K. C. BHANU J. ( 1 ) THE State of Andhra Pradesh filed the appeal against the judgment, dated 11. 2. 2000, in S. C. No. 967/ 1994, on the file of the learned E Additional sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby all the accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them, challenging the legality and correctness thereof. ( 2 ) THE facts that are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows. Thondepi Village is a faction-ridden village within the limits of Muppala Police Station. There were two groups in the village. Cases and counter-cases were pending between those two groups. There were land disputes between Rayidi Anjaiah-A28 and his father rayidi Venkatappaiah. One group was supporting A28 and the other group was supporting his father. On 16. 3. 1993 at about 1. 30 p. m. , some of the accused in the present case abducted V. Seshagiri Rao, P. W. 19, and tried to murder him. But, due to the timely intervention of police, he was caved and admitted in the Government Hospital, sattenapalli by the police. With regard to that incident, the police registered a case in crime No. 5/1993 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 364 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian penal Code against some of the accused in this case. As they were unsuccessful in their attempt to kill Seshagiri Rao, they waylaid at Dammalapadu Donka armed with iron rods, axes, spears, sticks and bombs and formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object of killing the persons belonging to Mallapothu venkaiah Group. After admitting P. W. 19 in the Hospital at Sattenapally, Challa singaiah and Rachakonda Chanchaiah and P. Ws. 1 to 16 and some others in this case were returning to their village in a tractor on the intervening night of 16/ 17. 3. 1993. The accused attacked Singaiah and Chanchaiah and P. Ws. 1 to 16 when they reached a place known as "dammalapadu donka". Singaiah succumbed to the injuries at the spot. P. Ws. 1 to 10 and Chanchaiah, who sustained injuries, were admitted in the Government Hospital, Sattenapally. Chanchaiah succumbed to the injuries at 4. 40 a. m. on 17. 3. 1993 while undergoing treatment. 1 to 16 when they reached a place known as "dammalapadu donka". Singaiah succumbed to the injuries at the spot. P. Ws. 1 to 10 and Chanchaiah, who sustained injuries, were admitted in the Government Hospital, Sattenapally. Chanchaiah succumbed to the injuries at 4. 40 a. m. on 17. 3. 1993 while undergoing treatment. The hospital authorities sent an intimation to the Additional Munsif magistrate, Sattenapally, in pursuance of which the learned Magistrate went to the hospital and recorded the statement of pw1 at about the 3. 10 a. m. , on 17. 3. 1993 in the presence of the Duty Medical Officer. On receipt of the statement of P. W. 1, the sub-Inspector of Police, Sattenapally, registered a case in crime No. 43/1993 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances act, and transferred the case to muppala police Station on the point of jurisdiction. On receipt of the copy of the F. I. R. , muppala Police re-registered it as Crime no. 6/1993 of their police station for the same sections of law. After receipt of the intimation of the death of Chanchaiah ex. P30-FIR was sent to Additional Munsif magistrate, Sattenapally. P. W. 29, the inspector of Police, Muppala, took up investigation. He proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of P. W. 1. He examined some of the prosecution witnesses, recorded their statements and seized bloodstained clothes. Thereafter he prepared observation report of the scene of occurrence in the presence of the mediators. He got scene of offence photographed and prepared a rough sketch thereof. He seized certain incriminating articles from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, he held inquest over the dead of Singaiah (D1) and, after the inquest was over, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. P. W. 26 conducted autopsy over the dead body of Dl and issued post-mortem certificate. He opined that the death of Dl was due to the injuries to his head. P. W. 21 examined P. Ws. 1 to 10 and issued wound certificates. The accused were arrested on different dates and in pursuance of their confessional statements, some incriminating articles like axes, iron rods etc. , were seized. After completion of investigation, P. W. 29, the Inspector of Police, filed a charge- sheet. P. W. 21 examined P. Ws. 1 to 10 and issued wound certificates. The accused were arrested on different dates and in pursuance of their confessional statements, some incriminating articles like axes, iron rods etc. , were seized. After completion of investigation, P. W. 29, the Inspector of Police, filed a charge- sheet. ( 3 ) THE case was then committed to the Court of Sessions at Guntur. Basing on the material available on record, the learned sessions Judge framed the following charges against the accused. (1) Under Section 148 IPC against A1 to A50. (2) (a) Under Section 302 IPC against a1, A3, A4, A11,a14 to A18. (b) Under Section 302 read with 149 ipc against A21, A22, A24, A25 and A29. (c) Under Section 302 IPC against a23 and A27. (3) Under Section 302 read with 149 IPC against A18 to A20, A34, A36, A37, a42, A44, A47 and A50. (4) Under Section 326 IPC against A2 to A8, A 15, A 19, A 12, A26, a28 and A22 for causing injuries to pw1. (5) Under Section 326 IPC against A1, a32, A33, A25, A38, A39 and A40 for causing injuries to P. W. 2. (6) Under Section 307 read with 149 IPC against Al to A8, A10, A31, A33 to a50 for making an attempt on the life of P. W. I. (7) Under Section 307 IPC against A7 for making an attempt on the life of p. W. 3, and (8) Under Section 324 read with 149 IPC against Al to A8, A10, A31, A33 to a50 for causing injury to P. W. 2. ( 4 ) THE charges were read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the Prosecution, P. Ws. 1 to 31 were examined and Exs. P1 to P. 38, besides M. Os. 1 to 47- case properties-were marked. On behalf of the accused, certain contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses were elicited. They are Exs. D1 to D51. ( 5 ) THE Ttrial Court after appreciating the evidence on record held that the conspicuous omission in Ex. P1, Ex. P21 and ex. P23, and in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 47- case properties-were marked. On behalf of the accused, certain contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses were elicited. They are Exs. D1 to D51. ( 5 ) THE Ttrial Court after appreciating the evidence on record held that the conspicuous omission in Ex. P1, Ex. P21 and ex. P23, and in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 16 of their witnessing the incident and identifying the assailants at the time of the incident the illumination of shade of tractor headlights and taillights, the discrepant evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 9 that they were in possession of torch lights and of P. Ws. 4, 11 and 14 with regard to the existence of the tractor lights, and the introduction of the theory of lights at a belated stage are the factors which made the Prosecution theory doubtful, that the material contradictions and omissions would make the statements of the witnesses unreliable and unbelievable, that the Prosecution failed to prove that the accused were the persons who attacked the deceased persons and the prosecution witnesses 1 to 16, that a doubt arose whether dommalapadu Donka was the scene of occurrence or not, that the omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses went to the root of the case and no credence could be given to the evidence of the witnesses, and that the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 16 made the prosecution case doubtful inasmuch as the involvement of the accused and the occurrence of the incident at 1 a. m. , on the date of the incident was not established beyond doubt. The learned Sessions Judge accordingly acquitted all the accused by the impugned judgment, as against which the State of A. P. , filed the present appeal. ( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has contended that PWs. 1 to 10, who are the injured witnesses, and PWs. 11 to 16 have clearly deposed about the specific overt acts of each of the accused, that the accused are known persons to the witnesses, that there is no reason for P. Ws. ( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has contended that PWs. 1 to 10, who are the injured witnesses, and PWs. 11 to 16 have clearly deposed about the specific overt acts of each of the accused, that the accused are known persons to the witnesses, that there is no reason for P. Ws. l to 16 to implicate the accused falsely in the case, that the witnesses could identify the witnesses in the illumination of the tractor lights and also torchlights, that when the tractor was running during night time, it could be inferred that its lights were being used though the witnesses did not say anything about the identification of the accused in the illumination of the focus of the tractor headlights, and that there is nothing unusual to identify known persons in the illumination of the headlights. She further contended that the incident in question is not disputed or denied, that as a matter of fact the incident took place at Dammalapadu Donka while P. Ws. 1 to 16 and both the deceased and some others were returning to their village after admitting Seshagiri Rao-P. W. 19 in the hospital. Within a few hours of the incident, the statement of P. W. I was recorded by the Additional Munsif Magistrate at the Government Hospital, Sattenapally, which is the F. I. R. in this case. The presence of A1 to A8, A10 to A12 has specifically been mentioned and that specific overt acts are attributed against A2, A3, a4, A8 and A15. The attack was a preplanned, one, as all the accused armed with deadly weapons like axes, iron rods, spears etc. , attacked the deceased persons and p. Ws. 1 to 16. The way in which all the accused attacked the prosecution party and the fact that they ran away from the scene of offence immediately after the attack would clearly go to show that their intention was to form themselves into unlawful assembly and commit murder, which can also be gathered from the circumstances of the case. P. Ws. 1 to 16 are eye-witnesses to the incident and P. Ws. 1 to 10 are injured witnesses. Some of the injuries sustained by them are grievous in nature. P. Ws. 1 to 16 are eye-witnesses to the incident and P. Ws. 1 to 10 are injured witnesses. Some of the injuries sustained by them are grievous in nature. The learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and non- recording of the statement from any one of the witnesses at the scene of offence by p. W. 28, the Sub-Inspector of Police, muppala, does not affect the version of the eye-witnesses to the incident, whose evidence has to be appreciated like that of the evidence of any other witnesses. There is nothing unusual in the eye-witnesses identifying all the 50 accused. All the witnesses did not identify all the accused. It is quite natural for a witness to identify 4 or 5 accused persons who caused injuries and their evidence cannot be brushed aside for the simple reason that the incident took place during night time. It is not uncommon for villagers, who are accustomed to darkness, to be in a position to identify known persons, even when there is slight illumination of lights. In this case, it was quite probable that when the tractor was going on carrying P. Ws. l to 16 and both the deceased persons in the dark night, the Driver of the tractor would have naturally switched on the headlights and rear lights of the tractor, and in the illumination of the lights, there was every possibility for the witnesses to identify the assailants, and the trial Court erred in disbelieving the evidence of P. Ws. l to 16. The learned Public Prosecutor also took us through various observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment. ( 7 ) LEARNED senior Counsel appearing for the accused contended that the incident took place in the midnight and therefore there was no possibility for the witnesses to identify so many assailants. According to the Prosecution, the assailants surrounded the tractor and hurled bombs and made attack and in those circumstances it was difficult for the witnesses to identify the assailants of the deceased persons and the injured persons. All the leaders belonging to the opposite faction group were shown as accused. There was delay in registering the case. According to the Prosecution, the assailants surrounded the tractor and hurled bombs and made attack and in those circumstances it was difficult for the witnesses to identify the assailants of the deceased persons and the injured persons. All the leaders belonging to the opposite faction group were shown as accused. There was delay in registering the case. Even though P. W. 28 rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing the sound of bomb explosion, he did not immediately examine any one of the injured witnesses who were admittedly present there, which shows that the police waited till the arrival of the leaders of the group of the prosecution party and falsely implicated all the accused. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is wholly unreliable and untrustworthy because of faction rivalry. As per the admission made by witnesses, A2 to a12 are important members of A1 group. Omission to mention the names of all the accused by P. W. I in Ex. P1 would go to show that he did not identify all the accused. Though by the time of giving Ex. Pl only one person died, it was mentioned in it that two persons had died in the attack. This makes it clear that due to darkness, nobody knew as to what had actually happened. There was no mention in Ex. Pl about the existence of any lights or that some of the witnesses had torchlights with them. The place of occurrence varied from witness to witness. The contradictory statements of witnesses cannot be relied upon, as they are all interested witnesses. Some of the documents do not reflect the existence of front or backlights to the tractor. The contradictions and omissions elicited from the witnesses would go to the root of the case. Therefore, it is highly undesirable to place implicit reliance upon the evidence of the witnesses though some of them are injured. None of the witnesses went to police station to lodge report or make an attempt to give report to P. W. 28 till the statement of P. W. 1 was recorded by the Magistrate. This would also indicate that the witnesses themselves do not know the assailants. None of the witnesses went to police station to lodge report or make an attempt to give report to P. W. 28 till the statement of P. W. 1 was recorded by the Magistrate. This would also indicate that the witnesses themselves do not know the assailants. At least the witnesses who sustained minor and simple injuries should have lodged report with police who were admittedly present at the scene of occurrence with regard to the attack made on them so that the earliest version of the incident would have known to the police. Some of the accused in Ex. Pl were not charge-sheeted. Except the names of Al to A12 and A15, names of the other accused were not found in Ex. Pl. The lower Court after appreciating the evidence on record acquitted the accused. This Court has to bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused as the trial Court acquitted them. The learned senior counsel for the accused prays to dismiss the appeal. ( 8 ) IN dealing with an appeal against acquittal, High Court has to bear in mind, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the accused, that the presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused. The fact that the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt must always be present in the mind of the High Court when it deals with the merits of the case. However circumspect and cautious the approach of the High court may be in dealing with such appeal, it undoubtedly is entitled to reach its own conclusion upon the evidence adduced by the Prosecution in respect of guilt or innocence of the accused. In a case like the present one, where there are factions, there is a tendency to include innocent with the guilt and it is extremely difficult for the court to guard against such danger. The only rule of safeguard against the risk of condemning the innocent with the guilt lies in insisting on acceptable evidence which in some measure implicates such accused and satisfies the conscience of the Court. ( 9 ) BEARING the aforesaid aspects in mind, we would now proceed to scrutinize the evidence on record with care and caution. ( 10 ) P. W. 29-CIRCLE Inspector-conducted inquest over the dead body of Singaiah in the presence of P. Ws. 22 and 23. ( 9 ) BEARING the aforesaid aspects in mind, we would now proceed to scrutinize the evidence on record with care and caution. ( 10 ) P. W. 29-CIRCLE Inspector-conducted inquest over the dead body of Singaiah in the presence of P. Ws. 22 and 23. Ex. P21 is the inquest report. The opinion of the mediators as to the cause of death of the deceased as incorporated in Ex. P21 was that the deceased died due to the multiple injuries sustained by him. P. W. 29 also conducted inquest over the dead body of chanchaiah in the presence of P. W. 24. Ex. P23 is the inquest report. The mediators opined that this deceased died due to the injuries received by him on his head. ( 11 ) P. W. 26 conducted autopsy over the dead body of Singaiah and noticed the following injuries. 1. A chap injury of 4 x 1 cm in size in the submandibular region. The wind pipe is completely cut. 2. A transverse chap injury of 5x1 cm size in front of the neck, at the level of the lower border of the thyroid cartilage which is completely cut and opening into the windpipe. 3. A chap injury of 3 x 1 x 1 cm size on the left side of the chin. 4. A stab injury near the left angle of the mouth 2x1 x2 cm deep. 5. Stab injury on the left side of the neck 2 x1x 3 cm deep on the left side of the neck. 6. Stab injury of 3 x 1x 4 cm deep 5 cm behind and lateral to injury number five. 7. A chap wound of 5 x 1 cm x bone deep in the left parietal region of the head. Echymois present. 8. Chap wound of 3 x 1 x bone deep in the centre of the forehead. 9. Blast injury on the right side of the face. Tissues are irregularly torn. Right eye completely injured. Maxilla and mandible on the right side are irregularly broken into pieces. 10. Stab injury of 3 x 1 x 5 cm deep in front of left shoulder. 11. Multiple blast injuries present on the right shoulder. 12. Multiple abrasions present over the bridge of the nose. 13. A lacerated wound of 4 x 1 x scalp deep in the posterior parietal region of the head. 14. 10. Stab injury of 3 x 1 x 5 cm deep in front of left shoulder. 11. Multiple blast injuries present on the right shoulder. 12. Multiple abrasions present over the bridge of the nose. 13. A lacerated wound of 4 x 1 x scalp deep in the posterior parietal region of the head. 14. A lacerated wound of 3 x 1/2 x 1 cm on the right parietal region of the head. 15. Small blast injuries on the right forearm. 16. Contusion in the back of left hand. Fracture proximal pharynx of left index present. ( 12 ) P. W. 26 issued post-mortem certificate which was marked as Ex. P24. He opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and that the deceased died due to the multiple injuries received by him within 12 to 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. ( 13 ) P. W. 26 also conducted autopsy over the dead body of Chenchaiah and found the following injuries. 1. A chap injury of 3 x 1cm x bone deep on the left posterior parietal region of the head. 2. A chap injury of 5 x 1 cm x bone deep on the left anterior parietal region. 3. A cut injury of 6 x cm x bone deep on the left parietal region of the head. 4. An oblique lacerated injury of 4 x 1 cm x bone deep on the centre of the parietal region of the head. 5. A stab injury of 3 x 1 cm x bone deep in the left occipital region of the head. ( 14 ) P. W. 26 issued post-mortem certificate which was marked as Ex. P25. He opined that the deceased died due to the head injury received by him within 12 to 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. The evidence of P. Ws. 29, 23, 24 and 26 coupled with the recitals in Exs. 21 and 23 to 25 remain uncontradicted in the cross-examination. Therefore, we hold that the Prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased persons was homicidal. ( 15 ) ON 17. 3. 1993 at about 2. 45 a. m. , p. W. 21 examined the witnesses who sustained injuries. A table showing the witnesses, the number and nature of injuries sustained by each of them, exhibit number of the wound certificates issued by PW21 is drawn below for the sake of easy reference. ( 15 ) ON 17. 3. 1993 at about 2. 45 a. m. , p. W. 21 examined the witnesses who sustained injuries. A table showing the witnesses, the number and nature of injuries sustained by each of them, exhibit number of the wound certificates issued by PW21 is drawn below for the sake of easy reference. Witness ( 21 ) THE main ground on which the trial Court found that the place of occurrence was changed is that P. Ws. 1 to 16 stated that the place of occurrence was donka and their evidence on this aspect contradicts the version of P. Ws. l, 22 and 29 and so there was considerable doubt whether the place of occurrence was donka or the place where the tractor stuck up and which was surrounded by bushes. The Trial Court observed that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 16 would clearly go to show that the place of occurrence was at Donka. But, none of those witnesses stated so. They only stated that when they reached donka the incident took place. It does not mean that the incident took place at donka. When they reached Donka, the assailants hurled bombs while the tractor was still in motion. Therefore, the tractor must have gone further from Donka and stopped there as it was stuck up in the mud. ( 22 ) THE Trial Court came to the conclusion that the first place of occurrence was the place where the dead body of singaiah was lying in the trolley in view of the recitals in Ex. P23 and it proceeded to conclude that the place where the trolley was stuck in the mud was the second place of occurrence. In either case, the fact remains that the incident took place near donka. ( 23 ) P. W. 29 seized bloodstained earth and controlled earth and the analyst found blood on the soil. The trial Court observed that the incriminating material were seized at a distance of 70 ft from the milestone K. M. 6/8 and thus the prosecution failed to prove the exact place of occurrence. We have gone through the record and we find that there is no discrepancy with regard to the place of occurrence as found by the trial Court. Donka is not faraway from the milestone K. M. 6/8. Simply because exs. We have gone through the record and we find that there is no discrepancy with regard to the place of occurrence as found by the trial Court. Donka is not faraway from the milestone K. M. 6/8. Simply because exs. PIS to P20 stated that the place of incident was near Thondepi, it does not mean that the incident took place at thondepi. It is specifically stated by P. Ws. 1 to 16 that when they reached near donka, the incident in question took place. Thondepi is located at a distance of 1 Km. from Donka. Furthermore, the place of occurrence was surrounded by bushes. As seen from the record, some Japan Babul trees were located on either side of the place of occurrence. According to some witnesses there were bushes. As seen from ex. P31-rough sketch-Donka was near the place of occurrence and the milestone k. M. 6/8 was located very near to Donka. From the milestone K. M. 6/8 to the place of occurrence and the place where the tractor was stuck up, the distance was 70 ft and some Babul trees were located on one side of the road. Donka was at a distance of 150 yards from the place where inquest over the dead body of Singaiah was held. So, after the bombs were hurled near donka, there was every possibility for the driver to proceed further and at that time the assailants might have attacked the deceased near the milestone K. M. 6/8. After the tractor stuck up in the mud and the trailer remained on the road, all the assailants surrounded the trailer and attacked p. Ws. 1 to 10 and others and both the deceased. So the finding of the lower Court that the Prosecution failed to prove the place of incident in question cannot be said to be proper appreciation of the evidence. P. Ws. 1 to 16 categorically stated that the offence took place when they reached donka and it was not possible for them to verbalize the spot precisely and that was the reason why the witnesses stated that when they reached near Donka the incident took place. Therefore, there is absolutely no contradiction with regard to the place of occurrence. After going through the record, we are of the opinion that the incident took place near Donka at a distance of 70 ft. from the milestone k. M. 6/8. Therefore, there is absolutely no contradiction with regard to the place of occurrence. After going through the record, we are of the opinion that the incident took place near Donka at a distance of 70 ft. from the milestone k. M. 6/8. Accordingly the finding of the lower Court on the aspect of the place of occurrence is set aside. ( 24 ) ONE of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the accused is that there was no need for the Prosecution witnesses to wait till midnight in the hospital at Sattenapally as the condition of P. W. 19 was not serious enough and their assertion that they stayed till midnight at the hospital creates any amount of doubt with regard to the actual time of the incident. ( 25 ) ACCORDING to the Prosecution P. W. 19 sustained injuries and was admitted in the hospital at Sattenapally as some of the accused in this case beat him. P. W. 1 admitted in cross-examination that it was at about 6 pm on 16. 3. 1993 P. W. 19 was admitted in the hospital at Sattenapally. He along with 30 others from his village accompanied P. W. 19 and all of them stayed in the hospital for more than four hours. He stated that the police asked them to accompany P. W. 19 to Sattenapalli. According to P. W. 2, the villagers and police brought P. W. 19 to his house. While returning from the field, he saw people gathered at the house of P. W. 19. P. W. 19 was taken to hospital in a tractor-trailer. He along with others accompanied P. W. 19. According to this witness, they stayed till 12 midnight in the hospital at Sattenapally. ( 26 ) P. W. 3 was the Head Constable, Muppalla Police Station at the relevant time. On 16. 3. 1993 he was on Bandobust duty at thondepi village. When he came to know about the attack being made on p. W. 19, he along with his staff rescued him. He took P. W. 19 to Sattenapally hospital in a tractor-trailer. About 25 to 30 supporters of P. W. 19 accompanied P. W. 19 in the trailer. P. W. 3 stated that in, the midnight they left for Thondepi. When he came to know about the attack being made on p. W. 19, he along with his staff rescued him. He took P. W. 19 to Sattenapally hospital in a tractor-trailer. About 25 to 30 supporters of P. W. 19 accompanied P. W. 19 in the trailer. P. W. 3 stated that in, the midnight they left for Thondepi. Though this witness admitted in the cross-examination that the condition of P. W. 19 was not critical when they admitted PW19 in the hospital, he gave a convicing explanation for their staying up to midnight at the hospital saying that the Doctor at Sattenapally hospital asked him to wait at the hospital as P. W. 19 might have to be shifted to Government general Hospital, Guntur, if his condition deteriorated. At about 11. 30 pm, the Doctor informed P. W. 3 that there was no danger to the life of P. W. 19. Therefore, he along with the prosecution witnesses, left for thondepi at about 11. 30 pm or 12 midnight. P. W. 4 was the Police Constable, Muppalla police Station. He stated that after admitting p. W. 19 at Sattenapally Hospital, they left for Thondepi at about 12 midnight. P. Ws. 5 to 16 also accompanied P. W. 19 to sattenapally. Their evidence is almost consistent with regard to the time at which they left Sattenapally in the same tractor in which P. W. 19 was taken to Sattenapally. The time which all those witnesses stated they left at was 11. 30 pm or 12 midnight. P. W. 3 convincingly explained the reason for starting at that time. No specific suggestion was given to some of the witnesses that they did not accompany P. W. 19 to the hospital at Sattenapally or that they did not start at 11. 30 pm or 12 midnight from sattenapally. Just because these witnesses waited till 11. 30 pm or 12 midnight at sattenapally, it does not mean that they needlessly and deliberately waited there till midnight. When the Doctor ruled out at 11. 30 pm the necessity to shift P. W. 19 to guntur Government Hospital, they started from Sattenapally at about 12 midnight. Even assuming for a moment that PWs. 1, 2 and 5 to 16 are interested witnesses, still there is evidence of PWs. When the Doctor ruled out at 11. 30 pm the necessity to shift P. W. 19 to guntur Government Hospital, they started from Sattenapally at about 12 midnight. Even assuming for a moment that PWs. 1, 2 and 5 to 16 are interested witnesses, still there is evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 who are disinterested witnesses and who have nothing to do with the rival groups. Furthermore, P. W. 4 stated that police were not biased in favour either of the two groups and the accused group had no grievance against the police party. Therefore, P. Ws. 3 and 4 do not appear to have any reason to speak false on this aspect. It is relevant to note that even the accused did not dispute the fact that P. W. 19 was taken to the hospital at Sattenapally, but they say that he was taken in an RTC Bus but not in the tractor. From the above evidence it can be said that P. Ws. l to 16 went to sattenapally in the evening on 16. 3. 1993 and stayed there till 11. 30 p. m. , or 12 midnight. ( 27 ) THE incident in question took place at about 12. 30 or 1 am on 17. 3. 2003. Ten persons sustained injuries and some of them sustained even grievous injuries. Immediately after the incident, some of the injured were taken in a tractor procured by pw28-S. I. of police to Sattenpally Hospital. PW21- the Civil Assistant Surgeon, government Hospital, Sattenapally, first treated P. W. 1 at 2. 45 am on 17. 3. 2003. He gave treatment for the other injured. The last person he examined was P. W. 10 and it was at about 5. 50 am. P. W. 21 sent a requisition-Ex. P28 to the Additional Munsif magistrate, Sattenapally, in pursuance of which the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of P. W. 1 at about 3. 10 pm at the hospital which was the basis for commencement of investigation. It was marked as Ex. P1. In Ex. P1, the names of a1 to 8, A10 to A12 were mentioned as assailants and specific overt acts were attributed against A3, A. 4, A8, A2 and A15. The time of offence was mentioned as on 17. 3. 1993. It also shows that 20 persons accompanied P. W. 19 to Sattenapally hospital on 16. 3. 1993 evening. P1. In Ex. P1, the names of a1 to 8, A10 to A12 were mentioned as assailants and specific overt acts were attributed against A3, A. 4, A8, A2 and A15. The time of offence was mentioned as on 17. 3. 1993. It also shows that 20 persons accompanied P. W. 19 to Sattenapally hospital on 16. 3. 1993 evening. While they were returning to their village at about I am, near Donka 30 persons came from either side of the road and hurled bombs. Some persons jumped from the trailer and some others remained therein. Thereafter, the persons named in the F. I. R. and others beat them. ( 28 ) ACCORDING to the learned senior Counsel for the accused, Al to A10, who were named in the F. I. R. , were admittedly the important members of the group of the accused and so they were falsely implicated. It is also contended that the incident might have taken place at 8 or 9pm on 16. 3. 1993 but after consulting elders of the prosecution group and after due deliberations, Ex. P1 was brought into existence. ( 29 ) THIS contention would have been acceptable had none of the prosecution sustained injuries. Immediately after the incident, some of the injured were shifted to the hospital. Even if some of the elders advised the injured to wait till they completed deliberations, the injured would not have been in a position to tolerate the pain they were to suffer on account of the nature of injuries sustained by them. As already stated above, some sustained head injuries, some stab injuries, some contusions, some fractures. Therefore, such contention is devoid of merit and only untenable in the circumstances of the case. ( 30 ) IT is not suggested to P. W. 21 that though all the injured witnesses were brought to the hospital about 9 or 10 pm on 16. 3. 1993 but he delayed treatment till the arrival of the leaders of the prosecution witnesses. It was only suggested to him that the injured were brought to the hospital before 12 midnight on 16. 3. 1993, but to oblige the police he put the date in Ex. P18-requisition to the Magistrate-as 17. 3. 1993. No doubt, the date in Ex. P1 8 was corrected as 17. 3. 1993. It was only suggested to him that the injured were brought to the hospital before 12 midnight on 16. 3. 1993, but to oblige the police he put the date in Ex. P18-requisition to the Magistrate-as 17. 3. 1993. No doubt, the date in Ex. P1 8 was corrected as 17. 3. 1993. But, one cannot overlook the fact that it is the human tendency that when a person is to mention the date of a particular day in the late hours of midnight, there is every possibility to put the date of the previous day inadvertently. The incident took place on the intervening night of 16/17. 3. 2003 and therefore there was every possibility for P. W. 21 mentioning the date as 16. 3. 1993 initially instead of 17. 3. 1993 by mistake or due to confusion or inadvertence and later put the correct date. Added to that, he must have been under tremendous pressure as he was all alone to treat ten injured persons. So, merely on the ground that the date in Ex. P18 was corrected it cannot be said all the injured were taken to the hospital before 12 midnight on 16. 3. 1993. There is no reason for P. W. 21 to oblige the police or any of the prosecution witnesses. Even after lengthy cross- examination nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of P. W. 21. Therefore, from his evidence it can be said that all the injured were taken to the hospital at 2. 45 am on 17. 3. 1993. ( 31 ) IT is vehemently argued by the learned senior Counsel for the accused that only because Ex. P1 was brought into existence after due deliberations, there was delay in sending the report to the magistrate. The reason for his argument is that by the time Ex. P1 came into existence, only one person died but in Ex. P1 it was stated that two persons died at the spot. Only 30 persons were involved in the incident, whereas the Prosecution arrayed 50 persons as accused. The police did not record the statements of the injured witnesses till the arrival of the group leaders of the Prosecution party. ( 32 ) AS already stated, the statement of P. W. 1 was recorded by the Magistrate at 3. 20 am on 17. 3. 2003. The police did not record the statements of the injured witnesses till the arrival of the group leaders of the Prosecution party. ( 32 ) AS already stated, the statement of P. W. 1 was recorded by the Magistrate at 3. 20 am on 17. 3. 2003. When the magistrate himself recorded the statement of P. W. 1, there was no need to send Ex. P1 to the same Magistrate at once. On this aspect, the evidence of P. W. 4, who can be termed as disinterested witness, is very much relevant. P. W. 4 stated that he did not see any persons belonging to the group of the prosecution party at the hospital. There was also no possibility for the persons of prosecution group to tutor P. W. 1, because PW4 stated that PWs. 1, 2 and himself were in the same out-patient ward for half an hour and PW4 was asked to go out of the ward at the time of giving saline to P. W. 1. That means P. W. 4 was present beside P. W. 1 till 3. 15 pm. And it is at that time the learned Magistrate came to the hospital and recorded the statement of p. W. 1. This was elicited in the cross- examination of P. W. 4. It was suggested to p. W. 1 that some of the members of his group called on him and tutored to implicate a1 to A12. In view of the evidence of p. W. 4, this suggestion appears to be incorrect, because P. W. 4 did not find any of the important persons of prosecution group at the hospital. Therefore, the argument of the learned senior Counsel that ex. P1 was brought into existence after due deliberations cannot be accepted. Had it been so brought into existence, the names of all the accused with specific overt acts would have found place therein. Absence of these details in Ex. P1 would indicate that p. W. 1 made the true and correct statement voluntarily to the Magistrate and it was not a result of tutoring. What had happened at the scene of offence according to him was narrated by him to thelearned Magistrate. It was elicited in the cross-examination of p. W. I that before he was shifted to the hospital he had come to know that chanchaiah died. What had happened at the scene of offence according to him was narrated by him to thelearned Magistrate. It was elicited in the cross-examination of p. W. I that before he was shifted to the hospital he had come to know that chanchaiah died. He further stated that before his statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate, Chanchaiah died. This was also elicited in his cross- examination. Therefore, the argument of the learned senior Counsel on this point has no merit. So, we are of the opinion that Ex. P1 was not brought into existence after due consultations. ( 33 ) THE learned Sessions Judge observed that the failure on the part of the investigating agency to record the statements of the injured witnesses in spite of having an opportunity to do so was nothing but tainted investigation. ( 34 ) P. W. 28 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Muppala Police Station, at the relevant time. On 16. 3. 1993 P. W. 3 sent the statement of P. W. 19 to Muppala Police station. On the basis of it, he registered a case in Crime No. 5/1993. He was on bandobust duty along with his staff at tondepi on 16. 3. 1993. At about 1 am on 17. 3. 1993 he heard the sound of bomb blast and proceeded to the scene of offence along with his staff. He found the tractor-trailer turned turtle. There were hues and cries. One Constable and a Head Constable also sustained injuries. Thereafter he went to the village to shift the injured to hospital. He informed his superiors about the incident over telephone. He shifted some of the injured to Sattenapally Government Hospital in a tracer. The Inspector of Police-P. W. 29-reached the village at about 3 a. m. P. W. 28 assisted him. Thereafter, P. W. 28 received a copy of the F. I. R. from sattenapally police station and re-issued the f. I. R. as crime No. 6/1993. In the cross- examination he admitted that while he was on patrolling duty, he heard the bomb blast. He took six Constables along with him to the scene of offence and some villagers of Thondepi village also came there. After waiting for 10 minutes, he went to rudraram village and 15 minutes thereafter, he sent the injured to the Government hospital. He took six Constables along with him to the scene of offence and some villagers of Thondepi village also came there. After waiting for 10 minutes, he went to rudraram village and 15 minutes thereafter, he sent the injured to the Government hospital. According to him, he sent three injured persons including the Constable and Head Constable in the tractor. Even though some injured persons were present at the scene of offence, he did not record their statements. Admittedly this witness did not obtain any written complaint nor did he register any oral complaint from any of the persons found at the scene of offence. He also did not send any requisition to medical officer for treatment. He stated that he did not enquire with the Constable or Head Constable-P. Ws. 3 and 4 about the incident. ( 35 ) XAMINATION of either P. Ws. 3 or 4 or any one of the injured witnesses, if done, would have thrown light as to the earliest version of the incident. There are several possible reasons for not doing so. According to P. W. 1, within 15 or 20 minutes after the incident, police and some villagers of Thondapi came to the scene of offence. Probably P. W. 28 did not take any papers along with him to the scene of offence to write on, as he was on Bandobust duty at Thondapi village and had proceeded to the scene at offence immediately on hearing the sound of bomb blast. The learned Sessions Judge observed that omission to record the statements of the injured witnesses at the scene of offence itself was an important omission. But, as p. W. 28 reached the scene of offence, he found the injured persons with hue and cry, and so his first and the more important duty was to shift them to a hospital to be treated immediately so that the critically injured would survive. It was not expected of him at that juncture and in such situation to record the statements of the several injured persons first and then to send them to a hospital. He rightly went to the nearby village, brought a tractor/trailer and first shifted the injured to the hospital as quickly as possible so that their statements could be recorded later. The investigation would have been tainted had he done vice versa. He rightly went to the nearby village, brought a tractor/trailer and first shifted the injured to the hospital as quickly as possible so that their statements could be recorded later. The investigation would have been tainted had he done vice versa. It was a case where one person died on the spot and several other persons received injuries and some of them grievous. He reached the scene of offence by 1 am, informed his superiors, went to a nearby village, brought the tractor/trailer, and shifted the injured by 3 am by which time the inspector of Police took up investigation. He was thus busy and would have found no time to record the statements. Even if he had attempted to record the statements, the injured would not be in a position to give statements being in severe pain and trauma. Another reason for not recording the statements might be that he was aware that being only of the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police he could not conduct investigation in a grave offence like murder and was expecting the Inspector of Police to take up investigation as he had already informed his superiors over telephone about the incident. Owing to all or any of these reasons, P. W. 28 might not have recorded the statements of the injured witnesses. Even assuming for a moment that despite having an opportunity P. W. 28 did not record the statements, it is at best an irregular committed by P. W. 28. An irregularity committed during the course of investigation cannot be a ground to throw the entire prosecution case, if it is otherwise found reliable. ( 36 ) THE trial Court observed that the failure of P. W. 28 to record the statements of the witnesses and the delay in registering the case-Ex. P1-probabilise that the witnesses introduced coloured and exaggerated version with regard to the names of the accused, their overt acts, the weapons used by them and the identification of the accused. Had it been so, Ex. P1 would have contained the names of the accused with specific overt acts and the part played by each of the accused on both the deceased persons and the injured. But it does not contain the names of at least 35 accused persons. Thus it can be said that the non-recording of statements of the injured by P. W. 28 was not taken advantage of. But it does not contain the names of at least 35 accused persons. Thus it can be said that the non-recording of statements of the injured by P. W. 28 was not taken advantage of. ( 37 ) THE lower Court relied upon a decision in Marudanal Augusti v. State of kerala, (1980) 4 SCC 425 , wherein the apex Court held that unexplained delay in dispatch of F. I. R. . to Magistrates besides other infirmities would throw serious doubt on prosecution case. The ratio laid down therein has no application to the facts of the case, because in that case there was a delay of 28 hours in receipt of the F. I. R. by the Special Magistrate from the time of registration. In the instant case that question does not arise because on the requisition received from P. W. 21, the learned Additional munsif Magistrate proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of p. W. 1. When the concerned Magistrate himself recorded the statement, it cannot be said that there was a delay in submitting the report by the police. The incident had taken place at 1 am, whereas the statement of P. W. 1 was recorded by the learned magistrate at 3. 20 am. As seen from Ex. P26, the place of occurrence was located at a distance of 8 Kms. from Sattenapally police station and it would take about half an hour to 45 minutes to reach Sattenapally by tractor/trailer in the midnight. Therefore, there was no possibility that Ex. PI was brought into existence after due deliberation. Therefore the finding of the trial Court that p. W. 28 purposely omitted to record the statements of the injured is not correct and cannot be said to be fatal to the Prosecution case. ( 38 ) IT is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that when allegedly 50 persons made the attack in the midnight it is for the Prosecution to explain how could the witnesses identify the accused in the darkness. There was no convincing reason for identification of so many accused persons with specific overt acts. ( 39 ) P. W. 4 stated that he could identify A4, A7, A26 and A31 in the illumination of either the tractor lights or the torchlights. This part of his evidence has not been specifically challenged in cross-examination. There was no convincing reason for identification of so many accused persons with specific overt acts. ( 39 ) P. W. 4 stated that he could identify A4, A7, A26 and A31 in the illumination of either the tractor lights or the torchlights. This part of his evidence has not been specifically challenged in cross-examination. Therefore, it must be held that the tractor lights were burning at the relevant time. It was not suggested to this witness that the tractor lights were not burning at the time of incident. Had he stated that he could identify all the assailants in such illumination, it would have been a matter of suspicion about the veracity of this witness on this point, because no person could identify 50 persons in dark midnight in the illumination of tractor lights. ( 40 ) THE learned Sessions Judge found that the omissions elicited in the cross- examination of P. W. 4 created any amount of suspicion about his witnessing the incident and identifying the accused. Such finding is erroneous in our view. The statements of this witness that he admitted P. W. 19 in the hospital at Sattenapally, that he along with others waited there up to 12 midnight, that they then started for Thondapi, and that the attack took place near Donka, have not been specifically denied or disputed in the cross-examination. It was merely suggested to him that he did not notice the manner of attack and could not identify the assailants of, or the weapons used in, the attack. Therefore, the presence of P. W. 4 at the time of incident has been established beyond reasonable doubt, as spoken to by other witnesses as well. ( 41 ) P. W. 7 stated that with the focus of torchlight, which he purchased on the date of incident at Sattenapally, he identified a18 to A20, A14 to A16, A3, A1 and A6. P. W. 9 stated that with the focus of torchlight which he purchased on the date of incident at Sattenapally, he identified A3, a8, A10, A11, A13, A36, A12, A37, A40, a35, A38 and A39. The main ground for disbelieving these witnesses by the trial court is the omissions-Exs. D20 and D23. The omissions in Exs. D20 and D23 are that these witnesses stated in their 161 cr. The main ground for disbelieving these witnesses by the trial court is the omissions-Exs. D20 and D23. The omissions in Exs. D20 and D23 are that these witnesses stated in their 161 cr. P. C. statements that they carried along with them one torchlight each to Sattenapally, whereas in the Court they stated that they purchased the torchlights at Sattenapally on the date of incident. The incident in question took place on 16/17. 3. 1993 and these witnesses gave evidence in the Court on 1/2. 9. 1998. Owing to this huge gap of more than five and half years, they might have committed this error. Nonetheless the fact remains that they did possess torchlights at the time of incident and they could identify some of the accused in the focus of the torchlights. It was suggested to these witnesses that they had gone to Sattenapally on personal work and after witnessing a late-show movie, they boarded the condemned tractor on seeing some of their village people and on the way they sustained injuries at the hands of some unknown assailants. This suggestion shows that the fact that these witnesses travelled in the tractor and were injured in an attack was not sought to be seriously disputed or denied. Therefore, in our view, Exs. D20 and D23-contradictions cannot go to the root of the case. It is apposite to note that p. W. 29-Inspector of Police seized four torchlights from the scene of occurrence, as evidenced by Ex. P22-observation report. Though P. W. 9 stated that the torchlight he was in possession of was seized by the police at the hospital, it is only a minor contradiction, with regard to the actual place of seizure of the torchlight, that took place due to lapse of time. ( 42 ) ANOTHER witness who stated that he saw some of the accused in. the illumination of backlights of the tractor is p. W. 11. He saw A34, A36, A20, A42, a40, A44, A47, A50 and A 18 making the attack. In the cross-examination of this witness it was elicited that the front and backlights of the tractor were burning at the time of the incident. He also deposed that he had stated so before the police also. Though his presence at the time of incident was denied, other witnesses spoke about his presence. In the cross-examination of this witness it was elicited that the front and backlights of the tractor were burning at the time of the incident. He also deposed that he had stated so before the police also. Though his presence at the time of incident was denied, other witnesses spoke about his presence. The lower Court disbelieved the evidence of this witness on this aspect on the ground that his evidence was not supported by Exs. P2 and P2a- photographs-as the photographs did not depict backlights of the tractor. Sometimes photographs portray differently from the actual visuals/images, because of the angle at, the distance from, and the intensity of the flash with, which the photographs are taken. It also depends on the purpose for which photographs are to be taken. Probably lights of the tractor were not intended to be photographed predominantly. P. W. 20-the photographer was the best person to clarify any ambiguity in this respect. But he was not cross-examined on this point at all. Therefore, we are of the view that the evidence of P. W. 11 and other witnesses as discussed above establishes that the tractor had lights and the lights were burning at the time of incident. ( 43 ) P. W. 14 stated that some persons focused torchlights and With that focus he identified some of the accused. But the trial Court disbelieved the evidence of this witness on the basis of recitals in the inquest report. That is not correct. Because the recitals in inquest report cannot be used for the purpose of cross-examination or contradiction. The physical observations of the body of the deceased and objective findings at the scene of occurrence only are relevant. ( 44 ) THE trial Court disbelieved the evidence on the aspect of existence of lights on the ground that there was no mention either in the F. I. R. or in the observation report or in the inquest reports. P. W. I sustained severe injuries. It was therefore not expected of him to narrate all minute details in the F. I. R. One cannot ignore the fact that a vehicle cannot be driven in the midnight without lights. Non-mention of the existence of lights in the observation report, or failure on the part of the mediators to mention that fact cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution version. Similar is the case with inquest report. Non-mention of the existence of lights in the observation report, or failure on the part of the mediators to mention that fact cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution version. Similar is the case with inquest report. In fact, inquest report need not contain such details. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that even a person familiar with a route requires lighting to travel the distance of 7 kms. from one place to another in a tractor in the midnight. ( 45 ) IT may be difficult to identify, and later recognize, unknown persons in the illumination of tractor lights in the dark night. But the Prosecution witnesses specifically stated that they knew the accused well as they belonged to the opposite group. Merely because the source of light has not been mentioned in the F. I. R. , inquest report, or observation report, their evidence cannot be disbelieved on that ground. If the Prosecution witnesses had really not been able to see the attack in the lighting, it would not have been possible for p. W. 1 to name some of the accused in his statement recorded by the learned Magistrate within two hours after the incident. In view of the above discussion, we are unable to accept the reasoning given by the lower court on this aspect, and it can be said that the Prosecution witnesses could and did identify their assailants. ( 46 ) THE learned Sessions Judge observed that the omissions and contradictions-Exs. D1 to D51 elicited in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 16 make the prosecution case doubtful with regard to the involvement of the accused and the occurrence of the incident at I am on 17. 3. 1993. The omissions and contradictions are with regard to the factions in the village, some of prosecution witnesses being the followers of Venkaiah 's group, focusing of torchlights, opponent group attacking the prosecution party, weapons used in the commission of offence, hurling of bombs, carrying of torchlights by some witnesses. etc. We have already referred above to some of the contradictions/omissions and explained how they do not go to the root of the case. As regards the other contradictions/ omissions, we are of the opinion that they are bound to be present in the evidence of witnesses who depose after a gap of 5 1/2 years after the incident. etc. We have already referred above to some of the contradictions/omissions and explained how they do not go to the root of the case. As regards the other contradictions/ omissions, we are of the opinion that they are bound to be present in the evidence of witnesses who depose after a gap of 5 1/2 years after the incident. It is common experience that such kinds of omissions are invariably found even in the case of wholly truthful witnesses when they are to depose after lapse of 5 years. The capacity of human brain to retain minute details of an occurrence varies from man to man. The omissions /contradictions are very innocuous and do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. If a witness gives in Court his version of the incident which is not materially different from or discrepant with what he has stated before the police, it is an error to brush aside as being unimportant. But, a material contradiction merits careful consideration in determining whether the witness is truthful or reliance can be placed on his evidence. The omissions/contradictions with regard to the non-mentioning the names of the accused in the participation of the crime has to be taken into consideration, while some minor or inconsequential discrepancies which do not go to the root of the case have to be ignored. ( 47 ) P. W. 1 named A1 to A8 and A10 to A12 in the F. I. R. and attributed specific overt acts to A3, A4, A8, A15 and A21. The names of the remaining accused or the specific overt acts committed by them were not mentioned in it. But, it was specifically stated that 30 other persons along with the named accused made the attack. Had P. W. 1 given the names of all the 50 accused with specific overt acts committed by them, then it would be a highly suspicious document, because it is not possible for a person to identify 50 persons with specific overt acts committed by each of them, when the entire incident lasts in 10 minutes. ( 48 ) P. WS. 7 stated that A18 to A20 hurled bombs. P. W. 12 stated that A36, A37 and A40 hurled bombs. P. W. 14 stated that A18, A19, A31, A34, A37, A40, A42, a44, A47 and A50 hurled bombs. ( 48 ) P. WS. 7 stated that A18 to A20 hurled bombs. P. W. 12 stated that A36, A37 and A40 hurled bombs. P. W. 14 stated that A18, A19, A31, A34, A37, A40, A42, a44, A47 and A50 hurled bombs. P. W. 15 stated that A18 to A20 and A3 7 hurled bombs. P. W. 16 stated that A18, A20, A37, a42 and A44 hurled bombs. Ex. P35 analyst report-shows that the remnants of the bombs sent for analysis contained potassium, Chlorate, Chloride, Arsenic, sulphide and Sulphate. But, no charge was framed under Section 3 or 5 of the Explosive substance Act. In the absence of any charge, those accused cannot be convicted for possession of and/or causing explosion of bombs. ( 49 ) THE Prosecution relied upon the seizure of weapons used in the commission of the offence. P. W. 29 the Inspector of police stated that he seized axes from the possession of A4, A5, A8, A27, A35, A39 and A47, iron rods from the possession of a24, A25 and A31, and spear from the possession of A13, when he arrested them on 31. 3. 1993. Similarly he stated that the seized axes from the possession of A2, A7, a16 and A3 8, and iron rods from the possession of A12 and A28 when he arrested them on 17. 4. 1993. The incident took place on 16/17. 3. 1993. It is highly incredible that those accused had been carrying with them those bloodstained weapons for fifteen days or one month, as the case may be. Therefore, we are not inclined to believe the seizure of weapons allegedly made by the police. ( 50 ) WE shall now proceed to discuss whether the accused persons had common intention so as to find out whether Section 149 IPC is attracted in this case or not. ( 51 ) SECTION 149 IPC is in the nature of collective liability for acts done by others even though the accused may not have himself contributed physically. It fixes vicarious liability of the members of an unlawful assembly for the acts done in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. In fastening criminal liability, the importance of common object should not be lost sight of. The words "in prosecution of common object" must be strictly construed and the offence committed must have a nexus with the common object. In fastening criminal liability, the importance of common object should not be lost sight of. The words "in prosecution of common object" must be strictly construed and the offence committed must have a nexus with the common object. The offence committed must be the manifestation of the common object. Only such of the members of the common assembly who were members at the time of commission of the offence that are made constructively liable under Section 149 IPC. In order to bring application of Section 149 IPC, the following ingredients have to be satisfied. (1) There was unlawful assembly as contemplated by Section 141 IPC. (2) The accused was a member of unlawful assembly. (3) He had intentionally joined or continued in that unlawful assembly. (4) He knew of the common object of the unlawful assembly. (5) An offence was committed by a member of the assembly. (6) Such offence was committed in the prosecution of the common object of the assembly, or (7) As the members of the assembly knew that such offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object. ( 52 ) ON account of the large number of assailants and the victims involved in this case, it would be a prudent exercise to follow the ratio laid down by the Supreme court in Masalti v. State of U. P. , AIR 1965 sc 202 , which was reiterated by the supreme Court in later decisions including binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1997) 1 SCC 283 . We extract the relevant portion. "where the criminal Court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving large number of offenders and large number of victims it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. " ( 53 ) THE first charge against A1 to A50 is under Section 148 IPC. An unlawful assembly does not require prior concert or meeting of minds. It may develop on the spur of moment. But they must know that an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. All the accused who were identified by the witnesses were armed with deadly weapons. The incident took place about 1 km. from thondepi village. It may develop on the spur of moment. But they must know that an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. All the accused who were identified by the witnesses were armed with deadly weapons. The incident took place about 1 km. from thondepi village. It was not a chance meeting of the accused. They were armed with deadly weapons at the odd hours waiting for an opportunity to attack the witnesses. All the accused attacked the witnesses and the deceased with spears, axes, sickles etc. From these facts, that all the identified accused had common object can be inferred. Therefore, we hold that the Prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under Section 148 IPC against the accused persons who are identified by two or more witnesses. ( 54 ) COMING to the second charge, it was originally framed against A1 to A17, a21 to A33, A35, A38, A39, A43, A45, a46, A48 and A49 under Section 302 IPC for causing the deaths of Singaiah and chenchaiah, but later it was split up into three charges as charges 2a, 2b and 2c. ( 55 ) CHARGE No. 2a was framed against Al, A3, A4, Al 1, A 14 to A 18 for causing the death of Singaiah. P. Ws. 1, 2, 7, 14 and 16 stated that Al axed on the head of this deceased person. P. Ws. 1, 7, 8 and 14 stated that A3 axed on the throat. P. Ws. l,4, 14 and 15 stated that A4 axed on the head. P. Ws. 9 and 14 stated that All caused an injury on the throat. P. Ws. l, 2, 7 and 14 stated that A14 axed on the head. PWs. 1, 7, 9 and 14 stated that A15 axed on the head. P. Ws. 2, 5, 7 and 14 stated that A16 axed on the head. P. W -. 14 alone stated that A17 speared on the head. P. W. 16 alone stated that A 18 hurled a bomb on the head. But it is a total omission. Though p. W. 13 stated that A36, A42, A44 beat singaiah with axe on head, it is an omission and no charge was framed against them. P. W -. 14 alone stated that A17 speared on the head. P. W. 16 alone stated that A 18 hurled a bomb on the head. But it is a total omission. Though p. W. 13 stated that A36, A42, A44 beat singaiah with axe on head, it is an omission and no charge was framed against them. ( 56 ) THEREFORE, we hold that Al, A3, A4, All, A14, A15 and A16 are liable for punishment for causing the death of singaiah. We convict them under Section 302 IPC. ( 57 ) CHARGE 2b was under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC against A21, a22, A24, A25 and A29 for causing the death of Chenchaiah. Though P. W. 10 stated that A2 beat Chenchaiah, there was no charge. P. Ws. 14 and 16 respectively stated that A21 beat with iron rod on chest and head. P. Ws. 8, 10, 14 and 16 stated that A24 beat on the head with iron rod. Though P. Ws. 8 and 14 omitted to state before the police that A24 caused injury on the head, considering the evidence of the other witnesses, we hold that this omission as regards the part of the body is insignificant. P. Ws. 8, 14 and 16 stated that a25 beat on the head with iron rod. Though p. Ws. 8 and 14 omitted to specifically state that A25 beat the deceased on the head, considering the evidence of the other witness, we hold that this omission to state the exact part of the body is insignificant. P. Ws. 14 and 16 stated that A29 beat on the head with spear. The Doctor noticed corresponding injuries on the body of chenchaiah. ( 58 ) THEREFORE, we hold that A21, A24, A25 and A29 are guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC simplicitor for causing the death of Chenchaiah and convict them accordingly. ( 59 ) CHARGE 2c was under Section 302 IPC against A23 and A27 for causing the death of Chenchaiah, P. Ws. 14 and 16 respectively stated that A23 caused injuries on the throat and head. P. Ws. 8, 10, 14 to 16 stated that A27 axed this deceased person on his head. The medical evidence is consistent with the injuries caused by these accused. 14 and 16 respectively stated that A23 caused injuries on the throat and head. P. Ws. 8, 10, 14 to 16 stated that A27 axed this deceased person on his head. The medical evidence is consistent with the injuries caused by these accused. Though one witness stated that a23 caused injury on the throat, considering the evidence of the other witnesses, that discrepancy is not of much significance. ( 60 ) THEREFORE, we hold that A23 and A27 are guilty of the offence under section 302 I PC for causing the death of chenchaiah and accordingly we convict them. ( 61 ) THIRD charge was under Section 302 read with Sections 149 IPC against A18 to A20, A34 to A37, A40 to a42, A44, A47 and A50. None of the witnesses stated that these accused caused injuries to any one of the deceased persons or that they shared common object to kill the deceased persons. Further, both the deceased were not figured as witnesses or accused in case and counter cases of both groups. ( 62 ) THEREFORE, we hold that the third charge fails as it has not been proved by the Prosecution. ( 63 ) FOURTH charge was under Section 326 IPC against A2 to A9, A12, A15, A26, a28 and A22 for causing injuries to P. W. 1. P. Ws. 1 and 8 stated that A3 to A5 caused injuries to P. W. 1 while P. Ws. l and 14 stated that A26 caused injuries to P. W. I. The injuries caused by these accused persons are found to be simple and thus are punishable under Section 324 IPC. ( 64 ) THEREFORE, we hold that A3 to A5 and A26 are guilty of the offence under section 324 IPC and accordingly we convict them. ( 65 ) AS regards Charge No. 5, it was framed against A1, A25, A32, A33, A38, a39 and A43 under Section 326 IPC for causing injuries to P. W. 2. P. Ws. 2 and 16 stated that A25 caused injury to P. W. 2. This injury is found to be simple. P. Ws. 2, 6 and 9 stated that A39 caused injury to p. W. 2. This injury is found to be grievous. P. Ws. 2, and 9 stated, that A3 8 caused injury to P. W. 2. This injury is also found to be grievous. This injury is found to be simple. P. Ws. 2, 6 and 9 stated that A39 caused injury to p. W. 2. This injury is found to be grievous. P. Ws. 2, and 9 stated, that A3 8 caused injury to P. W. 2. This injury is also found to be grievous. ( 66 ) THEREFORE, we hold that A25 is guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 IPC and A38 and A39 under section 326 IPC and accordingly we convict them. ( 67 ) CHARGE No. 6 was under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC against Al to A8, A10, A31, and A33 to A50 for attempt to commit murder of P. W. I. No witness spoke about the presence of A10, a31, A33 and A50. We have already convicted A3 to A5 and A26 under section 324 IPC for causing injuries to p. W. I. The remaining accused did not cause injuries to PW1 and it is not in the evidence that they shared the common object to kill P. W. 1 or at the time of incident, they all surrounded P. W. 1. ( 68 ) THE Prosecution is unable to establish this charge and therefore this charge fails. ( 69 ) CHARGE No. 7 was under Section 307 IPC against A7 for attempting to murder p. W. 3. P. W. 3 stated that A7 beat him on his head with an axe. A7 caused only one injury to P. W. 3. He did not repeat the blows. The injury is found to be simple. However, there is no other witness spoke about this attack. Therefore, applying the principle laid down in Maslti (supra) we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to A7. ( 70 ) THEREFORE, we hold that this charge has not been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. Hence, the charge fails. ( 71 ) THE last charge No. 8 was under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC against Al to A8, A10 to A31, and A33 to a50 for causing injuries to P. W. 2. P. Ws. 2 and 16 stated that A25 caused injuries to p. W. 2. P. Ws. 2 and 9 stated that A3 8 caused injuries to P. W. 2. P. Ws. 2, 6 and 9 stated that A39 caused injuries to P. W. 2. P. Ws. 2 and 16 stated that A25 caused injuries to p. W. 2. P. Ws. 2 and 9 stated that A3 8 caused injuries to P. W. 2. P. Ws. 2, 6 and 9 stated that A39 caused injuries to P. W. 2. As we have stated above, the injuries caused by A38 and A39 to P. W. 2 are grievous and the injury caused by A25 is simple, and we have convicted A3 8 and a39 under Section 326 IPC and A25 under section 324 IPC for causing injuries to p. W. 2. Therefore, they need not again be convicted for the same offence. ( 72 ) THUS, we hold that this charge has not been proved by the Prosecution. ( 73 ) WE would like to reiterate at the cost of repetition that applying the principle laid down Masalati 's case (supra) we have convicted only those accused and for those charges where there is consistent evidence of two or more witnesses against such accused and for such charges. ( 74 ) IN the result, we pass the following judgment. A1, A3, A4, A11, A14, A15 and a16 are convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. A21, A24, A25 and A29 are convicted for offence under section 302 IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. A23 and A27 are convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. A3, A4, a5 and A26 are convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. A38 and A39 are convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. A25 is convicted for the offence under Section 324 ipc and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. A38 and A39 are convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. A25 is convicted for the offence under Section 324 ipc and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. A25, A38 and a39 are convicted for the offence under section 324 read with Section 149 IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the above accused are, in addition to the above conviction and sentence, convicted for the offence under Section 148 IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The accused now convicted shall surrender themselves forthwith to serve the sentence. The judgment of the Trial Court is modified accordingly and the Reddy