G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by A. 3 to A. 10 in S. C. No. 345 of 1996 on the file of the I additional Sessions Court, Ongole against the judgment dated 24-1-2003 and sentencing them for various offences. ( 2 ) TEN persons were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC. A. 1 and A. 2 died before the Sessions Court framing the charges. Therefore, the charges were framed against A. 3 to A. 10. They were firstly charged for the offence under Section 148 ipc for forming into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of killing the deceased Bandi Anji Reddy at about 9 p. m. , on 19-12-1995 armed with deadly weapons in front of the Timber depot of A. 1 of Renangivaram Village. Secondly, they were charged for the offence under Section 302 or Section 302 read with 149 IPC for intentionally committing the murder of the deceased in pursuance of their common object at the time and place as mentioned in Charge No. 1 by A. 3 piercing spear in the abdomen and A. 4 to A. 10 causing indiscriminate blows with knives. A. 3 to A. 10 denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined P. Ws. 1 to 14, marked exs. P. 1 to P. 16 and M. Os. 1 to 14. No oral evidence was adduced on defence side, but Exs. D. 1 to D. 3 were marked. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution found a. 3 to A. 10 guilty of the offence. Accordingly, they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and each of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. A. 3 was further convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. A. 4 to A. 10 were further convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. A. 4 to A. 10 were further convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The Sessions Court further directed that out of the fine amount recovered from A. 3 to A. 10, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has to be paid to the wife of the deceased by name Bandi Anjamma towards compensation under Section 357 (1) (c) cr. P. C. The appellants being aggrieved by the convictions and sentences imposed by the Sessions Court preferred this appeal challenging their validity and legality. ( 3 ) THE point for consideration is: whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and whether they are entitled for acquittal as prayed for? point: ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the appellants is briefly as follows: ( 5 ) THE accused, the deceased and the prosecution witnesses are the residents of renangivaram Village. The accused belonged to Congress Party whereas the deceased and the material witnesses belong to Telugu Desam Party. The deceased was the Sarpanch of the Gram panchayat for two terms. There were disputes between the parties regarding the elections, dealership of fair price shop, milk collection centre and distribution of pattas to the landless poor. On 14-12-1995 at about 9 p. m. , while P. W. I and the deceased were returning from the house of P. W. 7 and reached near the timber depot of A. 1, all the accused emerged from the side of the timber depot, A. 2 and A. 3 were armed with spears and A. 4 to A. 7 with knives. A. 1 asked all the accused to kill the deceased. Immediately A. 2 and A. 3 pierced the spears into the stomach of the deceased, a. 4 to A. 7 stabbed the deceased with knives all over the body indiscriminately, including the face. The deceased sustained injuries on the left ear, left jaw, left hip, chin, right ear and stomach. On receipt of those injuries the deceased fell down on the ground. P. Ws. 1 and 2 who were with the deceased raised cries that the deceased was being killed. The deceased sustained injuries on the left ear, left jaw, left hip, chin, right ear and stomach. On receipt of those injuries the deceased fell down on the ground. P. Ws. 1 and 2 who were with the deceased raised cries that the deceased was being killed. On hearing the cries the villagers gathered and the accused fled away from the scene. P. Ws. 1, 2 and others took the deceased on a tractor to Medarametla for treatment. But, on the way the deceased died, therefore, the dead body was brought back to the village. During the same night at about 10 p. m. the police received the information that the deceased was stabbed and when he died on the way to Medarametla the body was taken back to their village. P. W. 11, the then Sub- inspector of Medarametla Police Station went to the village at about 11 p. m. , recorded Ex. P. 1-statement from P. W. 1, sent the same to the police Station and got ex. P. 10-FIR registered. On the next morning P. W. 14, the Inspector of Police, visited the scene of offence, prepared ex. P. 4-observation report and Ex. P. 11-rough sketch and got the scene photographed. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. On 7-1-1996 p. W. 14 arrested A3, A. 4, A. 6 and A. 8 to A. 10 and at their instance recovered m. Os. 9 to 14-weapons. Subsequently the other accused were also arrested and sent for judicial custody. P. W. 14 after completion of the investigation laid the charge-sheet. ( 6 ) THE prosecution alleged that on account of political rivalry between the two groups, the accused killed the deceased. The defence of the accused is one of general denial. Though no specific defence was taken by them, they suggested to the prosecution witnesses that the deceased was having many enemies and that it is not known as to who killed the deceased and due to political rivalry the accused were implicated in this case. Cause of Death: ( 7 ) THE prosecution alleged that the deceased met with a homicidal death. In order to establish the said fact, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6, 12, and Exs. P. 5 and P. 9. Cause of Death: ( 7 ) THE prosecution alleged that the deceased met with a homicidal death. In order to establish the said fact, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6, 12, and Exs. P. 5 and P. 9. ( 8 ) P. W. I deposed that the deceased sustained injuries on the left hip, left jaw, left lip under the chin, right ear and on the stomach and fell down on the ground. He was taken on a tractor to Medarametla, but on the way the deceased succumbed to the injuries. P. W. 2 deposed that on the date of offence at about 8 p. m. the deceased received injuries on the left ear, right ear, left jaw under the chin and on the stomach. Later the deceased was taken on a tractor to Medarametla, but on the way the deceased succumbed to injuries, therefore, the dead body was brought back to the village. P. Ws. 3 and 4 also deposed about the injuries received by the deceased and his succumbing to those injuries on the way to Medarametla. P. W. 5 deposed that at the time of occurrence he heard the cries that the members of opposite group murdered the deceased. He went to the spot and found the deceased lying in a pool of bleed with severe bleeding injuries. P. W. 6 also stated that on the date of offence at about 8 p. m. when he was at his house he came to know that the deceased was killed. He went along with his family members to the scene of offence and found the deceased struggling for life with bleeding injuries. ( 9 ) IN Ex. P. 5-inquest report the inquest panchas, including P. W. 8, opined that the deceased died of bleeding injuries. P. W. 8 the then Village Administrative officer also confirmed the opinion given in Ex. P. 5 regarding the death of the deceased. ( 10 ) P. W. 12, the post-mortem doctor who issued Ex,p. 9-post-mortem certificate, found the following injuries over the dead body of the deceased: (1) An elliptical shaped stab injury measuring about 1"x1wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u¼"bone deep at the back of right ear. (2) Labule of right ear is separated from the remaining parts of the ear. ( 10 ) P. W. 12, the post-mortem doctor who issued Ex,p. 9-post-mortem certificate, found the following injuries over the dead body of the deceased: (1) An elliptical shaped stab injury measuring about 1"x1wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u¼"bone deep at the back of right ear. (2) Labule of right ear is separated from the remaining parts of the ear. (3) Two elliptical shaped stab injury measuring 1" x wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u¼" and 1" x wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u¼" bone deep below the chin 1" right to midline. (4) An elliptical shaped stab injury measuring 1" x wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u¼" bone deep above the left ear separating the upper and lower half of the ear. (5) Two stab injuries each measuring 1" x wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u¼" elliptical in shape on left side of lower jaw 1" to the midline. Two cut injuries each measuring 1" x wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u½" in size on left cheek. (6) An irregular abrasion 1" below the left shoulder on lateral side. (7) An elliptical stab injury wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u¼"wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u¼" wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u¼" on left side of lower lip. (8) Irregular contusion 1" x wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u½" in size in front of the neck 2" above the sternum. (9) An irregular abrasion on right shoulder wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u½" x wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u½" in size. (10) A cut injury 1" x 1" in size edges irregular on left shoulder. An abrasion 1" x wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u½" in size 1" below the above injury. (11) An elliptical stab injury measuring 1" x wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u½" on lateral side of left elbow. (12) An elliptical stab injury 1" x 1" in size of left side of the abdomen 1" above the umbilicus. (13) An elliptical stab injury 3" x 1" in size 3" left to the above Injury No. 12 exposing the intestines outside. (14) Three elliptical stab injuries measuring 2" x 1", 2" x wÆ’i’w†ââ‚â„¢wÆ’u¢w¢ââ‚Å¡uÂw…u¡wÆ’i’w¢â‚Âc¡wĉâ‚Å¡w‚u½" and 3" x 1" in size