused. His brother Subbarao was murdered 5 years before. There were two factions in the village, belonged to TDP and congress. The witness and others belonged to Congress and Ankamma Rao was their leader. The accused belonged to TDP and a3 was their leader. On the day of occurrence in the night he, his deceased brother Subbarao, P. W. 6, Srinivasarao (L. W. 8) and Daruvuri Nageswara Rao (L. W. 9) were sitting on a cot at their house and were discussing about the Panchayat elections. His mother was sitting on the pial of the house. PWs. 2 to 4 and Chava Baby (L. W. 10) were sitting on the other cot. At that time past mid night, Al along with others came and exhorted to kill them so that there would not be any obstacle in the village and so saying Al hurtled a bomb. They were running into the house due to fear. In that process his brother Subbarao dashed against his mother (P. W. 1) and fell down. Thereupon A1 axed his brother on his Bright temple. They were running into the house due to fear. In that process his brother Subbarao dashed against his mother (P. W. 1) and fell down. Thereupon A1 axed his brother on his Bright temple. A2 axed on the right cheek, A3 axed on the face, A4 stabbed his brother on the right side of his stomach, a5 also stabbed his brother on right side chest with a knife, A6 axed him on the left side of chest, A22 axed him on his left hand, A7 axed him on the right leg, A14 hacked him on the right leg, A8 hacked him on the left hand. The witness and others observed these acts of the accused from the house through the window. They went into the house soon after A1 inflicted a blow. Other accused indiscriminately attacked his brother with axes and knives. The accused went away exploding bombs. PWs1 and 6 went and brought a tractor from Prathipati Sekhar. Then he, P. W. 6, p. W. 9, P. W. 1 and Daruvuri Nageswara Rao (L. W. 9), Srinivasarao (L. W. 8) and Baby (L. W. 10) took his brother to the hospital at Narasraopet. The police enquired from them about the incident. They were advised to take his brother to Government Hospital, guntur. Then he, P. W. 1, Baby (L. W. 10) and P. W. 6 took his brother to Guntur government Hospital. He was examined by the police. The incident occurred due to earlier quarrel in the village. In his cross- examination he stated that it was true that he was also convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in Raghavarao s murder case. It was true that A1, A5 and A6 deposed against them in that case. A5 was the son of A21. He did not remember whether he was an accused in a case under section 307 IPC wherein A 17 was the complainant. It was true that he was convicted in the case of attempt of murder of karanam Dharma Rao who belonged to the accused faction. Daruvuri Nageswararao (L. W. 9) was also an accused in that case. Besides the accused there were some other persons, but he did not recognize them, but they belonged to his village. PWs. 2 and 3 did not accompany them to narasaraopet in the tractor. He was examined by the police at Guntur. Daruvuri Nageswararao (L. W. 9) was also an accused in that case. Besides the accused there were some other persons, but he did not recognize them, but they belonged to his village. PWs. 2 and 3 did not accompany them to narasaraopet in the tractor. He was examined by the police at Guntur. Then some specific omissions were pointed out to him in the cross-examination. ( 12 ) P. W. 8 was the Village Administrative officer of Molakaluru Village. He stated that he was a mediator while the police observed the scene of occurrence. The observation report was exhibited by him as ex. P2. He had signed on it. Shaik Khasim was the other mediator who also signed the mediators report. Some properties were also seized by the police. M. O. 4 was the blood stained earth, M. 0. 5 was the control earth, M. O. 6 was the Nawaru and M. O. 7 are bomb remnants which were seized in their presence. As per the observation report there was one light in the corner of northern side and there was another top light on the house. In cross-examination he stated that Kethamukkala Agraharam is the hamlet of Molakaluru. He was worked as V. K. for about 6 1/2 years prior to 1984. As ( 16 ) P. W. 11 was the Head Constable at Kothapet Police Station at the relevant time. On 17. 6. 1995 he was in-charge of the out post Police Station at Government hospital, Guntur. He received Ex. P5-death intimation from hospital and sent it to kothapet Police Station. ( 17 ) P. W. 12 was also Head Constable at Narsaraopet Rural Police Station at the relevant time. On 17. 6. 1995 at 11. 30 a. m. , he received intimation of death of Chava subba Rao. On receipt of this death intimation he altered the section of law into one under Section 302 IPC and sent F. I. R. Ex. P6 was the original F. I. R. sent to the court. In cross-examination he stated that Narasaraopet is 40 K. Ms, away from Guntur. The residence of the Magistrate was at a distance of 1 K. M. from the police Station. P6 was the original F. I. R. sent to the court. In cross-examination he stated that Narasaraopet is 40 K. Ms, away from Guntur. The residence of the Magistrate was at a distance of 1 K. M. from the police Station. He was present at the Police station itself at the time of registration of f. I. R. ( 18 ) P. W. 13 was the Assistant Sub- inspector of Police at Kothapet at the relevant point of time. On 17. 