G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL appeal No. 1067 of 2002 was filed by A-3 and the criminal appeal No. 1070 of 2002 was filed by A-1, A-4, A-5, A-7, A-8 and A-9 against a common judgment dated 23-8-2002 of the II Additional Sessions Judge, nalgonda in Sessions Case No. 699 of 2000. ( 2 ) THE appellants and eight others were tried for the offences, under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 I. P. C. They denied the charges framed against them and claimed for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined P. W. 1 to p. W. 15, Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-18 and M. 0. 1 to m. O. 5 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on defence side. But, Ex. D-1 to ex. D-3 were marked. ( 3 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7, A-8 and A-9 guilty for the offence under Section 148 I. P. C. , convicted them and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default, to suffersimple imprisonment for two months. The learned Sessions Judge also convicted the above accused for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 i. P. C. and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 200/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The learned sessions Judge found A-2, A-6, A-10 to A-15 not guilty for the offences covered by the charges and recorded their acquittal. The appellants being aggrieved by the convictions and sentences imposed by the Sessions court, preferred these appeals challenging the validity and legality. ( 4 ) THE factual matrix leading to the conviction of the appellants is briefly as follows: The deceased-Gudhe Sharanappa and all the accused are residents of lachammagudem, hamlet of Chillapur village in Nalgonda District. The deceased was the president of village unit of Rythu Cooli sangam and Divisional Secretary of C. P. I. (ML), New Democratic Party. All the accused belong to C. P. I, party. There was political rivalry between the two groups. A-1 is the leader of the C. P. I party in the village. The deceased was the president of village unit of Rythu Cooli sangam and Divisional Secretary of C. P. I. (ML), New Democratic Party. All the accused belong to C. P. I, party. There was political rivalry between the two groups. A-1 is the leader of the C. P. I party in the village. On 9-4-1990 the deceased and six others killed one Dubbaka Muthyalu of C. P. I, party and crime No. 14 of 1990 was registered against them. Subsequently they were tried and the case ended in acquittal. On 21-6-1998 one c. P. I, worker by name Korra Pathi was killed by C. P. I. (ML), New Democratic Party workers and Crime No. 39 of 1998 was registered. Therefore, the members of C. P. I, party were waiting to take revenge and to kill the deceased. A-4 is the brother-in-law of dubbaka Muthyalu, the deceased in Crime no. 14 of 1990. A-7 and A-8 are the first cousins, A-9 is the youngest brother, A-10 to a-15 are the cousins of Korra Pathi, who was deceased in Crime No. 39 of 1998. A-1 to a-3, A-5 and A-6 are the leaders of C. P. I, party of their area. The offence took place on 1-7-1999. The deceased was killed while travelling in a bus. The de facto complainant, who was examined as P. W. 1, is one of the workers of New Democratic Party. Three months prior to the incident, the wife of P. W. 1, who was staying with her parents, refused to join him. In that connection, on 30-6-1999 p. W. 1, P. W. 2, the deceased and P. W. 8, wentto Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad to settle the dispute between P. W. 1 and his wife by holding a panchayat, but, the wife of P. W. 1 refused to join him. Therefore, on 1-7-1999 all of them left Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad to go to theirvillage. They reached Choutuppal at about 2. 00 p. m. , meanwhile A-1 to A-15 came to know about the return of the deceased and his followers from vanasthalipuram and they were waiting at the bus stand of Gudimalkapur, armed with axes and knives. At about 2. 30 p. m. the deceased, P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 8 boarded an R. T. C. bus No. A P. 10-Z-6404 at choutuppal to go to theirvillage. At about 2. 30 p. m. the deceased, P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 8 boarded an R. T. C. bus No. A P. 10-Z-6404 at choutuppal to go to theirvillage. A-11 wentto choutuppal bus stand to pass the information regarding the movement of the deceased to other accused. When the bus reached gudimalkapur bus stage, A-11 gave signal to a-1 to A-10 and A-12 to A-15 from the bus about the deceased traveling in the bus. All of them boarded the bus and when the bus proceeded to a distance of half kilometre, a-1 to A-15 moved to the seat of the deceased and attacked him with sticks, knives and axes and killed him in the bus. Later, P. W. 1 submitted a written complaint covered by ex. P-1 to the concerned Police and a crime was registered against all the accused. The police and the relations of the deceased reached the scene of offence and an inquest was held. The police after apprehension of the accused and on conclusion of the investigation laid the charge-sheet. ( 5 ) THE prosecution is contending that the appellants and the other accused formed into an unlawful assembly with an intention to kill the deceased and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly committed the offence of rioting and intentionally killed the deceased by stabbing him with knives and axes at about 14. 