JUDGMENT (Per G. Bikshapathy, J.) Both the appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of the judgment of the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool in S.C. No. 20 of 2000 dated 29-1-2002. 2. 23 accused were tried for various offences under Section 148, 302 r/w Section 149, 324, 326 IPC and under Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act. However, after the trial, the learned trial Judge found A-3, A-7, A-8, A-10, A-12, A-13 and A-15 to A-22 not guilty and they were acquitted of all the charges. Against the said acquittal, the State preferred an appeal Crl.A.No. 437 of 2003. 3. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-9, A-11, A-14 and A-23 were found guilty for various offences which would be referred to infra and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment apart from other sentences. Aggrieved by the said convictions and sentences, they filed Crl.A.No. 859 of 2002. That is how both the appeals came to be disposed of by this common judgment. 4. First we shall deal with the appeal filed by convicted accused in S.C.No. 20 of 2000. For the sake of convenience, the names of the accused are referred to herein before identifying them with their numbers in the text of the judgment. A-1 is Yerasu Venkataramana Reddy, A-2 is Yerasu Venugopal Reddy @ Gopal, A-4 is Angajala V enkasubbadu, A-5 is Angajala Pedda Subba Krishna, A-6 is Angajala Sekhar. A-9 is Avula Venkatasubbaiah, A-11, Yerasu Shagavan Reddy, A-14 is Angajal Venkatasubbaiah, A-23 is Chinna Ranga Swamy. 5. Similarly, the deceased were also referred to for the sake of identification with their respective numbers. D-1 is Kodudula Narayana Reddy. D-2 is Vadde Narayana, D-3 is Soya Yellappa. D-4 is Golla Angajala Nandipi Venkataramana @ Sachalu, D-5 is Angajala Venkataramudu, D-6 is Angajala Sunkanna, D-7 is Golla Pedda Venkatramana, and D-8 is Golla Angajala Nadipi Gopal. 6. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-9, A-11 and A-14 were found guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of D-1 to D-6 and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment. A-5, A-6 and A-23 were found guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-9, A-11 and A-14 were found guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of D-1 to D-6 and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment. A-5, A-6 and A-23 were found guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment. Further A-2, A-4, A-11 and A-23 were found guilty for the offence under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act and they were convicted and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-9, A-14 and A-23 were also found guilty of the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and they were convicted and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each. A-5 was found guilty of the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and imprisoned for two years. A-23 was found guilty for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and he was convicted and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 7. The substance of the charge against the accused is that all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with country made bombs, and hunting sickles on 13-10-1998 at about 2-30 p.m. and in furtherance of their common object to kill the rival party caused the death of D-1 to D-8 thereby committed various offences as referred to above. 8. The case of the prosecution as unfolded during the trial is as follows: Durvesi village in Gadivemula police station, Kurnool District is a faction ridden and stricken village. One faction group was lead by late Siva Reddy and another faction group was lead by Cheviti Venkata Reddy. Late Siva Reddy belonged to T.D.P. and Cheviti Venkata Reddy belongs to Congress Party. In the Gram Panchayat elections which were held in 1995, late Siva Reddy and Pothi Reddy, nephew of Cheviti Venkata Reddy had contested and Siva Reddy was elected as Sarpanch. Since then ill-feelings sprouted. 9. About 2 1/2 months prior to the date of the offence, the said Siva Reddy was murdered by the group of Cheviti Venkata Reddy. In that D-1 was also an accused. On account of murder of Siva Reddy, ill feelings reached sub lime heights and both the groups were waiting for an opportunity for head-on clash. 10. 9. About 2 1/2 months prior to the date of the offence, the said Siva Reddy was murdered by the group of Cheviti Venkata Reddy. In that D-1 was also an accused. On account of murder of Siva Reddy, ill feelings reached sub lime heights and both the groups were waiting for an opportunity for head-on clash. 10. While so, on 13-10-1998 at about 2.30 p.m. while P.W.1 Kondudula Venkata Reddy (brother of D-1 Kondudula Narayana Reddy), his son Ramakrishna Reddy, P.W.3 Kondudula Govinda Reddy (brother of D-1 Kondudula Narayana Reddy), and P.W.2 is Telugu Bala Venkata and D-1, D-2 and D-3 were engaged in conversation near Lingamaiah Katta (Pial) in the village. All the accused entered the place with the bombs and hunting sickles. On seeing the mob, the persons, who were sitting at the Pial began to run away. At that time, A-1 hurled a bomb on D-1, who died instantaneously, A-3 wife of A-1 instigated A-2 to kill D-2 and thereupon A-2 hurled a bomb which hit D-2 and he died. A-4 hurled another bomb against D-3 and he died on the spot: A-5 also hurled a bomb, which hit P.W.2 and he received injuries. A-23 hurled a bomb which hit P.W.I and he received injuries on his right leg. Thereafter, all the accused went towards Gollageri (shepherd street). In continuation of this Act, they committed more offences after causing the death of D-1 to D-3. They went to the house of P.W.4. P.W.4 is the wife of D-5. D-5 and D-6 are the brothers and P. W.5 is the sister of D-5 and D-6 and sister-in-law of P. W.4. On the date of incident P.W.4, P.W.5, D-5 and D-6 were present in their house. When they heard bomb explosions they immediately closed the doors. In the meanwhile, D-4 went to their house with bleeding injury on his right hand and knocked the door asking the inmates of the house to open the doors as he was being chased by some people. Then D-6 opened the door and after allowing D-4 inside, the door was locked. When he was hiding in the cattle shed, A-1, A-11, A-2, A-6, A-4, A-9 and A-14 came there and shouted at the inmates to open the doors as they wanted only D-4. Then D-6 opened the door and after allowing D-4 inside, the door was locked. When he was hiding in the cattle shed, A-1, A-11, A-2, A-6, A-4, A-9 and A-14 came there and shouted at the inmates to open the doors as they wanted only D-4. Since inmates refused to open the door, A-1 directed the other accused to climb the roof and dig a hole to the roof. A-6, A-2 and A-4 climbed the terrace to dismantle the roof of the house. Then P.W.4 afraid of the situation opened the door. Immediately thereafter D-5 and D-6 came out of the house and D-5 began to run. A-14, A-9, A-1 chased D-5 and hacked him to death at the house of Badam Venkata Ramana saying he has given protection to D-4. Thereafter, A-1, A-9 and A-14 chased D-6 also and hacked him to death near the house of Uppari Venkata Ramana. Thereafter, all the three accused A-4, A-2 and A-6 who climbed the roof got down and A-2 and A-11 entered the house. At that point of time, P.W.4 heard the sound of bomb and thereafter A-4 and A-11 came out and all the accused went towards the elementary school. P.W.4 when she went inside found that D-4 dead. Thereafter A-12, A-21 and A-19 and A-17 went towards the elementary school and after seeing D-8 and his son D-7, they attacked with hunting sickles and caused their death. They first attacked D-8. After causing the death of D-7, they chased D-8 and A-8 hurled bombs against D-8 and other accused hacked him and caused his death. After this, incident, all the accused went away towards the north of the village. 11. P.W-29, Circle Inspector of Police of panyam police station on receiving information from P.C. 75 of Gadivemula police station at 4-30 p.m. about the incident happened at Durvesi village proceeded to Durvesi village along with P.W.25 Sub-Inspector of Police and other members of police party and reached Durvesi village at 5.30 p.m. He found three dead bodies around Lingamaiah Katta and he went to the village and found 5 more dead bodies at various places in the village and he posted police constables to guard the dead bodies. He found P.W.1 at Lingamaiah katta and recorded his statement under EX.P-1 and sent the same through P.C. 208 (not examined) to Gadivemula police station for registration of the crime and EX.P-1. It was received by P.W.27 H.C. Gadivemula police station and he registered the same in Crime No.71 of 1998 under Sections 148, 148, 324, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and issued EX.P-24 F.I.R. He sent the same to the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal and also a copy of the same was sent to P.W.29. P.W.29 also informed about the incident to S.D.P.O. Nandyal (P.W.30) andtothe Superintendent of Police, Kurnool. They visited the village. P.W.29 also recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and seized blood stained clothes from P.Ws.1 and 2 under EX.P-26. M.Os.1 to 3 are bloodstained clothes. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead bodies of the D-1 to D-3 and prepared inquest report under EX.P-4 to P-6 and he sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination. P.Ws. 16, 17 and 18 conducted post mortem examination over the dead bodies of D-1 to D-3 and issued post mortem reports Exs.P-12, 13, 15 respectively.P.W.16 opined that the death of D-1 was due to explosion of bomb and P.W.17 opined that the death of D-2 was due to injury to vital organs. P.W.18 opined that the death of D-3 was due to shock and haemorrhage and injury to vital organs like heart and lungs. P.W-29 prepared rough sketch of scene of offence showing all the three scene of offences. EX.P-28 is the rough sketch. As per his directions, P.Ws.25, 26 and 28 conducted inquest over the dead bodies and P. W .28 Circle Inspector of Police, Nandyal conducted inquest over the dead bodies of D-4, D-5 and D-6. He prepared inquest report Exs. P-7 to P-9. He got recorded the statements of P.Ws. 4 to 6 by a police constable to assist him. He also seized the blood stained napa slabs and control napa slabs near the dead body of D-4 under M.Os. 13 to 18. He prepared rough sketch near the house of P.W.4 under EX.P-25. Thereafter, he sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination. 4 to 6 by a police constable to assist him. He also seized the blood stained napa slabs and control napa slabs near the dead body of D-4 under M.Os. 13 to 18. He prepared rough sketch near the house of P.W.4 under EX.P-25. Thereafter, he sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination. P.W.19 conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of D-4 and issued EX.P-16 and the doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of external and internal injuries. P.W.20 conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of D-5 and issued post mortem certificate EX.P-19 and he opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the external and internal Injuries. P.W.21 conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of D-6 and issued Ex. P-20 and he opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage and injury to vital organ, brain. P.W.25 Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal conducted inquest over the dead body of the D-7 and prepared inquest report Ex. P-10 inquest report, he recorded the statements of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination and P.W.22 conducted post mortem over the dead body of the D-7 and issued EX.P-21 post mortem certificate and she opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage and due to injury to vital organ namely brain. P.W.26 held inquest over the dead body of D-8 under inquest report EX.P-11 and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. P.W.23 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of D-8 and issued post mortem certificate under EX.P-22. He opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to vital organ namely brain and loss of left fore arm. 12. On 19-10-1998 P.W.29 arrested A-1 to A-8, A-10 to A-16, A-18, A-19, A-21 and A-22 at Bhogeswara Swamy Temple near Koratamaddi and seized the hunting sickles from them under seizure panch nama under EX.P-29 On 30-10-1998, he arrested A-9, A-17, A-20 and A-23 and seized hunting sickles from A-9 and A-17 under panchanama EX.P-32. All the M.Os. seized by him were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory through Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory was EX.P-31. All the M.Os. seized by him were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory through Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory was EX.P-31. Thereafter, he handed over the further investigation to P.W.30, S.D.P.O. Nandyal, who visited the village on 15-10-1998 and verified the investigation conducted by P.W.29 and others and he recorded the statements of P.Ws. 9, 11 and 12. He filed charge sheet after completion of investigation before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal and the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal took the case on file and registered the same as P.R.C.No. 1 of 1999 and as the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the Court of Sessions Division, Kurnool, who registered the same as S.C.No. 20 of 2000 and thereafter the learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the learned IV Add!. Sessions Judge, Kurnool for trial and disposal according to law. 13. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned trial Judge framed the following charges. 1. U/sec. 148 IPC against A-1 to A-23. 2. U/sec. 302 IPC against A-1. 3. U/sec. 302 r/w sec. 149 IPC against A-2 to A-23. 4. U/sec. 302 IPC against A-2 5. U/sec. 302 r/w sec 149 IPC against A-1, A-4 to A-23. 6. U/secs. 109 and 302 IPC against A-3. 7. U/sec. 302 against A-4. 8. U/sec. 302 r/w Section 149 IPC against A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-23. 9. U/sec. 326 against A-5. 10. U/sec. 302 r/w Section 149 IPC against A-1 to A-4 and A-6 to A-23. 11. U/sec. 324 IPC against A-23. 12. U/sec. 324 r/w 149 IPC against A-1 to A-22. 13. U/sec. 302 IPC against A-8, A-11 and A-2. 14. U/sec. 302 r/w 149 IPC against A-1, A-3 to A-7, A-9, A-1 0, A-12 to A-23. 15. U/sec. 302 IPC against A-1, A-9, and A-14. 16. U/sec. 302 r/w 149 IPC against A-2 to A-8, A-10 to A-13, A-15 to A-23 17. U/sec. 302IPC againstA-1, A-9 and A-14 18. U/sec.302 r/w 149 IPC against A-2 to A-8, A-10 to A-13, A-15 to A-23. 19. U/sec. 302 IPC against A-21, A-22, A-17, A-12 and A-19. 20. U/sec.302 r/w 149 IPC against A-1 toA-11, A-13toA-16, A-18, A-20, A23. 21. U/sec. 302 IPC against A-12, A-17, A-19, A-21 , and A-22. 22. U/sec. 302IPC againstA-1, A-9 and A-14 18. U/sec.302 r/w 149 IPC against A-2 to A-8, A-10 to A-13, A-15 to A-23. 19. U/sec. 302 IPC against A-21, A-22, A-17, A-12 and A-19. 20. U/sec.302 r/w 149 IPC against A-1 toA-11, A-13toA-16, A-18, A-20, A23. 21. U/sec. 302 IPC against A-12, A-17, A-19, A-21 , and A-22. 22. U/sec.302 r/w 149 IPC against A-1 to A-11, A-13 to A-16, A-18, A-20 and A-23. 23. U/sec. 3 of Explosive Substances Act against A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, A-11, A-12 and A-23. 24. U/sec. 5 of Explosive Substances Act against A-1 , A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, A-11, A-12 and A-23. 25. U/sec. 6 and 3 of Explosive Substances Act against A-3. 14. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It is their case that they were implicated falsely due to factions existing in the village. 15. In support of the case of the prosecution 30 witnesses were examined and EX.P-1 to P-32 were marked. EX.D-1 is the portion marked from EX.P-1. M.Os.1 to 37 were marked by the prosecution. After the evidence was completed, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied th9 incriminating evidence appearing against them. 16. After considering the evidence available on record, the learned trial Judge acquitted A-3, A-7, A-8, A-10, A-12, A-13 and A-1 5 to A-22 holding that no overt acts have been established against them. However, he convicted A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-9, A-11, A-14 and A-23 and sentenced them to suffer Imprisonment as detailed above. 17. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-9, A-11, A-14 and A-23 have filed Crl.A.No. 859 of 2002 while the State filed CrLA.No. 437 of 2003 challengillg the acquittal of A-3, A-7, A-8, A-10, A-12, A-13 and A-15 to A-22. 18. The point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment of the trial Judge is sustainable in law or on facts and whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 19. The learned counsel for the appellants contend that there are inherent and incurable defects in the investigation. The F.I.R. was shrouded with suspicion. 19. The learned counsel for the appellants contend that there are inherent and incurable defects in the investigation. The F.I.R. was shrouded with suspicion. According to P.W.29 Circle Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer, he received telephonic information about the occurrence on 13-10-1998 at about 4-30 p.m. from P.C.75 of Gadivemula police station and the said P.C. was not examined. He also did not make any entry in the General Diary of P.S. Panyam. Similarly, no G.D. entry was also made Gadivemula police station. He submits that though the witnesses speak to the factum of police arriving in the village at 6 p.m. none gave information except P.W.1 to the P.W.29. Further, the police did not claim to have contacted the witnesses in other places where the offence was alleged to have been committed near Golla Geri and near elementary school. According to P.W .29 he recorded the statement of P.W.1 (brother of D-1) and sent to Gadivemula Police Station through P .C. 208 for registration of the crime and the said statement was EX.P-1. On the basis of the said statement, P.W .27 registered a crime at 8 p.m. But, however, he did not identify the said statement as EX.P-1. Further, the F.I.R. was sent to Durvesi same night and it was received by P. W.29 at 10 p.m. However, the original F.I.R. meant for the Magistrate which ought to reach the Magistrate at the earliest possible time at Nandyal which is about 10 kms from Durvesi village, but it reached the Magistrate at 1 a.m. on 14-10-1998. That there was a delay of 10 1/2 hours from the time of occurrence, 7 hours from the time when the EX.P-1 was recorded by P.W.9. Thus, the learned counsel would submit that consultations, confabulations and deliberations took place so as to implicate as many persons belonging to the opposite faction group as possible more especially the members of A-1 family as they are the prime witnesses in the murder of Siva Ram Reddy, husband of A-3. Thus, the investigation is tainted and it is unsafe to rely on such tainted investigation. The learned counsel would rely on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Ramulu AIR 1993 SC 2644 . 20. Thus, the investigation is tainted and it is unsafe to rely on such tainted investigation. The learned counsel would rely on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Ramulu AIR 1993 SC 2644 . 20. The learned counsel would also submit that P.W.29 conducted inquest over the dead bodies of the D-1 to D-3, but he did not record the statements in his hand. His Subordinates alleged to have recorded the statements. But, none of the witnesses who recorded the statements were examined nor P. W .29 made an entry in the C.O. about recording of the statements by other persons nor Part-I of C.O. discloses this information. Similarly, P.W.28 appeared to have held inquest over the dead bodies of D-4 to D-6, but he did not record the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4, their statements were recorded by the H.C. who was not at all examined. P.W.25 and P.W.26 held inquest over the dead bodies of D-7 and D-8 for both the inquest one P.C. recorded the statement of P.Ws.7, 8and 10, but did not enter the name of the P.C. nor the said P.C. was examined. So also, P.W.6 did not record any statement. Therefore, he submits that a serious suspicion would arise from the evidence of P.Ws.25 to 29, whether the inquest reports were prepared by them at the scene of occurrence at all. The suggestion though denied that they were prepared at Panyam police station at the dictation of P.W.29 is quite possible and plausible. 21. Coming to the evidence aspect, the learned counsel would submit that the entire scene of offence were divided into three parts, one is at Lingamaiah Katta (Pial), second is at the housed of P.W.4/D-5 and third is near the elementary school. To establish the offence at Lingamaiah katta, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 was pressed into service. Their evidence is not only unreliable but partisan as they are closely related except P. W.2 and they are obviously partisan witnesses. Further, P.Ws. 1 to 3 gave parrot like evidence and it is highly improbable to narrate the incident word by word it is also highly doubtful whether P.W.1 lodged a complaint at all which was recorded by P.W.29. The learned counsel would submit that P.W.1 is literate man and there is no reason why his report was not written by P.W.1 himself. 1 to 3 gave parrot like evidence and it is highly improbable to narrate the incident word by word it is also highly doubtful whether P.W.1 lodged a complaint at all which was recorded by P.W.29. The learned counsel would submit that P.W.1 is literate man and there is no reason why his report was not written by P.W.1 himself. It is also highly improbable that he would remember all the 23 names at a stretch. Even in Ex.P-1, P.W.1 did not refer to the presence of P.W.2 and he did not also state the presence of D-2 and D-3 and the same was also accepted by him in the evidence. In such an event, the overt acts attributable to A-2 and A-4 become highly suspicious and doubtful. Further, A-5 was alleged hurled bomb at P.W.5 and the same was also not mentioned in the said EX.P-1. Even the alleged overt acts on the part of the A-23 on P.W.1 are highly unbelievable as he could not have seen the person hurling the bomb when he was running away: Splinters caused simple injury on his right leg and no further overt act was attributed to A-23 at the second scene or third scene. 22. Coming to second scene, the learned counsel would assail the evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 6. He submits that P.W.4 is the wife of D-5 and P.W.5 is the sister of D-5 and D-6 and P.W.6 is the brother of D-4 and son of D-8. It is highly improbable that they have witnessed the incident. He takes us to the evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 6 and submits that the alleged climbing of roof by A-2, A-4 and A-6 is unbelievable and the police officers also did not find any ladder in the house and P.W.6 is also a most unnatural witness as he could not have seen the attack on D-5 and D-6 from behind the school, as the school is situated after lanes and obstructed by hayrick and house. He submits that when he was not able to see what was happening in front of elementary school when D-7 and D-8 were attacked and they died on the spot, it is improbable that he had seen the incident, which occurred in the house of P.W.4. He submits that when he was not able to see what was happening in front of elementary school when D-7 and D-8 were attacked and they died on the spot, it is improbable that he had seen the incident, which occurred in the house of P.W.4. He also did not state as to what happened at the school, where he was alleged to be hiding and watching the incident and he also did not make any effort to give a complaint to the police or Village Administrative Officer. As far as D-4 is concerned, the only witness spoke is P.W.5 and her evidence is most unbelievable and contrary to the evidence of P.W.29. Thus the learned counsel would submit that when large number of accused committed murder, the individual overt acts have to be proved and corroborated by atleast two or three witnesses as held by the Supreme Court in Masalti v. State of UP. ( AIR 1965 SC 202 ). He further submits that the evidence of P.W.5 is unbelievable. She stated that after D-4 entered into the house, he was attacked by A-11 by bombs and P.W.29 did not find any bloodstains or the bombs splinters at the place where the D-4 was alleged to have been attacked. That itself shows that the story created by P.W.5 is unbelievable and unreliable. 23. Lastly also, the learned counsel would submit that the evidence of prosecution witnesses relating to the injuries inflicted on the deceased, persons do not tally with the injuries found by the medical officers. 24. As regards the third incident, where D-7 and D-8 were killed, the learned judge disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.7 to 10, however, P .W.9 was declared hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, the learned counsel would submit that the entire case of the prosecution suffers with serious infirmities and the evidence adduced is most unreliable and unnatural. Therefore, the judgment of the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. 25. Per contra the learned Public Prosecutor, however, vehemently submits that on account of the rivalry, the accused resorted to most inhuman acts and killed as many as 8 persons at three places. He submits that mere delay in reaching the F.I.R. by the Magistrate is not fatal to the prosecution and the delay has been satisfactorily explained. 25. Per contra the learned Public Prosecutor, however, vehemently submits that on account of the rivalry, the accused resorted to most inhuman acts and killed as many as 8 persons at three places. He submits that mere delay in reaching the F.I.R. by the Magistrate is not fatal to the prosecution and the delay has been satisfactorily explained. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly establishes the guilt of the A-1, A-2 and A-4. Similarly, the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6 bring home the guilt of the accused. When the witnesses have in fact seen the incident, it is quite but natural, that they repeat what they have seen and that cannot be construed as a parrot like evidence, only to disbelieve their version. He further submits that merely because the witnesses are close relations and partisan and belonging to opposite group, it cannot be discarded in toto, if the evidence is truthful and reliable. He further submits that the finding of the learned Judge with regard to the incident which took place near elementary school is wholly unsustainable and it is clearly brought out by evidence of P.Ws. 7 to 10 that the accused have inflicted injuries with hunting sickles and bombs on D-7 and D-8 and there is no reason why their evidence should be discarded. The reasoning given by the trial Court that when same accused attacked both the deceased with same weapons, the same type of injuries, should be found is wholly misconceived. Thus, he assails the finding of the learned trial Court in respect of the incident which took place at elementary school. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, submits that merely because, there are omissions on the part of the investigation and insignificant pieces of evidence on the part of the prosecution it would not unsettle the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the judgment of the learned trial Court in convicting the accused in respect of the incident which took place at Lingamaiah katta and also at the house of P.W.4 is quite appropriate and valid. He further submits that the finding of the trial Court with regard to the incident at elementary school is liable to be set aside and the accused are liable for conviction for the offences with which they are charged. 26. He further submits that the finding of the trial Court with regard to the incident at elementary school is liable to be set aside and the accused are liable for conviction for the offences with which they are charged. 26. Let us consider the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the F.I.R. reaching the Magistrate belatedly. It is held by the Supreme Court that mere delay in filing and in reaching the F.I.R. before the Magistrate is not a fatal to the case of the prosecution, if the delay is explained satisfactorily. The First Information Report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witness present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment, which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of colored version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is therefore, essential that the delay in lodging the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. One of the reasons for ensuring that the F.I.R. reaches the Magistrate at the earliest opportunity without any loss of time is to avoid possibility of subsequent implication of the accused as a result of after thought on account of the ill feelings, factions, political bitterness etc. Though the delay itself is not fatal, but it would throw a serious doubt on the prosecution case. (See: Thulika Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu ( (1972) 3 SCC 393 ), Maharaj Singh v. State of UP. ( (1994) 5 SCC 188 ), Tanedar Singh v. State of M.P. ( (2002) 1 SCC 487 ) and Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala ( (1980) 4 SCC 425 ). 27. (See: Thulika Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu ( (1972) 3 SCC 393 ), Maharaj Singh v. State of UP. ( (1994) 5 SCC 188 ), Tanedar Singh v. State of M.P. ( (2002) 1 SCC 487 ) and Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala ( (1980) 4 SCC 425 ). 27. In Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful but it shall put the Court on guard to find out as to whether the version as stated in the Court was the same version as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of deliberations involving some other persons who were actually not involved in the commission of the crime. Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution and if the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the Court to minutely examine the prosecution version to ensure whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. Therefore, There is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful. It necessarily depends upon facts and circumstances of each case whether there has been any such delay in lodging the FIR which may cast doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case and for this a host of circumstances like the condition of the first informant, the nature of injuries sustained, the number of victims, the efforts made to provide medical aid to them, the distance of the hospital and the police station, etc. have to be taken into consideration. There is no mathematical formula by which an inference may be drawn either way merely on account of delay in lodging of the FIR. 28. Thus, it is clear from the catena of judgments of the Supreme Court that the mere delay is not fatal. But, every case has to be decided on its own merits. 29. With regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the F.I.R. is tainted. We have the evidence of P.W.29-lnvestigating Officer. 28. Thus, it is clear from the catena of judgments of the Supreme Court that the mere delay is not fatal. But, every case has to be decided on its own merits. 29. With regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the F.I.R. is tainted. We have the evidence of P.W.29-lnvestigating Officer. According to him on 13-10-1998 at about 4-30 p.m. while he was in the office of police station, he received vague information through P.C. 75 of Gadivemula police station that the murders took places in Darvesu village. Immediately, he along with P.W.25 and others proceeded to the village and reached Lingamaiah katta in the said village at about 5-30 p.m. by then, he found three dead bodies around Lingamaiah katta and wandered the village and found five more dead bodies at various places. After posting police constables on guard duty, he reached Lingamaiah Katta and informed P.W.1 and he asked what has happened and then he recorded the statement of EX.P-1. He obtained the signature of P.W.1 and sent the document to Gadivemula police station through P.C. 208 of Panyam police station to got the same registered as F.I.R. He also examined P.W.1 and he recorded his statement. He also examined P.W.2 and sent P.W.2 to the Government hospital, Nandyal. According to P.W.27, who was working as H.C. of Gadivemula police station during the relevant time stated that on 13-10-1998 when he was on duty in Gadivemula police station at about 8 p.m. P.C. 208 (not examined) brought a statement recorded by Circle Inspector of Police P.W.29 directing him to register the same under Section 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act. Accordingly, he registered the same as F.I.R. and got EX.P-24 sent the same to Magistrate. It has to be seen that P.W.27 registered a case but he also did not give crime number and he stated that P.C. 208 brought a statement recorded by the Circle Inspector of Police and he did not even identify EX.P-1 as, the statement sent by the Circle Inspector of Police. P.W.29 also did not state as to when he received copy of the Ex. P-24 and he commenced the investigation. P.W.29 also did not state as to when he received copy of the Ex. P-24 and he commenced the investigation. It is also to be noticed that the incident had taken place at three places one at Lingamaiah Katta and another at house of P.W.4 and third at elementary school. He did not also record the statement with regard to the incidents that took place at the house of P.W.4 and elementary school. UnderEx.P-1 it was stated that P.W.1 was informed by Srinivasulu that some more murders took place in the village. It is also admitted by P.W.29 that when he received the information that the marders took place in village, he left panyam police station and he did not make any Goa. entry in panyam police station about the information received from Police Constable of Gadivemula police station. There are also other discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.29. He stated that he recorded the statement of P.Ws.1 to 3 and other witnesses, but he has admitted that they are not in his hand writing and took the assistance of subordinate staff, but at the same time, he did not endorse that they were written by subordinate staff on his instructions before he signed the said statements. He also did not state that he noted In Part-I of C.D It is also borne out by record that Ex. P-24 reached the Magistrate at 1 a.m. on 14-10-1998. Admittedly, there was a delay in reaching the F.I.R. to the Magistrate. As already observed by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above, various circumstances have to be taken into consideration as to the nature of the offence, distance between the police station and the Magistrate Court or the distance between the place of offence and the Court, the medical assistance to be rendered, law and order to be maintained etc. P.W.29 reached the scene at about 5-30 p.m. and thereafter he commenced the investigation. There were as many as 8 dead bodies in the village at three different places. In view of the gravity of the situation and the fact that various police personnel were requisitioned to control the situation with regard to the mass murders. The delay appears to have been taken place in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate and it was received by the Magistrate at 1 a.m. on 14-10-1998. In view of the gravity of the situation and the fact that various police personnel were requisitioned to control the situation with regard to the mass murders. The delay appears to have been taken place in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate and it was received by the Magistrate at 1 a.m. on 14-10-1998. By this, it cannot be said that the F.I.R. was tainted, but it cannot also be ruled out that in view of many lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer-P.W.29 and inconsistent versions given by him, this Court has to view the situation more guardedly so as to find out whether the delay has prejudiced the accused. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the delay by itself cannot not be said to defeat the case of the prosecution. But, at the same time, over all view has to be taken into consideration while assessing the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 30. It is admitted that the Durvesi village is a faction ridden village and one Siva Reddy belonging to T.D.P., who was elected as Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat election was murdered by the opposite faction group led by Cheviti Venkata Reddy and Siva Reddy was the husband of A-3 and A-1 is the brother and A-2 is the son of the deceased Siva Reddy. Further all the eye witnesses are close relations of the deceased and therefore their evidence has to be discarded. It is held by the Supreme Court that the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of the witness. It cannot also be a ground that a witness is a close relation and being a partisan witness should not be relied on. But, however, the Court has to adopt careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent or credible. 31. A Division Bench of this Court as early as in 1977 in V. Sathyamaiah v. State of A.P.1978 (1) A.P.H.C. 83, 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. 31. A Division Bench of this Court as early as in 1977 in V. Sathyamaiah v. State of A.P.1978 (1) A.P.H.C. 83, 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 an 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. In such cases, even the test of corroboration of the ocular evidence by medical evidence cannot have much value". 32. In such cases, even the test of corroboration of the ocular evidence by medical evidence cannot have much value". 32. In Muthu Naicker v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1978 SC 1647 , the Supreme Court observed as follows: "Where there is a melee and a large number of assailants and number of witnesses claim 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. 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." 33. 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." 33. In Darya Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 328 , 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 characterised 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. 34. 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. 34. 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 ( (2003) 7 SCC 643 ), Hardev Singh v. Harbaez Singh ( (1997) 1 SCC 80 , and B.S. Singh v. State of Gujarat (1990 (1) Crimes (SC) 640). 35. In Bijoy Singh's case (2nd cited supra), the Supreme Court observed that Incases of party factions and group rivalries there is a tendency on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some of the innocent persons 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 of 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. 36. Thus, the Supreme Court categorically held that in case of faction ridden instances, the individual overt acts have to be taken into consideration as there is every possibility on the part of the opposite group to implicate as many persons as possible from the opposite group. 37. The first incident alleged to have been taken place at Lingamaiah Katta (pial) in the village. P .W.1 has stated that on 13-10-1998 at 2-30 p.m. himself, his brother P.W.2 Govinda Reddy, and his son Ramakrishna Reddy (not examined), Boya Yellappa (D-3) and his brother Narayana Reddy (D-1), Vadde Narayana (D-2) along with Telugu Bala Venkata (P.W.2) were in conversation. At that point of time, all of a sudden, all the accused armed with hunting sickle and bombs came and attacked them. On seeing them, they began to depart from that place. At that point of time, all of a sudden, all the accused armed with hunting sickle and bombs came and attacked them. On seeing them, they began to depart from that place. On that, A-1 hurled a country bomb which hit D-1 causing instantaneous death and on instigative alarm raised by A-3, A-2 hurled a bomb, which hit D-2 causing his death and A-4 hurled a bomb against D-3, which also caused his death. He further stated that A-5 hurled a bomb against Telugu Bala Venkata (P.W.2) which caused injuries to him. Then he and others began to run to their house. A-23 hurled a bomb, which exploded, and he sustained injuries to his right leg. Thereafter, all the accused went towards Gollageri. After some time, one Srinivasulu came and informed that some more persons were killed at Gollageri. It is admitted in the cross-examination that he did not state the presence of D-2 and D-3 at Lingamaiah Katta. He further admitted that there are two groups in village, one belongs to Congress and other people belonged to T.D.P. The people with Surname of Golla belong to Congress. It is I admitted that in the year 1995 two golla persons Munuswamy and his son were murdered. In the said murder case, A-6, A-9, A-14 were accused. A-4 and A-10 and A-14 are golla by caste. P.Ws.6, 4, 5, 3 and 10 also Golla by caste. Some of the deceased also belonged to Golla community viz. D-5 to D-8. Further he stated that till the police arrived, he was hiding in his house at hayrick near the cattle shed and he did not move out in the village. He further stated that he did not state before the police that A-23 hurled a bomb directly hit as stated in EX.P-1. 38. According to P.W.3, he is the brother of P.W.1 and also brother of D-1. Two months prior to the incident, the brother of A-1 Siva Reddy was murdered in Nandyal in which Cheviti Venkata Reddy and 9 others were accused. D-1 was also one of the accused. He stated that all of them belonging to faction group lead by Cheviti Venkata Reddy in the village and that they belong to Congress party. Two months prior to the incident, the brother of A-1 Siva Reddy was murdered in Nandyal in which Cheviti Venkata Reddy and 9 others were accused. D-1 was also one of the accused. He stated that all of them belonging to faction group lead by Cheviti Venkata Reddy in the village and that they belong to Congress party. While the deceased Siva Reddy belonged to T.D.P. He also accepted that there were ill feelings between both the groups and aggravated on account of the murder of Siva Reddy. On the date of the incident, he, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and D-1 and Rama Krishna Reddy (son of P.W.1), D-2, D-3 were present near Lingamaiah Katta conversing with each other. Soon after at about 2-30 p.m. all the accused armed with hunting sickles and bombs came to Lingamaiah Katta and attacked them. On seeking them, they tried to escape towards the west, in the meanwhile A-1 hurled a bomb which hit D-1 causing instantaneous death. A-3 instigated the others to kill, therefore, A-2 (son of A-3) hurled a bomb on Vadde Narayana (D-2) causing his death near the tea hotel of one Muslim of the village. While D-3 was going towards the flour mill of Dwaram Rami Reddy, A-4 hurled a bomb and on account of which he died. Thereafter, he hide himself behind the house situated to the west of the street located in between the hotel of one muslim and house of Dwaram Rami Reddy. A-5 hurled a bomb, which caused injury to P.W.2, whereas A-23 hurled a bomb, which caused injury to P.W.1. Thereafter, all the accused went towards the north. He ran towards his house and thereafter he went towards the new house constructed for weaker sections and spent time till 8 p.m. and returned into village after police came and police examined. In the cross-examination, he stated that all the accused came in a group before the attack. A-1 and A-2,and A-4 hurled bombs one after another. Even before A-1 hurling a bomb, he came towards the well to hide himself and went to the house. He further stated that none of the inmates of the deceased came at the scene of offence. He went to the house of one Nalla Gurvaiah, where he stayed till 7 p.m. and the said person was not examined. 39. Even before A-1 hurling a bomb, he came towards the well to hide himself and went to the house. He further stated that none of the inmates of the deceased came at the scene of offence. He went to the house of one Nalla Gurvaiah, where he stayed till 7 p.m. and the said person was not examined. 39. P.W.2 Telugu Bala Venkata is a villager belonging to Durvesi village. On the date of the incident, at about 2-30 he was standing near Lingamaiah Katta and P.W.1, his brother P.W.2 arid Rama Krishna Reddy, (son of P.W.1) was sitting on the pial, by then D-1, D-2, D-3 and D-4 were also present there. Soon after the accused came from southern side being armed with country bombs and hunting sickle. A-1 hurled a bomb against D-1 causing his death. Then A-3 instigated A-2 to hurl bombs, then A-2 hurled a bomb against D-2 and then D-3 started going towards the floor mill. A-4 hurled a bomb which exploded and caused his death. A-5 also hurled a bomb which exploded near the hotel and he received injuries. P.W.1 and his son began to run towards the south, A-23 hurled a bomb towards P.W.1 which exploded on P.W.1 and he received injuries. Then all the accused went towards the north. He stated that he sustained injuries on left eye, and both hands. Police arrived in the evening and examined him. They sent him and P.W.1 to the hospital and the bloodstained clothes M.Os.2 and 3 were seized. In the cross-examination, he stated that he was a cooli by profession. He further stated in the cross-examination that A-1 to A-3 were found in possession of country made bombs and others were with hunting sickle. Having seen the accused, he was afraid and went towards the hotel of muslim. He further stated that P.W.1, his brother P.W.3 and his brother Ramakrishna Reddy ran towards the west before the attack. Immediately after the accused went towards north, he proceeded towards the house of P.W.2 and reached the house of his brother-in-law Narasimhulu and stayed there till the police came to the village. He did not reveal the incident to anybody except his brother-in-law, who was not examined. He stated that he gave a statement before the police at the house of Govdinda Reddy. He did not reveal the incident to anybody except his brother-in-law, who was not examined. He stated that he gave a statement before the police at the house of Govdinda Reddy. It is also stated that the bomb hurled by A-23 hit the leg of P.W.1. 40. Now it has to be considered how far the evidence of these witnesses is to be relied on for holding the accused guilty of the offence. The first statement alleged to have been given by P.W.1 is the EX.P-1. In the said statement, he refers to 23 persons having armed bombs and sickles went to the pial and attacked. It is further stated in EX.P-1 that at the pial himself and his brother P.W.2 and D-1 were there. But, he did not mention about the presence of P.W.2. Further, he did not also mention about the name of D-2 and D-3. Even in the statement recorded by the police under 161 Cr.P.C., he did not state the presence of D-2 and D-3 and also P.W.2. Only for the first time in the evidence, he sought to develop the version and tried to implicate the others and in the evidence in the court he stated that P.W.2, D-2 and D-3 were also present when they are chitchatting at the pial. 41. It is to be observed in this regard that all the three witnesses (P.Ws.1, 2 and 3) in one tone without there being any omission repeated the incident that A-1 hurled bomb at D-1, A-3 instigated A-2 to hurl bombs and A-2 threw bombs on D-2 and A-4 hurled bomb on D-3 like a parrot like reputation and it is highly improbable that for them to narrate the incident word by word. According to P. W.1, immediately after the incident he was told by, one Srinivasulu that some more people were killed in the village, but said Srinivasulu was not examined at all. P.W.1 in the cross-examination has stated that he was hiding in hayrick-cum-cattle shed of his house till the police came and did not move out in the village. In such a situation, it is not understood as to how Srinivasulu came to him and informed him. Even that Srinivasulu was not examined. Even the son of P.W.1 was not examined, even though he was alleged to have been present at the time of occurrence. In such a situation, it is not understood as to how Srinivasulu came to him and informed him. Even that Srinivasulu was not examined. Even the son of P.W.1 was not examined, even though he was alleged to have been present at the time of occurrence. P.W.2 had categorically stated in the cross-examination that only A-1 to A-3 were in possession of country made bombs and others were armed with hunting sickles. In such a case, it is not understood as to how D-2 and D-3 were killed by bombs. There is any amount of inconsistency between the evidence of P.W.1and P.W.2, in asmuch as when P.W.2 had stated that only A-1 to A-3 were in possession of country bombs and A-4, A-5 and A-23 could not case any bomb injury to others. Further, P.W.2 stated that before the attack itself P.W.1, his son and P.W.3 ran towards west. If so it is rather impossible for them to see the incident of attack and that their evidence that they had seen the attack before they ran goes contrary to the evidence of P.W.2. Even the evidence of P.W.3 is also highly unreliable. He has stated that immediately after the incident, he went to the house of one Nalla Gurvaiah at new colony and he stated that he is not a friend of Gurvaiah, but yet he stated that he waited till 8 p.m. the said Gurvaiah was not at all examined. According to the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, A-1 hurled a bomb against D-1, A-2 hurled a bomb against D-2, A-4 hurled a bomb against D-3 and they died instantaneously. But, if the injuries as found during the post mortem are noted, there are any amount of discrepancies in the injuries sustained by the deceased and the injuries alleged to have inflicted according to P.Ws. 1 to 3. The post mortem reports also do not tally with the ocular evidence. P.W.29 Investigating Officer held inquest over the dead bodies of D-1 to D-3 and post mortem examination was conducted by P.Ws.16, 17, and, 18 in respect of the D-1 to D-3 respectively. EX.P-12 is the post mortem certificate in respect of the D-1 and EX.P-13 is the post mortem certificate in respect of the D-2 and Ex. P-15 is the post mortem certificate in respect of the D-3. EX.P-12 is the post mortem certificate in respect of the D-1 and EX.P-13 is the post mortem certificate in respect of the D-2 and Ex. P-15 is the post mortem certificate in respect of the D-3. P.W.16 in consequence of the autopsy conducted over the dead body of D-1 found the following injuries: "An extensive blast injury on the left side on the trunk extending from the infto axillary area to the left iliac crest vertically from the mid line on the front to the vertebral column antero posteriorly Edges are irregular, black and congested. Fracture of lower four ribs on the left side seen. Fracture of left half of the pelvis seen. Left lung is lacerated and black. Heart congested. Cut section congested. Right lung is congested, cut Section congested. Sternum and right side ribs are intact. Spleen not seen. Left lobe of liver is lacerated and black. Stomach ruptured and black. Intestines are torn and black and congested. Left kidney black and congested. Cut Section congested. Right kidney with cut Section congested. Other organs are black and congested." and the doctor opined that the deceased was died due to shock and haemorrhage due to bomb blast injury. 42. Similarly, in respect of D-2, the doctor found the following injuries: "1. A disruptive lacerated wound present on the left side of front of the chest extending from the collar bone above to the upper of abdomen, from the sternum to the left infro axillary region with irregular and ragged edges with loss of skin, bony cage (front part of ribs) and left lung and left dome of disaphragm with intestines protruding into the left pleural cavity. 2. A lacerated wound present on the left shoulder and upper arm with 9" x 5" irregular in shape bone deep with loss of skin and parts of muscles. On dissection it is found that the left part of body cage destroyed in front right lung with cut section pale and left lung absent. Left part of heart lacerated. Left dome of diaphragm absent. Stomach and intestines protruding into the left part of thoracic cavity." and the doctor opined that the deceased died due to injury to vital organ like heart, lung. 43. In respect of D-3, vide Ex. P-14, the doctor P.W.18 found the following injuries: "1. Left part of heart lacerated. Left dome of diaphragm absent. Stomach and intestines protruding into the left part of thoracic cavity." and the doctor opined that the deceased died due to injury to vital organ like heart, lung. 43. In respect of D-3, vide Ex. P-14, the doctor P.W.18 found the following injuries: "1. Lacerated open chest injury extending from below the clavical to the 5th intercoastal space below and medially upto mid clavicular line and laterally upto anterior axillary line, irregular in shape with ragged margins exposing the haemorrhagic internal structures. 2. Lacerated injury on the medical aspect of right wrist joint with irregular margins exposing tendons and bones. 3. Lacerated irregular injury below the mandible on the right of neck. On dissection I found the following internal damages corresponding to the external injuries: Anteriorly 2nd to 5th ribs were not seen and fractured ends are seen at the margins of the wound; upper 2/3rd sternum not found. Both lungs are lacerated. Lung tissue seen as piece meal with fronty blood. Heart ruptured. A small tissue from the edges of wound and from the centre of the wound preserved for chemical analysis and EX.P-14 is the chemical report", and he was of the opinion that the death might have caused due to shock and haemorrhage and injury to vital organs like heart and lungs. 44. It is thus seen that the D-1 had received blast injury apart from that he also received fracture injuries. Again EX.P-13 and P-15 in respect of the D-2 and D-3, the injuries were multiple. It is not stated whether they were blast injuries or otherwise. But, as can be seen from the post mortem report, the injuries, are lacerated injuries. Even the doctor did not state in the post mortem certificates or in the evidence that these injuries could be caused by bomb blast. While P.Ws.1 to 3 had categorically stated that accused hit the deceased namely A-1 hit D-1, A-2 hit D-2, A-4 hit D-3. In such an event, it has to be concluded that all the deceased D-1 to D-3 had received only one bomb blast injury each. But, there are innumerable number of injuries on the bodies of D-1 to D-3 and it was also not stated that the other injuries as splinter injuries. In such an event, it has to be concluded that all the deceased D-1 to D-3 had received only one bomb blast injury each. But, there are innumerable number of injuries on the bodies of D-1 to D-3 and it was also not stated that the other injuries as splinter injuries. This itself show that the theory and parrot like evidence lead by P.Ws.1 to 3 is unbelievable and self contradictory. Further, we find the doctors who examined the dead body of D-2 and D-3 only stated that they appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs and stated that the injuries might have been caused by blast. But they did not find any arsenic substances nor the splinters in the body. More over, the fluids emanating from the injuries were also not sent for forensic examination except in case of D-3. Further, injuries on D-2 were found to be independent injuries. 45. P.W.1 has stated that while he and his son were going towards their house, A-23 hurled bomb which exploded and he sustained injuries to his right leg and whereas in EX.P-1 he stated that he received injury to right buttock. As per wound certificate Ex.P-17, P.W.20 found the following injuries on P.W.1: "Lacerated injuries four in number on posterior aspect of right mid calf with irregular margins sizes 1/2" x 1/2" to '/4" X 3/4 X and skin deep with surrounding contusion." Doctor opined that the injuries were simple in nature. 46. In respect of P.W.2 also the EX.P-18 was issued and the doctor P.W.20 found the following injuries: "1. Lacerated injury on the left lower eye 1/2" x 1/1 into skin deep with surrounding blackning, haziness of cornea present. 2. Lacerated injury on the dorsum of right hand 1/2" x 1/2" a into skin deep with irregular margins. 3. Lacerated injury over the ulsar boarder of left fore arm transverse in direction 1" x 1/2" into skin. 4. Lacerated injury on posterior aspect of left fore arm circular, 3/4" x 1/2" into skin deep. 5. Lacerated injury on medial end of right clavicle 1/2" x 1/4" into skin deep. and the doctor P.W.20 opined that the injury no.1 is grievous and injury Nos. 2 and 3 are simple in nature. 47. Here also it is to be noted that there is no reference of blast injury. 5. Lacerated injury on medial end of right clavicle 1/2" x 1/4" into skin deep. and the doctor P.W.20 opined that the injury no.1 is grievous and injury Nos. 2 and 3 are simple in nature. 47. Here also it is to be noted that there is no reference of blast injury. Even otherwise, when once the bomb was alleged to have been thrown by A-5, it is not understood as to how five injuries were noted on the body. If at all bomb was thrown and he received bomb injury, it should cause only one major injury and other splinter injuries depending on the gravity of the blast. But, there is no reference about the blast injury and only they were found to be lacerated injuries. P.W.20 though stated that the injuries on P.W.3 are possible by bomb blast, he did not find any traces of blast material nor did he find any splinters in the injuries. 48. P .W.1 in his statement EX.P-1 has stated that he received injury to his right buttock on hurling a bomb by A-23. In the medical certificate, the injury is found on the other than right buttock. It is also stated in EX.P-1 that P.W.1 also received injuries on account of the hurling of bomb byA-5 P.W.2 received injuries. In' fact, the injuries are found on the body of P. W.2 are very grievious and that was also not spoken by P.W.2. We also find from the evidence of P.W.29, who conducted the autopsy did not recorded the statements of inquest witnesses in his own hand writing. He only stated that some others recorded their statements on the directions of P.W.29 and he also did not endorse to the same effect the statements have recorded as if they are recorded in his own handwriting. Even the persons, who alleged to have been recorded the statements, were not examined. 49. As already observed above, the Supreme Court has categorically stated that in case of faction rivalries, evidence has to be considered in respect of each overt act on the part of the accused as there is every tendency to rope in as many persons as possible from the rival group. 49. As already observed above, the Supreme Court has categorically stated that in case of faction rivalries, evidence has to be considered in respect of each overt act on the part of the accused as there is every tendency to rope in as many persons as possible from the rival group. When it is also admitted by P.Ws.1 and 3 that, apart from the number of other persons, had witnessed the incident as the incident had taken place in the centre of the village, and no independent persons were examined to corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. As observed above, P.W.1 and P.W.3 are close relations and none-elsethan they are the brothers of the deceased and P.W.2 is most unnatural witness, as his evidence is not only self contradictory, but also clashes with the evidence of P.W.1 in material particulars. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 does not coincide with the events. Thus, we find that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to.3 is unacceptable and unreliable. Even P.W.12 was sought to be pressed into service to establish that he saw the attack on D-2 and D-4. But, the lower Court itself found that many inconsistencies in his statement and the very fact that he was examined by the police number of days after the date of the incident itself shows that any amount of doubt in his evidence. Thus, the evidence of P.W.12 is of no assistance to establish the guilt of the accused. We accordingly find that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is unreliable and not credit worthy of acceptance to find A-1, A-2 and A-4 guilty of offence beyond reasonable doubt. 50. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the firm opinion that the charges framed against the A-1, 2 and 4 are not established and accordingly they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 51. Coming to the offence alleged to have taken place at the second scene namely at the house of P.W.4, it is in his evidence that on the date of the incident, P.W.4 and her sister-in-law P.W.5 and D-5 and D-6 were in their house. After hearing the bomb blast, they closed the doors, but immediately thereafter, D-4 came running with injuries and when he requested(?) the names of the house, P.W.4 opened the doors. Consequently, he entered into the house. After hearing the bomb blast, they closed the doors, but immediately thereafter, D-4 came running with injuries and when he requested(?) the names of the house, P.W.4 opened the doors. Consequently, he entered into the house. Thereafter, A-1, 11, 2, 6, 4, 9 and 14 came to the house and A-11 was armed with country made bombs and others were armed with hunting sickle. Then all of them cried and waited for opening the grill doors. A-1 alleged to have directed the other accused to climb the roof and cause a hole to the roof, A-2, 6 and 4 climbed the roof, in the meanwhile afraid of the braking of the roof, P.W.4opened the grill and thereafter D-5 and D-6 came out. When D-5 came out, A-14, A-9 and A-1 chased him and they hacked him to death. Thereafter, A-1, A-9, A-14 chased D-6 and also killed him with hunting sickles. D-5 was killed at the house of B. Venkatramaiah and D-6 was killed near the house of V. Venkataramana. It is also stated that the inmates of these two houses were present, when the incident had taken place. At that point of time, A-11 and A-2 intruded the house and P.W.5 heard bomb explosion from inside the house. When all the accused went, P.W.5 saw the dead body of D-4 with multiple injuries. It is to be noted that P.W.4 is the wife of P.W.5. P.W.5 is the sister of D-5 and D-6. P.W.28 has stated in his deposition that he did not find any bloodstained marks where the dead body of D-4 was found and also he did not find any bombs splinters remnants. That goes to show that there was no bomb blast where the D-4 was lying dead. Even P.W.29 did not find the bloodstain when he allowed to enter the house atleast the bloodstains should have appeared in the house. But, these are totally absent which gives any amount of suspicion whether D-4 had really entered house with the injuries. The statement of these witnesses was not recorded on the night, when the incident had taken place, but they were recorded on the next day. P.W.4 has stated that on seeing the dead bodies, P.W.5, D-5 and D-6 and he started weeping and the P.w.6 also started weeping by falling on dead bodies of D-5 and D-6 as they are her brothers. P.W.4 has stated that on seeing the dead bodies, P.W.5, D-5 and D-6 and he started weeping and the P.w.6 also started weeping by falling on dead bodies of D-5 and D-6 as they are her brothers. But, in the cross-examination, P.W.5 stated that her clothes did not become bloodstained and that they spent the whole night until the police came and examined next day. This is yet, another instance, which cannot be believed as when P.W.5 admittedly fell on the dead bodies of D-5 and D-6, there should be blood stains, more especially when D-5 and D-6 hacked to death by hunting sickles and other weapons. P.W.6 also deposed that he has seen the incident from his house. But, as already observed by us, if D-8 and D-7 were killed just by the side of his house, near elementary school, he could not notice and he could not say anything about their death, but, however, he could choose to say about the offence alleged to have been taken place in the house of P.W.4. He had categorically stated that there are factions among the gollas, himself and his brother and father are followers of Cheviti Venkata Reddy whereas the accused belonged to opposite faction group led by Siva Reddy. He stated that on the date of the incident, he and his sister-in-law Krishnaveni P.W.10 were present in the house, he heard bomb blast, he and P.W.10 came out. He found D-4, their brother coming towards Gollaveedhi and he was being chased by A-4, A-9, A-14, A-6, A-1, A-2 and A-11. He ran towards the elementary school and hide himself. From there he saw the incident. But, as can be seen from Ex.P-18 rough sketch, it is not possible for him to see the incident by sitting. behind the school as obstruction of hayrick and a house are apparent as can be seen from Ex.P-28. He also did not state that other D-7 and D-8 have seen the incident, while P.W.10 also stated that on hearing the bomb blast, at the house of P.W.4, D-7 and D-8 came out and they were chased by the other accused and they were killed near the elementary school. When P.W-10 could able to see the incident, there is no reason why P.W.6 could not state this in his evidence. When P.W-10 could able to see the incident, there is no reason why P.W.6 could not state this in his evidence. Further, P.W.6 is the brother of D-4, P.W.10 is the wife of D-7, one of brothers of P.W.6 and D-4. Thus, the evidence of P. W.6 cannot be depended upon to establish the offence of murder of D-4 by A-11 and A6. Ex.P-16 is the post mortem report in respect of the D-4. the doctor P.W.19, who conducted autopsy over the dead body found the following injuries: "1. An incised wound over vertex extending from one temple to the other temple 1 0"x3"x bone deep, semicircular in shape with convexity directing anteriorly. Edges sharp with blood clots. 2. An incised injury over pinna of left ear 1 /2" x '/4" vertically in direction. Edges are sharp. Upper and posterior part of the ear are missing. 3. A big extensive blast injury present on the lower part of chest and abdomen on the left side measuring about 20" x 15" extending from lower part of chest at the level of left nipple to iliac crest vertically from mid line anteriorly to mid line posteriorly in horizontal direction skin over above area is lost. Margins are irregular and black. Muscles over chest and abdomen are burst, lower 4 ribs fractured, left lung burst into pieces. Left atrum and left ventricle found opened with blood clots and congestion. black in colour, stomach ruptured, spleen absent, coils of intestines found out of the abdomen. 4. An extensive blast injury present in the left fore arm with separation of inferior radio-ulnar joint and missing of hand, wound margins irregular, black in colour and tattoing present around the wound margins. 5. A blast injury in the right palm with over laying skin burst. Margins are irregular exposing phalanges, wound margins black in colour. 6. Multiple abrasions, puncture laceration present over anterior part of both thighs. The edges are irregular and black in colour. Tattoing of the intermittent skin and underlying tissues are found congested. On dissection left lung is found missing, an irregular lacerated injury present over the left atrium and ventricle of the heart, cavitys exposed out side to a. size of 21x2", There are irregular borders and black in colour. Spleen missing. The edges are irregular and black in colour. Tattoing of the intermittent skin and underlying tissues are found congested. On dissection left lung is found missing, an irregular lacerated injury present over the left atrium and ventricle of the heart, cavitys exposed out side to a. size of 21x2", There are irregular borders and black in colour. Spleen missing. The external injuries 1 and 2 might have been caused with a sharp curved cutting object and other injuries might have been caused by bomb blast. The deceased might have died of shock and haemorrhage due to external and internal injuries." As can be seen from Ex.P-16, he was having number of blast injuries and also other injuries. When it was stated by P.W.6 that A-2 and A-11 entered the house, thereafter he heard the bomb blast, there should have been only one major blast, there were number of blast injuries through out the body itself shows that he had already received blast injuries by the time he entered the house. More over, as already observed by us P.W.28 did not find any bomb splinters at the place where the D-4 was dead. He also did not state that he noticed bloodstain marks at the place, where D-4 was lying dead and also any other places of the house when he entered the house. Even according to P.W.4, she stated that A-14, A-9 and A-1 chased the D-5 and D-6 and they killed by inflicting hunting sickles injuries. From EX.P-19 and P-20, it is noticed that they died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of external injuries to the vital organs. It is seen from Ex.P-19 (issued by P.W.20), the post mortem certificate of D-5 that the deceased sustained the following injuries: "1. An incised injury extending from 2" below the right ear encirculing back of middle of neck cutting the skin, muscles, cervicle vertebra and spinal cord, 6"x 3/4"x3" in the middle of neck directed downwards and inwards. 2. An incised injury extending from the middle of fore head to the right parietal region 1" above the right ear 4"x 1/2'" in semicircular in shape cutting the underlying skin on frontal and right parietal bones. 3. An incised injury across the fore head 1" above the nose 3" x 1/2" cutting the skin on the frontal bone. 4. 2. An incised injury extending from the middle of fore head to the right parietal region 1" above the right ear 4"x 1/2'" in semicircular in shape cutting the underlying skin on frontal and right parietal bones. 3. An incised injury across the fore head 1" above the nose 3" x 1/2" cutting the skin on the frontal bone. 4. An incised injury encirculating the axilla on right side semicircular 4" x 1/2" to a depth of 3" in the middle of axilla. On dissection he found fractures of frontal, right parietal and right temporal bones with expulsions of brain matter." The doctor• has opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of external injuries. Similarly in respect of D-6, the doctor P.W.21 issued EX.P-20 post mortem report and found the following injuries: "1. An Incised wound of 6"x 1/2" on the head left side extending from the upper margin of left orbit to the left occipital region with clean cut edges entering the cranial cavity with blood clots. On dissection mengines and left cerebra: semi sphere was found cut with damage to brain matter. 2. An incised injury of 7" x 1" on the head left side extending from the left temple region, cutting the upper part of pinna of left ear to the occipital bone of the left side with clean cut edges and blood clots. On dissection mengines and the left hemi sphere is found cut with damage to brain matter. Fracture of skill bone noted. The doctor P.W.21 has opined that the deceased died due to haemorrhage and shock to vital organs and brain. 52. It is also to be noted in this regard that P.Ws.4 and 5 are close relations of D-5 and D-6. P.W.6 also a close relation of D-4. As already observed by us, that there was no bomb blast in the evidence in the house of P.W.4. Even, then P.W.5 has stated that there were bomb blast, there was no traces. Further, when D-5 and D-6 were killed near the house of B. Venkataramana and one. V. Venkataramana, and when it was also stated that the inmates of the house were present and they witnessed the incident, none of them were examined by the prosecution. Even, then P.W.5 has stated that there were bomb blast, there was no traces. Further, when D-5 and D-6 were killed near the house of B. Venkataramana and one. V. Venkataramana, and when it was also stated that the inmates of the house were present and they witnessed the incident, none of them were examined by the prosecution. Therefore, evidence of interested witnesses and partisan witnesses though can be relied on, provided, it is reliable, truthful, but in the instant case, except their solitary statement, there is no corroborative evidence on this aspect. As already observed by us, in case of faction groups atleast corroboration should be made by two or more witnesses so as to eliminate any possibility of tutoring or coming out with false version. 53. The prosecution had ample time and opportunity to manufacture a case against their enemies. The mutual contradictions among various prosecution witnesses 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. 54. In almost identical circumstances the Supreme Court in Dharam Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1993 SC 319 , 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 night. 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. Narration's and sequence of events are meticulously in the same order. Therefore it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of witnesses." 55. We find right from the inception of the case namely EX.P-1 onwards till the entire episode at elementary school, the investigation is not only perfunctory and gives way to number of doubts and suspicions. Even the evidence of P.W.6 also did not repose any confidence as all the witnesses examined for the prosecution are close relations and partisan witnesses and they also belong to opposite group. Adding to this, the medical evidence is also not in tune with the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution. Further, even the statement of inquest witnesses were not properly drafted. P.W.29 and P.W.25 and P.W.26 also could not say whether they themselves recorded the statements of the witnesses or whether they were recorded by the other police personnel. It is also admitted that they were recorded on their directions by the other police persons, but none of these persons were examined. The very genuineness of the statement recorded during the, inquest in respect of respective dead bodies is also highly doubtful and they created any amount of suspicion and they have appears to have been drafted at subsequent stage. Even at the threshold EX.P-1 was statement recorded from P.W.1 and we do not find any reasons as to why the written statement of P .W.1 was not obtained when he was a literate person. We also find that the person who received EX.P-1 did not state that he received the statement. He stated only that a statement was sent from P.W.29 to register the case. We also find that the person who received EX.P-1 did not state that he received the statement. He stated only that a statement was sent from P.W.29 to register the case. P.W.29 also did not state in the evidence that he commenced the investigation after receipt of the F.I.R. We find that the case put up by the prosecution bristles with the number of suspicions and doubts and the evidence adduced by the prosecution ambulates with suspicions in many respects as noted supra. It is true that when certain minor discrepancies are found in the evidence or insignificant lapses take place in the investigation that would not affect the case of the prosecution in any manner and when there are irreconcilable and unsurmountable infirmities and improbabilities it is most unsafe to rely. The major lapses and material discrepancies noticed in the investigation and also in the evidence, cannot be overlooked on the ground that the lapses and contradictions are very minor in nature. They go to the root of the matter and create any amount of suspicion and cast cloud on the veracity and credibility of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. Thus, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-9, A-11, A-14 and A-23 beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly they are acquitted. 56. Even with regard to the offence alleged against other accused namely A-3, A-7, A-8, A-1 0, A-12, A-13 and A-15 to A-22, the death of D-7 and D-8, the learned trial Judge had discussed that the evidence adduced by the P.W.6 to P.W.10 and found that it was most unbelievable and unreliable. The very fact that when all the persons attacked both D-7 and D-8, the nature of the injuries were found to be quite different. On that ground, the finding of the learned trial Judge in respect of the evidence adduced by P.Ws. 6 to 10 was not acted upon. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial Court in respect of D-7 and D-8. Accordingly, we dismissed the appeal tiled by the State. 57. On that ground, the finding of the learned trial Judge in respect of the evidence adduced by P.Ws. 6 to 10 was not acted upon. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial Court in respect of D-7 and D-8. Accordingly, we dismissed the appeal tiled by the State. 57. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No. 859 of 2002 is allowed and the Judgment passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool in S.C.No.20 of 2000 convicting A-1 , A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-9, A-11, A-14 and A-23 is set aside and the accused viz. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-9, A-11, A-14 and A-23 are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. 58. The Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2003 filed by the State is dismissed.