6. 1995 at 9. 30 a. m. , he received Ex. P5 from P. W. 11 intimating the death of Subbarao. Then he transferred it to Narasaraopet Rural Police Station on point of jurisdiction. ( 19 ) P. W. 14 was the Inspector of police of Narasaraopet Tq. Police Station who stated that on 17. 6. 1995 at 4. 25 a. m. , he received intimation from Government hospital, Narasaraopet, which was Ex. P7. Then he proceeded to the hospital, recorded the statement of P. W. I from 4. 35 a. m. , to 5. 15 a. m. , and after reading over the contents to her and admitting to be true by her, he obtained her left thumb mark on the statement. Subbarao was unconscious. He did not record his statement. He returned to the Police Station and basing on Ex. Pl statement he registered a case in Cr. No. 91 of 1995 under Sections 147,148, 324, 307 read with 149 IPC and under Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act on 17. 6. 1995 at 5. 30 a. m. , and gave instructions to station writer to despatch the F. LR. to the Magistrate and copies to concerned. Ex. P8 was the f. LR. Later Circle Inspector of Police of narasaraopet Rural circle took up investigation. Ex. P7 reads that the patient had to be taken to Guntur for specialist treatment. Subsequently on 21. 8. 1995 he arrested Al, A7, A9 and A18 at 4. 00 p. m. , near Sattenapalli bus stand center, narasaraopet and sent them for remand on the next day. In cross-examination he stated that unless he perused the G. D. he could not say how long he was in the Police Station on that night prior to receiving Ex. P7-intimation. He had not stated in the F. LR. 00 p. m. , near Sattenapalli bus stand center, narasaraopet and sent them for remand on the next day. In cross-examination he stated that unless he perused the G. D. he could not say how long he was in the Police Station on that night prior to receiving Ex. P7-intimation. He had not stated in the F. LR. that he had recorded the statement of P. W. I and not Subbarao because he was unconscious. ( 20 ) P. W. 15 is the Civil Assistant surgeon who stated that on 17. 6. 1995 at 4. 15 a. m. , he examined the deceased subbarao and found the following injuries: (1) A cut injury on right side of cheek extending up to right side of fore head size 10 cm x 6 cm red bleeding with fracture of maxillary bone; (2) A cut injury on left fore arm on lateral aspect, size 3 cm x 1 1/2 cm x 1 cm red Transverse in direction; (3) A cut injury on left elbow joint size 3 cm x 2 cms red in colour; (4) A cut injury on right upper arm in lower l/3rd size 4 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm red Transverse and bleeding. (5) A stab injury on right side ofthe right hypogastric area with protruded intestines through the injury size 5 cm x 3 cm x depth; (6) An incised wound on left side of hypograstric area size 5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm red bleeding transverse in direction. (5) A stab injury on right side ofthe right hypogastric area with protruded intestines through the injury size 5 cm x 3 cm x depth; (6) An incised wound on left side of hypograstric area size 5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm red bleeding transverse in direction. (7) An incised wound on left side of chest valve in lower part size 5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm, red and green; (8) An incised wound on right side of left in the middle with deformity size 5 cms x 3 cm x 3 cm red, bleeding; (9) A stab injury on right side of chest by the side of nipple transverse in direction size 5 cm x 3 cm x lung depth, wheezing is coming out; (10) A stab injury just above 2 cms of the above injury transverse in direction, size 3 cm x 1 cm x red and bleeding; (11) A cut injury on right upper arm, size 3 cm x 2 cm, red bleeding; (12) A cut injury on right elbow joint size 5 cm x 2 cm; red, (13) A cut injury on right elbow joint size 3 cm x 1 cm, red and bleeding; (14) A cut injury on right fore arm in the middle size 5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm red and bleeding; (15) A cut injury on right dorsum and size 5 cm x 2 cm, red and bleeding. (16) A cut injury on right middle finger size 2 cm x 1 cm, red; (17) A cut injury on left middle finger size 2 cm x 2 cm; red bleeding; ( 21 ) FIRST aid treatment was given and the patient was referred to Government hospital, Guntur for further treatment. On the same day he examined P. W. 1 and found the following injuries: (1) An abrasion on right ankle size 2 cm x 1 cm, red in colour; (2) An abrasion on left ankle joint; size 2 cm x 1 cm, red; ( 22 ) HE was of the opinion that the injuries were simple in nature and could have been caused by blunt object. In cross- examination he stated that the duties of the doctor were from 9. 00 a. m. , to next day 19. 