45 hours on 1-7-1999 in the outskirts of Gudimalkapur village in the a. P. S. R. T. C. bus. The appellant and the other accused generally denied the offence and did not take any specific defence. ( 6 ) P. WS. 6 to 8, 10, 11 and 13 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. ( 7 ) P. WS. 1 to 5, who are examined on 18-6-2002 supported the prosecution when they were examined in chief. The accused reported nil cross-examination. Subsequently, the accused filed crl. M. P. No. 193 of 2002 to recall the witnesses. In pursuance of that, P. W. 1 was recalled and he was cross-examined on 27-6-2002. At that time also P. W. 1 supported the prosecution and the accused could not elicit any favourable information from P. W. 1. The matter was further adjourned to 5-7-2002 for further cross-examination for want of time. On 5-7-2002 during the cross- examination, P. W. 1 denied the contents of ex. At that time also P. W. 1 supported the prosecution and the accused could not elicit any favourable information from P. W. 1. The matter was further adjourned to 5-7-2002 for further cross-examination for want of time. On 5-7-2002 during the cross- examination, P. W. 1 denied the contents of ex. P-1 - complaint and stated that whatever he deposed on earlier occasions is false and whatever he stated on that day is correct. ( 8 ) ON being recalled for cross- examination, P. Ws. 2 to 5 also stated that whatever they stated in the chief examination is false. ( 9 ) IN the light of the above circumstances, the point for consideration is: whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and whether the appellants are entitled for acquittal as prayed for? point: ( 10 ) THE prosecution alleged that on account of the previous incidents and the grudges between the parties, the accused killed the deceased while travelling in the bus. P. W. 1 to P. W. 5 supported the case of the prosecution in the chief-examination and the accused reported nil cross-examination to those witnesses. When the witnesses were recalled for cross-examination on an application ordered by the Court, they have gone to the extent of saying as to what they have stated in the chief-examination was false. Therefore, the following points arise for consideration. (1) Whether the deceased met with a homicidal death? (2) Whether there was sufficient motive for the accused to attack the deceased? (3) Whether a conviction can be given to the accused on the basis of the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses in the chief-examination and what is the effect of the witnesses resiling from the version when they were recalled and cross-examined by the accused after reporting nil cross-examination immediately after the chief-examination? (4) Whether the witnesses are entitled to change their version as they like before a Court of Law and whether the Court is bound to take cognizance of the changed version and give the benefit of doubt to the accused? (5) Whether the accused are entitled for acquittal on the ground that no specific overt acts were attributed to each of the accused?point No. 1: ( 11 ) THE prosecution alleged that on 1-7-1999 at about 14. (5) Whether the accused are entitled for acquittal on the ground that no specific overt acts were attributed to each of the accused?point No. 1: ( 11 ) THE prosecution alleged that on 1-7-1999 at about 14. 45 hours the deceased was killed in a moving A. P. S. R. T. C. but by stabbing with axes and knives. P. W. 12, the doctor, who conducted autopsy overthe dead body of the deceased at about 11. 00 a. m. on 2-7-1999 found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased: (1) Deep chop wound 3" x " x bone deep fracturing both frontal bones obliquely. Tearing dura and lacerating the brain matter with blood clots. (2) Deep chop wound 5" x " x fracturing left parietal bone of skull, tearing dura and lacerating corresponding brain matter. (3) Oblique chop wound 3 " x " x fracturing right occipital bone. Dura torn and brain matter lacerated with blood clots. (4) Deep chop wound present transversely over the back of neck 8" x 2" x cutting, all neck muscles, blood vessels with dislocation of atlanto occipital joint. (5) Vertical chop wound 4" x 1" x 1" cutting neck muscles and blood vessels just behind right ear. (6) Deep chop wound presents obliquely over upper left neck region 8" x 3" x chipping-off a portion of left occipital bone, tearing dura and lacerating corresponding brain matter. (7) Deep chop wound present obliquely over left lower neck region 4" x 2" x cutting neck muscles and blood vessels. (8) Deep chop wound present obliquely over left lower neck region 2" x 1" x 2" cut neck muscles and blood vessels just above right clavicle. (9) Stab wound (vertical) 1 " x " x V " upper sternum region with fracture of sternum. (10) Stab wound 1" x " x " lower sternal region. (11) Stab wound transversely 2" x 1" x 1" left middle chest fracturing 5th, 6th ribs lacerating corresponding portion of lung. (12) Oblique stab wound 2" x " x " left costel margin. (13) Transverse cut wound 10" x 1" x "" just above right scapula. (14) Oblique cut wound 3 " x 1" x 1" right loin region on opening right kidney lacerated correspondingly. (15) Chop wound oblique 3" x 1 " x 1 " right lumbar spine with fracture of 1, 2nd lumbar spine vertebrae. (13) Transverse cut wound 10" x 1" x "" just above right scapula. (14) Oblique cut wound 3 " x 1" x 1" right loin region on opening right kidney lacerated correspondingly. (15) Chop wound oblique 3" x 1 " x 1 " right lumbar spine with fracture of 1, 2nd lumbar spine vertebrae. (16) Stab wound 3" x1 " x 2" just above left anterior superior illiac spine. (17) Chop wound oblique 3 " x 1 " x 1" over left buttock. (18) Chop wound oblique 3" x 2" x 2" upper right buttock. ( 12 ) P. W. 12 noticed as many as eleven chop wounds, five stab wounds, and two cut wounds, making a total of 18 wounds. The doctor opined that injury Nos. 1 to 8, 15, 17 and 18 could be caused by sharp heavy weapons and other injuries could be caused by sharp weapons. All the above mentioned injuries are ante mortem in nature. He further opined that injury Nos. 1 to 8, 15, 17 and 18 are possible with the axes like M. O. 1 and m. O. 2 and all other injuries are possible with sharp edged weapons like knives. The doctor further opined