on right upper part of the abdomen exposing the intestines outside. P. W. 12 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries about 12 to 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination conducted on 20-12-1995. The above evidence placed by the prosecution amply established that the deceased met with a homicidal death. P. W. 12 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries about 12 to 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination conducted on 20-12-1995. The above evidence placed by the prosecution amply established that the deceased met with a homicidal death. Motive for the offence: ( 11 ) THE prosecution alleged that there is political rivalry between the two groups of the accused and the deceased, and on account of the said rivalry the accused killed the deceased, whereas the accused contended that due to political rivalry only they were falsely implicated in this case. ( 12 ) IT is well-settled that when there is direct evidence regarding the commission of offence and when such evidence is supported by medical evidence, the motive does not assume much importance. The appreciation, however, depends upon the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the truthfulness of the version given by them. In other words, where a murderous assault has been established by clear ocular evidence, motive pales into insignificance. Therefore, we wish to go through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to verify whether they have spoken to about the political rivalry, as alleged by the prosecution to be the motive for the murder of the deceased, between the two political groups of the accused and the deceased. ( 13 ) P. W. I, a resident of Renangivaram deposed that the deceased and himself belong to Teiugu Desam Party (TDP) and the accused belong to Congress Party. The deceased was the Panchayat President by the date of the incident. He was elected as the President of the Panchayat for two terms. A. 3, A. 5 and A. 10 are supporters of Bandi China Subba Reddy and Bandi pedda Subba Reddy, who belong to congress Party. The deceased defeated both of them in the Panchayat Elections during the two terms. He further stated that the motive for killing the deceased is the political rivalry and other differences regarding the allotment of fair price shop dealership, milk collection centre, etc. ( 14 ) P. W. 2, a resident of the same village and former Secretary of the Milk producers Co-operative Society of the said village deposed that on account of political rivalry and also on account of differences relating to allotment of fair price shop and milk collection centre the accused attacked the deceased. ( 14 ) P. W. 2, a resident of the same village and former Secretary of the Milk producers Co-operative Society of the said village deposed that on account of political rivalry and also on account of differences relating to allotment of fair price shop and milk collection centre the accused attacked the deceased. ( 15 ) P. W. 3, a tractor driver who was staying at Renangivaram since 14 years deposed that he worked as a driver of the tractor of the deceased for about 3 years. In 1995 he worked as a driver in muppalaneni Milk Chilling Centre. There are two factions in the village, one belongs to TDP and the other belongs to Congress party. The deceased belonged to TDP, the accused belong to Congress Party. The deceased was elected as a Sarpanch of the gram Panchayat for two terms. He was moving amicably with all the villagers and was helping the poor for their betterment. The Congress Party represented by the accused planned to eliminate or liquidate the deceased from all political fronts and he was hearing criticism made by the accused against the deceased. He also informed the deceased about the comments made by the accused against him and warned him to be alert, but the deceased told him that they can do nothing to him. ( 16 ) P. W. 6, the mother of the deceased deposed that the deceased was elected as president of their village on two occasions, therefore, the accused bore grudge against him and ultimately killed him. ( 17 ) THE above evidence placed by the prosecution amply established that on account of popularity of the deceased and on account of his election as a Sarpanch of the village in two elections, the accused bore grudge against him, therefore, there was sufficient motive for them to attack the deceased. Offence proper: ( 18 ) REGARDING the offence proper, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 and others as the persons who witnessed the occurrence. ( 19 ) P. W. 1 deposed that on the date of offence the deceased and himself went to the house of one Pannuluri Subbaramaiah, ex-Karanam of their village at about 8 p. m. They discussed about the agricultural land taken on lease by the deceased from the Ex-Karanam. ( 19 ) P. W. 1 deposed that on the date of offence the deceased and himself went to the house of one Pannuluri Subbaramaiah, ex-Karanam of their village at about 8 p. m. They discussed about the agricultural land taken on lease by the deceased from the Ex-Karanam. They remained at the house of the Ex-Karanam for about one hour by chitchatting with the said person and his wife. At about 9 p. m. they left the house of the Ex-Karanam and were proceeding to the bazar. By the time they reached near the timber depot of A. 1, the deceased was ahead of him and he was following the deceased. In the meantime all the accused along with A. 1 and A. 2 emerged from the side of the timber depot. He noticed A. 2 and A. 3 armed with spears and A. 4 to A. 7 armed with knives. A. 1 commanded the other accused to kill the deceased. Immediately a. 2 and A. 3 speared the deceased on his stomach, A. 4 to A. 7 stabbed the deceased all over the body indiscriminately. The deceased sustained injuries on his left ear, left jaw, left lip under the chin, on the right ear and on the stomach and he fell down on the ground due to the receipt of those injuries. At that time P. W. 2 was also present behind him. Both of them raised cries that "anji Reddy was killed". Some villagers gathered. He informed them that the accused fled away towards south and the deceased was struggling for survival. The intestines of the deceased came out from the abdomen. Later they took the deceased on a tractor for treatment at Medarametla, but on the way the deceased succumbed to the injuries, therefore, the dead body was brought back to the village. ( 20 ) P. W. 2, a resident of the same village and an ex-paid Secretary to the milk Producers Co-operative Society deposed that on the date of offence at about 7 or 7-30 p. m. he came to the bazaar to meet the deceased. On the way to his house he found the deceased and P. W. 1 coming in the opposite direction. At the same time A. 1, A. 2 and others emerged suddenly from the timber depot of A. 1. A. 1 alerted the other accused to kill the deceased. On the way to his house he found the deceased and P. W. 1 coming in the opposite direction. At the same time A. 1, A. 2 and others emerged suddenly from the timber depot of A. 1. A. 1 alerted the other accused to kill the deceased. Immediately A. 2 and A. 3 speared the deceased on his stomach, A. 4 to A. 7 who were armed with knives also attacked the deceased. Some more persons were also present with them. P. W. 1 witnessed the incident from behind him from the place of occurrence. The deceased sustained injuries on left ear, left jaw under the chin and on the stomach. He raised cries stating that the deceased was being killed. On hearing the cries of P. W. 1 and himself, all the accused ran away from the scene. On hearing the cries the relatives came out and he informed the names of the assailants to them. ( 21 ) P. W. 3, the driver of a tractor deposed that on the date of occurrence after completing his duty of collection of milk cans, reached the house and took his dinner after bath. Later he reached the house of Kondeti Anjamma. He saw A. 1 instigating the other accused to kill the deceased. He further noticed A. 2 and A. 3 spearing on the stomach of the deceased and A. 4 to A. 10 stabbing the deceased with knives indiscriminately and their leaving the scene of offence. ( 22 ) P. W. 4 deposed that on the date of offence at about 8-30 or 9 p. m. he went to the fertilizer shop of P. W. 5 and sat for sometime. When he was about to move from the shop he heard cries of P. W. 1. Immediately he came out and saw A. 2 and A. 3 spearing the deceased and other accused stabbing the deceased with knives indiscriminately on his face. As he could not proceed to the scene of offence he went back to his house. Subsequently he came to know that the deceased succumbed to the injuries. ( 23 ) P. W. 5, the owner of the fertilizer shop deposed that on the date of offence at about 8-30 p. m. P. W. 4 came to his shop and asked for pesticide. He informed p. W. 4 that there was no stock. Subsequently he came to know that the deceased succumbed to the injuries. ( 23 ) P. W. 5, the owner of the fertilizer shop deposed that on the date of offence at about 8-30 p. m. P. W. 4 came to his shop and asked for pesticide. He informed p. W. 4 that there was no stock. P. W. 4 sat for sometime at his shop. Later when p. W. 4 was about to move, he heard the cries that the opposite group of the deceased have murdered him. He went to the spot and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. ( 24 ) P. W. 6, the mother of the deceased is not a witness to the occurrence and she came to know that the accused killed the deceased. ( 25 ) P. W. 7, a lady from the same village and who is no other than the wife of Pannuluri Subbaramaiah deposed that on the date of incident the deceased visited their house and he used to frequently visit their house on account of his taking their lands on lease. Sometime later he left their house and after sometime she came to know that the deceased died. This witness is also not an eye-witness to the occurrence and her evidence is not helpful regarding the attack of the accused against the deceased. ( 26 ) THOUGH the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 is consistent regarding the time, place and date of offence and the role played by each accused, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is not desirable to accept the evidence of those witnesses on the ground that they are partisan witnesses and they did not give specific overt acts against each accused. The learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution failed to examine any officers of the Electricity Department to establish that there was power supply at the time of occurrence and the prosecution witnesses had the occasion to witness the occurrence under the illumination of the streetlights. The failure of the prosecution to examine the Officers of the Electricity department creates a doubt whether there was any possibility of the prosecution witnesses witnessing the occurrence, therefore, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The failure of the prosecution to examine the Officers of the Electricity department creates a doubt whether there was any possibility of the prosecution witnesses witnessing the occurrence, therefore, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. He also submitted that there is delay in giving complaint to the police and the prosecution in order to explain the delay created the story of taking the deceased on a tractor towards medarametla and the deceased dying on the way and their returning to the village with the dead body without going to medarametla. He contended that since four or five persons travelled in the tractor along with the deceased, one of them ought to have gone to Medarametla to give a report to the police, but the failure of any of the persons giving report to the police immediately after the occurrence is also creating a doubt regarding the truthfulness of the occurrence. He further submitted that the prosecution party had extensive deliberations to finalise the list of persons to be implicated in the crime and in order to cover up the delay in the process of finalizing the list of persons to be implicated, the prosecution concocted the above story, therefore, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel also submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses attributed any overt acts to A. 8 to A. 10 and P. W. 1 also did not mention either in Ex. P. 1 or in his evidence about the participation of A. 8 to A. 10, therefore, the lower Court went wrong in finding A. 8 to A. 10 guilty of the offence and as there is no evidence that A. 8 to a. 10 participated in the commission of offence, they are entitled for acquittal. ( 27 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence took place in the middle of the village near the shop of A. 1 and as the offence occurred at about 9 p. m. , the presence of the prosecution witnesses canaot be ruled out. Though the prosecution witnesses belong to the party to which the deceased belonged, they are the natural witnesses and they cannot be branded as partisan witnesses and as their version regarding the offence proper is consistent, their evidence cannot be brushed aside on the simple ground that they belong to telugu Desam Party. Though the prosecution witnesses belong to the party to which the deceased belonged, they are the natural witnesses and they cannot be branded as partisan witnesses and as their version regarding the offence proper is consistent, their evidence cannot be brushed aside on the simple ground that they belong to telugu Desam Party. He further submitted that the involvement of the prosecution witnesses in a subsequent capital offence is no ground to throw away their evidence. He also submitted that since the ocular evidence placed by the prosecution corroborated with the medical evidence, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be brushed aside. ( 28 ) THERE is no universal or inflexible rule of rejection even with regard to the evidence of witnesses who may be called partisan or interested witnesses. It is plain and obvious that no such rule can be laid down; for the value of the testimony of a witness depends on diverse factors, such as, the character of the witness, to what extent and in what manner he is interested, how he has fared in cross-examination etc. There is no doubt that the testimony of partisan or interested witnesses must be scrutinised with care and there may be cases where the Court will, as a matter of prudence look for independent corroboration. Therefore, we wish to examine the evidence of the prosecution witnesses whether their evidence can be accepted as true or their evidence cannot be believed because they are interested or partisan witnesses. ( 29 ) P. W. 1 stated that while he was coming along with the deceased and when they reached near the shop of A. 1, the accused attacked the deceased. Though the accused cross-examined P. W. 1 at length, they could not elicit any information contradictory to the version given by P. W. 1 in the chief-examination. The evidence of P. W. 1 also corroborated with the version given in Ex. P. 1 -complaint, which was the earliest version given by him. P. W. 2 also stated that on the date of offence at about 7-30 p. m. , after taking dinner he came to bazar to meet the deceased. The evidence of P. W. 1 also corroborated with the version given in Ex. P. 1 -complaint, which was the earliest version given by him. P. W. 2 also stated that on the date of offence at about 7-30 p. m. , after taking dinner he came to bazar to meet the deceased. While he was proceeding in the street he found the deceased and p. W. 1 coming in the opposite direction and when the deceased reached the scene of offence, the accused suddenly emerged from the timber depot of A. 1 and the incident occurred. This witness was also cross-examined at length, but the accused could not elicit any information contradictory to the version given by this witness in the chief examination and his evidence is also not contradictory to the 161 Cr. P. C. statement given by him to the police, except Exs. D. 2 and D. 3-portions of the 161 Cr. P. C. statement, which are not material regarding the manner in which the offence took place. P. W. 3 also corroborated with the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, except that A. 8 to A. 10 also attacked the deceased. In the cross-examination he stated that p. Ws. 1, 2 and himself witnessed the occurrence under the illumination of the streetlights. P. W. 4 also corroborated with the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 regarding the attack and no contradictions could be elicited from his evidence regarding the version given by him in the chief examination. The evidence of P. W. 5 is also lending support to the prosecution version regarding the occurrence at the time and place as mentioned by P. Ws. 1 to 4. None of these witnesses were involved in any cases prior to the date of occurrence. ( 30 ) DURING the pendency of this case a. 1 and A. 2 were said to be murdered and some of the prosecution witnesses were arrayed as accused in the said case. The record reveals that though the said case ended in conviction in the trial Court, in appeal all the accused in that crime were found not guilty and were acquitted. The record reveals that though the said case ended in conviction in the trial Court, in appeal all the accused in that crime were found not guilty and were acquitted. The material placed by the prosecution further disclosed that there were no factions in the village for quite a long time and after the election of the deceased as a Sarpanch of the village for two terms, the accused bore grudge against the deceased, who was gaining goodwill among the people by attending to their needs, and decided to eliminate him. In the light of the above circumstances, we do not find any ground to doubt the truthfulness of the evidence given by P. Ws. 1 to 5 and we accept their evidence as true. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on the issue of accepting the evidence of partisan witnesses is very clear. In Kamma Otukunta Ram Naidu v. Chereddy Pedda Subba Reddy, 2003 (2) ald (Crl.) 761 (SC) = (2003) 11 SCC 293 , at Page 298, the Supreme Court held as follows :. . . The High Court was not justified in refusing to place reliance upon their evidence on the ground that they were interested and partisan witnesses as it is well settled that in a murder trial, sworn testimony of a witness cannot be rejected on this ground alone when the same is consistent with the prosecution case and supported by medical evidence as well as the objective finding of the Investigating officer. (Para 9) ( 31 ) AS regards the plea of the accused about the non-examination of an Officer of the Electricity Department to establish that there was power supply at the time of occurrence, it is sufficient if the prosecution witnesses mention about the availability of power supply and their witnessing the occurrence under the illumination of the streetlights. P. Ws. 1 to 3 have specifically stated that they witnessed the occurrence under the illumination of the streetlights. It is not the specific defence of the accused that there was no power supply at the time of occurrence. In the absence of such plea from the accused, there is no necessity for the prosecution to summon the Officers of the Electricity department to prove that there was power supply at the time of occurrence. We therefore do not find any force in this contention also. In the absence of such plea from the accused, there is no necessity for the prosecution to summon the Officers of the Electricity department to prove that there was power supply at the time of occurrence. We therefore do not find any force in this contention also. ( 32 ) REGARDING the omnibus allegations against A. 4 to A. 7, the plea of the accused that the prosecution witnesses did not attribute specific overt acts to each of them cannot be accepted. P. Ws. 1 to 4 have specifically stated that A. 2 and A. 3 speared the deceased on the stomach and A. 4 to a. 7 stabbed with knives. The deceased received so many injuries which are likely to be caused with the sharp edged weapons like knives, in addition to the spear injuries caused by A. 2 and A. 3 on the stomach of the deceased. ( 33 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there was delay in registering the crime and sending the fir to the concerned Magistrate. The learned Counsel argued that in order to get- over the delay, the prosecution created the story of the deceased being taken to medarametla and his dying on the way, therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal on that ground also. ( 34 ) THE offence took place at about 9 p. m. , Ex. P. 1-complaint was recorded from P. W. 1 at about 11-30 p. m. , and FIR was registered at 12 midnight and the copy of the FIR was received by the magistrate at 4-50 a. m. , during the same night. All the prosecution witnesses with one voice stated that immediately after the occurrence P. Ws. 1 and others secured a tractor and took the deceased for treatment, but as the deceased died on the way to Medarametla, they brought back the dead body to the village. It is the specific version of the prosecution witnesses that the police reached the village at about 11-30 p. m. , recorded Ex. P. 1-complaint from P. W. 1 and proceeded with the investigation immediately after registration of the crime at 12 midnight. The above material indicates that the police acted very promptly and took all necessary steps in the process of investigation in this crime. P. 1-complaint from P. W. 1 and proceeded with the investigation immediately after registration of the crime at 12 midnight. The above material indicates that the police acted very promptly and took all necessary steps in the process of investigation in this crime. Since P. W. 1 gave the names of A. 1 to A. 7 and the role played by them at about 11-30 p. m. , i. e. , a very little time after they returned with the dead body of the deceased, there is no scope for P. W. 1 to have deliberations with all their party men to implicate the accused in this crime. The sequence of the above events indicate that there is no delay in registering the crime and sending the FIR to the concerned Magistrate and we are not inclined to accept the plea of the accused that they are falsely implicated in this case. ( 35 ) REGARDING the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants that A. 8 to A. 10 were falsely implicated, we find some force in the contention of the accused regarding the role attributed to a. 8 to A. 10. P. W. 1 did not mention the names of A. 8 to A. 10 in Ex. P. 1. He did not give their names in his evidence also. The names came to light through the evidence of P. W. 4 that A. 8 to A. 10 also participated in the commission of offence, but after considering the entire evidence placed by the prosecution, we were made to understand that A. 8 to A. 10 were also present at the scene of offence, but as p. Ws. 1 and 2 did not attribute any role to a. 8 to A. 10 in the commission of the offence, we have a doubt whether the version of P. W. 3 that A. 8 to A. 10 also participated in the commission of the offence. We are therefore inclined to give the benefit of doubt to A. 8 to A. 10. We are therefore inclined to give the benefit of doubt to A. 8 to A. 10. ( 36 ) THE other material placed by the prosecution regarding the arrest of a. 1 to A. 7 and the recovery of weapons at their instance is also lending support to the story of the prosecution that A. 1 to A. 7 were responsible for the commission of the offence and we have no hesitation to hold that they were responsible for the commission of the offence. After carefully- going through the evidence placed by the prosecution and after going through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, we are in agreement with the view of the Sessions Court that A. 3 to A. 7 are liable to be convicted for the offence under section 148 IPC, A. 3 for the offence under section 302 IPC, and A. 4 to A. 7 for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 ipc. We are also in agreement with the sentences imposed by the lower Court against A. 3 to A. 7 and the awarding of compensation to the widow of the deceased, with a modification that she is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- instead of Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded by the lower Court. ( 37 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Sessions Court to the extent of convicting and sentencing a. 8 to A. 10 under two counts is set aside. A. 8 to A. 10 are found not guilty for all the charges levelled against them and they are acquitted. They shall be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other crime. ( 38 ) THE appeal in respect of A. 3 to a. 7 is dismissed. The convictions given by the Sessions Court to A. 3 to A. 7 and the sentences imposed against each of them are confirmed. The fine imposed against A. 3 to A. 7 remains unaltered. The fine amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- paid by the accused shall be paid as compensation to the widow of the deceased.