00 a. m. , in the causality. In cross- examination he stated that the duties of the doctor were from 9. 00 a. m. , to next day 19. 00 a. m. , in the causality. Only one memo was sent to the Police Station in respect of the same transaction. Only two persons had been examined i. e. , P. W. 1 and the deceased as mentioned in Ex. P7- intimation. He prepared wound certificate on the basis of accident register only. It was true that the contents of accident register would be more than the wound certificate issued later. The abrasions found by him on PW1 were only with blunt object. He had not mentioned on which side of right ankle the injuries were found on PW1 as also on left ankle. It could be possible that the injuries could be self inflicted or by a friendly hand. He had also examined p. W. 7 at 5. 00 a. m. , as can be seen from the accident register. He did not remember whether any separate written intimation was sent as far as P. W. 7 was concerned. P. W. 7 had come himself. He had also a simple injury. Ex. Pl 1 was the entry in the wound certificate. Injuries 6, 7 and 8 were possible by sharp edged weapon or by light weapon, but not by heavy weapon. It was not true that if a victim was hacked by a tree cutting axe, there would be damage to the underlying bone and tissues. The injuries could not be caused by heavy tree cutting axe, but only with light axe. The deceased was conscious by the time he was brought to the hospital and gradually became unconscious, while he was being examined by him. He did not remember whether any requisition for recording dying declaration was sent. He mentioned in the accident register in relevant column that dying declaration was necessary. He could not remember the exact time and period for which the deceased remained conscious while he attended on him. He also did not remember exactly as to how long the deceased remained in the hospital till he was sent to Guntur. ( 23 ) BEFORE coming to P. W. 16 who was inspector of Police and who investigated the case, we go to the statement of P. W. 1 7 who was the Civil Assistant Surgeon at community Hospital, Narasaraopet. ( 23 ) BEFORE coming to P. W. 16 who was inspector of Police and who investigated the case, we go to the statement of P. W. 1 7 who was the Civil Assistant Surgeon at community Hospital, Narasaraopet. He stated on 17. 6. 1995 he examined P. W. 2 and found irregular lacerated wound on the left sole of the size 3x2 cms in deep, brownish red in colour. Blackening of surroundings seen. He was of the opinion that the injury was simple in nature and could be caused by exploding device. Ex. P-15 was the wound certificate issued by him. The injury could be caused by the splinters from the bomb device. On the same day he examined P. W. 3 and found a lacerated wound irregular edges on back of upper end of fore arm. Brownish in colour and blackening of adjoining skin found. Size is 2 x 3 cms skin deep. He was of the opinion that the wound was simple in nature and could be caused by explosive device. Ex. P16 was the certificate issued by him. The injury could be caused by splinter of bomb explosion. The injuries due to explosive device could generally be found in exposed parts of the body. The sole as it is not an exposed part of the body as was found in injury on P. W. 2 when he was examined by the Trial Court, he clarified that it depends on the position of the victim also. It was not necessary that in case of injury of this nature the foreign body is necessarily to be found in or around the body. In case of injury by splinters of bomb explosion generally there would be singing of hair also. He had not seen any such sign on P. W. 3. There could be marks of burns on the clothes of the victim. ( 24 ) A close analysis of the above evidence would clearly indicate that there was bitter enmity between two groups; both the groups related to two different political parties. There were case and counter cases pending against both the groups. Some of the prosecution witnesses arrayed as accused in murder cases. Some of the accused deposed against some of the prosecution witnesses in some criminal cases wherein some of the prosecution witnesses were convicted. All the accused are the prominent members of the opposite faction. There were case and counter cases pending against both the groups. Some of the prosecution witnesses arrayed as accused in murder cases. Some of the accused deposed against some of the prosecution witnesses in some criminal cases wherein some of the prosecution witnesses were convicted. All the accused are the prominent members of the opposite faction. ( 25 ) P. WS. 6 and 7 are the sons of P. W. 1. P. W. 2 is the daughter-in-law of P. W. I i. e. , wife of P. W. 7. P. W. 4 is another daughter- in-law i. e. , wife of P. W. 6. P. W. 3 is no other than the sister of P. W. 2. P. W. 5 is the daughter-in-law of junior father-in-law of p. W. I. Except these witnesses, no other independent witnesses, either direct or circumstantial to speak about the incident, were examined. It is in this background, the evidence of P. Ws. l to 7 has to be scrutinized with great care and caution. ( 26 ) IT is settled law that the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. The Court has to attach a careful approach and analyze the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. A word of caution is sounded about six decades back by the Honourable Supreme Court in dalip Singh and others v. The State of punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 , wherein it has been laid down as under:"a witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts. " ( 27 ) FROM the above decision, it is clear that a foundation has to be laid down if plea of false implication is taken. Bearing the above principle in mind, the evidence of prosecution witnesses has to be appreciated and evaluated with great care and caution. ( 28 ) THE incident in question took place about 12-00 midnight, which is an odd time. Normally, no person will wait till the odd hour unless there are compelling reasons not to go to bed even after 12-00 midnight. The incident in question took place in front of the house of P. W. I while all witnesses P. Ws. l to 7 were talking with each other. The four sons of P. W. I and one d. Nageswar Rao were talking with each other with regard to coming Panchayat elections, so it is at that time all the accused have attacked the deceased and caused injuries. ( 29 ) P. W. I admitted that she was not concerned with the affairs of Panchayat elections. P. W. 2 also does not know about the details of the Panchayat Elections but according to her the men folk were talking about Panchayat Elections. Admittedly, p. W. I never involved in any Panchayat elections. P. W. 3 stated that all the male persons were talking about the Panchayat elections but the said fact was not stated to the police when she was examined or about her presence at the time of incident. ( 30 ) P. W. 4 stated that she was also present at the time of incident and all the male persons were discussing about the panchayat Elections. P. W. 5 stated that she woke up after hearing the bomb explosion in commotion and saw accused Nos. 1 to 3. From the evidence of P. Ws. l to 4 there is no need for them to hear anything, if really the other male persons were talking with regard to Panchayat Elections. P. Ws. P. W. 5 stated that she woke up after hearing the bomb explosion in commotion and saw accused Nos. 1 to 3. From the evidence of P. Ws. l to 4 there is no need for them to hear anything, if really the other male persons were talking with regard to Panchayat Elections. P. Ws. 1 to 4 did not give any convincing reasons as to why they were present along with P. Ws. 6 and 7 when the male persons were talking in connection with the Panchayat Elections without going to bed. Further more, P. W. 2 underwent an operation some days prior to the incident. She consumed the medicines, which are required to be taken. There were no further medicines to be taken during night time. So, in such circumstances, it is most unlikely she was present as she underwent operation just four days prior to the incident. One can understand, if P. Ws. l to 4 also involved in the elections and therefore they were discussing about the strategy to be adopted in the Panchayat elections. In the absence of any convincing reason for their awakening till midnight, it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on their evidence. This fact alone can be taken into consideration while appreciating the evidence in other respects. Though this by itself is not a ground to reject their testimony, but certainly it can be taken as one circumstance. P. Ws. 6 and 7 are the sons of P. W. I. According to them, they were sitting on a cot in front of their house and were discussing about Panchayat Elections along with the deceased, one D. Nageswara rao and Srinivasa Rao. However, both srinivasa Rao and Nageswara Rao were not examined. According to P. W. 6, they were discussing about withdrawal of dummy nominations filed by their people. But none of the dummy candidates were present. P. W. 7 also stated the same thing. So, the version given by these two witnesses before the Court below is as regards discussion of withdrawal of nominations, but the earlier version given by these two witnesses before the police is that the discussion was with regard to compromise between two groups. Exs. D-21 and D-28 are the contradictions elicited in the cross- examination of P. Ws. 6 and 7 with regard to this aspect. Exs. D-21 and D-28 are the contradictions elicited in the cross- examination of P. Ws. 6 and 7 with regard to this aspect. No doubt, these contradictions by itself cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of P. Ws. 6 and 7 if their presence is established otherwise, it has to be taken into account in light of all the probabilities in the prosecution story. If compromise talks were going on at the time of incident, certainly the rival group persons as well as the persons belonging to the group of P. Ws. 6 and 7 must have been present. But according to the case of prosecution, except the family members of p. W. I and her close relatives no outsider was present. The purpose for which the witnesses have to wait till midnight without going to bed is found to be not convincing. ( 31 ) IT is the specific case of the prosecution witnesses that in the first instance, a bomb was hurled, which exploded near the place where P. W. I was sitting. In view of hurling of bomb, P. W. 3 sustained injuries due to its explosion and there after all the prosecution witnesses i. e. , P. Ws. l to 4, 6 and 7, went inside the house and bolted the doors and observing what was going outside by peeping through the window. So, the evidence of all these witnesses would clearly indicate that they have seen the incident in question from inside the house through a window. ( 32 ) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused contended that there was no window to the hut of chava Subba Rao and if there is no window to the portion of the house of chava Subba Rao then there was absolutely no possibility to P. Ws. l to 4, 6 and 7 to see the incident or to speak about the overt acts of the each of the accused in causing injuries and also the weapons of offence used in the commission of offence. If after scrutinizing the evidence on record the existence of window to the portion of the house of Subba Rao is doubtful then there will not be any difficulty for this Court to disbelieve the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4, 6 and 7. If after scrutinizing the evidence on record the existence of window to the portion of the house of Subba Rao is doubtful then there will not be any difficulty for this Court to disbelieve the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4, 6 and 7. If the existence of window is proved, then there is a possibility for these witnesses to identify the assailants of the deceased. All the witnesses P. Ws. l to 4, 6 and 7, in categorical terms stated that they observed the incident by peeping through the window only. Ex. P-12 is the rough sketch prepared by P. W. I6. A perusal of this rough sketch shows that a window was shown to the house of Chava Subba rao. A close scrutiny of this document would reveal that for the other houses no such windows were shown except the doorways. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused, this was in tune with the recital in Ex. P-1, which the investigation officer later on noticed, and therefore this window was shown. Men may lie, but not the circumstances. Ex. P-2 is the observation report prepared on the date of incident at about 8-30 a. m. , P. W. 8 IS 0116 of the mediators for the observation report. He admitted in the cross-examination that he did not observe about the existence of window to the portion of Subba Rao and the said statement was given by him after perusing Ex. P-2 report. He also stated that there is no such window to the eastern wall of the house of the deceased portion; so also no window to the southern portion of the house of P. W. 7. He added that had there been window, the same would have been mentioned in the observation report. If really a window is in existence to the house of Subba Rao, the deceased, certainly the said fact would not have been omitted by the Investigating Officer especially in view of the fact that from the beginning all the prosecution witnesses have stated that they went inside the house and saw the incident by peeping through the window. Having given a detailed account of scene in Ex. P-2 as to the distances, other incriminating material, it is expected from the prosecution to note down the existence of window, through which the witnesses saw the incident. Having given a detailed account of scene in Ex. P-2 as to the distances, other incriminating material, it is expected from the prosecution to note down the existence of window, through which the witnesses saw the incident. Investigation Officer is examined as P. W. I6 who says that the existence of window to the portion of deceased was not mentioned in Ex. P-2, but he admits that he mentioned the same in Ex. P-12. According to him, one or two persons can peep through that window simultaneously. But, according to the prosecution, six persons peeped through that window. A suggestion was specifically made to the Investigating officer to the effect that there was no window whatsoever to the portion of the house of the deceased and he deliberately shown the existence of a window in Ex. P-12 rough sketch but the same is denied. If really, the window is in existence to the portion of the house of the deceased, certainly p. W. 8 and other mediators would not have omitted to mention about it in Ex. P-2 observation report. Therefore, it is not an insignificant omission but it will go to the root of the case. Having specifically mentioned in Ex. P-1, which is F. I. R. said to have been given by P. W. I, about the existence of window and that herself and other witnesses saw the incident by peeping through the said window, it is expected from the Police Officer to observe the same and note the same in the observation report. As the existence of window was not noted in Ex. P-2, there is every possibility that ex. P-1 was brought into existence during the course of investigation or at any rate after scribing of Ex. P-2 report. ( 33 ) P. WS. 1 to 3 are the injured witnesses. The evidence of injured witnesses is entitled to weight provided they received the injuries in the actual assault. Before accepting and relying upon the evidence of an injured witness, it has got to be closely scrutinized by examining it from the following angles: (1) Whether the alleged injury received in the course of same transaction incident only. (2) Whether the accused was previously known to the injured. (3) Whether there was sufficient light at the time and place of incident to identify the accused. (2) Whether the accused was previously known to the injured. (3) Whether there was sufficient light at the time and place of incident to identify the accused. (4) Whether the injury so found on the person of the witness rules out a case of self-inflicted injury. ( 34 ) P. W. 15 is the Doctor who examined P. W. 1 on 17-6-1995 at 5-20 a. m. , and found an abrasion on the right ankle measuring 2 cms. x 1 cm. and abrasions on the left ankle joint 2 cms. x 1 cm. According to the Doctor, both the injuries were caused with a blunt object. The Doctor did not state that those injuries were as a result of explosion in the bomb or the splinters of the bomb coming into contact with the body. ( 35 ) EX. P-10 is the wound certificate relates to P. W. 1. A perusal of this wound certificate shows that she is alleged to have sustained injuries due to "stove and bomb blast". According to the medical evidence, the injuries on P. W. 1 were alleged to have been caused with a blunt object, whereas according to the ocular testimony the injuries were received when a bomb exploded near her foot with splinters from the bomb. Doctor also admitted that the injuries on P. W. I can be self-inflicted, and therefore sustaining of two abrasions on both ankles cannot be said to be caused during the course of same transaction. P. Ws. 2 and 3 also sustained injuries. P. W. 17 is the Doctor who examined P. W. 2 on 17-6-1995 and found lacerated wound on the left sole measuring 3x2 cms. and ex. P-15 is the wound certificate. According to the Doctor, the said injury can be caused by exploding device. He examined p. W. 3 on the same day at 12-10 p. m. , and found the lacerated wound on the forearm measuring 2x3 cms. , which can also be caused by explosive device. It is admitted that in case of injury by splinters of bomb explosion, generally there will be sinking of hair also but he did not notice any such sign on P. W. 3. He admitted that the injury on p. W. 2 can be caused by a half burnt fuel stick. , which can also be caused by explosive device. It is admitted that in case of injury by splinters of bomb explosion, generally there will be sinking of hair also but he did not notice any such sign on P. W. 3. He admitted that the injury on p. W. 2 can be caused by a half burnt fuel stick. He also admitted that the stains of explosive substances will also be found around the injury, but in this case there were no such stains of explosive substances. If really, these two witnesses sustained injuries at the time of incident, then certainly they would have gone to the hospital along with the deceased and P. W. 1. These two witnesses stated that they remained present in the house itself in spite of the fact that they sustained some injuries, but their earliest version before the police is that they along with P. W. 3 accompanied the injured Subba Rao in that odd time. Ex. D-9 is the contradiction in the cross-examination of P. W. 3. So, the earlier version of the said two witnesses is that both of them accompanied the deceased to the hospital in that odd time. Now these two witnesses changed their version and stated that they were remained present in the house, probably to give the some reason or explanation for not being treated by the Doctors. If really, these two witnesses were actually present at the time of incident, they would have informed about the manner of attack by the accused on the deceased, to the persons who came after the incident or at any rate to the neighbour. As a matter of fact, P. W. 3 admitted that some villagers came after the incident and enquired them about the incident, but both the witnesses specifically admitted that they did not state about the incident to anyone else till the police arrived to the scene of occurrence and particularly P. W. 3 admitted that she stated about the fact only to the police. Furthermore, they were not shown as eye-witnesses in Ex. P-3, No doubt, the purpose of inquest is to ascertain the cause of death but at the same time having mentioned the names of other eye-witnesses in column I. B, it is expected from the prosecution to name P. Ws. 2 and 3 also. Even the Investigating Officer admitted that ex. Furthermore, they were not shown as eye-witnesses in Ex. P-3, No doubt, the purpose of inquest is to ascertain the cause of death but at the same time having mentioned the names of other eye-witnesses in column I. B, it is expected from the prosecution to name P. Ws. 2 and 3 also. Even the Investigating Officer admitted that ex. P-3 report does not show P. Ws. 2 to 5 as witnesses, but he adds that they were already examined by him and the said fact was mentioned in column No. XV of Ex. P-3. A perusal of column No. XV shows that he recorded the statements of eye-witnesses only, but admittedly P. Ws. 2 and 3 were examined at the scene of occurrence. Column no. XV of Ex. P-3 does not indicate that these three witnesses are the eye-witnesses. Therefore, the presence of P. Ws. 2 to 5 is doubtful. ( 36 ) EXCEPT P. Ws. 4 and 5, other witnesses are speaking about the specific overt acts against nine or ten accused persons. The incident was lasted for about 10 or 15 minutes. Is it probable for these witnesses to specify the overt acts on each of the accused by peeping through a window, which accommodate only one or two persons. Certain omissions and contradictions were elicited in the cross- examination of these witnesses. In Ex. P-1 it is not specifically stated that Accused No. 1 caused an injury with an axe to the deceased. It is not stated in Ex. P-1 or Section 161 of code of Criminal Procedure statement of p. W. I that P. Ws. 2 and 3 sustained injuries or about Accused No. 3 causing injury on the face of deceased, Accused No. 4 stabbing on the right side of stomach or on the right side of the chest by accused No. 6 or Accused No. 2 inflicting injury on the right hand. So also P. W. 2 did not state to the Investigating Officer attributing the specific overt acts of Accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 22. P. W. 3 did not state before the investigating Officer that Accused No. 1 exhorted the other accused or Accused no. 1. hurled bombs or Accused No. 3 inflicted a blow on the right side of the cheek or about the specific overt acts of accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 22. P. W. 3 did not state before the investigating Officer that Accused No. 1 exhorted the other accused or Accused no. 1. hurled bombs or Accused No. 3 inflicted a blow on the right side of the cheek or about the specific overt acts of accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 15 and even their presence. ( 37 ) P. W. 4 also did not state before him that Accused Nos. 3 and 4 inflicted blows on the body of the deceased. P. W. 7 did not state before him attributing overt acts against Accused Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 22. He also admitted that P. W. I did not state before him about the presence of P. Ws. 2 to 4. Brief contradictions in Exs. D-1 to D-28 were elicited in the cross-examination of p. Ws. lto7. ( 38 ) IF a witness gives a version before the Court as regards the incident, which is materially different from his previous statement made to the police, it is an error to brush the contradiction aside as being unimportant These omissions and contradictions in our opinion are not innocuous and certainly they do effect the substance of the prosecution story and cast reflection upon the evidentiary value of these witnesses. ( 39 ) THE conduct of these witnesses at the alleged time of incident is highly unnatural and artificial when the deceased who is a close relative of the prosecution witnesses was being attacked by number of people, it is expected from these witnesses to make hue and cry. These witnesses admitted that they did not raise any cries from inside the house. P. W. 2 also admitted that nobody raised the cries when accused were inflicting blows on the deceased. So also the deceased did not raise any cries. No doubt, this circumstance alone cannot be taken as a ground to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution witnesses but certainly when a gruesome attack was being made on the deceased certainly though not P. W. 1 the other witnesses if really they were present and witnessing the incident, they would have raised cries drawing attention of the neighbourers. ( 40 ) ACCORDING to the eye-witnesses, there were two cots at the place of occurrence and the said two cots were located in front of the door way. ( 40 ) ACCORDING to the eye-witnesses, there were two cots at the place of occurrence and the said two cots were located in front of the door way. According to the prosecution witnesses, all the male persons sat on one cot, the female folk except P. W. I sat on another cot, even P. W. 1 sat on the pial of the house but as seen from Ex. P-2, at a distance of 8 feet from the house, there is one cot and blood stains over the tape cot. There was no explanation from the prosecution with regard to other cot. P. W. 8 also stated that they saw only one cot. He also stated that they noticed the pool of blood beneath the cot. It is not the case of the prosecution that the scene of occurrence was meddled or tampered with by somebody after the incident. The police did not seize any blood stained tape. Therefore, finding of blood beneath the cot indicate that incident might have taken place while the deceased was sleeping on the cot, otherwise the blood stains would not have been found beneath the cot. So, in the dead end of the night, the attack must have taken place and after coming to know about the attack or the incident, the injured was taken to hospital. As a result of injuries, the deceased Subba Rao did not die immediately, but on 17-6-1995, at about 11-00 a. m. P. W. 2 received the death intimation and therefore, the patient was conscious, even according to P. W. 15, when he examined the deceased at 4-15 a. m. , on 17-6-1995. P. W. 15 admitted that he cannot say whether any requisition was sent regarding the intimation of incident to the magistrate or the police. The column with regard to sending of requisition to the magistrate is absent in Ex. P-5, which is 'intimation of accidents and injuries to police'. He also admitted that in the first instance, he noted that the patient was conscious and gave response to the questions but he adds that during recording the injuries in the accident register, the patient become semi conscious. He inserted the words "semi and not". P-5, which is 'intimation of accidents and injuries to police'. He also admitted that in the first instance, he noted that the patient was conscious and gave response to the questions but he adds that during recording the injuries in the accident register, the patient become semi conscious. He inserted the words "semi and not". So, no efforts were made by the police or the Doctor to give a requisition to the Magistrate to record a statement from the deceased or they, made any efforts to record the statement from the deceased. This would indicate that the prosecution might have suppressed the statement alleged to have been recorded from the deceased. ( 41 ) P. W. I gave a very descriptive account of narration of the incident in ex. P-1. The names of 22 accused were given along with their respective fathers name and their ages. Not only the names of the accused but also the specific overt acts against different accused giving details of weapons used and part of the body on which some of the accused inflicted injuries. So, in our considered opinion, after perusing Ex. P-1 and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is highly unbelievable to give such a detailed account of the incident, especially considering the fact that the son of the first informant was attacked and murdered. ( 42 ) THE lower Court placed reliance on the evidence of P. W. 1 on the ground that Ex. P-7 intimation contains the name of p. W. I as one of the victims and who accompanied the injured Subba Rao to the hospital and that she was examined by the doctor at 5-25 a. m. , on the date of attack. These two circumstances are weighed more in the mind of lower Court in believing the evidence of P. W. 1. These two circumstances might have happened even if p. W. I came to know about the incident, because she is residing very close to the house of the deceased and there is nothing improbable to accompany the injured Subba Rao in the first instance to the Government Hospital. The lower Court also brushed aside the interpolations made in the accident register with regard to condition of the victim. Admittedly these two words 'semi' and 'not' were appear to have inserted in the accident register subsequently. The lower Court also brushed aside the interpolations made in the accident register with regard to condition of the victim. Admittedly these two words 'semi' and 'not' were appear to have inserted in the accident register subsequently. Though an explanation was given by P. W. 15, that appears to be not convincing to our mind. So, the consequence is that the statement of the deceased must have been recorded but it was suppressed by the police. The ocular testimony does not get full corroboration from the medical evidence with regard to weapons used. No doubt, this discrepancy as to the nature of weapons is not so serious discrepancy, but if it is taken cumulatively with all the circumstances and other broad spectrum of the case, it would lead to irresistible conclusion, that the attack might not have been witnessed by p. Ws. l to 7. ( 43 ) IN view of the above discussion, we are unable to accept the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 14 only. The lower Court has not given any reasons for acquitting the other accused especially their presence was spoken to by some of the witnesses. ( 44 ) SO, it is not desirable to place implicit reliance on the evidence of P. Ws. l to 7 to convict the appellants herein for the charges levelled against them. ( 45 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the appellants are entitled for acquittal. ( 46 ) ACCORDINGLY, the convictions and the sentences recorded against the appellants/ accused are set aside and the appellants/ accused are acquitted for the charges levelled against them. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. ( 47 ) THEREFORE, the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the Criminal Revisions are dismissed accordingly.