that the death of the deceased was the resultant cause of injury Nos. 1 to 8. He issued Ex. P-4-postmortem report. He denied a suggestion that injury Nos. 1 and 3 could be caused with the same weapon, whereas injury Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 cannot be caused with the same weapon. He further stated that the wounds of different sizes could be caused with the same weapon depending upon theforce and direction. Injury nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 caused instantaneous death. ( 13 ) IN Ex. P-3-inquest panchanama, the inquest panchas including P. W. 9 opined that the deceased met with a homicidal death on account of the bleeding injuries received by him on various parts of the body. In Ex. P-1 -complaint also there was a mention that on receipt of bleeding injuries with axes and knives, the deceased died instantaneously. P. W. 1 to P. W. 5, also stated that they noticed the dead body of the deceased in the R. T. C. bus with bleeding injuries. The above material placed by the prosecution amply established that the deceased met with a homicidal death at about 14. P. W. 1 to P. W. 5, also stated that they noticed the dead body of the deceased in the R. T. C. bus with bleeding injuries. The above material placed by the prosecution amply established that the deceased met with a homicidal death at about 14. 45 hours on 1-7-1999 while traveling in the R. T. C. bus in the outskirts of guddimalkapur village. Point No. 2: ( 14 ) REGARDING the motive for the commission of the offence, P. W. 1 stated that the deceased was the Divisional Secretary of c. P. I. (ML), New Democratic Party and all the accused belong to C. P. I, party. P. W. 4, the son of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was the Divisional Secretary of c. P. I. (ML), New Democratic Party and developed the said party in their area. All the accused belong to C. P. I, party and A-1 was the M. P. T. C. member of C. P. I. Party. There was political rivalry between the deceased and the accused. P. W. 3, who is working as a driver in A. P. S. R. T. C. and who belong to the village of the deceased, though turned hostile, stated that all the accused belong to C. P. I, party and the deceased belong to C. P. I. (ML) party. The evidence of the above witnesses indicates that there was political rivalry between the deceased and the accused. P. W. 4 specifically stated that due to the political rivalry only, the accused killed the deceased as he was strengthening the C. P. I. (ML), New Democratic Party in their area. The above material placed by the prosecution established that there was sufficient motive for the accused to attack the deceased. Point Nos. 3 to 5: ( 15 ) THE prosecution alleged that P. Ws. 1, 2 and 8 travelled in the bus along with the deceased, therefore, they are the right persons to speak about the incident. The prosecution therefore relied on the evidence of the above witnesses and others to establish their witnessing the occurrence. ( 16 ) P W. 1 in the chief-examination stated that he is a resident of Lachannagudem. He is a mason by profession. His wife deserted him about 3 " years prior to the date of incident and was residing at her parents house at Vanasthalipura, Hyderabad. ( 16 ) P W. 1 in the chief-examination stated that he is a resident of Lachannagudem. He is a mason by profession. His wife deserted him about 3 " years prior to the date of incident and was residing at her parents house at Vanasthalipura, Hyderabad. One day priorto the incident, the deceased, P. W. 2, p. W. 8 and himself went to his in-law s house at Vanasthalipuram to discuss about the strained marital relations. The deceased and p. W. 8 came with them as elders for mediation. There was a panchayath at Vanasthalipuram, but his wife refused to join him. Therefore, on the next day i. e. , on 1-7-1999 all of them boarded the bus at Vanasthalipuram at 12 noon to return to their village. They got down the bus at Choutuppal and boarded another bus to go to their village and when the bus was proceeding the incident occurred. ( 17 ) IN the cross-examination dated 27-6-2002 P. W. 1 stated that for the return journey they boarded the bus at Imlibun Bus stand. There was direct bus to their village from Imlibun Bus Stand, but they could not board that bus. He purchased four tickets at imlibun Bus Stand of value of Rs. 60/- each. From Choutuppal to his village the bus fare was Rs. 8/ -. He further stated in the cross- examination that he sat in the last seat of the bus. P. W. 2 sat on his left side, P. W. 8 sat in a two seater in front of him. The deceased sat in the three seater seat, two seats ahead of his seat. No suggestion was given to P. W. 1 in the cross-examination that he did not go to vanasthalipuram in connection with the dispute with his wife along with P. W. 2, the deceased and P. W. 8. the cross-examination was only to the effect that there was no possibility for P. W. 1 to observe the assailants attacking the deceased. ( 18 ) ON 5-7-2002 when he was further cross-examined, there was change in the version of P. W. 1. In the said version he stated that on the date of incident wife and himself were in the village and there were no disputes between them. He did not take the deceased to Hyderabad. His taking the deceased and P. W. 2 to Hyderabad is false. In the said version he stated that on the date of incident wife and himself were in the village and there were no disputes between them. He did not take the deceased to Hyderabad. His taking the deceased and P. W. 2 to Hyderabad is false. ( 19 ) P. W. 2, the mother of P. W. 1 was examined in chief on 17-6-2002. She stated that the wife of P. W. 1 deserted him. In that connection the deceased, P. W. 1 and P. W. 8 went to Vanasthalipuram to hold a panchayath. They stayed at Vanasthalipuram on that day and on the next morning the wife of P. W. 1 refused to join him, therefore, they were returning back by boarding the bus at hyderabad. They came to Choutuppal and boarded another bus at about 2 p. m. to go to their village. When their bus reached near gudimalkapur Village some of the passengers got down from the bus and A. 1 to a-15 of their village boarded the bus. When the bus went to some distance, the offence took place. ( 20 ) ON 5-7-2002 when P. W. 2 was recalled for cross-examination, she changed the version and stated that there were no disputes between P. W. 1 and his wife. They nevertook the deceased to Hyderabad along with P. W. 1 her evidence in the chief-examination is false and she gave the said evidence due to the threat given by the police. There was no specific suggestion in the cress-examination that they did not travel in the bus in which the deceased was killed. ( 21 ) P. W. 5, the wife of the deceased was examined in chief on 18-6-2002. She deposed that one day prior to the incident the deceased went to Hyderabad along with P. Ws. 1, 2 and 8 in connection with a dispute between P. W. 1 and his wife. On the date of incident at about 3 p. m. P. W. 2 came to her house and informed about the murder of the deceased. The defence counsel reported "nil" cross- examination to this witness and she was recalled for cross-examination on 9-7-2002. 1, 2 and 8 in connection with a dispute between P. W. 1 and his wife. On the date of incident at about 3 p. m. P. W. 2 came to her house and informed about the murder of the deceased. The defence counsel reported "nil" cross- examination to this witness and she was recalled for cross-examination on 9-7-2002. In the cross-examination she stated that p. W. 1 never took the deceased to Hyderabad and P. W. 2 did not inform her anything about the incident and at the instigation of the police she gave false evidence in her chief examination. The suggestion given to this witness is indicating that the accused were not sure as to how to explain their presence in the bus which was coming from Choutuppal towards their village. ( 22 ) P. W. 8, one of the mediators who accompanied the deceased to vanasthalipuram was examined in chief of 19-6-2002. He supported the prosecution version only to the extent of traveling in the bus along with the deceased on the date of incident. But, he gave a different version regarding the purpose of his travelling. He stated that on the date of incident he went to choutuppal to purchase books and note- books to his son. On return he boarded the bus at Choutuppal at about 2 or 2-30 p. m. and did not observe whether the deceased was in the bus. He also did not observe whether P. Ws. 1 and 2 were in the bus. When the bus was stopped at the bus stop of gudimalkapur about 20 passengers entered the bus. He was in the back seat. P. W. 13 was also in the bus along with him by sitting in the same seat. When the bus proceeded to a distance of one furlong, there was a commotion in the bus and the incident occurred. This witness was declared hostile and in the cross-examination by the Public prosecutor he conceded to the suggestion as follows: it is true myself, deceased Sharanappa, p. Ws. 1 and 2 went to Hyderabad one day prior to the date of incident to settle the dispute between P. W. 1 and his wife. It is true we stayed one night at hyderabad. At another part of the cross-examination he stated as follows:i do not remember whether the bus ticket was purchased by P. Ws. 1 and 2 went to Hyderabad one day prior to the date of incident to settle the dispute between P. W. 1 and his wife. It is true we stayed one night at hyderabad. At another part of the cross-examination he stated as follows:i do not remember whether the bus ticket was purchased by P. Ws. 1 and 2 for me or I purchased. While the deceased sat in a seat which is 5 rows in front of my seat, P. Ws. 1 and 2 sat in front seats. The above version given by P. W. 8 indicates that tried to distort the version of the prosecution, but he was caught in the cross- examination regarding the purpose for which he went to Hyderabad in the company of p. Ws. 1, 2 and the deceased and returning in the bus at the time of the incident. ( 23 ) IN the cross-examination by the defence counsel, P. W. 8 answered a suggestion, which reads as follows: it is true I did not go to Hyderabad along with P. Ws. 1, 2 and the deceased for settlement of dispute between P. W. 1 and his wife. It is true I did not observe whether P. Ws. 1 and 2 are in the bus. It is true that the relations between me and A. 5 were not cordial. The version given in the cross-examination made by the defence counsel is contrary to the version given by him in the cross- examination done by the Public Prosecutor after declaring him hostile. As a hostile witness also he could not suppress the truth of his going to Hyderabad along with P. W. 1, 2 and the deceased to act as a mediator for the disputes between P. W. 1 and his wife. ( 24 ) THE evidence of the above witnesses regarding their journey from their village to hyderabad and from Hyderabad to the scene of offence cannot be brushed aside with a one line denial that they did not go to hyderabad at all and they remained at the village. The legal position in this regard is very clear. Simply because a witness changes the version after considerable period from the date of earlier evidence, his testimony need not be totally rejected. The legal position in this regard is very clear. Simply because a witness changes the version after considerable period from the date of earlier evidence, his testimony need not be totally rejected. The testimony of such hostile witness to the extent it corroborates with medical evidence and the evidence of other witnesses can be safely accepted. In the light of the above circumstances, we hold that the evidence given by P Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 8 amply established that they were in the company of the deceased from the previous day and they were returning from Hyderabad on the date of offence and when they were returning back from hyderabad to their village, the offence took place on the way. ( 25 ) WE shall now examine the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the offence proper to consider whether a conviction can be based on such evidence and whether the mere denial of the earlier version of the prosecution witnesses at the time when they were recalled after a long gap has led to any doubt regarding the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution. ( 26 ) P. W. 1 deposed that P. Ws. 2, 8, the deceased and himself boarded the bus at choutuppal at 2 p. m. to reach their village. When the bus reached Guddimalkapur some passengers got down from the bus and all the accused belonging to his village and known to him boarded the bus. A-4, A-8 and A-9 were armed with axes. When the bus proceed to a distance of km. from Guddimalkapur a-9 hacked the deceased with an axe on the neck, A-1 and A-7 stabbed with knives on the chest and on the stomach, A-4 and A-8 axed the deceased on the body while the bus was proceeding. The remaining accused threatened the driver, conductor and themselves with sticks and forced to stop the bus and asked all of them to get down. P. W. 2 and himself sent to rescue the deceased, but a-3 threatened that he would hurl the bombs. P. Ws. 2, 8 and himself ran towards their village. A-5 chased them for about km. Ultimately, he boarded a bus and got down at narayanpur. Hegot Ex. P-1 -complaintdrafted the presented in the police station. P. W. 2 sent to the village in a bus. He identified his signature on Ex. P-1 complaint. P. Ws. 2, 8 and himself ran towards their village. A-5 chased them for about km. Ultimately, he boarded a bus and got down at narayanpur. Hegot Ex. P-1 -complaintdrafted the presented in the police station. P. W. 2 sent to the village in a bus. He identified his signature on Ex. P-1 complaint. In the cross- examination on 27-6-2002 he denied a suggestion that Ex. P-1 complaint was not scribed at Narayanpur Village. He mentioned that he signed on the bottom of second page of Ex. P-1. He denied a suggestion that the deceased was not visible to him from his seat. He can give the particulars regarding which accused used the axes, which accused used the knives and which accused used the sticks. After receiving the injuries, the deceased fell in the passage of the bus between the seats. He walked away from the dead body of the deceased while getting down from the bus. Neither he nor other passengers tried to apprehend the accused. Having supported the prosecution in the chief and the cross-examination on 27-6-2002 p. W. 1 deviated from his evidence when he was recalled on 5-7-2002. On that date he gave the following answers: i do not know the contents of Ex. P-1. The contents of Ex. P-1 were not read over to me by the scribe. On the instigation of police I deposed against the accused in my chief examination. I do not know the cause of death of the deceased. It is true that there were no disputes and difference between the deceased and the CPI workers. ( 27 ) P. W. 2, the mother of P. W. 1 deposed that on the date of offence the deceased, p. W. 1, P. W. 8 and herself boarded the bus at hyderabad and came to Choutuppal. They boarded another bus at Choutuppal at about 2 p. m. to reach their village. When their bus reached near Gudimalkapur some passengers alighted and all the accused boarded the bus. When they proceeded to some distance, A-9, A-4 and A-8 took to axes from their clothes. A-9 hacked the deceased with an axe on the neck, A-1 and A-7 stabbed with knives on the chest and stomach. Thereupon the deceased fell down from his seat. A-4 and A-8 hacked the deceased with axes on his body. When they proceeded to some distance, A-9, A-4 and A-8 took to axes from their clothes. A-9 hacked the deceased with an axe on the neck, A-1 and A-7 stabbed with knives on the chest and stomach. Thereupon the deceased fell down from his seat. A-4 and A-8 hacked the deceased with axes on his body. When P. W. 1 and herself tried to interfere A-3 threatened to hurl bombs and other accused threatened with sticks. The deceased died on the spot. They got down from the bus. A-5 chased them to some distance. P. W. 1 and herself boarded the bus and reached Narayanpur. She went to her village by catching another bus as narayanpur. ( 28 ) THE defence counsel reported "nil" cross-examination of the witness. 18 days later P W. 2 was recalled and he was cross- examined on 5-7-2002. In the cross- examination P. W. 2 changed the version and stated as follows: my earlier evidence in chief is false. I gave the said evidence due to the threats given by the police. I was threatened by the Constable and I made a complaint to the S. I. in the police station. In the re-examination by the Public prosecution, he stated as follows: i could not report to the Court about the threats given by the police due to fear. Today I have no fear with police. It is not true to suggest that I turned hostile after my chief-examination by receiving huge amounts from the accused and I am speaking falsehood. ( 29 ) P. W. 3, a vegetable vendor of the same village stated in the chief examination that on the date of incident he boarded the bus at his village to purchase vegetables at choutuppal. When his bus reached the outskirts of Gudimalkapur he found a gathering, therefore, the bus in which he was traveling was stopped. He got down from the bus and saw A-9, A-4, and A-8 getting down from another bus and running away with axes from a distance of 4 or 5 yards. He saw the other accused running away from a distance of 10 chains. He boarded the bus and saw the dead body of the deceased lying in a pool of blood. He stayed at the scene for about one hour and returned to his village. He saw the other accused running away from a distance of 10 chains. He boarded the bus and saw the dead body of the deceased lying in a pool of blood. He stayed at the scene for about one hour and returned to his village. About 20 days after the chief examination he was recalled and in the cross examination he stated a follows: it is true I was in my village and did not cross the border of my village on the date of the death of the deceased. Due to fear of police I deposed falsely in the chief examination. I gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police about the threats given by the police. ( 30 ) P. W. 4, the son of the deceased deposed that on the date of offence at about 3p. m. P. W. 2 came to his house and informed about the murder of the deceased by the accused. He immediately rushed to the scene of offence along with his mother and others and found the dead body of the deceased in the RTC bus in a pool of blood. The inquest was held in their presence and later the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. On the date of chief-examination the defence counsel reported "nil" cross-examination. ( 31 ) AFTER the chief examination he was recalled for the purpose of cross-examination and in the cross-examination he stated as follows: there were no disputes between my father and the accused. Since this witness did not give contradictory version he was not declared hostile. ( 32 ) P. W. 5, the wife of the deceased was examined in chief on 18-6-2002. She stated that on the date of incident at about 3 p. m. P. W. 2 came to her house and informed that the deceased was murdered by the accused while traveling in the bus. Immediately she went to the scene of offence along with p. W. 4 and others and found the dead body of the deceased lying with injuries. The accused murdered the deceased after a conspiracy. The defence counsel reported "nil" cross- examination on the same day. After 20 days she was re-called on 9-7-2002 for cross- examination, In the cross-examination she stated as follows:it is true that for the first time I saw my husband at Government Hospital. Nalgonda. The accused murdered the deceased after a conspiracy. The defence counsel reported "nil" cross- examination on the same day. After 20 days she was re-called on 9-7-2002 for cross- examination, In the cross-examination she stated as follows:it is true that for the first time I saw my husband at Government Hospital. Nalgonda. It is true that P. W. 2 did not inform anything to me. It is true that there was no political rivalry between my husband and the accused. On the instigation of Police, I deposed falsehood in my chief-examination. ( 33 ) P. W. 5 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. Even according to the prosecution, she came to know about the death of the deceased through P. W. 2 and went to the scene of offence. Therefore, the evidence of P. W. 5 does not assume much importance in appreciating the evidence. ( 34 ) P. W. 6, the conductor of the bus deposed that on 1 -7-1999 their bus started at hyderabad at about 12-30 p. m. and reached gudimalkapuratabout2-30p. m. and reached gudimalkapur at about 2-30 p. m. 5 or 6 passengers got down from the bus and about 15 to 20 passengers entered the bus at gudimalkapur. The bus was packed with 81 passengers. When the bus proceeded one ortwo furlongs from Gudimalkapur, he heard commotion from his back and the passengers raised hue and cry. In the meanwhile, the bus was stopped by the driver and he got down from the bus. The passengers also got down by throwing each other. He observed bloodstains on the shirts of some of the passengers and came to know through the passengers that one of the passengers was murdered in the bus. He cannot identify any of the accused in the Court and he had no prior acquaintance with them. 15 minutes later he entered the bus and found the dead body with injuries in a pool of blood. 45 minutes later the police came to the scene, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased sent the same to the Government hospital, Nalgonda for post mortem examination. The murder was committed nearthird row from the back seat. This witness who alleged to have stated that the accused murdered the deceased expressed his inability to identify the assailants, therefore, he was declared hostile. The murder was committed nearthird row from the back seat. This witness who alleged to have stated that the accused murdered the deceased expressed his inability to identify the assailants, therefore, he was declared hostile. ( 35 ) P. W. 7, the driver of the bus deposed that on 1 -7-1999 the bus started at Hyderabad and reached Gudimalkapur at about 2-30 p. m. The bus was packed with more than 75 passengers at Gudimalkapur. He heard a commotion in the bus. Some of the passengers raised hue and cry asking to stop the bus. Accordingly he stopped the bus in the outskirts of the village. When the bus was stopped the passengers hurriedly got down from the bus and some of the passengers jumped from the windows. There was a quarrel inside the bus and some of the passengers were attacking one passenger. He ran away to some distance and 15 minutes later returned along with P. W. 6. He entered the bus and found the dead body of a passenger in a pool of blood. Soonafter he went to the police station and orally informed about the murder of the passenger in the bus. The police reached the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body to the government Hospital. He cannot identify the passengers traveled in the bus. This witness who alleged to have stated that A-1 to A-15 attacked the deceased expressed his inability to identify the passengers traveled in the bus, therefore, he was declared hostile. ( 36 ) P. W. 8, who alleged to have accompanied the deceased to Hyderabad deposed that on the date of incident at about 2-30 p. m. he boarded the bus at Choutuppal. He did not observe whether the deceased. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were in the bus. When the bus stopped at Gudimalkapur Bus Stop about 20 passengers got into the bus. He was in the back seat. When the bus proceeded to a distance of one furlong in the outskirts of gudimalkapur Village there was a commotion in the bus. Suspecting danger he jumped from the bus from the window and received injury on his left arm. On the evening of the date of the incident, he came to know about the murder of the deceased in the bus. Suspecting danger he jumped from the bus from the window and received injury on his left arm. On the evening of the date of the incident, he came to know about the murder of the deceased in the bus. He did not observe whether A-1 to A-15 were in the bus at the time of the incident. This witness was also declared hostile. In the previous discussion we have already held that the evidence placed by the prosecution established that P. W. 8 went to Hyderabad and was returning along with the deceased and P. Ws. 1 and 2 were in the bus at the time of the incident. The evidence of this witness is helpful only to the extent that the murder of the deceased took place in the bus. ( 37 ) THE learned counsel forthe appellants submitted that as there is no consistency in the evidence of the above witnesses in support of the prosecution version, it has to be rejected and the accused shall be given the benefit of doubt. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the appellants, we wish to refer to the legal position in this regard. ( 38 ) IN Nandigama Veeraiah v. State of ap. a Division Bench of this Court by following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Koli Lakshmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of gujaraf held that the evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon by the Court to the extent it is found reliable, but when such evidence does not corroborate medical evidence, it cannot be relied upon. ( 39 ) IN Public Prosecutor, High Court of a. P. v. Pendli Gopp a Division Bench of this court observed that when an application is filed by defence for recalling of a witness under Section 311 Cr. P. C. the Court has to satisfy itself with the reasons assigned for recalling the witness. The practice of recalling witnesses in a routine manner should be deprecated. When an application to recall the witness to speak lies before the Court is filed, the Sessions Court should be careful in allowing such petitions for recalling of the witnesses. ( 40 ) IN the case covered by the above decision, the evidence of P. W. 1 was recorded on 23-6-1998 at the first instance and the chief examination and cross-examination were concluded on 24-6-1998. Thereafter, the defence filed Crl. ( 40 ) IN the case covered by the above decision, the evidence of P. W. 1 was recorded on 23-6-1998 at the first instance and the chief examination and cross-examination were concluded on 24-6-1998. Thereafter, the defence filed Crl. M. P. No. 108 of 1998 to recall P. W. 1. The petition was allowed on 13-7-1998 and the witness was recalled. During the further cross-examination the witness was made to say that she has deposed previously as she was given a threat by P. W. 7. The Court under those circumstances observed that the defence made the said attempt as the witness might have been threatened by her parents because she deposed against their own son, therefore, that part of the evidence can be ignored by treating it as an afterthought. ( 41 ) IN P. Satyanarayana v. State of A. P a Division Bench of the A. P. High Court held that the hostile attitude of the witnesses has become the order of the day. It appears that the courts below are taking a lenient view on the resiling events that are taking place during the trials. This is a matter of concern because the witnesses state one version on oath in the court in the first instance and on taking adjournments on one pretext or the other and the witnesses turn hostile, which is nothing but blatant manipulation of evidence. It is the duty of the Court in such cases to proceed for perjury against the persons concerned, the bench has further observed as follows:" the Sessions Judges are normally expected to maintain cordial relations with the Bar, but not at the cost of justice. The Sessions Judges are not expected to adjourn the recording of evidence in part and that practice is deprecated. In the instant case, since the Advocate has not co-operated, the sessions Judge was not in a position to proceed with the case. So, we cannot find fault with the Sessions Judge, but we are concerned with the manner in which the witnesses in Sessions sessions cases are being manipulated after time is given. We feel that he sessions Judges must be directed to record the evidence either on the same day or at least complete the same on the subsequent day. If this is done, the mischief of manipulation can be eliminated. We feel that he sessions Judges must be directed to record the evidence either on the same day or at least complete the same on the subsequent day. If this is done, the mischief of manipulation can be eliminated. If this is eliminated, then complete set of evidence is available on record for administration of justice. It is for the Sessions Judges, in a case like this where witnesses adopt resilent attitude, to accept the evidence recorded in one sitting. Since the resiling attitude has been taken by the vital witnesses and the independent of hostile witnesses, we feel that the second version given by hostile witnesses after considerable time cannot be accepted. ( 42 ) IN Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana the complainant, the principal witness for the prosecution was examined under section 154 of the Evidence Act. He specifically did not refer to the co-accused in his examination-in-chief. Since the entire case rested on the testimony of this witness, the appellant objected to conviction based on his testimony after his having been declared "hostile". The Supreme Court in the above circumstances observed as follows: on facts, the prosecution could have even avoided requesting for permission to cross-examine the witness under section 154 of the Evidence Act. But, the fact that the Court gave permission to the prosecutor to cross-examine his own witness, thus characterizing him as, what is described as a hostile witness, does not completely efface his evidence. In the present case this test is satisfied and his testimony is amply corroborated. ( 43 ) IN Koli Lakshmanbhai Chanabhai v. State Gujarat (2 supra) the Supreme Court while referring to Bhagwan Singh (5 supra) held as follows: it is settled law that evidence of a hostile witness can also be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off the record, it remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal barto base his conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. ( 44 ) P. W. 1 supported the prosecution version in the chief-examination and the cross-examination dated 27-6-2002, but p. Ws. 1 to 3, 6 and 7 changed their version when they were recalled for cross- examination after 20 days from the date of their chief-examination. They did not come forward with any contradictory version. ( 44 ) P. W. 1 supported the prosecution version in the chief-examination and the cross-examination dated 27-6-2002, but p. Ws. 1 to 3, 6 and 7 changed their version when they were recalled for cross- examination after 20 days from the date of their chief-examination. They did not come forward with any contradictory version. They simply stated that whatever they stated in the chief-examination was false and they spoke falsehood at the instigation of the police. They did not give any details as to when the threat was given by the police, when they came to know of the facts narrated in the chief-examination and how they could narrate all those facts without any personal knowledge. Since these witnesses did not give a contradictory version except saying as to what they have stated in the chief- examination was false, these witnesses were not declared hostile and their evidence through the chief examination remained undisturbed. The prosecution not only established that P. Ws. 1, 2 and 8 accompanied the deceased, but also established through the above witnesses that A-9, A-4 and A-8 hacked the deceased with axes and A-1 and A-7 stabbed with knives on the chest and stomach. The medical evidence and other circumstances also corroborated with the evidence of the above witnesses. The above legal position is also a clear indication that simply because a witness who was recalled after a long time states that what he stated previously was false cannot be automatically accepted and it can be safely ignored in the light of the corroboration of the evidence of these witnesses with the medical and other evidence. Whenever a witness is examined in chief and cross at a time, there will be a doubt whether there were any compelling circumstances for the witnesses to give evidence suitable to the version of the prosecution and in such situation also the Court can take into consideration such portion of the evidence, which is corroborated and base the conviction on such evidence. When a witness supports the prosecution version in the chief examination and "nil" cross-examination was reported by the defence counsel and when such witness was purposely recalled after a long gap to speak falsehood either at the instance of the accused or for the reasons best known to him, his later version can be rejected and the earliest version can be accepted. The evidence placed by the prosecution amply established the overt acts against A-1, A-4 and A-7 to A-9. So far as a-3 and A-5 are concerned, none of the prosecution witnesses stated whether they also participated in the attack against the accused. Though their presence was stated by P. W. 1 that A-3 threatened to hurl bombs against the witnesses and P. W. 2 stated that a-5 chased the witnesses to some distance, since the prosecution witnesses did not state that A-3 and A-5 also attacked the deceased, we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to a-3 and A-5. After carefully going through the evidence, we find that the learned Sessions judge was right in finding A-1, A-4 and A-7 to a-9 guilty for the offence under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 I PC. ( 45 ) THE learned Sessions Judge observed that since A-3 and A-5 were present in the bus and participated in the commission of the offence by threatening and chasing P. Ws. 1 and 2 to some distance, they are also guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. Since the prosecution witnesses did not state whether A-3 and A-5 were carrying any weapons and as they did not go against the deceased or attacked him, we are inclined to set aside the conviction given by the learned Sessions Judge against A-3 and A-5 for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. ( 46 ) IN the result, Criminal Appeal no. 1067 of 2002 filed by A-3 is allowed. The convictions and sentences imposed against him by the learned II Additional Sessions judge, Nalgonda in S. C. No. 699 of 2000 under sections 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC are set aside. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime. ( 47 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 1070 of 2002 is allowed in part. The convictions and sentences imposed against A-1, A-4, A-7, a-8 and A-9 by the learned II Additional sessions Judge, Nalgonda in S. C. No. 699 of 2000 are confirmed in all respects. ( 48 ) THE convictions and sentences imposed against A. 5 under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC are set aside. A-5 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime.