G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned III Addl. Sessions judge, Kurnool in S. C. No. 76 of 1998, dated 31-7-2002 by which 34 accused out of 46 were convicted and sentenced. The present appeals are filed by the 34 accused/ appellants. ( 2 ) ORIGINALLY 47 accused were put on trial for various offences. However, it was found that A-42 and A-36 are one and the same person, therefore, A-42 was deleted and a-36 was retained. Thus, in all 46 accused were tried for the offences under Section 302 and 149 IPC and Section 3 and 5 of Explosive substances Act for causing the death of four persons namely Shivaram Reddy (D-1), ayyapu Reddy (D-2), Rami Reddy (D-3) and kambagiri Ramudu (D-4) of Chindukur village. However, A-1 to A-5, A-8, A-24 and a-43 to A-47 were acquitted. ( 3 ) THE accused were convicted and sentenced as follows: a-6, A-7, A-9 to A-23 and A-25 to A-41 were convicted for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years. A-6, A-7, A-9, A-11 to A-14 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Ayyapu Reddy and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each in default to suffer simple Imprisonment for one year. A-10, A-15 to A-23, A-25 to A-41 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 ipc read with Section 149 IPC for the murder of Ayyapu Reddy and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of rs. 200/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. A-7 was convicted for the murder of shivaram Reddy, for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of rs. 200/- in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for one year. A-6, A-9 to A-23, A-25 to A-41 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murder of shivaram Reddy and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of rs. 200/- each in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for one year. A-6, A-9 to A-23, A-25 to A-41 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murder of shivaram Reddy and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of rs. 200/- each in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for one year. A-10, A-15 to A-23, A-25 to A-37 were convicted for the murder of Rami Reddy for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one year. A-6, A-7, A-9, A-11 to A-14 and A-38 to a-41 were convicted for the offence under section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murder of Rami Reddy and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer simple Imprisonment for one year. A-13 was convicted for the murder of golla Kambagiri Ramudu for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer simple Imprisonment for one year. A-6, A-7, A-9 to A-12, A-14 to A-23 and a-25 to A-41 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murder of K. Ramudu and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each in default to suffer simple Imprisonment for one year. A-6, A-7, A-9, A-11 to A-14 and A-38 to a-41 were convicted for the offence under section 5 of Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years and also to pay a fine of rs. 100/- in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for six months. A-6, A-7, A-9 to A-11 were convicted for the offence under Section 3 of Explosive substances Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default suffer simple Imprisonment for six months. ( 4 ) THE substance of the charge against the accused that on 30-10-1994 accused armed with bombs, spears and other deadly weapons attacked the deceased and others killed D-1 Shivaram Reddy, D-2 Ayyapu reddy, D-3 Rami Reddy and D-4 Kambagir ramudu and caused injuries to others. 100/- in default suffer simple Imprisonment for six months. ( 4 ) THE substance of the charge against the accused that on 30-10-1994 accused armed with bombs, spears and other deadly weapons attacked the deceased and others killed D-1 Shivaram Reddy, D-2 Ayyapu reddy, D-3 Rami Reddy and D-4 Kambagir ramudu and caused injuries to others. ( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution as unfolded during the trial is as follows: all the Accused A-1 to A-47 and four deceased and P. Ws. 1 to 14 belong to chindukur village within the jurisdiction of gadivemula Police Station of Kurnool District. There are strong factions between two groups. Accused group was led by venkateshwar Reddy (husband of A-1) and his younger brother of A-46. The other group was led by Shivaram Reddy (deceased no. 1 ). In the year 1992, Venkateshwar Reddy was murdered in Gadivemula village. A case was registered in Crime No. 16 of 1992 of gadivemula Police station. As soon as the news of the murder of Venkateshwar Reddy indulged in rioting and arson which resulted in death of 4 persons of a group of Shivaram reddy (D-1 ). After the death of Venkateshwar reddy, his widow Anasuyamma (A-1) became the leader of the group and A-2 to a-47 were alleged to be her followers. On 11-4-1994 the Gadivemula police booked a case under Section 5 of Explosive Substances act against D-1 Shivaram Reddy, as well as a-5 Satyanarayana Reddy of A-1 s group in crime No. 92 of 1994 and in Crime No. 93 of 1994. Later both of them were released on conditional bail to attend Gadivemula police station on every Sunday between 6. 00 a. m. and 10. 00 a. m. It is alleged that A-1 anasuyamma was waiting for an opportunity to wreck the revenge for murder of her husband and watching the movements of d-1 and his group. On account of the serious factions in the village, police bandobust was also arranged in the village Chindukur. P. W. 4 and one Gopal Rao were posted on bandobust duty. On account of the serious factions in the village, police bandobust was also arranged in the village Chindukur. P. W. 4 and one Gopal Rao were posted on bandobust duty. ( 6 ) WHILE so, on crucial date 30-10-1994, d-1 Shivaram Reddy, along with hisfollowers, d-2 Ayyapu Reddy, D-3 Rami Reddy, D-4 kambagiri Ramudu, Janardhan Reddy (P. W. 7), Y. Ayyalanna (P. W. 1), Balaraju (P. W. 6), Subrahmanayam (not examined), maddileti Reddy (not examined), Sunkaraju (not examined) along with the escort police, p. W. 4 and Gopal Rao started from the residence of Shivaram Reddy (D-1) at 9 a. m. in a Commander jeep bearing No. AP 21 E 2535 in order to go to Gadivemula police station for the purpose of marking the attendance of Shivaram Reddy. The jeep has to necessarily pass through in front of a-1 s house. The accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with common object to murder the D-1 and his followers. As the jeep was nearing A-1 s house. A-2, A-3, A-4 placed a bullock cart across the road a few yards away from the house of A-1 so as not to allow the vehicle to move further. As soon as they placed bullock cart across the road, a-1 got up on the compound wall of her house and by standing on the wall shouted and instigated her followers to throw bombs. On that A-5 to A-15, came out of the house of a-1 and rushed towards the jeep. A-5 to A-7, a-9, A-11 to A-14 hurled country made bombs on the front portion of the jeep and he died on the spot. A bomb exploded on the face of d-2 Ayyapu Reddy, who was driving the jeep. The inmates of the jeep got down and were running away. A-7 hurled a bomb which hit D-1 Shivaram Reddy, on his head and he died on the spot. A-8, A-10, A-15 to A-37, a-42 to A-47 armed with hunting sickles and iron pipes chased D-3-Rami Reddy and attacked with the weapons which they were armed and caused his death. A-38, A-39, a-13, A-40 and A-41 chased D-4 Kambagiri ramudu. A-13 hurled a bomb on the back of d-4 Ramudu and due to the explosion he died. It is also alleged that P.-W. 1, n. Subrahmanyam, P. W. 7, Maddileti, Sunka raju and escort police constables Gopal rao received splinter injuries. A-38, A-39, a-13, A-40 and A-41 chased D-4 Kambagiri ramudu. A-13 hurled a bomb on the back of d-4 Ramudu and due to the explosion he died. It is also alleged that P.-W. 1, n. Subrahmanyam, P. W. 7, Maddileti, Sunka raju and escort police constables Gopal rao received splinter injuries. It is further alleged that Gopal Rao opened the fire, then the accused ran away. P. W. 20 Sub-Inspector of Police, Gadivemula police station while he was camping at Koratamaddi village received information about the occurrence and went to Chindukuru village at about 9. 30 a. m. He found jeep in flames in front of the house of a-1 and also four dead bodies of deceased. He also found some injured persons at the scene of offence. He recorded statement of p. W. 1 Ayyalanna and sent the said statement to the Gadivemula police station for registering the case. Ex. P-1 is the statement. After recording the Ex. P-1 he went into the village to maintain the law and order. P. W. 22 received information about the incident in chindukuru village. He along with P. W. 21 proceeded Chindukuru village and reached chindukuru at 11 a. m. He found the bodies of four deceased near about A-1 s house. P. W. 20, who was in the village came to him. In the meanwhile, C. I. Nandyal and others came to Chindukuru village. Then they commenced inquest over the four dead bodies. P. W. 22 held inquest over the dead body of D-1 Shivaram Reddy. On the directions of P. W. 22, P. W. 20 conducted inquest over dead body of D-2 Ayyapu Reddy, p. W. 21 conducted inquest over the dead body of D-4 Kambagiri Ramudu. He also directed one Sri Ramulu, to conduct inquest over dead body of D-3 Rami Reddy. In the meanwhile he secured the presence of p. W. 1 and other blood relations of the deceased. He examined them at the scene of offence in the presence of panchayatdars. The statements of witnesses were recorded by some constables, whose names were not known. At the scene of offence, while conducting inquest over the dead body of d-1 he seized number of articles. He examined them at the scene of offence in the presence of panchayatdars. The statements of witnesses were recorded by some constables, whose names were not known. At the scene of offence, while conducting inquest over the dead body of d-1 he seized number of articles. He sent a requisition to Medical Officer, Nandyal to conduct post mortem on the dead bodies at chindukuru itself as there was law and order problem for shifting dead bodies to government Hospital, Nandyal. P. W. 15, p. W. 17 and P. W. 18, Medical Officers of nandyal Government Hospital came to the village and conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies at Chindukuru village. P. W. 22 prepared a rough sketch of scene of offence, ex. P-20. Thereafter he left Chindukuru village and reached Nandyal Government Hospital and examined P. W. 8, Janardhan Reddy (P. W. 7), Yasani Maddileti Reddy (not examined) and Constable Gopal Rao (not examined ). On the same day, he prepared observation panchanama Ex. P-8 in the presence of mediators. He seized incriminating articles M. Os. 22 to 31 available at the scene of offence. On the same day at 5 p. m. he searched house of A-1 and found incriminating articles and seized M. O. 33 to 42 in the presence of mediators under panchanama Ex. P-9. Subsequently he arrested some of the accused. P. W. 25 took up further investigation of the case on 2-11-1995 and after completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal and the same was registered as P. R. C. No. 81 of 1996. As the offences under section 302 are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, he committed the same to the Sessions Division, Kurnool, who registered the same as S. C. No. 76 of 1998. The learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool made over the case to the III Addl. Sessions Judge, kurnool for trial and disposal of the case according to law. ( 7 ) ON hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned trial Judge framed charges against the accused: (1) U/sec. 148 IPC against A-1 to A-41, a-43 to A-47. (2) U/sec. 302 IPC against A-5 to A-7, a-9 to A-11 to A-14. (3) U/sec. 302 r/w Sec. 149 IPC against a-1 to A-4, A-8, A-10, A-15 to A-41 and A-43 to A-47. (4) U/sec. 302 IPC against A-7. (5) U/sec. 148 IPC against A-1 to A-41, a-43 to A-47. (2) U/sec. 302 IPC against A-5 to A-7, a-9 to A-11 to A-14. (3) U/sec. 302 r/w Sec. 149 IPC against a-1 to A-4, A-8, A-10, A-15 to A-41 and A-43 to A-47. (4) U/sec. 302 IPC against A-7. (5) U/sec. 302 r/w. Sec. 149 IPC against a-1 to A-6, A-8 to A-41 and A-43. (6) U/sec. 302 IPC against A-8, A-10, a-15 to A-37 and A-43 to A-47. (7) U/sec. 302 r/w Sec. 149 IPC against a-1 to A-7, A-9 (8) U/sec. 302 IPC against A-13. (9) U/sec. 302 r/w Sec. 149 IPC against a-1 to A-12, A-14 to A-41 and A-43 to A-47. (10) U/sec. 324 IPC against A-5 to A-7, a-9, A-11 to A-14. (11) U/sec. 5 of E. S. Act against A-5 to a-7, A-9 and A-11 to A-14. (12) U/sec. 3 of E. S. Act against A-5 to a-7, A-9 and-11 to A-14. (13) U/sec. 5 of the E. S. Act against a-38, A-39, A-40 and A-41. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 8 ) IN support of the case of prosecution, 25 witnesses were examined and Ex. P-1 to p-26 were marked. M. Os. 1 to 48 were marked for the prosecution. The defence examined d. Ws. 1 to 7 and marked Ex. D-1 to D-30 and ex. C-1 to C-19 were marked by the Court. The learned Trial Judge on consideration of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, found A-6, A-7, A-9 to A-23, and 25 to 41 guilty of the charges levelled against them, convicted and sentenced as detailed supra and other accused were acquitted. ( 9 ) ASSAILING the conviction and sentence of the Appellants, they filed Crl. A. No. 923 of 2002 and 926 of 2002. While Crl. A. No. 923 of 2002 was filed by A-13, A-38, A-39, A-40 and A-41 while Crl. A. No. 926 of 2002 was filed by A-6, A-7, A-9 to A-23, A-25 to A-41. The State did not file any appeal assailing the acquittal of some of the accused. ( 10 ) THE issue that arises for consideration is whether the judgment of the learned trial court convicting and sentencing the accused is sustainable on facts and in law and whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused with which they were charged. ( 10 ) THE issue that arises for consideration is whether the judgment of the learned trial court convicting and sentencing the accused is sustainable on facts and in law and whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused with which they were charged. ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, p. Ws. 1, 4, 6 and 7 were alleged to be travelling along with the deceased in jeep. P. W. 1 is Ayyalanna, who is the resident of chindukur village. According to him on 30-10-1994 Sunday at about 9 a. m. himself, d-1 to 4, Janardhan Reddy (P. W. 7), Balaraju (P. W. 6), Subrahmanyam (not examined), maddileti Reddy (not examined), Sunkaraju (not examined) and two escort constables muzafar Ali (P. W. 4) and Gopal Rao started from the house of D-1 to go to Gadivemula police station to mark D-1 s presence as he was on conditional bail in some other case. At that time, when jeep was following in front of the house of A-1 Anasuyamma, widow of late Venkateswara Reddy, A-2 to A-4 placed one bullock cart across the road. Then A-1 standing on the compound wall instigated other accused to hurl bombs. A-5 to A-15 came from the house of A-1 and A-5, A-8 and a-15 were armed with hunting sickles and others were armed with bombs and they surrounded the jeep and hurled bombs on the jeep. One such bomb hit Ayyapu Reddy (D-2), who was driving the vehiclefwhen he fell down, he was dragged to the back side of the jeep. Then all the inmates of the jeep got down and he was hiding behind a small wall by the side of the jeep. He observed D-1 was running away by looking backwards. Then a-7 hurled a bomb on D-1, which hit him on his forehead and exploded and then he fell down on the ground. D-3 was surrounded by a-16 to A-37. While he was running away from the jeep and he was hacked with hunting sickles and pipes on account of which he died on the spot. When D-4 was running away A-38, A-39, A-13, A-20 and A-41 chased him and A-13 hurled a bomb on the back of a-4 on account of which he fell down and died on the spot. A-43 to A-47 also attacked d-3 and D-4 with hunting sickles. When D-4 was running away A-38, A-39, A-13, A-20 and A-41 chased him and A-13 hurled a bomb on the back of a-4 on account of which he fell down and died on the spot. A-43 to A-47 also attacked d-3 and D-4 with hunting sickles. Thereafter, when the accused were going to the village to attack some other belonging to group of D-1, escort constable Gopal Rao, who was accompanying them in the jeep opened the fire in the air and then all the accused ran away from that place in tractors and jeeps. P. W. 1 also sustained bomb splinter injury to his right leg. He also stated that Nethe subrahmanyam, Maddileti Reddy, Sunku raju, Janardhana Reddy (P. W. 7) also sustained bomb splinter injuries. After half an hour of the occurrence, the Sub-Inspector of police, Gadivemula police station (P. W. 20) came to the spot to whom he orally complained. He recorded the statement of p. W. 1 in Ex. P-1. He admitted that there were factions in the village i. e. deceased shivaram Reddy group and Venkateshwar reddy group, who is the husband of A-1 since 1992. He further stated that in 1992 a-1 s husband Venkateshwar Reddy was killed and on hearing the killing of venkateshwar Reddy by the group of shivaram Reddy (D-1), four persons belonging to D-1 group were killed. There were bitter ill feelings between both the groups. In the cross examination he stated that he did not belong to faction of D-1. But, all other persons who were travelling in the jeep belonging to D-1 faction. He admitted that he was convicted in S. C. No. 547 of 1997 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, nandyal along with 32 others for attacking the house of A-46 Prathap Reddy (brother of venkateshwar Reddy) and he was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years in the year 1993 and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. He also admitted that Srinivas Reddy (P. W. 3), Nuka raju, Janardhan Redy (P. W. 7), Venkata reddy (P. W. 2), Laxmi Kantha Reddy, venkateshwar Reddy who were witnesses in the present case namely S. C. No. 76 of 1998 were accused along with him in the aforesaid case and they were also convicted along with him. 1,000/ -. He also admitted that Srinivas Reddy (P. W. 3), Nuka raju, Janardhan Redy (P. W. 7), Venkata reddy (P. W. 2), Laxmi Kantha Reddy, venkateshwar Reddy who were witnesses in the present case namely S. C. No. 76 of 1998 were accused along with him in the aforesaid case and they were also convicted along with him. He further admitted that in Nandyal court, there was another case pending against him and others pending trial and the trial was not commenced. In the case, in which P. W. 1 and others were convicted, a-46 was the defacto complainant and A-46, a-1, A-27 and A-28 gave evidence in the aforesaid case. In the murder case of venkateshwar Reddy (husband of A-1), one siva Reddy, deceased Shivaram Reddy (D-1), deceased Rami Reddy (D-3), v. Krishna Reddy, Talari Venkata Subba rayudu and one Singareddy Rama Subba reddy were accused. He further stated that there was a police picketing in the village even prior to the incident at Anjaneya Swamy temple. Gadivemula village is at a distance of 7 kms. from Chindukur village, Nandyal is 24 kms from Chindukur village. He admitted that p. W. 7 Janardhan Reddy was sitting by the side of the driver Ayyapu Reddy (D-2 ). The two escort police persons Gopal Rao, muzaffar Ali (P. W. 4), were holding guns with them. He further stated that when the jeep went to a distance of 50 yards from A-1 s main gate, the jeep was stopped by placing the bullock carts, A-1 and others tried to hurl bombs. He observed her (A-1 ). He stated that in all 8 or 9 accused were holding bombs and other are having hunting sickles. They were holding bombs in the right hand. In the cross examination again says that he did not observe the escort constable Gopal Rao firing in the air. When the accused were running towards the village, then the police opened the fire in the air and then he heard the sound. ( 12 ) P. W. 6 was working as Cleaner on the jeep belonging to D-1. According to him, on 30-10-1994 at about 9 a. m. , he along with the others started in a jeep to go to Gadivemula police station, when the jeep reached in front of the house of Venkateshwar Reddy, A-2, a-3 and A-4 kept bullock carts across the road. According to him, on 30-10-1994 at about 9 a. m. , he along with the others started in a jeep to go to Gadivemula police station, when the jeep reached in front of the house of Venkateshwar Reddy, A-2, a-3 and A-4 kept bullock carts across the road. At that time, wife of Venkateshwar reddy A-1 instigated others saying bombulu veyandira . A-5, A-6, A-7, A-9, A-11, A-12 and A-13 came armed with country bombs and A-8, A-10 and A-15 armed with hunting sickles, they hurled bombs against the jeep. D-2 was hit by the bomb hit and when he fell down, he was dragged by A-10 and A-15 and they threw it near the rear side of the jeep. The witness says that he ran to the wall of jaila Venkataswamy s hayrick and stood there when D-1 tried to run towards the south by turning back now and then, A-7 chased him and hurled a bomb on Shivaram Reddy, (D-1) and due to explosion on the head of d-1, he fell down and died. D-3 Rami Reddy, when he tried to run towards Jallawari sandhu, A-16, A-27, A-36, A-28, A-30, A-31, a-32, A-33, A-34, A-35, A-29 and A-37 armed with hunting sickles, pipes hacked and beat indiscriminately causing instantaneous death and when D-4 was going, A-38, A-39, A-41, a-20, A-13 armed with bombs chased him and A-13 hurled a bomb on account of which he died. A-40, A-43, A-44, A-45, A-46, A-47 armed with hunting sickles stayed near the place, where the D-3 was murdered, they cried "sampandira, Narakandira". Thereafter, all the accused ran away in the jeep and tractor. He stated that he saw the entire thing by standing near the wall of Jallawari Sandu. He also admits that there is fraction between a-1 group and the group of D-1 Shivaram reddy group. He stated that he did not belong to any group in the village. ( 13 ) P. W. 7 Janardhan Reddy is another follower in the jeep and he is a supporter of d-1. He also admits that there is fraction between a-1 group and the group of D-1 Shivaram reddy group. He stated that he did not belong to any group in the village. ( 13 ) P. W. 7 Janardhan Reddy is another follower in the jeep and he is a supporter of d-1. On the said date, at 9 a. m. he and others totalling 12 members started from the house of D-1, D-2 was driving the jeep, when the jeep crossed the main gate of Venkateshwar reddy, a bullock cart was placed by A-2 to a-4 across the road and after the jeep was stopped, A-1 was standing on her compound wall, raised cries bombulu Veyandira . In the meanwhile, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-14, A-11, A-13, a-10 and A-15 and others came, A-8 and a-10 armed with hunting sickles and others were having country bombs. They hurled bombs on the jeep, D-2 sustained injuries on his face. He also sustained splinter injury on the back of the right side. While D-1 was running towards his house, A-7 chased him through a bomb, while he was seeing towards a-7. He died immediately on the spot. When rami Reddy was running, A-15, A-17, A-18, a-18, A-19, A-20, A-22, A-23, A-21, A-24, a-25, A-26, A-27, A-30, A-28, A-31, A-34, a-33, A-32, A-35, A-36, A-29, A-37 chased and beat him with pipes and hunting sickles and even when D-4 was running A-38, A-40, a-39, A-41, A-13 chased and A-13 chased and hurled a bomb on D-4 on account of which he succumbed instantaneously, and a-43 to A-47 were standing between the dead bodies of D-3 and D-1 instigating other accused. In the cross examination, he stated that he was examined by the police in the hospital on the next day. He admitted that he was an accused in 307 IPC case filed by a-46 and he was tried and convicted and sentenced along with the others. He further stated that first 15 persons, who came from kantha of A-1 s house, they were having bombs in their right hands. Attempt to murder case was pending filed by A-46 and in venkateshwar Reddy murder case, the trial did not commence and also in four other murder cases. ( 14 ) P. W. 8, Smt. Arundhati, wife of D-1. Attempt to murder case was pending filed by A-46 and in venkateshwar Reddy murder case, the trial did not commence and also in four other murder cases. ( 14 ) P. W. 8, Smt. Arundhati, wife of D-1. She is not an eye witness, but, however, she stated that there were factions between her deceased husband and the accused group. She further stated that that all Reddy people, who accompanied her husband on the date of the incident, were her relatives. ( 15 ) P. W. 9 was examined as a panch witness for the observation of the scene of offence, to prove Ex. P-3 scene of offence panchanama, but however, he did not support the case of the prosecution and he was declared hostile. ( 16 ) P. WS. 2, 3 and 5 are the residents of chindukur village and they are chance witnesses. According to P. W. 2, on the date of the incident, he and his wife were going to agricultural fields in double bullock cart at 9 a. m. The jeep in which the deceased persons were travelling overtook the D. B. cart near the house of A-1 and after distance of 30 fts. A-2 to A-4 placed a double bullock carts across the road. Then the jeep was stopped. At that point of time, A-1 standing on the compound wall and asked her men to hurl bombs on the jeep. A-5 to A-15 came from the side of the house of A-1, out of them A-8, a-10, A-15 were armed with sickles and others were holding bombs. They hurled the bombs, D-2 sustained bomb injury and he died, and he was dragged by A-10 and A-15 to the left back side of the jeep, D-1 was running by looking back and A-7 hurled a bomb and he died on the spot. A-16 to A-37 chased D-3 with bombs and sickles and pipes on account of which he died. A-13 chased A-4 and hurled bomb on account of which he died. He admitted that he is related to D-1. He stated that he was driving the bullock cart carrying 2 urea bags, when the jeep was overtaking the bullock cart, he observed persons who were in the jeep. When the bombs were hurled he reversed his bullock cart and was standing by the side of Kallam of Ramesham along with his wife. He stated that he was driving the bullock cart carrying 2 urea bags, when the jeep was overtaking the bullock cart, he observed persons who were in the jeep. When the bombs were hurled he reversed his bullock cart and was standing by the side of Kallam of Ramesham along with his wife. D-3 Rami Reddy was attacked by A-16 to a-35 with the sickles and pipes. He stated that police did not fire in the air. Himself and other inmates of the jeep were standing on the road and the whole occurrence was visible to them. After the occurrence, he went to his house and the police examined him at his house at 3 or 4 p. m. and he did not tell about the occurrence to anybody. Circle Inspector of Police went to his house and examined him and his wife. Afterwards, he did not go to the scene of offence or his wife. ( 17 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 3, at about 9 a. m. on the date of the incident, he was going to his field with yoke and in front of him P. W. 2 was going in his bullock cart. At A-1 s house, a bullock cart was placed by A-2 to A-4, then a-1 was standing on the compound wall asking her men to hurl bombs. Apprehending some occurrence, he was standing at Kallam of Golla Ramesham. P. W. 2 Venkat Reddy was also present by the side. He stated that ihe driver D-2 Ayyapu Reddy was hit by bomb and he was dragged to the back side of the rear wheel of the jeep. Shivaram Reddy was running while looking back and A-1 hurled a bomb on account of which he died, a-6 to A-36 attacked Rami Reddy and he died on the spot and D-4 was attacked by a-38, A-39, A-13, A-20 and A-44 and A-13 hurled a bomb and he died instantaneously. A-43 to A-47 armed with hunting sickles and pipes participated in the commission of offence. He admitted that they are related to d-1 Shivaram Reddy. He further stated that himself and his brother were accused along with the D-1 in the case filed in the Asst. Sessions Judge Court, Nandyal and the trial was not commenced. In the case filed by a-46, A-1 is a witness. He admitted that they are related to d-1 Shivaram Reddy. He further stated that himself and his brother were accused along with the D-1 in the case filed in the Asst. Sessions Judge Court, Nandyal and the trial was not commenced. In the case filed by a-46, A-1 is a witness. Even though escort police Constables were in the jeep, they did not open the fire. He stated that after the occurrence of the incident, the accused threatened him and others if any one gives evidence, they will meet the same fate as that of the deceased persons. They watched the scene of offence at a distance of 5 to 6 fts. ( 18 ) P. W. 5, another chance witness, who according to him as going to Mala Peta on the date of the incident at 9 a. m. when he reached the hayrick yard of one Golla Ramesudu, p. W. 2 came in his opposite direction with his bullock carts and Sreenivasa Reddy (P. W. 3) with his yoke, but he did not mention about the presence of wife of P. W. 2. When the jeep reached Jallavari veedhi, A-2, A-3 and A-4 kept bullock carts and A-1 climbed her compound wall saying veyandira bombulu . Then A-5 to A-15 armed with sickles and bombs came in front of the jeep and started hurling bombs. D-2 received bomb hit and he died and he was dragged by A-10 to A-15. Shivaram Reddy was trying to run away and he was hit by A-7 with a bomb and he died on the spot. Witness also received splinter injury due to explosion and A-16 to A-29 attacked d-3 and injured him with the pipes and sickles and he died on the spot. Other accused attacked D-4 who sickles and he died on the spot. He also sustained splinter injury to his right hand and shoulder. Police sent him to the Government Hospital, Nandyal for treatment and the police examined him in the village after return from Nandyal hospital. He confirmed that there were factions in the village between Shivaram Reddy group and venkateshwar Reddy group. He stated that anki Reddy was murdered in retaliation of death of Venkateshwar Reddy and Anki reddy is his relation. A-8 was practising advocate. He confirmed that there were factions in the village between Shivaram Reddy group and venkateshwar Reddy group. He stated that anki Reddy was murdered in retaliation of death of Venkateshwar Reddy and Anki reddy is his relation. A-8 was practising advocate. He stated that the accused attacked D-1, D-3 and D-4 simultaneously and he did not observe specifically which accused beat Rami Reddy on which part and with which weapon. He further stated that after occurrence himself and P. Ws. 1 to 3, maddileti Reddy and others discussed how to give complaint to the police to come to the scene of offence and himself, P. Ws. 2, 3, madddileti Reddy, Janardhan Reddy are relations of D-1. ( 19 ) EX. P-1 is the report of P. W. 1 recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police. On the basis of his instructions H. C. 67 registered a case in crime No. 76 of 1998 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 332, 302, 120 (b), 435 read with Sec. 149 IPC and sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances act. ( 20 ) AUTOPSY was conducted by P. W. 22 in respect of the D-1. Ex. P-4 is the inquest report. P. W. 15 conducted post mortem examination, Ex. P-12 post mortem report. He found the following injuries on the dead body of D-1:"1. Head total disintegration of the upper half of the head with complete loss of upper skull vault upto upper lips. Eye balbs are absent. Brain is entirely lost. Charring of tissues with black discolouration of the remaining face. Chest: Multiple, about a hundred or more small, about cm tattooed abrasions extending over entire right side of chest and upper abdomen right side. Right upperarm splinter abrasions of the entire right upperarm. Lacerations about 1 cm dian eter over middle of the right upper arm in front, Burn of the entire dorsal and medial aspect of fight forearm and yellowish discolouration. Burn of the thumb, index and middle fingers, over the dorsal aspect with yellowing. Laceration of left hand 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm over the dorsum, Burn of the left fore arm dorsal aspect 8 cm x 3 cm. Abrasions four in number small cm square area front of right thigh with tattooing. Abrasions of lower left thigh in front four in number small cm square area with tattooing. Laceration of left hand 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm over the dorsum, Burn of the left fore arm dorsal aspect 8 cm x 3 cm. Abrasions four in number small cm square area front of right thigh with tattooing. Abrasions of lower left thigh in front four in number small cm square area with tattooing. Internal examination: subsutaneous fat is yellow muscles are pale. Heart: Pericardium empty. Heart is pale and empty. Lungs: both lungs are collapsed, left lung is pale, right lung upper lobe is congested. About 50 ml of blood in right plural cavity, left plural cavity is empty. Liver is pale cut Section pale. Spleen is pale. Both kidneys are pale. No blood is in the abdominal cavity. Structures are not injured, no fractures of long bones noted. The deceased wound appear to have died of multiple injuries mainly the head leading to hemorrhage and shock and death. Time of death 6 to 8 hours prior to post mortem. Ex. P-12 is the post mortem certificate. "he opined that the deceased died of multiple injuries mainly head injury leading to haemorrhage and shock. ( 21 ) INQUEST was conducted by P. W. 20 on the dead body of D-2. Ex. P-5 is the inquest report. P. W. 15 conducted post mortem examination and Ex. P-13 is the post mortem examination report and he found the following injuries on the dead body of D-2:"external injuries: (1) Head: contusion 3 cm x 2 cm x1 cm over the left side of scalp with laceration 1 cm long over the swelling. (2) Laceration of right cheek 2 cm x. cm x cm with tattooing. Entire face is charred and disfigured. (3) Laceration left side of fore head 1 cm circular with tattooing. (4) Laceration over bridge of the nose 1 cm x. 1 cm x cm. (5) Charred burn of entire back of neck. Chest and abdomen: Anterior aspect of chest is burnt with blackish discolouration. Laceration front of chest 5 cm x. 4 cm square in the upper middle aspect with tattooing. Laceration 2 cm x 1 cm over right infra clavicular region. Laceration 2 cm x 1 cm x cm over right supra clavicular area. Abrasion with black discolouration 15 cm x 15 cm over the right scapular and supra scapular area. Laceration front of chest 5 cm x. 4 cm square in the upper middle aspect with tattooing. Laceration 2 cm x 1 cm over right infra clavicular region. Laceration 2 cm x 1 cm x cm over right supra clavicular area. Abrasion with black discolouration 15 cm x 15 cm over the right scapular and supra scapular area. Burn with charring of right infrascapular area 15 cm x 10 cm peripheral limbs; laceration 1 cm diameter with charring of margins over right upper arm. Burn 3 cm circular over back of right upper arm. Laceration 3 cm x. 1 cm lower left upper arm. Laceration 2 cm x. 2 cm with irregular margins front of left upper arm. Laceration 2 cm x cm with irregular margins with burns marks over lateral aspect of left upper arm. Laceration 2 cm x 1 cm Ideft upper fore arm with tattooing. Laceration 1 cm x 1 cm lower forearm left with black staining. Blackish soot staining of entire front and side of both lower limbs. Burn with loss of skin of right calf 4 cm x 2 cm. Burn of upper right thigh in front 4 cm x 3 cm. Burn of left calf lateral aspect 3 cm x 1 cm. Internal: (1) Fracture of skull about 7 cm long extending from centre to the left side over parietal bone crack fracture. (2) Contusion of subcutaneous tissues over the fracture site. (3) Brain contusion of the entire cortex of the brain on both sides over parietal and occipital areas (4) Pericardium empty, Heart empty, (5) Right lung congested. (6) About 100 ml. of blood in right plural cavity. (7) Stomach about 400 ml. of digested food. (8) Liver pale (9) Kidney are pale, and bladder is empty. and opined that due to head injury and body leading to death. ( 22 ) P. W. 13 conducted inquest over the deadbody of D-3, Ex. P-6 is the report and p. W. 18 candidate post mortem examination and Ex. P-18 is post mortem examination report and he was of the opinion that death was due to multiple injuries and due to fracture of scull and shock and haemorrhage. ( 23 ) P. W. 21 conducted inquest over the dead body of D-4. P. W. 17 conducted post mortem examination vide Ex. P-17. P-18 is post mortem examination report and he was of the opinion that death was due to multiple injuries and due to fracture of scull and shock and haemorrhage. ( 23 ) P. W. 21 conducted inquest over the dead body of D-4. P. W. 17 conducted post mortem examination vide Ex. P-17. He found the following injuries on the dead body: "external injuries: (1) A burst out laceration injury on the back of the body of size 17 " x 14 " horizontal involving entire left side and extending on to the right side upto 7" away from right posterior axillary line. Upper border extending to just above the left supra scapular border. Lower border extending upto 3" above the waistline. Left side of injury extending on to the left anterior axillary line. Skin at the edge is torn into irregular flaps with yellow stainging of under surface of skin flaps here and there. Left para vertebral muscle missing in the wound except 3" size muscle flap at the lower and of the wound. The upper end of this muscle flap is irregular torn and the muscle surface is charred. Left half of the vertebral column is seen with ribs corresponding to the wound missing. Right sided paravertebral muscle present in its entire length but blackened. Left scapula with its lower 2/3rd missing is exposed at the upper side of the wound. Floor of the wound is irregularly lacerated and blackened. Lacerated organs like left lung, heart spleen, stomach, left kidney are lying exposed in the floor of the wound. Intestinal coils are also seen in the floor of the wound darkened liquid blood is present in the floor of the wound seven 3/4" size nails are found in the floor of the wound. The shirt corresponding to the wound is torn on the back. (2) Yellow staining and blackening of kin of size 8" x 3" present on the lower end or arm, elbow and upper end of fore arm of left side on the exposed back aspect. In this area hair is lost. At the periphery of this area hair is singed. 3/4" size nail is found on the lower end of arm piercing the skin. (3) Contusion of size 1/2" x 1/4" are present along the front border of nose. Blue in colour. In this area hair is lost. At the periphery of this area hair is singed. 3/4" size nail is found on the lower end of arm piercing the skin. (3) Contusion of size 1/2" x 1/4" are present along the front border of nose. Blue in colour. (4) Left upper central incisor broken gingival margin with blood staining of the gingival margin. The distal fragment missing. Internal examination: thorox: Bony Cage: All ribs on left side except upper two are missing. Right side lower 3 ribs are fractured anteriorily 1" away from the sternum. Posteriorly all right side ribs are intact. Lower 2/3rd of left scapula missing. Lungs: Left lung lacerated posteriorly in its entire length. Heart: Entire posterior wall of the heart lacerated exposing the chambers of the heart. Abdomen: Stomach: A tear size 2 " x" over posterior wall of the stomach, stomach empty. Intestines lying exposed in the floor of the wound. Spleen: Lacerated on its entire posterior surface and lying detached in the wound. Liver: Posterior surface of the left lobe of liver lacerated. Kidneys: Left kidney lacerated posteriorly. Right kidney normal. "he was of the opinion that the death was due to injuries to vital organs due to bomb blast. It is stated that post mortem examination was conducted in the village itself. ( 24 ) P. W. 22 is an Investigation Officer. According to him, on 30-10-1994 at about 9. 30 a. m. while he was in Panyam circle office, he received information regarding the deaths and galata at Chindukur village. Immediately, he gathered Sub-Inspector of police and other staff and proceeded to chindukur village and reached at about 11 a. m. and found the dead bodies of four deceased near the house of A-1 and in the meanwhile Sub-Inspector of Police was already present in the village and some other police officers have also came. He held inquest over the dead body of the D-1 and he also directed the other Sub-Inspectors to conduct inquest of the other three dead persons. He secured the presence of various persons and examined them at the scene of offence. After examining the witnesses and blood relations, ne sent the dead body for post mortem examination. He recorded the statement of Sunka Raju and Bala Raju (P. W. 6 ). Thereafter, he left for Nandyal hospital and examined P. W. 7 Janardhan reddy. He secured the presence of various persons and examined them at the scene of offence. After examining the witnesses and blood relations, ne sent the dead body for post mortem examination. He recorded the statement of Sunka Raju and Bala Raju (P. W. 6 ). Thereafter, he left for Nandyal hospital and examined P. W. 7 Janardhan reddy. He also went to Kurnool Government hospital and secured the presence of Yasam maddileti Reddy and Gopala Rao, P. C. 1839 and examined and recorded their statements. He found injured persons. P. W. 7, Yasam maddileti Reddy, lyalanna, Subrahmanyam, kunareddy Venkat Reddy and P. C. Gopal rao at the scene of offence and sent them to nandyal Government Hospital for treatment. He seized certain material objects at the scene of offence like remnants of explosion of bombs, broken bottle, one pocket diary, one iron tin, white cotton, jeep mud guard, jeep AP 21 T-2535 and one D. B. Cart m. O. 22 is the whisky bottle broken, M. O. 23 is broken bottle face with silver ring, M. O. 24 is the rubber cart and some other items. The double bullock carts were seized, later on given to the interim custody of the respective owners before the committal of the case and the same day at 5 p. m. at the house of A-1, he found some incriminating material and seized the same under Ex. P-9. Subsequently, the accused were arrested on various dates by him. He commenced the investigation after receiving express F. I. R. from gadivemula police station. He stated that he recorded the statements of some of the witnesses and other Sub-Inspectors to record the statements of other witnesses. He did not issue search proceedings to search the house of A-1 and Deputy Superintendent of Police directed him to search the house of A-1 and no body was present in the house, when the search was made. He stated that he did not know the Alibi petitions filed by certain accused. He also stated that P. W. 1 did not state to him that accused came from the small gate of A-1 s house. P. W. 1 also did nof state before him that the accused dragged d-2. Various contradictions were marked through this witnesses. He stated that he did not know the Alibi petitions filed by certain accused. He also stated that P. W. 1 did not state to him that accused came from the small gate of A-1 s house. P. W. 1 also did nof state before him that the accused dragged d-2. Various contradictions were marked through this witnesses. ( 29 ) PER contra, the learned Public prosecutor submits that it is a case where gruesome murders had been committed by the accused by throwing the bombs and hacking the victims to death. The evidence of eyewitnesses clearly establish that the accused formed into unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object they killed the deceased. The evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 7 coupled with the medical evidence conclusively proves that the accused intentionally caused murder of D-1 to D-4. Thus, he submits that the judgment of the lower Court is valid and sustainable and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. ( 30 ) IN this case, the trial Court accepting alibi of A-1,5,8 and 24 gave benefit of doubt and accordingly they were acquitted and even the trial Court found no charges held to prove against A-43 to A-47 and they are also found not guilty and they were acquitted. In respect of the offences alleged against the other accused, the trial Court believed the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5 to 7 and convicted them for various offences as detailed above. ( 31 ) WE have already extracted the relevant portions from the evidence of P. W. 1 and it is found that P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 who are the eyewitnesses in this case and they were persons, who were tried by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Nandyal along with the others in S. C. No. 547 of 1997 and they were convictedto undergo Imprisonmentforseven years and sentenced to pay a fine at the instance of A-46. Other case was also pending against them and the trial was not commenced. P. W. 1 also categorically admitted and also it is established by other witnesses that they belong to D-1-Shivaram reddy group and A-46 is none-else-than the brother of A-1's husband. According to the witnesses, the incident was ignited at the instance of A-1 Anasuya. Other case was also pending against them and the trial was not commenced. P. W. 1 also categorically admitted and also it is established by other witnesses that they belong to D-1-Shivaram reddy group and A-46 is none-else-than the brother of A-1's husband. According to the witnesses, the incident was ignited at the instance of A-1 Anasuya. When the jeep in which the D-1 party were travelling to go to gadivemula police station to comply with the bail conditions and when they reached A-1' house, A-2 to A-4 placed bullock carts across the road on account of which the jeep could not proceed further immediately. Thereafter, a-1 climbed the compound wall. She is alleged to have cried and instigated her supporters to attack and kill the inmates of the jeep. Hence, a-1 is a prime accused at whose instance, the entire offence alleged to have commenced. But it has to be noted that the lower Court found that A-1's presence was not established. Similarly, the A-2 to A-4 were also acquitted on the ground that they had no intention to participate in the offence. Therefore, the very principal and foundational substratum of genesis of the offence is cracked. ( 32 ) LET us consider the evidence of witnesses who were following the deceased in the jeep viz. P. W. 1, P. W. 4, P. W. 6 and p. W. 7. The first complaint recorded by the police on the basis of which the crime was registered is Ex. P-1. P. W. 1 in Ex. P-1 stated that he along with others were travelling on 30-10-1994 to go to Gadivemula police station and that A-1 instigated others to attack while the jeep came near her house on account of the blocking the road by the bullock carts. He tried to give number of persons who were alleged to have attacked D-1, D-2, D-3 and d-4. In the said report, it was stated that two persons having sickles and others having bombs in their hands. It is also his case that p. W. 4, 6 and 7 also received injuries. He further stated that he has seen the entire incident from the sidewall and it is further stated in the complaint that the accused hurled bombs on their house, then P. C. Gopal rao fired his rifle. It is also his case that p. W. 4, 6 and 7 also received injuries. He further stated that he has seen the entire incident from the sidewall and it is further stated in the complaint that the accused hurled bombs on their house, then P. C. Gopal rao fired his rifle. The statement alleged to have been recorded by P. W. 20 as per the dictation of P. W. 1 and this was recorded at the scene of occurrence at about 10. 30 a. m. Thereafter it was sent to police station for issuing express F. I. R. and it is the evidence of P. W. 22 that after receiving the F. I. R. , the investigation was commenced. It is also the case of P. Ws. 1, 4, 6 and 7 that the police sent them to Nandyal Government Hospital for treatment. But, this as can be seen from the judgment of the lower Court that the learned Judge disbelieved the story of p. Ws. 1, 4, 6 and 7 with regard to the injury sustained by them. More over, we find that the wound certificates issued by the doctor are not reposing any confidence in asmuch as in all the wound certificates issued by the doctor in respect of the P. Ws. 1,4,6 and 7 it was stated therein that they were alleged to have received bomb injuries at 9 a. m. in the village. Further, we find that no requisition has been sent to examine these witnesses and the P. C. alleged to have accompanied them was also not examined. More over, when the investigation itself commenced after 11. 30 a. m. or so, they could not have been examined by the doctor between 11 and 11. 30 a. m. The distance from the village chindukur to Nandyal is 23 k. ms. and it is also not stated how they went from the village to the hospital. Even if they were taken in a jeep, it would take nearly one hour. Under these circumstances, the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 to the effect that they received injuries is not only unbelievable, but also the evidence of these witnesses also tells upon the credibility of their evidence. Even if they were taken in a jeep, it would take nearly one hour. Under these circumstances, the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 to the effect that they received injuries is not only unbelievable, but also the evidence of these witnesses also tells upon the credibility of their evidence. We also found that P. W. 1 has seen the entire incident from the wall besides the jeep, and we do not find such word in Ex. P-25. It is also to be noted in this regard that the first rough sketch is Ex. P-20 which does not conform to the scene of occurrence at all, but even in ex. P-25, the so-called wall from which p. Ws. alleged to have seen the entire incident is not traceable. When Ex. P-25 contained all the particulars of the scene of offence, we fail to understand how this important incriminating place was not marked as Ex. P-25. The reliability cannot be attached to the evidence of these witnesses is that they have categorically stated that 0-1 was going back by seeing towards the accused, at that time, a-7 hit bomb, but it has to be noted that these details are totally absent in Ex. P-1, which is the first document. It only shows that considerable improvement has been made so as to implicate A-7. P. W. 1 also stated that he was sitting by the side of D-2 Ayyapu reddy and the bombs were started hurling by the accused. Then one of the bombs fell on the D-1, he died instantaneously, but it is surprising that when he is sitting by the side of D-2, he and other persons did not receive any injuries worth identifying. The escort was alleged to be accompanying the D-1 party in the jeep and when the attack had taken place by the accused who were numbering about 45 and when they had seen that these persons having bombs and killed four persons, we fail to understand as to why the escort police did not take any action and why they failed to protect the inmates of the jeep by opening the fire. Even though it was stated that magisterial enquiry was ordered, no report was filed. The report is not tendered in evidence by prosecution though seized. Even though it was stated that magisterial enquiry was ordered, no report was filed. The report is not tendered in evidence by prosecution though seized. ( 33 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 6, A-1 to A-15 hurled bombs on account of which D-2 died on the spot and one D-1 was running, they chased and hurled the bombs. But, at the same time, it is to be noted that it is also the case that A-38, A-41, A-13 and A-20 chased d-4 and A-13 has thrown a bomb on D-4. It is not their case that A-13 f irst attacked D-1 and d-2 and thereafter they went to D-4. Similarly, it was also the case of the prosecution that a-16 to A-37 who were armed with sickles and pipes and indiscriminately beat D-3, but it is also to be noted that D-3 received burn injuries also. The prosecution witnesses have come up with false allegations in respect of each incident with improved versions than what was stated in the F. I. R. Some of the names have not been mentioned in F. I. R. and they were sought to be included in the f. I. R. and they were sought to be included in the F. I. R. in their evidence. We have found that there is any amount of improvement in the evidence of these witnesses. While their statement given under Section 161 Cr. P. C. differs from material particulars with the evidence given in the Court, there were many inconsistencies and contradictions. These are writ large as can be seen from the evidence of P. W. 22, the Investigating Officer. Relevant portion from the evidence of p. W. 22 is extracted below:"p. W. 1 did not tell before me that accused came from the side of small gate of A-1's house. P. W. 1 did not tell before me that accused dragged Ayyapu reddy from the jeep towards back of it. P. W. 1 did not tell before me while running away from the scene of offence deceased Shivaram Reddy was turning his head back now and then. P. W. 1 did not tell before me the names of A-46, a-47. P. W. 1 did not tell before me that they went away in the tractor of A-1 but p. W. 1 stated before me the accused went away from the village in a jeep and tractor. P. W. 1 did not tell before me the names of A-46, a-47. P. W. 1 did not tell before me that they went away in the tractor of A-1 but p. W. 1 stated before me the accused went away from the village in a jeep and tractor. P. W. 1 stated before me as in Exs. D-3 and D-4. P. W. 2 did not tell before me Srinivasa reddy (P. W. 3) and Venkata Reddy (P. W. 5) were standing near the kallam of Ramesham which is situated opposite to the house of A-1 at the time of occurrence. P. W. 2 did not tell before me that A-5 to A-15 were coming from the side of small gate. P. W. 2 did not tell before me A-10 to A-15 dragged Ayyapu reddy to the back side of the jeep or any other person dragged him. P. W. 2 did not tell before me that Shivaram reddy was turning his head back now and then while running away from the scene of offence. P. W. 2 did not tell before me that accused went towards the village by saying they will hurl bombs on the persons to Shivaram Reddy. P. W. 2 stated before me as in Ex. D-5. P. W. 3 did not tell before me the father's names of the accused. P. W. 3 did not tell before me that P. W. 2 and his wife were going in D. B. cart ahead of him. P. W. 3 did not tell the names of P. W. 2 and his wife before me that after sustaining bomb injuries, Ayyapu Reddy leaned towards right of the jeep and at that time A-10 and A-15 pulled him down and dragged him towards back side of the jeep. P. W. 3 did not tell before me Shivaram Reddy was looking back now and then while running away from scene of offence. P. W. 3 did not tell before me when bomb was hurled on Shivaram Reddy, Venkata Reddy s/ o Ramasubba Reddy sustained splinter injuries. P. W. 3 stated before me as in ex. D-6 and D-7. P. W. 5 did not tell before me that Ayyapu reddy bend towards side after sustaining injuries. P. W. 5 did not tell before me that A-10 and A-15 dragged ayyapu Reddy towards back of the jeep. P. W. 3 stated before me as in ex. D-6 and D-7. P. W. 5 did not tell before me that Ayyapu reddy bend towards side after sustaining injuries. P. W. 5 did not tell before me that A-10 and A-15 dragged ayyapu Reddy towards back of the jeep. P. W. 5 did not tell before me that p. Ws. 1 to 3, L. W. 8 Sunka Raju, l. W. 9 Bala Raju were present at the time of offence at the scene of offence or subsequently. He also did not tell before me that after the accused left the scene of offence himself, P. W. 1, maddileti Reddy, Janardhan Reddy, subrahmanyam and Police personnel went to them and found all 4 of them dead there itself and that Gadivemula police came to the village about half an hour after the occurrence and that lyalanna gave a report to the police about the incident. He also did not state the name of A-13 before me as pullagummi Rama Krishna Reddy. He stated before me as per Ex. D-8 and d-9. P. W. 6 did not tell before me that A-5 to a-16 came from the small gate of venkateshwar Reddy's house and that a-10 and A-15 dragged Ayyapu Reddy from his seat and took him up to the rear side of the jeep and that Shivaram reddy was turning his face towards back now and then while running. P. W. 6 did not state before me that lyalanna (P. W. 1) was coming in the jeep on the date of offence and that he was in that jeep at the time of offence. He did not tell the name of A-13 as Kasi reddy Rama Krishna Reddy. He also did not state that D. Venkateshwar reddy, Chinna Subbadu and p. Subbarayudu were armed with pipes. He stated before me as per Ex. D-10 to d-14. P. W. 7 did not state before me that the name of A-13 as Kasireddy ramakrishna Reddy. He also did not state that Ayyapu Reddy leaned to the side of the jeep after sustaining splinter injury and that A-10 and A-15 took him towards rear tyres of the jeep by dragging. He also did not state before me that Shivaram Reddy was turning his face towards back while running. He also did not state that Ayyapu Reddy leaned to the side of the jeep after sustaining splinter injury and that A-10 and A-15 took him towards rear tyres of the jeep by dragging. He also did not state before me that Shivaram Reddy was turning his face towards back while running. He did not tell before me that accused left the scene of offence and went through jallavari sandhu by proclaiming that they wanted to hurl bombs against the houses of Shivaram Reddy and others and that Police constable Gopal Rao went behind the accused by saying he was going to open fire. He did not state before me lyalanna gave a report to police about the occurrence. He stated before me as per Ex. D-15 and D-16. P. W. 8 did not tell before me that l. W. 2 Subrahmanyam Setty was along with her husband. She did not state before me that after hearing the sound the eminated from the explosion of bombs, they the women folk went to the scene of offence. She did not state before me that as having heard about the sound of explosion of bombs at all. She did not state before me that she enquired the persons who travelled along with her husband and that they stated about the occurrence and that the persons standing in the Court hall attacked them by hurling bombs against them and that they caused the death of her husband and 3 others in that attack. " ( 34 ) IT is also rather humanly impossible to identify all the 46 accused when they were alleged to be simultaneously attacking D-1 to d-4 in a groups. When the offence takes place in faction area, the victim party always try to include as many as persons as possible as the accused. ( 35 ) IT is now well settled by the Supreme court in catena of decisions that there is no prohibition in considering the evidence of interested, related and partisan witnesses, but it was cautioned by the Supreme Court that the evidence has to be scanned meticulously and carefully so as not to give room for any suspicion. ( 35 ) IT is now well settled by the Supreme court in catena of decisions that there is no prohibition in considering the evidence of interested, related and partisan witnesses, but it was cautioned by the Supreme Court that the evidence has to be scanned meticulously and carefully so as not to give room for any suspicion. ( 36 ) A Division Bench of this Court as early as in 1977 in V. Sathyamaiah v. State of a. P. , observed as follows:"amongst the factionists, blood relationship is secondary while their loyalty to the faction and their desire to promote the interests of their faction are primary and paramount. It is not unusual for a factionist to take advantage of every situation and occurrence for damaging the interests of the opposite faction. There is all incurable tendency in the factionists to rope in the innocent members of the opposite faction along with the guilty and to twist and manipulate the facts in regard to the mode and manner of the occurrence so as to make their case appear true with the innocent members of the opposite faction also as participants in the occurrence. In factious cases, the manipulation in the personnel of the actors in a crime is extremely easy but difficult to refute. Whenever there is any delay in the first report of a faction case, the Court must be extremely chary and see if the delay was inevitable and unavoidable or if it was due to any deliberations for manipulations by the factionists. With a view to separate the possibly innocent from the really guilty, the Courts apply the overt act test. But, in a case where the Court finds that overt acts were attributed to the members of the opposite faction in a deliberately belated first report after considerable discussions, it may not be safe to conclude participation on the basis of overt acts unless the perpetration of the overt act is proved by evidence of a highly reliable nature carrying conviction of truth in the mind of the Court. Where the occurrence is not witnessed by the members of the victim-faction, it would not be difficult for the factionists to note the injuries of the victim and attribute overt acts to the members of the opposite faction according to the degree of their ill-will and importance of the members of the opposite faction. Where the occurrence is not witnessed by the members of the victim-faction, it would not be difficult for the factionists to note the injuries of the victim and attribute overt acts to the members of the opposite faction according to the degree of their ill-will and importance of the members of the opposite faction. In such cases, even the test of corroboration of the ocular evidence by medical evidence cannot have much value. " ( 37 ) IN Muthu Naicker v. State of Tamil nadu, the Supreme Court observed as follows:"where there is a melee and a large number of assailants and number of witnesses clairn to have witnessed the occurrence from different places and at different stages of the occurrence and where the evidence is undoubtedly partisan evidence, the distinct possibility of innocent being falsely included with guilty cannot be easily ruled out. In a faction ridden society where an occurrence takes place in a village involving rival factions it is but inevitable that the evidence would be of a partisan nature. In such a situation to reject the entire evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan is to shut one's eyes to the realities of the rural life in our country. Large number of accused would go unpunished if such an easy course is charted. Simultaneously, it is to be borne in mind that in such a situation the easy tendency to involve as many persons of the opposite faction as possible by merely naming them as having been seen in the melee is a tendency which is more often discernible and is to be eschewed and, therefore, the evidence has to be examined with utmost care and caution. Whenever in uneventful rural society something unusual occurs, more so where the local community is faction ridden and a fight occurs amongst factions, a good number of people appear on the scene not with a view to participating in the occurrence but as curious spectators. In such an event mere presence in the unlawful assembly should not be treated as leading to the conclusion that the person concerned was present in the unlawful assembly as a member of the unlawful assembly. Although the evidence of a partisan witness must not be discarded on that ground alone, the Court must be on guard to scrutinise their evidence with more than ordinary care. Although the evidence of a partisan witness must not be discarded on that ground alone, the Court must be on guard to scrutinise their evidence with more than ordinary care. It must focus its attention on whether there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether the evidence strikes the Court as genuine, and whether the story as narrated is probable, judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence. " ( 38 ) IN Darya Singh v. State of Punjab, the supreme Court observed as follows:"in a trial for the offence of murder where the witness is a close relation of the victim and is shown to share the victim's hostility to his assailant, that makes it necessary for the criminal courts to examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinise all the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it. In dealing with such evidence, Courts begin with the enquiry as to whether the said witnesses were chance witnesses or whether they were really, present on the scene of the offence. If the offence has taken place in front of the house of the victim, the fact that on hearing his shouts, his relations rushed out of the house cannot be ruled out as being improbable, and so, the presence of the eyewitnesses cannot be properly characterized as unlikely. If the criminal court is satisfied that the witness who is related to the victim was not a chance witness, then his evidence has to be examined from the point of view of probabilities and the account given by him as to the assault has to be carefully scrutinised. On principle, however, it is difficult to accept the plea that if a witness is shown to be a relative of the deceased and it is also shown that he shared the hostility of the victim towards the assailant, his evidence can never be accepted unless it is corroborated on material particulars. It cannot be held that such witnesses are no better than accomplices and that their evidence, as a matter of law, must receive corroboration before it is accepted. ( 39 ) RELATIONSHIP is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. ( 39 ) RELATIONSHIP is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible [see Sucha singh v. State of Punjab]. ( 40 ) IT has been held by the Supreme court in Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihai6 that merely being relatives of the deceased is no ground to reject the testimony of the eyewitnesses who are otherwise found to be trustworthy and reliable. If their testimony inspires confidence to hold the real culprits guilty of the commission of the crime, the same can be relied on. ( 41 ) EVEN with regard to faction fight cases, the Supreme Court in Bijoy Singh's case (5th cited supra) observed that:"in cases of party fictions and group rivalries, there is a tendency on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some innocent persons also along with the guilty ones. Generally in such cases the witnesses of the prosecution cases are prone to exaggerating the culpability of the actual assailants and to extend the participation in the occurrence to some possible innocent members of the opposite party as well. In such cases a duty is cast upon the Court to sift the evidence and after a close scrutiny with proper care and caution to come to a judicial conclusion as to who out of the accused persons can be considered to have actually committed the offence. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule to apply in the conditions in this country and, therefore, it is the duty of the Court in cases where a witness has been found to have given unreliable evidence in regard to certain particulars, to scrutinise the rest of his evidence with care and caution. If the remaining evidence is trustworthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact, then the Court should uphold the prosecution case to that extent. If the remaining evidence is trustworthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact, then the Court should uphold the prosecution case to that extent. " ( 42 ) THE Supreme Court in Gangadhar behera v. State of Orissa, observed as follows:"the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because a witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. The maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence, which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called "a mandatory rule of evidence". Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. Even if a major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where chaff can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto. " ( 43 ) WE find in this case that right from the prime accused A-1 to A-6 were sought to be implicated. However, the lower Court found 12 out of them not guilty. This itself shows that the prosecution intended to rope in as many persons as possible from the A-1 group. Even the lower Court found that A-43 to A-47 died not participated in the offence of crime. Thus, it shows that the evidence of P. W. 1, p. W. 6 and 7 is not only unbelievable and unreliable, but they tried to improve their version from time to time. They did not even state the presence of P. Ws. 2,3 and 5 at the scene of offence. The theory that D-1 was running towards north while seeing the accused and in the meanwhile A-7 hurled bombs on the head of D-1 is most unbelievable. P. W. 1 in Ex. P-1 did not state this aspect. It is not understood how these witnesses could say in one tone that A-7 threw bombs on D-1 when he was running while seeing backwards. Similarly, when a-10 and A-15 were having bombs in their hands, it is not understood why dragged D-2 and place him at the left rear wheel of the jeep. The lower Court categorically found that the placing of bullock carts did not in any way obstruct the way of the jeep. Similarly, when a-10 and A-15 were having bombs in their hands, it is not understood why dragged D-2 and place him at the left rear wheel of the jeep. The lower Court categorically found that the placing of bullock carts did not in any way obstruct the way of the jeep. In such a situation, we do not find necessity for the jeep to be stopped at the relevant place. ( 44 ) THE prosecution had ample time and opportunity to manufacture a case against their enemies. The mutual contradictions among various prosecution witnessed and failure to identify each accused with the weapon, either bombs or sickles, and the version of eye witnesses in Section 161 cr. P. C. statements and their contradictory evidence in the Court show any amount of improvements and embellishments from time to time. Once it is held that the eye witnesses cannot be believed and that they have tried to rope in as many accused as possible with omnibus allegation, the whole prosecution case has to fail. ( 45 ) IN almost identical circumstances the supreme Court in Dharam Singh v. State of punjab, observed as follows:"admittedly there was enmity between the accused and the deceased and witnesses. Therefore their evidence has to be scrutinised with great care and caution. The version given by them attributing the overt acts to each of the accused does not inspire confidence for the reasons that the examination of the contents of the FIR in juxtaposition with the injuries as described by the doctor on the two injured, it cannot but be inferred that the description of the weapons in the hands of each of the accused and the distribution of the overt acts to each of them and the nature of the blows and the parts of the body on which they were inflicted including two simple injuries on prosecution witness must have been done after due consultation after coming to know the nature of the injuries as per the examination done by the Doctors on that right. It is rather strange that even the fracture on the leg of the deceased and as to how it was caused was mentioned. The version in the FIR in which such details, as mentioned above, were given, must have been a result of consultations among the interested persons after coming to know the nature of injuries. It is rather strange that even the fracture on the leg of the deceased and as to how it was caused was mentioned. The version in the FIR in which such details, as mentioned above, were given, must have been a result of consultations among the interested persons after coming to know the nature of injuries. That apart, there are many improbabilities in the said version. Contradictions and omission in depositions are the same. Narrations and sequence of events are meticulously in the same order. Therefore it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of witnesses. ". ( 46 ) THUS, we find that P. W. 5,6 and 7 are not speaking truth and they tried to give false evidence being the members and supporters of D-1 group and also close relations and their evidence cannot be relied on to support of the case of prosecution. ( 47 ) COMING to the evidence of P. Ws. 2,3 and 5, it is established that they are interested witnesses though they were cited as chance witnesses. Their evidence is lacking in material particulars. When P. W. 2 has stated that he was going along with his wife on a double bullock cart to the fields, he did not state the same in his 161 Cr. P. C. statement. It is also highly improbable that they have watched occurrence from 15 fts. when the bombs were hurled. It is quite probable that the bullocks would get scare when so many bombs were hurled. Further, he did not state that P. W. 3 was there with yoke. Even p. W. 3 who is alleged to have taken his yoke just behind the bullock cart stated that the jeep over took them at Gandamvari kallam, but Ex. P-25 did contain this place. Further did not contain where the double bullock cart and the yoke were there. They are the most important clues to establish that they witnessed the incident from a particular place. ( 48 ) P. W. 5 stated that the accused threatened that if the give evidence in respect of the incident, they have to face same situation. They were not spoken to by other witnesses. P. W. 2 has stated that his statement and his wife's statement were recorded in the evening by the Investigating officer-P. W. 22. ( 48 ) P. W. 5 stated that the accused threatened that if the give evidence in respect of the incident, they have to face same situation. They were not spoken to by other witnesses. P. W. 2 has stated that his statement and his wife's statement were recorded in the evening by the Investigating officer-P. W. 22. But their name did not find place in the F. I. R. nor were they witnesses to the inquest. Further, when these witnesses were behind the jeep and when the incident was taking place in front of the jeep, it is highly impossible for them to witness the situation. It is more so, especially when 40 to 50 persons have attacked, highly it is rather impossible for say that particular number of persons numbering 15 to 20 have attacked particular deceased. It is also not stated that which accused was holding which weapon. Omnibus allegations were made without specifying the overt acts on part of each accused. When it is stated that except 3 or 4 persons, others were having bombs. In such a situation, it is not understood as to how d-3 could have received so many injuries, other than burn injuries. As already noted the statements of these witnesses under section 161 Cr. P. C. is incompetent with their evidence before the Court. We have already extracted the evidence of P. W. 22. Thus, it only shows only that these witnesses are neither natural or chance witnesses, but they are only planted witnesses. When the other persons were alleged to be accompanying party namely Maddilety Reddy, subrahmanyam etc. were not examined and getting these witnesses also creates any amount of doubt that they are only brought to buttress the case of the prosecution. P. W. 5 categorically stated that P. Ws. 1 to S. Maddileti reddy and others discussed how to give a complaint to the police atthesceneof offence. Himself, P. Ws. 2, 3, Maddileti Reddy and janardhan Reddy are relations to D-1- shivaram Reddy. Consultations and confabulations have taken as to how the number of persons to be implicated cannot be ruled out under the circumstances of the case. Ex. P-1 obviously appears to have been brought after deliberations by implicating as many as 47 persons. The above features would dissuade us from placing any reliance on the testimony as witness of truth. Consultations and confabulations have taken as to how the number of persons to be implicated cannot be ruled out under the circumstances of the case. Ex. P-1 obviously appears to have been brought after deliberations by implicating as many as 47 persons. The above features would dissuade us from placing any reliance on the testimony as witness of truth. Thus, on consideration of the entire evidence of the prosecution, we find that the evidence of p. Ws. 1, 6 and 7 and P. Ws. 2, 3 and 5 is not reliable and creates any amount of suspicions. Under these circumstances, it is most unsafe to convict the accused basing on their evidence. ( 49 ) IT is true four persons died in the occurrence in the morning hours on 30-10-1994. We also note that the factions are the root cause forthe consecutive murders in that small village. But, we are unable to believe the evidence of eyewitnesses both who had accompanied the victims in the jeep and the so-called non-occupants of the jeep and chance witness. The testimony of the ocular witnesses is unbelievable and undependable. It is ambulatory and suspicious in many ways as noted supra. It suffers from insurmountable infirmities and improbabilities and it is unworthy of credence when examined by the standards of yardstick of credibility. ( 50 ) IN State of U. P. v. Moti Ram, the incident took place where 13 persons were massacred and they were charred to death and 41 accused were tried for the offence of murder. However, they were finally acquitted by the High Court. On appeal by the State, the Supreme Court observed as follows:"we went through the available records placed before us and examined them scrupulously and meticulously with all seriousness and onerous responsibility cast upon us in getting at the truth, but we regret to say that the entire evidence is nothing but a coloured version with concocted story and exaggerated account mixed with falsehood and that the prosecution has miserably failed to make out the charges against all or any of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt except Rambali (A-36) who himself admitted his presence at the scene. In this connection, we would like to cite a decision of this Court in Balaka singh v. State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 511 : ( AIR 1975 SC 1962 ) wherein the following observation is made:". . . In this connection, we would like to cite a decision of this Court in Balaka singh v. State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 511 : ( AIR 1975 SC 1962 ) wherein the following observation is made:". . . the Court must make an attempt to separate grain from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood, yet this could only be possible when the truth is separable from the falsehood. Where the grain cannot be separated from the chaff because the grain and chaff are so inextricably mixed up that in the process of separation the Court would have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the prosecution by divorcing the essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, then this principle will not apply. "no doubt, it is true that this heinous offence is diabolical in conception and executed in gruesome and ghastly manner. It is shocking that 13 persons have been done away with in a broad day light in the course of the same transaction. Nonetheless the Court when satisfied that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not only unworthy of credence, but also manifestly and inextricably mixed up with falsehood cannot be carried away merely on the fact of multiplicity of victims and on the basis of speculations and suppositions in the confused stream of facts. ". ( 51 ) THUS, we find the Appellants-accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and they are accordingly acquitted of the charges. Appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other case. The criminal Appeals are allowed and the judgment of the trial Court is set aside. 52. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed.