JUDGMENT J. B. Koshy, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of the Sessions Court, Thalassery in S. C. No. 32 of 1997, acquitting all the seven accused (respondents herein) charge sheeted in the above case. The charges framed against the accused were as follows: "That due to your political animosity towards Mayamkandy, Sathyan and Othayothu Shaji, sons of Sankaran, Sivapuram Amsom, Kanjileri desom, on 24031994 at about 2 p.m. you all the seven accused formed into an unlawful assembly with your common object to commit murder of said Sathyan and Shaji and committed rioting with deadly weapons like sword, chopper, axe, etc. and attacked said Sathyan and Shaji on the south of the concrete bridge at Ayithara, Kandamkunnu amsom and first accused among you inflicted out injury on him and accused No.2 among you with a sword, accused No.3 with an axe and accused Nos. 4 and 7 with choppers inflicted cut injuries on said Sathyan, which resulted in the death of said Sathyan and thus you all the seven accused have committed rioting with dangerous weapons inflicted injury on said Shaji and attempted to murder him and thereby you all the accused have committed offences punishable under S.143, 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 r/w S.149 of the Indian Penal Code within the cognizance of this Court." 2. PW 1 Shaji, who was injured in the incident gave Ext. P1 FI Statement at 5.30 p.m. while under treatment at Government Hospital, Thalassery. The Circle Inspector of Police, Kuthuparamba investigated the case. PW 1 to 4 were examined as occurrence witnesses. PW 5 is the second witness to Ext. P2 scene mahazar. PW 6 is the Doctor who examined PW 1 as well as the deceased Sathyan at Government Hospital, Thalassery. Ext. P3 is the wound certificate regarding deceased Sathyan and Ext. P4 is the wound certificate regarding PW 1. PW 7 Doctor conducted postmortem examination and Ext. P5 is the postmortem certificate. PW 8 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Maloor, who on getting information from the bus crew that two persons are lying near Ayithara bridge with injuries, went to the place and taken them in the police jeep to the Government Hospital, Kuthuparamba. According to the Sub Inspector, from there, the injured persons were removed to a car to the Government Hospital, Thalassery. According to the Sub Inspector, from there, the injured persons were removed to a car to the Government Hospital, Thalassery. PW 9 is the Clerk of the Session's Court and PW 10 is a witness to Ext. P10 seizure mahazar by which PW 1 Shaji handed over his dress and some currency to the police. PW 11 is a witness to Exts. P11 and P12 recovery mahazars, who witnessed the recovery at the instance of A1 and A7. PW 12 is the Additional Village Officer, Kandamkunnu who prepared Ext. P13 scene plan. PW 13 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Valapattanam who recorded Ext. P1 FI Statement. PW 14 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Kuthuparamba who registered the FIR. PW 15 is the first investigating officer in this case, who prepared Ext. P2 scene mahazar, Ext. P18 body mahazar of the bus and seized the trip sheet of the bus, Ext. P17 under Ext. P18 mahazar. He arrested A1, A2 and A7. On the basis of the confession statements Exts. P22 and P23, of A1 and A7, the chopper was recovered under Ext. A11 mahazar at the instance of A1 and another chopper was recovered under Ext. P12 mahazar at the instance of A7. He also seized the dress of accused No. 1, 2 and 7 under Exts. P24, P25 and P28 mahazars. PW 16 is the photographer who took photographs of the scene and its negatives are marked as Ext. P27 and P28 series. PW 17 is the photographer who took photographs at the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. PW 18 is the Sub Inspector of Dharmadom Police Station who conducted inquest as per the direction of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thalassery and the inquest report is Ext. P31. PW 19 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thalassery who took charge of the investigation on 28061994. Defence examined one witness, Dr. T.N. Babu Raveendran as DW 1 to prove Ext. D2 chit to prove that A3 Ashokan has an injury on his foot and according to DW 1, the wound was sutured. He also deposed that entries in Ext. D2 can be seen in Ext. P3 OP Register and the relevant entry is Ext. D3(a). 3. The Session's Court acquitted the accused with the following findings entered in Para.50 of the judgment: "50. He also deposed that entries in Ext. D2 can be seen in Ext. P3 OP Register and the relevant entry is Ext. D3(a). 3. The Session's Court acquitted the accused with the following findings entered in Para.50 of the judgment: "50. On an appreciation of the entire evidence of the alleged eye witnesses PW l to 4, are inconsistent regarding the weapon used and also the witnesses have improved their version when they deposed before the court. Several material points which have not been stated to the police have been deposed before the court. I have no doubt in my mind that in this case the witnesses have not deposed before this court the real incident that happened. Developments were made and therefore, I am unable to accept the version of the witnesses as true and correct. So also, the medical evidence is not in conformity with the evidence given by PW 2 and the case of the prosecution that these accused with the intention to commit murder of Sathyan and Shaji formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and waited at the shop of 4th accused Babu for the deceased to reach the place in the bus also cannot be believed. In this circumstance, I am to hold that the prosecution has not presented before this court the true incident in this case in which another youth has been murdered allegedly due to political animosity. Therefore, I am to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case convincingly against these accused." 4. Being an appeal against the order of acquittal, unless the Appellate Court finds that the findings are perverse, the Court will not interfere in the matter. If the view taken by the Sessions Judge is a possible one, even if another view is possible, this Court will not interfere with the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused. However, being the first appeal this Court is bound to reappraise the evidence and find out whether the view taken by the Sessions Judge is a possible one as it is the duty of the Court to see that no innocent person is punished and at the same time that the real culprit should not escape on mere fanciful reasons. However, being the first appeal this Court is bound to reappraise the evidence and find out whether the view taken by the Sessions Judge is a possible one as it is the duty of the Court to see that no innocent person is punished and at the same time that the real culprit should not escape on mere fanciful reasons. The Privy Council as early as in 1934 in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, 1934 PC 227 held, in exercise of the powers of an appellate court, no distinction can be drawn up between an appeal from an order of acquittal and an appeal from a conviction and no limitations can be placed. But, the High Court should always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as : (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses". The above judgment is subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in Shivali Sahebrao Bobade and another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622 . In many cases like Surai Pal Singh v. The State, AIR 1952 SC 52 it was held that only on compelling reasons, Court will interfere in the order of the acquittal. In Shivaji Sahebrao Babade's case (supra) it was held that: The use of the words compelling reasons embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had meant by the words compelling reasons. In Shivaji Sahebrao Babade's case (supra) it was held that: The use of the words compelling reasons embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had meant by the words compelling reasons. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on compelling reasons but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of the acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower Courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if the satisfied after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower Court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable." We also refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2000 AIR SCW 2313 and Ambika Prasad and another v. State (Delhi Administration) 2000 (2) SCC 646 . In State of Rajasthan v. N.K. 2000 (5) SCC 30 it was held as follows: "..... It is true that the golden thread which runs throughout the cobweb of criminal jurisprudence as administered in India is that nine guilty may escape but one innocent should not suffer. But at the same time no guilty should escape unpunished once the guilty has been proved to hilt. An unmerited acquittal does no good to the society. If the prosecution has succeeded in making out a convincing case for recording a finding as to the accused being guilty, the court should not lean in favour of acquittal by giving weight to irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or by resorting to technicalities or by assuming doubts and giving benefit thereof where none exists. A doubt, as understood in criminal jurisprudence, has to be a reasonable doubt and not an excuse for a finding in favour of acquittal. An unmerited acquittal encourages wolves in the society being on the prowl for easy prey, more so when the victims of crime are helpless females." 5. After considering various judgments, in Allarakha K. Mansuri. v. State of Gujarat, JT 2002 (2) SC 63 it was held by the Supreme Court that the paramount consideration of the Court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice. After considering various judgments, in Allarakha K. Mansuri. v. State of Gujarat, JT 2002 (2) SC 63 it was held by the Supreme Court that the paramount consideration of the Court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of guilty is not less than from the conviction of an innocent and on evaluation of the evidence if the finding arrived at by the Court is not a probable view appellate Court can interfere. Naturally, the view based on legal and admissable evidence cannot be reviewed. Therefore, we have to consider the question whether the view taken by the lower Court is a possible view on the basis of legal and admissible evidence adduced in this case. Therefore, with the above principle, we shall analyse the evidence in this case first to find out whether evidence of the eye witnesses, PW 1 to 4, are reliable and then whether the finding entered by the Session's Court is a possible view based on legal evidence adduced in this case. 6. Before dealing with the evidence of the eye witnesses we may consider Ext. P5 postmortem certificate issued by PW 7 Doctor. The ante mortem injuries noticed in Ext. P5 certificate were as follows: "Injuries (Ante mortem) external: 1. Incised wound 9.5 x 1 cm. and transverse on back of head ,the left end 5 cm above and behind left ear top bone cut. 2. Incised wound 8 x 1 cm and oblique on back of head the left upper end joining the middle of injury No. 1 bone cut. 3. Incised wound with half square cut ends 5 x 0.5 x 1 cm slopping to the left, oblique ,on right half of back of head, the lower right end 6 cm behind middle of right ear. 4. Incised wound 4.5 x 1.5 x 3 cm oblique on back of head, the upper right end 1 cm behind top attachment of right ear. 5. Incised wound 5 x 0.5 x 1.5 cm slopping to the left on top of head both ends square cut the left end 9 cm above top of left ears. 6. Incised wound 6 x 0.5 cm x 2 cm . slopping to the left on top of head the left end of injury No 5. joining the middle of injury No. 6. 6. Incised wound 6 x 0.5 cm x 2 cm . slopping to the left on top of head the left end of injury No 5. joining the middle of injury No. 6. Slopping on the bone (not cut) produced another incised wound 4.5 x 0.5 cm on the scalp 1.5 cm to the left of it (through and through). 7. Incised wound 1 x 0.3 cm abraded ends the inner end square cut the other end sharp cut on back of chest transversely placed 1 cm to the right of midline and 6 cm below neck. 8. Linear scratch 9.5 cm oblique on right half of back of chest, the upper left end 7cm to the right of midline and 11 cm below shoulder top. 9. Contused abrasion 5 x 0.3 cm transverse on back of left shoulder and another one 0.5 x 0.5 cm 1.5 cm on front of its outer end. 10. Contused abrasion 0.5 x 0.3 cm oblique on back midline of trunk 35 cm below neck. 11. Linear contusion 5 x 0.3 cm curved inwards on back of chest on left upper part the left end 3 cm below shoulder and 3 cm to the left of midline. 12. Incised wound with contused ends and edges 1.2 x 0.3 cm on back of left shoulder, 4 cm below shoulder top and 14 cm to the left of midline. 13. Contused abrasion 4 x 0.3 ( regular edges ) as a pale contusion extending down in same line vertical on back of left shoulder, 1 cm to the left of injury No. 12. 14. Incised wound 2.8 x 0.3 x 3 cm on vertical on forehead just below hairline 4.5 cm to the left of midlaine and 6.5 cm above eyebrow, bone cut for 1 cm deep Underneath. 15. Incised wound with contused ends and edges 8 x 1 x 3.5 cm slopping to the left oblique on left side of face cutting maxillary bone underneath, the upper left end at middle of right lower lid, lower end at Jawline 4 cm in front of ear (6cm above lower end edges showed nicks). 16. Incised wound 3 x 1.5 x 0.3 cm slopping backwards on under chin just behind left jaw line 1 cm in front of angle of jaw. 17. 16. Incised wound 3 x 1.5 x 0.3 cm slopping backwards on under chin just behind left jaw line 1 cm in front of angle of jaw. 17. Curved superficial incised wound 12 cm long and oblique on left side of neck from 2 cm below injury No. 16 to reach left inner end of right collarbone. 18. Supl. incised wound 3 cm long oblique on left side of neck joining injury No. 17 at its middle. 19. Supl. incised wound 3.2 cm long on top of left shoulder neck junction. 20. Supl. incised wound 1.3 cm, 0.5 cm behind and to the left of injury No. 19. 21. Contused abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cm on front of chest, 1.5 cm to the left of midline and 13 cm below collar bone. 22. Incised wound 4.2 x 1 cm transverse on front of chest the right end at midline, left end 10.5 cm below left nipple at 5 o' clock position. Right end square cut other end sharp cut. 23. Incised wound 3.2 x 0.5 cm transverse on right half of front chest 7.5 cm below right nipple, the right end square cut the other end sharp cut. 24. Incised wound 3.5 x 0.8 cm oblique on back of right elbow bone cut under for 1.5 cm elbow swollen. 25. Incised wound 1.4 x 0.3 cm with a supl. extension upwards on back of middle of right forearm 10.5 cm below elbow and below it in same line. 26. Incised wound 1.2 x 0.3 x 0.3 cm oblique on back of right forearm with 5 cm tailing upwards and inwards. 27. Incised wound 2.2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm transverse on inner border of right forearm 12.5 cm below elbow. 28. Two incised wound 1.5 x 0.5 cm each end connected by a supl. incised wound 1.5 cm in between oblique, on back of right forearm 3 cm above wrist. 29. Incised wound 1.5 x 0.3 x 0.5 cm oblique 1 cm above inner end of right wrist. 30. Incised wound 7.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 cm oblique on back of right hand the upper inner end at inner end of right writ. Bones and tendons cut. 31. Incised wound 5.8 x 1 x 1.5 cm transverse across middle of right hand , tendons and bones cut. 32. 30. Incised wound 7.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 cm oblique on back of right hand the upper inner end at inner end of right writ. Bones and tendons cut. 31. Incised wound 5.8 x 1 x 1.5 cm transverse across middle of right hand , tendons and bones cut. 32. Incised wound 4 x 0.3 x 0.3 cm vertical on back of right hand just below injury No. 31. 33. Supl. incised wound 2.5 cm long and oblique on root of right thumb. 34. Incised wound 2.8 x 0.5 x 3 cm oblique on outer aspect of left upper arm the upper back square cut end 17 cm below shoulder ,the other end sharp cut. 35. Incised wound 7.5 x 3 x 4 cm transverse on back of left upper arm 8 cm above elbow, both end square cut bone cut underneath for 2 cm. 36. Incised wound 5 x 1.5 x 3 cm oblique on inner border of left forearm 12 cm below elbow. 37. Incised wound 6 x 5 x 1.5 cm oblique, back of left forearm 12 cm below elbow. 38. Incised wound 4 x 1.5 x 1 cm transverse on inner border of left forearm 8 cm above wrist. 39. Supl. incised wound 1.5 cm long vertical on inner border of right forearm from middle to root of little finger. 40. Incised wound 9 x 2 x 2 cm vertical on back of left hand from wrist to 4th finger root tendens cut. 41. Incised wound 7 x 0.3 x 0.3 cm vertical 2 cm to the left of injury No.40 on back of left hand. 42. Incised wound 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm on front of left knee, 1 cm below knee cap. 43. Incised wound 1.5 x 3 x 1 cm upper end square cut vertical on inner aspect of left leg 8 cm above left ankle. 44. Incised wound 7 x 1 x 3 cm transverse on inner aspect of left leg, tendons cut 5 cm above ankle. 45. Incised wound 9.5 x 1 cm x 4.5 cm, bones cut transverse on inner aspect of left ankle and top of foot. 46. Supl. incised wound 8 cm oblique on back left 8 cm below knee. 47. Contused abrasion 5.5 x 0.8 cm on transverse on back of right leg 16 cm below knee. 48. 45. Incised wound 9.5 x 1 cm x 4.5 cm, bones cut transverse on inner aspect of left ankle and top of foot. 46. Supl. incised wound 8 cm oblique on back left 8 cm below knee. 47. Contused abrasion 5.5 x 0.8 cm on transverse on back of right leg 16 cm below knee. 48. Incised wound 6.5 x 1 x 1 cm transverse on back of right leg 27 cm below knee, both ends sharp with 2 cm tail at inner end. 49. Incised wound 4.5 x 5.5 x 2 cm transverse on back of right leg 3 cm below injury No.48 with 3 cm tailing to the left. 50. Incised wound 8.5 x 1.5 x 3 cm transverse 2 cm below injury No.49 tendons cut underneath, tailing for 2 cm to the right. 51. Incised wound 2.5 x 0.5 x 1 cm transverse 1 cm below injury No.50. 52. Incised wound 5 x 2 x 4 cm transverse on back of right ankle cutting tendoachilis and entering into the right ankle joint. 53. Incised wound 5.5 x 0.2 x 4 cm oblique on back of right cutting bone 0.5 cm deep. 54. Supl. incised wound 8 cm oblique on outer aspect of right leg just below knee. 55. Incised wound 9 cm oblique at middle of outer aspect of right leg, with a 6 cm supl. extension upwards. 56. Incised wound 4.5 cm x 0.2 x 0.3 cm 2 cm below injury No.55. 57. Incised wound 6.5 cm x 0.5 cm on outer aspect of right ankle bone cut for 3 cm depth. 58. Incised wound 14.5 x 1 cm 3 cm deep antero posterior on outer aspect of right ankle and foot bones cut underneath." The other findings mentioned by PW 7 Doctor are as follows: "Brain 1100 gm. pale, neck structures were normal. Lungs right 360 gm left 300 gm pale and distended. Heart 240 gm normal, stomach contained rice and other food materials having no unusual smell. Mucosa normal Liver 1500 gm spleen and kidneys 100 gm each and the other organs normal. Urinary bladder contained 50 ml of clear urine." PW 7, the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine at Medical College, Kozhikode who conducted the autopsy, has also deposed that the death was due to cumulative effect of the injuries noted. Mucosa normal Liver 1500 gm spleen and kidneys 100 gm each and the other organs normal. Urinary bladder contained 50 ml of clear urine." PW 7, the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine at Medical College, Kozhikode who conducted the autopsy, has also deposed that the death was due to cumulative effect of the injuries noted. It was also stated that injuries 1 to 6 are on the head and injuries 16 to 20 could have been caused while causing injuries 1 to 6 . She further deposed in chief examination that in Ext. P5, injury No. 8 to 11, 13, 21 and 47 are linear abrasions and contused abrasions. According to her, these abrasions could be caused with the back of a chopper or a knife. According to her injury Nos. 1 to 6 and consequential injury Nos. 14 to 20 could be caused with a heavy cutting weapon like chopper. Injury No. 15 could be caused with a small axe. Injury No. 35 also shows the characteristics of a wound caused with axe. 7. In Ext. P3 accident register cum wound certificate the history and alleged cause of injury stated as follows: (Malayalam) It was mentioned that seven BJP workers caused the injuries and he was brought to the hospital by one Prakash (friend PW 2). Ext. P4 is the wound certificate issued by PW 6 Doctor who examined PW 1 in the Government Hospital, Thalassery. The following are the injuries noticed in Ext. P4 wound certificate: "1) Incised wound on left upper arm tapering on inner side, muscle deep at outer end, and 3 cm x 1/2 cm. 2) Incised wound (R) upper arm, muscel deep, 5 cm x 3 cm. 3) 'T ' shaped incised normal, skin deep, 3 cm x 3 cm (limbs ) of ' T ' and 1/2 cm wide." The above certificate also shows that he was brought to the hospital by PW 2. The cause of injury was stated as follows: (Malayalam) There also the names of accused were not stated, but it is stated that the BJP workers caused the injuries at 2.30 p.m. at Ayithara Junction. Ext. P4 certificate shows the time of examination as 4 p.m. on 24.3.1994. In Ext. P3 certificate, the time of examination is shown as 3.40 p.m. on 24.3.1994. 8. Ext. P4 certificate shows the time of examination as 4 p.m. on 24.3.1994. In Ext. P3 certificate, the time of examination is shown as 3.40 p.m. on 24.3.1994. 8. Now we will come to the FI Statement given by PW 1 as well as the deposition of PW 1. FI Statement, Ext. P1 was recorded at the hospital itself. The incident happened at about 2.30 p.m. Within one hour, police reached the place of incident on getting information. PW 1 and the deceased were taken to the Kuthuparamba Government Hospital by the police and PW 2 in the police jeep and thereafter, PW 2 taken them to the Government Hospital, Thalassery in a car. PW 1 was examined by PW 6 doctor of Thalassery Government Hospital at 4 p.m. on 24.3.1994. The names of Sasi (A1), Dasan (A2), Ashokan (A3) and Babu (A4) were mentioned in the FI Statement. It is also stated that the other three accused who came there in between were also known to them by sight, eventhough their names were not mentioned. It was also mentioned that PW 2 took him as well as his brother to Government Hospital, Kuthuparambu and thereafter, to the Government Hospital, Thalassery. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, Thalassery and his brother deceased was taken to the Kozhikode Medical College Hospital. It is recorded in the FI Statement that on the way to the Kozhikode Medical College Hospital, at about 5 O' clock his brother died. He also came to know that the dead body was at Kozhikode Medical College Hospital. He and his brother are Congress workers whereas the accused are BJP workers. The injuries were inflicted due to political enmity. In Ext. P1 FI Statement it was stated that he was coming from his work site in Vandana bus. His brother was travelled in the bus from Kuthuparamba and he sat near his brother in the same seat. When the bus stopped at Ayitharapuzha bus stop A1 and A2 threatened to kill them and they were pushed down from the bus and the assault took place. His evidence in court tallies with the details given in the FI Statement. PW 1 is the brother of the deceased. He was seriously injured in the incident and his presence at the time of occurrence cannot be disputed. 9. Now we will consider the evidence PW 1 as given in Court. His evidence in court tallies with the details given in the FI Statement. PW 1 is the brother of the deceased. He was seriously injured in the incident and his presence at the time of occurrence cannot be disputed. 9. Now we will consider the evidence PW 1 as given in Court. PW 1 is the brother of the deceased. During the relevant period he was working as Construction Supervisor of Housing Board and was supervising 'Rajiv Desalaksha Parpita Padhati' at Ayitharapara. According to him, at about 1.45 p.m. on 24031994, he got into the bus which starts from Thalassery via. Kuthuparamba and Vattapara to Ayithrapuzha. He got into the bus at Ayitharapara. Then he found his brother Sathyan inside the bus. There is a vacant seat on the side of his brother at the middle portion of the bus. Some 10 to 13 passengers were in the bus. According to him, Ganapathiyadan Prakashan (PW 2) and Shyamala (PW 3) and some other ladies were among the passengers. Accused No. 1 and 2 were in the bus. By about 1.55 p.m. the bus reached Ayitharapuzha. Before PW 1 and his brother Sathyan getting down from the bus, accused No. 1 and 2 shouted that you both will not be spared and will be murdered and both PW 1 and Sathyan were pushed to the road through the back door. Then 3 persons ran towards the bus from Babu's shop. Ambu Sudhakaran and Perutheri Sudhakaran handed over a sword each to A1 and A2. He further deposed that the first accused inflicted cut injuries with the sword on PW 1's both hands and right hand side of the chest. At that time A3 Ashokan inflicted cut injuries with an axe on the face and head of his brother Sathyan. A4 inflicted cut injury on the left hand of Sathyan while A2 inflicted a stab injury with a sword on the stomach of Sathyan. A7 Reghu inflicted cut injuries on both hand and leg of Sathyan. PW 1 fell down. At that time both A5 and A6 are also inflicted cut injuries on Sathyan. According to him, when he fell down all the seven accused were inflicting injuries on his brother and all those persons are in the accused dock in court and he knew all the seven. Sathyan fell into the sewer. PW 1 fell down. At that time both A5 and A6 are also inflicted cut injuries on Sathyan. According to him, when he fell down all the seven accused were inflicting injuries on his brother and all those persons are in the accused dock in court and he knew all the seven. Sathyan fell into the sewer. A police jeep came and PW 1 and Sathyan were taken to hospital. They were taken first to Kuthuparamba hospital but the doctors have not examined PW 1 and Sathyan. Both of them were removed to a car and brought to Government Hospital, Thalassery where both of them were examined by the doctor and PW 1 was admitted there and Sathyan was referred to Kozhikode Medical College. According to him, subsequently he got information that his brother died while reaching Mahe. According to him, his brother was taken to Kozhikode from Thalassery Government Hospital by about 4.30 p.m. At 5.30 p.m. police came there and he gave Ext. P1 FT Statement. According to him, all the seven persons are residing at Ayithara and around places and due to political animosity the accused have attacked them. He also stated that at Ayithara BJP workers got animosity towards his brother. His brother was the President of Youth Congress and he was the Secretary, prior to the incident. Eventhough several suggestions were given to show that he was not a Congress (I) worker, those suggestions were all denied by him. He stated that there are buses from Kuthuparamba to Maloor via. Kanhileri also and by both the routes he can reach his native place. According to him, he do not know for what purpose Sathyan has gone to Kuthuparamba on that day. Occasionally, his brother gone to cinema which starts at 11.30 p.m. and for morning show which starts at 9.30 am., which will be over by 1 O' clock. He stated that by the time when he and his brother were brought to the Government Hospital, Thalassery it was 4 O' clock. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, Thalassery but, since the injuries on his brother were serious, he was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. There is only five miles from Thalassery to Mahe. He stated that by the time when he and his brother were brought to the Government Hospital, Thalassery it was 4 O' clock. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, Thalassery but, since the injuries on his brother were serious, he was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. There is only five miles from Thalassery to Mahe. He got information that by the time the ambulance which carried his brother reached Mahe, his brother died and the body was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. He stated that he is not aware whether two hours' time will take from Thalassery to Kozhikode. He stated that by 5 O' clock he came to know that his brother died and Ext. P1 FI Statement was given at 5.30 p.m. He stated that what he stated in Ext. P1 is that he came to know that his brother's body was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for postmortem. He deposed that PW 2 Prakash tied the bleeding injuries of his brother by using lunki. 10. Now we will come to the evidence of PW 2. PW 2 is a close friend of the deceased. It has come out in evidence, as can be seen from the wound certificates, Exts.P3 and P4, and from the totality of evidence, that it is he who took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Thalassery. It was mentioned in Ext. P1 FI Statement also. PW 2 deposed that the deceased Sathyan and himself are athletes specialised in long distance race and they used to train every day. According to him at 10 a.m. on 24031994 himself and Sathyan went to a film show at Kuthuparamba. There was an English film. The film was over by 12.45 noon. Their intention was to take lunch at home. At 1.10 p.m. there was a bus to Kanhileri via. Maloor. After the film show they had a tea. By the time the bus to Kanhileri via. Maloor left. So they got into the 'Vandana' bus. The above bus was going via. Vattapara. Sathyan sat in the middle of the bus and he sat in the seat behind Sathyan. PW 1 got into the bus from Ayitharapara. When the bus reached near Ayithara bridge, accused 1 and 2 shouted and pushed down the deceased and PW 1 from the bus. Immediately A1 and A2 jumped down from the bus. Vattapara. Sathyan sat in the middle of the bus and he sat in the seat behind Sathyan. PW 1 got into the bus from Ayitharapara. When the bus reached near Ayithara bridge, accused 1 and 2 shouted and pushed down the deceased and PW 1 from the bus. Immediately A1 and A2 jumped down from the bus. Passengers including PW 2 got down from the bus through back door. At that time, the other accused came with knife, daggers, etc. inside the bus A1 and A2 had no weapons. They were given weapons by A4 and A5. A5 handed over a chopper to Sasi. Thereafter, A1 uttered that both should be stabbed and A1 stabbed PW 1. Thereafter, A3 inflicted cut injuries on the face and head of Sathyan with an axe. According to him, all the others inflicted cut injuries on the hands, legs and other parts of the body of Sathyan. A2 inflicted a stab injury above the stomach of Sathyan with a sword. Sathyan fell in the sewer on the side of A4 Babu's shop. Then the accused ran away through the back side of A4's house. According to PW 2, himself, PW 4 and some others were present there. The other passengers in the bus ran away. A7 also threatened him that he also will be murdered, by showing a chopper. After the assailants left, they bandaged the injury of Sathyan. After some time, a police jeep came and Sathyan and PW 1 were taken in that jeep by him and others to the Government Hospital, Kuthuparamba. At the courtyard of the hospital, the injured were removed to a car from the police jeep and took them to the Government Hospital, Thalassery. Shaji was admitted in the Government Hospital, Thalassery after examination by the doctor and Sathyan was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, where he was declared dead. Before reaching Mahe all of them understood that Sathyan died. According to him, Sathyan was a Congress (I) worker and the accused are BJP workers and political animosity is the cause for murder. According to him, he was frightened at that time. According to him, he knew A7 for 56 years. To a definited question, he said that he has told the police that A7 inflicted cut injuries to Sathyan. But, he was again asked why such a statement is not seen in 161 statement. According to him, he was frightened at that time. According to him, he knew A7 for 56 years. To a definited question, he said that he has told the police that A7 inflicted cut injuries to Sathyan. But, he was again asked why such a statement is not seen in 161 statement. He stated that he has told the police like that. Several questions were asked to him why he has not stated such things in detail to the police in 161 statement. Unfortunately, 161 statement was not read over to him and it was not proved. The alleged omissions cannot be taken as contradictions. In this connection, we refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tahsildar v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1959 SC 1012 ). But in cross examination he stated that he is not remembering the name of the English film they have seen at Kuthuparamba. 11. PW 3 was a lady passenger in the same bus. According to her, she went to Kuthuparamba along with her mother inlaw and her husband's brother's wife. When she returned by Vandana bus, there was a scuffle in the bus. Sathyan and PW 1 were also in the bus. The scuffle happened at the time when the bus stopped near Ayithara bridge. It was stated that the bus is only upto that place and they have to walk through the bridge. She further stated that Sathyan and PW 1 were pushed down from the bus through the front door and dragged in front of A4 Babu's shop. A4 to A6 came from Babu's shop with weapons, surrounded Sathyan and inflicted injuries. She knew A4, A7, and A2. She further stated that she saw a knife with A4 ( Malayalam ). She also stated that the people surrounded the deceased and hence she cannot definitely see what are the weapons used. In cross examination she admitted that she is residing near the house of the uncle of A4. She also stated that she is not aware whether the uncle of A4 had any dispute with her husband. She further stated that when Sathyan and PW 1 were pushed down from the bus all passengers in the bus got out through the back door and ran away. According to her, since her old mother in was with her, she was not able to run fast. She further stated that when Sathyan and PW 1 were pushed down from the bus all passengers in the bus got out through the back door and ran away. According to her, since her old mother in was with her, she was not able to run fast. By hearing the cry of PW 1 while going away from the place, she looked back and saw the incident. She also stated that she was afraid. A question was asked to her in cross examination why she has not stated to the police that Babu was standing with knife near the bus in the 161 statement. (In chief examination she only stated that Babu has a knife with him ( Malayalam ). She deposed that she had stated to the police and if it was not written by the police, she has no answer. In fact, the police statement was not read over to her. According to her, it was stated by her. 12. PW 4 is another passenger in the bus and an independent witness, who came to the bus stand for going to Kuthuparamba. According to him, at the Babu's shop, Babu, A3, A4, A5 and A6 were there. According to him, at about 2 0' clock when the bus came and stopped, he heard a shouting like " (Malayalam) " and saw a scuffle in the bus. According to him, he saw Sathyan and PW 1 were pushed down from the bus and A1 and A2 came down from the bus. Immediately, the bus left the place without taking any passengers from there. He also stated that A5 and A6 handed over weapons to A1 an A2. Ashokan (A3) had an axe with him and others had big knives ( Malayalam ). They inflicted injuries to PW 1 as well as the deceased. PW 4, PW 2 etc. tried to save them, but accused threatened them and they were not able to go near them. When the deceased fell down the accused ran away. During cross examination he was asked whether he was an accused in some of the cases and he denied the same. 13. PW 8 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Maloor who on getting information from the bus crew that two persons are lying near Ayithara bridge with injuries, went to the place of occurrence. During cross examination he was asked whether he was an accused in some of the cases and he denied the same. 13. PW 8 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Maloor who on getting information from the bus crew that two persons are lying near Ayithara bridge with injuries, went to the place of occurrence. On reaching there, he saw Sathyan lying on the road and Shaji standing on the road with injuries. They were taken to the Government Hospital, Kuthuparamba. From the courtyard of the hospital, the injured were removed to a car and sent to the Government Hospital, Thalassery. According to him, he went to Kuthuparamba Police Station and informed the incident there. The FIR was not registered at that time. 14. PW 15 is the investigating officer in this case, who deposed that on the basis of the confession statement of A7, chopper was recovered and Ext. P12 is the seizure mahazar. According to him, on the basis of the confession statement of A1, chopper ( Malayalam) was recovered and Ext. P11 is the seizure mahazar. In certain places he called " Malayalam ". The incident happened on 24031994. The accused were arrested on 15041994. The choppers were hidden under the fallen leaves near the river side. (Eventhough those weapons were produced before the Court and seen mentioned in the property list and they were sent for forensic examination, they were destroyed in fire at forensic laboratory and hence not marked as material objects in this case). 15. PW 11 is the witness cited by the prosecution as a witness to the recovery to prove the above. In cross examination, PW 11 stated that he is a Marxist party worker and there are three criminal cases against him. 16. These are the substance of the evidence adduced in this case. According to the Session's Judge, the prosecution case was not proved. In cross examination, PW 11 stated that he is a Marxist party worker and there are three criminal cases against him. 16. These are the substance of the evidence adduced in this case. According to the Session's Judge, the prosecution case was not proved. According to him, (1) since the police arrived at the place of incident, the deceased as well as PW 1 were taken by PW 8 A.S.I, to the Government Hospital, Kuthuparamba and the A.S.I, deposed that he has reported the matter to the Kuthuparamba Police Station, FIR should have been registered at that time, instead, FI Statement was taken only 5.30 p.m. from PW 1 after he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Thalassery; (2) Only the names of four accused were mentioned in the FI Statement; and (3) Eventhough PW 1 deposed and mentioned in Ext. P1 FI Statement that PW 2 was there and it is PW 2 who has taken them to the hospital, he has not stated in Ext. P1 that PW 2 and PW 3 were travelled in the bus. (4) Evidence of PW 2 to 4 cannot be accepted. According to PW 2, they wanted to take lunch from their home and left by the bus at 1.10 p.m., but by the time they took tea, that bus left and they got into Vandana bus. It is stated that because of the delay in not getting the bus at 1.10 p.m. they took tea from Kuthuparamba. But the medical report shows that there was undigested rice in the stomach of the deceased. Therefore, version of PW 2 cannot be believed. PW 3 did not state to the police that her mother inlaw was with her and, therefore, her evidence also has to be disbelieved. There is omissions in the police statement and evidence of PW 4. Therefore, evidence of PW 4 was also disbelieved. It is also stated that weapons used by A1 and A2 as deposed by the eye witnesses are differing. Some stated that A1 used ' Malayalam ' whereas the others stated that A1 used chopper ' Malayalam '. Therefore, their evidence cannot be relied on. Therefore, evidence of PW 4 was also disbelieved. It is also stated that weapons used by A1 and A2 as deposed by the eye witnesses are differing. Some stated that A1 used ' Malayalam ' whereas the others stated that A1 used chopper ' Malayalam '. Therefore, their evidence cannot be relied on. (5) The recovery of knife and chopper at the instance of A1 and A7 was not accepted by the Court as admissable under S.27 of the Evidence Act because there was delay in recovery and the knife was recovered from a public place. Further, the witness to the recovery was accused in three criminal cases. (6) A1 and A2 were unarmed when they were in the bus. The deceased could have travelled by other route also as there were two routes for going to his native place and there cannot be any unlawful assembly of more than five persons with common object as alleged. 17. Now we will consider whether the findings of the Court below are perverse and whether interference is required by the Appellate Court in this case. Defence examined one witness as DW1. DW1 is the doctor who gave evidence to the effect that A3 Ashokan was treated by him on 22.3.1994. As per Ext. D2 out patient chit and as per Ext. D3 OP Register, entry No. 18960 dated 22.3.1994 (Ext. D3(a)) one Ashokan was treated. Exts.D2 and D2 show that the patient was having injury on his foot and according to DW1, the injury was sutured. He stated that the patient can walk but there may be back pain and movements will be limited. The patient was not admitted. DW1 also stated that the patient was never treated again. Tetanece loxide and antibiotics were given to the patient among anti inflammatory and pain relieving drugs. To a suggestion that injury is a simple injury which will be healed of within two or three days, he stated that the he cannot say anything about the healing period as he has not returned after that date. He cannot say the cause of injury. 18. First we may analyse the contention regarding correctness and reliance of Ext. P1 FI Statement. It is contended by the respondent that FI Statement was ante timed. PW 1 who gave Ext. P1 FI Statement was admitted in the Government Hospital, Thalassery at 4 o' clock. He cannot say the cause of injury. 18. First we may analyse the contention regarding correctness and reliance of Ext. P1 FI Statement. It is contended by the respondent that FI Statement was ante timed. PW 1 who gave Ext. P1 FI Statement was admitted in the Government Hospital, Thalassery at 4 o' clock. FI Statement was recorded by the police at 5.30 p.m. The incident happened at around 2.30 p.m. The contention of the defence that at 5.30 p.m, PW 1 was not likely to have the knowledge of the death of his brother is also not correct. The evidence shows that immediately on the arrival of the police the injured, PW 1 and the deceased ,were taken to the Government Hospital, Kuthuparamba in the police jeep and from there they were taken in a car and brought to the Government Hospital, Thalassery by PW 2. PW 1 was admitted there and the deceased was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. Made is only 6 kms. away from Thalassery. It has come out in evidence that before reaching Mane Sathyan died and somebody who was travelling in the ambulance got down at Mane. The body was taken to the Medical College Hospital, there the death was confirmed. There fore, it cannot be stated that at 5.30 p.m. PW 1 was not aware of the death of his brother Sathyan. He gave evidence that at the time when FI Statement was given he was aware of the death and that the body was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, eventhough what is written in the FI Statement is that the body is in the Medical College Hospital. Distance from Thalassery to Kozhikode is also not much. There is no chance for implicating wrong persons in the case due to political rivalry. The learned Session's Judge after considering the matter held as follows: "...... I am unable to accept this proposition put forward by the learned counsel for the accused. It is seen that the first information statement Ext. P1 and FIR Ext. P15 registered at Kuthuparamba Police Station at 7.15 p.m., reached the Magistrate at 10 p.m. on the very same day. Moreover, if after a definite deliberation by the Congress leaders and PW 1, to decide whom all should be implicated as accused definitely the names of the three persons whom PW 1 has referred in Ext. P1 and FIR Ext. P15 registered at Kuthuparamba Police Station at 7.15 p.m., reached the Magistrate at 10 p.m. on the very same day. Moreover, if after a definite deliberation by the Congress leaders and PW 1, to decide whom all should be implicated as accused definitely the names of the three persons whom PW 1 has referred in Ext. P1 as persons whom he could identify by sight also might have been mentioned by their names. So the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that Ext. P1 FI Statement is not recorded at the time shown in Ext. P1 has no force at all ......." It shows that no prejudice was caused to the defence even if there is delay. Here there is no delay in sending FI Statement. However , according to the learned Session's Judge the FI Statement was delayed. 19. It is now well settled law that mere delay in recording FI Statement is not fatal to the prosecution unless there is clear indication of fabrication . (See Zahoor and others v. State of U.P. AIR 1991 SC 40 ; Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 63 (Para 4) and Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, 2003 AIR SCW 717). Here there is a clear finding by the Sessions Judge that there is no fabrication. In this case, police arrived at the place of occurrence at about 3.30 p.m., PW 1 and the deceased were taken to the Government Hospital, Thalassery, the deceased was examined at 3.40 p.m. and referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode as the injuries were serious and PW 1 was admitted in that hospital. According to the learned Session's Judge, ASI who took the injured persons in the police jeep to the Government Hospital, Kuthuparamba deposed that the Doctor came to the police jeep, saw the injured and directed that they may be taken to the Government Hospital, Thalassery. Therefore , the injured and the persons accompanied them were sent in a car to the Government Hospital, Thalassery. Thereafter, ASI went to the Kuthuparamba Police Station and gave information. The ASI was in law and order duty. He gave oral information to the police station. Immediate necessity of the relatives of the injured was to take the injured to the hospital rather than to give FI Statement. Thereafter, ASI went to the Kuthuparamba Police Station and gave information. The ASI was in law and order duty. He gave oral information to the police station. Immediate necessity of the relatives of the injured was to take the injured to the hospital rather than to give FI Statement. In fact, deceased and PW 1 were taken to the Government Hospital, Thalassery, at 3.40 p.m. The deceased was examined by the doctor and he was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and at 4p.m. PW 1 was also examined by the doctor. Police also arrived and by 5.30 p.m. FI Statement was recorded from PW 1. On the same day evening the FIR was registered and it reached the Magistrate Court on the very same day. Ext. P1 5 is the FIR which was registered at 7.15 p.m. There is no delay in forwarding FIR to the Magistrate Court. According to the Session's Judge, the ASI should have directed one of the persons accompanying the injured to go to the police station and give FI Statement when they reached Kuthuparamba in police jeep. Since that was not done, there is inordinate delay and much reliance cannot be placed on the FI Statement. The Session's Judge held as follows: "...... So there is inordinate delay in recording the FI Statement even after responsible police officers came to know of the incident and the police officer and police party reached the place of incident. Therefore, much reliance cannot be given to Ext. P1 FI Statement." The above view is perverse and cannot be accepted at all. The relatives and friends of the deceased are more interested in saving his life. In fact, at Government Hospital, Kuthuparamba the Doctor only looked and asked them to go to the Government Hospital, Thalassery. PW 1 was admitted in the above hospital and FI Statement was given without any loss of time. It is true that ASI who was in charge of law and order situation could have recorded the FI Statement, but he explained that he was very busy as he was in charge of law and order duty. A vague information of the police officers need not be taken as FI Statement. (See: Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 1566 . PW 1 who was an injured eye witness, gave FI Statement at 5.30 p.m. and there is no delay. A vague information of the police officers need not be taken as FI Statement. (See: Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 1566 . PW 1 who was an injured eye witness, gave FI Statement at 5.30 p.m. and there is no delay. Even otherwise, when the Court found earlier that there was no fraudulent manipulation in the FI Statement and it was not tutored, the finding of the Session's Court that FI Statement was delayed and, therefore , much reliance cannot be placed on it, cannot be accepted. PW 1 was examined by the doctor at 4 p.m and he was admitted in the hospital and from there he gave Ext. P1 FI Statement. Therefore, there is no unexplained delay in recording FI Statement or lodging FIR to the Magistrate Court. 20. Another reason why Ext. P1 as well as the evidence of PW 1 were disbelieved by the Session's Court was that FI Statement was given at 5.30 p.m. He was examined by the doctor at 4 p.m. In Ext. P4 wound certificate he did not state the names of the accused, but what is recorded in Ext. P4 certificate as cause of injury is that at 2.30 p.m. BJP workers caused injuries to him. Ext. P3 is the wound certificate of the deceased issued from the Government Hospital, Thalassery at 3.40 p.m. in which what is stated is seven BJP workers injured him with weapons. Names of the accused were not mentioned in Ext. P3 and P4 . The Doctor is not bound to record the names of the accused in the wound certificate in both the wound certificate it is stated that deceased and PW 1 were attached by BJP workers. It is stated in Ext. P3 that seven BJP workers attacked them. FI Statement cannot be doubted because the names of the accused were not mentioned in Exts.P3 and P4 wound certificates. In Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 1715 the Apex Court observed as follows: "17. Another argument advanced before us was that although PW 1 and 2 were supposed to be eye witnesses, they never cared to disclose the name of the assailant to the doctor when the body of the deceased was taken to the hospital. This argument is only stated to be rejected. Another argument advanced before us was that although PW 1 and 2 were supposed to be eye witnesses, they never cared to disclose the name of the assailant to the doctor when the body of the deceased was taken to the hospital. This argument is only stated to be rejected. A doctor is not at all concerned as to who committed the offence or whether the person brought to him is a criminal or an ordinary person, his primary effort is to save the life of the person brought to him and inform the police in medico legal cases. In this state of confusion, PW 1 and 2 may not have chosen to give details of the murder to the Doctor. It is well settled that Doctors before whom dead bodies are produced or injured persons are brought, either themselves take the dying declaration or hold the post mortem immediately and if they start examining the informants they are likely to become witnesses of the occurrences which is not permissible." 21. PW 1 is an injured witness. His presence cannot be disputed. In normal course he will not implicate wrong persons so that the real accused will escape. According to the defence, PW 1 is not an active Congress worker. Therefore, chance of implicating wrong persons because of political rivalry is remote. In any event, he will not spare the real accused who injured him well as his brother, who were travelling in the same seat. According to him, A1 and A2 pushed down him and the deceased from the bus at the stop. From the Babu's shop people including A3, A4 and three other known persons came and inflicted injuries on PW 1 and the deceased. He is a natural witness. His presence is not disputed. There is no serious contradictions in his statement and the deposition in court. He stated names of four accused and also stated that the other three persons were known to him. In Ext. P1 FI Statement he categorically stated that by 1.45 p.m. he got in the bus from Ayitharapuzha. His brother was travelled in the same bus for returning to their house. At Ayitharapuzha when the bus stopped, A1 and A2 pushed down them from the bus. In Ext. P1 FI Statement he categorically stated that by 1.45 p.m. he got in the bus from Ayitharapuzha. His brother was travelled in the same bus for returning to their house. At Ayitharapuzha when the bus stopped, A1 and A2 pushed down them from the bus. Babu and three other persons who were known to them by sight came with weapons ( Malayalam ) and two of them who are known to them by sight gave choppers to Sasi (A1) and Dasan (A2), A1 shouting to kill inflicted injuries on him and his brother . In Ext. P1 is stated as follows: (Malayalam) In Ext. P1 FI Statement it is also stated that PW 2 and another Babu took them to the hospital. There is no substantive difference between his deposition in Court and Ext. P1 FI Statement. Evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 cannot be discarded as PW 1 is a relative and PW 2 is partisan. In Dalip Singh v. The State of Punjab ( AIR 1953 SC 364 ) the Apex Court held as follows: " We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye witnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 at p. 59. We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists , if not in the judgments of the Courts at any rate in the arguments of counsel." The above view was followed in Gulf Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1974 (3) SCC 698 and in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 . Again in Masalti v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202 the Supreme Court held as follows: "But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discharged only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses ....... Again in Masalti v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202 the Supreme Court held as follows: "But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discharged only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses ....... The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct." Here in this case evidence of PW 1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4 independent witnesses. All the eye witnesses have narrated the incident. Nothing was brought out to contradict their evidence apart from some minor discrepancies. There is no discrepancy in regard to material aspects. Their evidence cannot be disbelieved on the ground that they are partisan witnesses or interested witnesses. In his deposition, the names of the three persons whom he referred as persons known to him by sight, were also mentioned. The FIR need not be an encyclopedia of all the events. As held by the Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. State of Uttaranchal, 2003 SCC (Crl) 412 FIR need not be an exhaustive account of the incident and essential particulars are mentioned in Ext. P1. There is no substantive contradiction between Ext. P1 and deposition of PW 1. Minor discrepancies between the police statement and the depositions are not material and we see no ground to disbelieve PW 1's evidence given in court. It is true that he is the brother of the deceased. He as well as the deceased were pushed down from the bus and beaten up by the accused. He was examined in the Court in March , 1999, after five years of the incident. Minor discrepancies is not a ground to disbelieve his evidence. (See Rizan and another v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2003) 2 SCC 661 (para 12)). 22. The reasonings of the Session's Court as recorded in page 30 of the judgment cannot be accepted. The accused as well as PW 1 are known persons of the locality. In any event, even if. Minor discrepancies is not a ground to disbelieve his evidence. (See Rizan and another v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2003) 2 SCC 661 (para 12)). 22. The reasonings of the Session's Court as recorded in page 30 of the judgment cannot be accepted. The accused as well as PW 1 are known persons of the locality. In any event, even if. the reasonings stated by the Session's Court is accepted, identity of four persons mentioned immediately after the incident in Ext. P1 cannot be disputed. Seven persons were there at the time of incident to show that there is an unlawful assembly. PW 1 as well as PW 4 in their evidence stated that the first accused inflicted injuries with chopper ( Malayalam ). What was recovered on the basis of confession of A1 is a chopper. The fact that in Ext. P1 what is mentioned is stab injuries, but in deposition he stated as cut injuries, is not a serious discrepancy as witness has deposed after five years of the incident. We see no ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW 1. 23. With regard to PW 2 according to the defence, in Ext. P1 FI Statement it was not stated that PW 2 was travelling in the very same bus. Further, if the deceased and PW 2 went together to Kuthuparamba for seeing a cinema and came back after the cinema , in the normal course , he would have seated on the side of the deceased, who got into the bus from the subsequent shop sat near the deceased. According to PW 2 , they missed one bus because they took tea after the cinema and their intention was to take meals from the house. But, there was undigested rice in the stomach of the deceased, as per the post mortem report. This would show that the deposition of PW 2 that they were going to the house to take meals may not be correct. There is no evidence in this case that after tea when the first bus missed, they have taken meals. Eventhough it was argued by the prosecution that PW 1, who got into the bus subsequently, may not aware that PW 2 and two others were travelling in the bus. There is no evidence in this case that after tea when the first bus missed, they have taken meals. Eventhough it was argued by the prosecution that PW 1, who got into the bus subsequently, may not aware that PW 2 and two others were travelling in the bus. But, the circumstance would show that there is no clear evidence to prove that PW 2 was travelling in the bus along with the deceased. But in the deposition of PW 1, he stated that PW 2 and PW 3 had travelled in the bus, eventhough that was not stated in Ext. P1 FI Statement. However, his presence at the time of or immediately after the incident cannot be disbelieved because it is he who took them to the hospital, as can be seen from the wound certificate. In Ext. P1 FI Statement, also it is stated by PW 1 that PW 2 and another Babu took them to the hospital. Evidence of PW 1 is unshaken even if PW 2's evidence is not accepted in its entirety. The evidence of PW 1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3. 24. PW 3 and 4 are independent witnesses. Merely because in Ext. P1 FI Statement PW 1 did not state about the presence of PW 3 in the bus, her evidence cannot be disbelieved. PW 1 did not board the bus from Kuthuparamba, but be boarded the bus from a subsequent stop. He may not be aware who were travelling in the bus, especially in the ladies side. PW 2 deposed that PW 3 was also travelled in the bus. PW 3 deposed that she saw PW 1 and deceased were pushed down from the bus at Ayitharapuzha bus stop and the passengers got down from the bus through the back door and they all rushed to the other side of the river. But since she was having mother inlaw with her, she was not able to run. Hearing the cry of Sathyan she looked back and saw the incident. She also stated that the deceased and PW 1 were surrounded by the accused persons. Merely because PW 3 stated that she saw Babu (A4) standing near the bus with the weapon which was not stated by the other witnesses, her evidence cannot be disbelieved. Hearing the cry of Sathyan she looked back and saw the incident. She also stated that the deceased and PW 1 were surrounded by the accused persons. Merely because PW 3 stated that she saw Babu (A4) standing near the bus with the weapon which was not stated by the other witnesses, her evidence cannot be disbelieved. When an eye witness is examined after five years, some exaggerations may be spoken to. There is nothing to disbelieve her. The suggestion that Babu's uncle is residing near her house and her husband has got some dispute with him, was not proved. In any event, she has no animosity towards any of the accused and there is no material contradictions in her deposition. 25. PW 4 is a person who came to Ayitharapuzha bus stop to board the bus on its return journey for going to Kuthuparamba. He has also deposed the case in accordance with the prosecution story. He is also an independent witness. There is nothing to disbelieve him. He also deposed that he saw the incident and incident and incident happened in the manner in which prosecution has suggested. His evidence corroborates the evidence of PW 1 and PW 3. 26. Much was argued regarding non examination of the crew of the bus in which they were travelling and who give information to the police regarding the incident. The deceased and PW 1 as well as A1 and A2 were travelling in the bus. The deceased and PW 1 were pushed down from the bus by A1 and A2. Seeing the scuffle, immediately the bus returned without waiting there and taking passengers from there. Major incident of violence and infliction of injuries on PW 1 as well as the deceased were done after they were pushed down from the bus. The crew of the bus escaped from there with the bus. They have not seen the main part of the incident and they informed the police on duty that two persons are lying there as two persons were pushed down from the bus. It is true that police could have examined them also. But the defect in the prosecution conducting the case will not help the accused as PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4 are witnesses who can be believed and who saw the incident and gave evidence. 27. It is true that police could have examined them also. But the defect in the prosecution conducting the case will not help the accused as PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4 are witnesses who can be believed and who saw the incident and gave evidence. 27. At the instance of A1 on the basis of his confession chopper was recovered. The learned Session's Judge did not believe the recovery on three grounds: The first ground is that it was recovered from a public place and the second ground is that the mahazar witness is a Marxist party worker and accused in some criminal cases. Thirdly, there was delay in recovery. Ext. P11 is the mahazar. It was stated that chopper ( Malayalam ) was recovered from the compound near the river which is situated behind the shop of Babu and in that compound there are teak and other trees and that the chopper was seen hidden under the fallen leaves. It is not recovered from a public road or from a place where it can easily be seen. There is no case for the defence that it was found out from a place where they were visible for all. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, 1999 SCC (Cri) 539, the Supreme Court held that concealment is not necessary. What is necessary for admissibility of evidence under S.27 of the Evidence Act is the fact discovered which embraces the place of recovery and knowledge of the accused as to it and not the object recovered. In Para.26, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "26. There is nothing in S.27 of the Evidence Act which renders the statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of the articles was made from any place which is "open or accessible to others". It is a fallacious notion that when recovery of any incriminating article was made from a place which is open or accessible to others, it would is open or accessible to others, it would vitiate the evidence under S.27 of the Evidence Act. Any object can be concealed in places which are open or accessible to others. For example, if the article is buried in the main roadside or if it is concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public places or kept hidden in a public office, the article would remain out of the visibility of others in normal circumstances. Any object can be concealed in places which are open or accessible to others. For example, if the article is buried in the main roadside or if it is concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public places or kept hidden in a public office, the article would remain out of the visibility of others in normal circumstances. Until such article is disinterred, its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person who hid it alone knows where it is until he discloses that fact to any other person. Hence, the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed place is accessible to others." The fact that the mahazar witness examined is a Marxist party worker (here the dispute was between Congress and BJP workers) or he was accused in some criminal cases is not a ground to disbelieve him. Even otherwise, the police officers' evidence in this case is very clear regarding recovery. The third ground stated is that there was delay in recovery. It is true that eventhough A1 to A4's names were mentioned in the FIR which was registered and reached in Court on the date of incident itself, that is on 24.3.1994, accused 1,2 and 7 were apprehended only on 15.4.1994. For about a month they were absconding . It may be an additional circumstance to connect them with the incident. The date of apprehension of A1, A2 as well as A7 is 15.4.1994. On that day itself, on the basis of the confession statement of A1 the chopper was recovered. Similar is the case with the recovery of another chopper at the instance of A7. Discovery of fact, on the basis of recovery of weapons connected A1 and A7 with the incident is admissible under S.27 of the Evidence Act. 28. Another reason stated by the learned Session's Judge is that there is discrepancy between the weapons used. Immediately after PW 1 and deceased were pushed down from the bus, from Babu's shop persons arrived with weapons. The deceased and PW 1 were surrounded by the accused. Passengers of the bus left the place. Therefore it may be difficult to say with precision from where injuries were inflicted with clear description of weapons. Immediately after PW 1 and deceased were pushed down from the bus, from Babu's shop persons arrived with weapons. The deceased and PW 1 were surrounded by the accused. Passengers of the bus left the place. Therefore it may be difficult to say with precision from where injuries were inflicted with clear description of weapons. It is true that some witnesses stated that A1 used (Malayalam) or (Malayalam). A big knife (Malayalam). can be called a chopper (Malayalam). also. Hearing the cry of Shaji, PW 3 looked behind. The witnesses were examined after five years of the incident and minor discrepancies may occur. The Apex Court in Harshadsingh Pahelvansingh Thakore v. State of Gujarat, 1976 4 SCC 640 observed as follows: When a murderous assault by many hands with many knives has ended fatally, it is legally impermissible to dissect the serious ones from the others and seek to salvage those whose stabs have not proved fatal. When people play with knives and lives, the circumstances that one man's stab falls on a less or more vulnerable part of the person of the victim is of no consequence to fix the guilt for murder. Conjoint complicity is the inevitable inference when a gory group animated by lethal intent accomplish their purposes cumulatively. S.34 IPC fixing constructive liability conclusively silences such a refined plea of extrication. (See: Amir Hussian v. State of UP ( 1975 (4) SCC 247 and Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1976 (2) SCC 827 ). Lord Sumner's classic legal shorthand for constructive criminal liability, expressed in the Miltonic verse. They also serve who only stand and wait' a fortiori embraces cases of common intent instantly formed, triggering a plurality of persons into an adventure in criminality, some splitting hostile heads, some spilling drops of blood. Guilt goes with community of intent coupled with participatory presence or operation. No finer luristic niceties can be pressed into service to nullify or jettison the plain punitive purpose of the Penal Code." (emphasis supplied) 29. In Masalti's case (supra) it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows: "Then it is urged that the evidence given by the witnesses conforms to the same uniform pattern since no specific part is assigned to all the assailants, that evidence should not have been accepted. This criticism again is not well founded. In Masalti's case (supra) it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows: "Then it is urged that the evidence given by the witnesses conforms to the same uniform pattern since no specific part is assigned to all the assailants, that evidence should not have been accepted. This criticism again is not well founded. Where a crowd of assailants who are members of an unlawful assembly proceeds to commit an offence of murder in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of the assailants. Besides, if a large crowd of persons armed with weapons assaults the intended victims, it may not be necessary that all of them have to take part in the actual assault. In the present case, for instance, several weapons were carried by different members of the unlawful assembly, but it appears that the guns were used and that was enough to kill 5 persons. In such a case, it would be unreasonable to contend that because the other weapons carried by the members of the unlawful assembly were not used, the story in regard to the said weapons itself should be rejected. Appreciation of evidence in such a complex case is no doubt a difficult task; but criminal Courts have to do their best in dealing with such cases and it is their duty to sift the evidence carefully and decide which part of it is true and which is not." The common object and knowledge of common object by members of the assembly can reasonably be gathered from the nature of assembly, arms carried by them and the behaviour of the members. In State of U.P v. Dan Singh, 1987 (3) SCC 747 it was observed that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove which of the members of the unlawful assembly did which or what act. In Lalji v. State of U.P. 1989 (1) SCC 437 the Apex court held as follows: "Common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly; arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence. In Lalji v. State of U.P. 1989 (1) SCC 437 the Apex court held as follows: "Common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly; arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case." In this case, a crowd, more than five in number, attacked PW 1 and the deceased after they were pushed down from the bus by A1 and A2 and they were also surrounded. The object is very clear from the circumstances in this case. The intention was to kill the deceased. Proof of prior concert or meeting of minds is not essential to find sharing of common object as held by the Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of M.P. 2002 SCC (Crl) 736. In State of U.P. v. Jhinkoo Nai 2001 SCC Cri 1172 it was held that when several persons launch murderous assault on the deceased simultaneously, common intention can be inferred and no distinction can be made for allocating guilt between the persons who inflicted the fatal injuries and who inflicted the non fatal injuries. 30. It is true that there is no evidence to show that A1 and A2 while travelling in the bus were having deadly weapons with them. When the deceased and PW 1 were pushed down from the bus, other accused came for attacking and gave weapons to A1 and A2 also. The argument was that at the time of pushing down the deceased and PW 1 from the bus, there was no unlawful assembly as there was only two persons. The common object, even committing, can be developed subsequently also. Law regarding the same was summarised by the Supreme Court in Ganghadar Behera and others v. State of Orrisa, 2002 AIR SCW 4271 as follows: "23. 'Common object' is different from a 'common intention' as it does not require a prior conceit and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object. 'Common object' is different from a 'common intention' as it does not require a prior conceit and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object. The common object of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident. It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful. Under the Explanation to S.141, an assembly which was not unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful. It is not necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at the outset. The time of forming an unlawful intent is not material. An assembly which, at its commencement or even for sometime thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently become unlawful. In otherwords, it can develop during the course of incident at the spot co instanti." But, we cannot forget the fact that at the time of attack, after deceased and PW 1 were pushed down, there were more than five persons. Even in Ext. P3 wound certificate it was stated that there were seven BJP workers to attack him. In Ext. P4 wound certificate also it was stated that there were seven persons to attack him. There were more than five persons armed with deadly weapons to attack the deceased and PW 1. At the time of attack A1 shouted " Malayalam ". Therefore, their intention and common object are very clear and there was unlawful assembly of more than five persons. All the persons roles were stated by the witnesses. There were more than five persons armed with deadly weapons to attack the deceased and PW 1. At the time of attack A1 shouted " Malayalam ". Therefore, their intention and common object are very clear and there was unlawful assembly of more than five persons. All the persons roles were stated by the witnesses. A1 shouted " Malayalam " and all the other six persons had their own part in the killing of the deceased. However, since the Session's Court gave acquittal of the accused, apparently for wrong reasons, and in Ext. P1 FI Statement names of A5 to A7 were not mentioned, we give the benefit of doubt to A5 to A7, Four eye witnesses, PW 1 to 4, deposed that they have seen the incident and the incident happened in the manner in which prosecution has alleged in the charge sheet. PW 3 and PW 4 are independent witnesses. But with regard to A1 to A4, their names were mentioned by PW 1 immediately after the incident and their part in the crime was also mentioned in Ext. P1 FI Statement as well as in the evidence of PW 1 which is fully believable and corroborated by the evidence of PW 3, PW 4 as well as the medical evidence. It is also proved that there were seven persons in the unlawful assembly even though identity of A5 to A7 is disputed as their names were not mentioned in Ext. P1 FI Statement. The postmortem certificate shows that the deceased was brutally murdered. A group of seven persons brutally murdered him and injured PW 1. Over acts made by A1 to A4 and their identity are proved. A1 to A4 and three other persons including A7 etc had brutally killed the deceased and injured PW 1 in furtherence of the common object of the unlawful assembly. A1 to A4 can be convicted under S.302 read with S.34 also. The common intention to kill can be inferred by the weapons used and injuries inflicted on the deceased as well as on PW 1. (See : Ramji Singh and another v. State of Bihar (2002 SCC (Crl) 760). In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. We set aside the order of acquittal of A1 to A4. They are found guilty of the offence punishable under S.302 read with S.149 and / or 34 IPC. (See : Ramji Singh and another v. State of Bihar (2002 SCC (Crl) 760). In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. We set aside the order of acquittal of A1 to A4. They are found guilty of the offence punishable under S.302 read with S.149 and / or 34 IPC. We only impose the minimum punishment provided under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence them to undergo imprisonment for life. They are also guilty of the offences punishable under S.324 read with S.149 and / or S.34 IPC. They are also guilty of the offences punishable under S.143, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Since we awarded sentence of life imprisonment for offence punishable under S.302, we are not awarding separate sentence for the other offences. The Session's Court, Thalassery is directed to implement the sentences and the judgment is certified under S.378 of Code of Criminal Procedure. A5 to A7 are given the benefit of doubt. Acquittal of A5 to A7 are confirmed. The appeal filed by the State against acquittal of A1 to A4 is allowed and dismissed with respect to A5 to A7.