D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) SINCE these three appeals arise out of the judgment, dated 15th April 2004, in Sessions case No. 255 of 1998, rendered by the III additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the appellants will be referred to according to their array before the Court below. ( 3 ) THE Inspector of Police, Kavali, laid charge sheet against A-1 to A-8 in Cr. No. 46 of 1997 of Jaladanl Police Station, Nellore district, for the offences punishable under sections 148, 302, 307, 324 read with section 149 IPC in the Court of the Additional judicial First Class Magistrate, Kavali. ( 4 ) THE gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 16th December 1997 at Brahmanakraka Village, Nellore District, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and caused the death of one Vaka Venkateswara Reddy and further attempted to cause the death of Vaka Venka reddy (P. W. 1), Vaka Venkata Rami Reddy (P. W. 2) and Thumma Chinna Kota Reddy (P. W. 5 ). ( 5 ) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows:- P. W. 1 is the father, P. W. 2 is the brother and P. W. 5 is the cousin (brother) of vaka Venkateswara Reddy and Vaka venkata Rami Reddy (P. W. 2 ). The accused, vaka Venkateswara Reddy and the material witnesses are all ryots and residents of brahmanakraka Village of Nellore District. ( 6 ) ABOUT 8 to 10 years prior to the date of incident, P. W. 1 purchased five acres of land from P. W. 8 and one acre of land from P. W. 3. P. W. 3 and P. W. 8 are brothers. The said land was a barren land without being cultivated. There was a cart-road passing through the said land, which was used by A-2, A-3, A-7, a-8 and few other ryots of the village since many years. After purchase of the said land, p. W. 1 developed three acres of land for cultivation and left the remaining land barren and advised the ryots to use the said land for their passage instead of the cart-road, in order to avoid damage to his crops. After purchase of the said land, p. W. 1 developed three acres of land for cultivation and left the remaining land barren and advised the ryots to use the said land for their passage instead of the cart-road, in order to avoid damage to his crops. But, the accused wanted to pass through the cart- road, which was previously in existence and presently lying in the developed portion of p. W. 1 s land. In that connection a dispute arose between the accused and P. W. 1 s family members. ( 7 ) ON 25-3-1977, A-1 gave a petition to p. W. 9, the Mandal Revenue Officer, manubolu, against P. W. 1 stating that P. W. 1 occupied the Government cart-road of brahmanakraka Village and requested to take necessary measures for restoration of the old cart-road. P. W. 9 instructed P. W. 10, the Revenue Inspector, Jaladanki, to inspect the same. Accordingly, P. W. 10 visited the disputed land along with the V. A-0. of brahmanakraka village and found that the government has got Ac. 2. 77 cents of land in it, including the cart-road, and informed the same to P. W. 1. Then P. W. 1 promised to remove the obstruction placed by him in the cart-road so as to enable the ryots to pass through the same. ( 8 ) TWO months later, some other villagers of Brahmanakraka village made another application to the Mandal Revenue Officer alleging that P. W. 1 occupied the cart-road and closed it. Then, on the instructions of the mandal Revenue Officer, P. W. 10 went to the land in question along with the Surveyor of the Revenue Department and demarcated the cart-road with a width of 50 links as a passage for the villagers. ( 9 ) ON the date of incident, i. e. , on the16th december, 1997, at about 11 A-m. , P. W. 3- julumudi Subba Reddy noticed the accused going towards the land of P. W. 1 for restoring the old cart-road. Then P. W. 3 immediately rushed to P. W. 1 s land and advised P. W. 1 to leave the old cart-road that was previously in existence fortaking carts by the accused and the others villagers to avoid any dispute with the accused and the other ryots. Then P. W. 3 immediately rushed to P. W. 1 s land and advised P. W. 1 to leave the old cart-road that was previously in existence fortaking carts by the accused and the others villagers to avoid any dispute with the accused and the other ryots. At that time, punugoti Jayarami Reddy (P. W. 4), who was passing through the land of P. W. 1, also advised P. W. 1 to leave the cart-road as was advised by P. W. 3. In the meanwhile, all the accused came there. Then, Devarapalli krishna Reddy @ Venkata Krishna Reddy (A-3) tried to remove the sticks embedded the disputed cart-road. When P. W. 1 questioned the same, he was beaten by devarapalli Kala Reddy (A-2) and Devarapalli krishna Reddy @ Venkata Krishna Reddy (A-3) with axes on his head. ( 10 ) P. W. 2 and Vaka Venkateswawra reddy (who are the sons of P. W. 1) intervened, A-2 and A-3 dealt a blow each with axes on the head of Vaka venkateswawra Reddy and when he fell down, Thummala Srinivasulu Reddy (A-1), devarapalli Mallikarjuna Reddy (A-4) and devarapalli Eswara Reddy (A-5) beat him indiscriminately with iron pipes. Then A-4 beat Vaka Venkatrami Reddy (P. W. 2) with iron pipe on his right and left forearms and the remaining accused also beat him with iron pipes indiscriminately. ( 11 ) THE accused, on noticing that thummalal Chinna Kota Reddy (P. W. 5) was coming to the scene of offence, also attacked p. W. 5 saying "ee nakodukuni kuda vesayandira". So saying, all the accused beat him with axes, sticks and iron pipes. Thereafter, P. W. 3 who was witnessing the incident from a distance shifted the injured to hospital. On the way to hospital, near thommidomilu Village they found the vagu overflowing with excess water. Therefore, they stopped there for three hours and reached the Government Community hospital, Kavali, at about 5 p. m. , and half an hour later, Vaka Venkateswara Reddy (hereinafter called as "the deceased") succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. ( 12 ) ON 16-12-1997, at about 5. 15 p. m. , on receiving hospital intimation from P. W. 17, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon of community Hospital, Kavali, about admission of P. Ws. 1,2 and 5 in the hospital with injuries and the death intimation of the deceased (Exs. ( 12 ) ON 16-12-1997, at about 5. 15 p. m. , on receiving hospital intimation from P. W. 17, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon of community Hospital, Kavali, about admission of P. Ws. 1,2 and 5 in the hospital with injuries and the death intimation of the deceased (Exs. P-13 and P-14 respectively), P. W. 15, the then Sub Inspector of Police, I Town police Station, Kavali, after making necessary entries in the General Diary of his police station rushed to the hospital. He reached the hospital by 5. 50 p. m. , and recorded ex. P-1 statement of P. W. 1. On the point of jurisdiction, P. W. 15 sent Exs. P-1, P-13 and p-14 to Jaladanki Police Station along with ex. P-15 memo through a police constable of his police station. ( 13 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid statement of P. W. 1, a case was registered in Cr. No. 46 of 1997 of Jaladanki Police Station under sections 147, 148, 324 and 302 r/w section 149 IPC and Ex. P-16 Fl R was issued by the police. P. W. 16, the then Inspector of police, Kavali, took up further investigation, visited the hospital and recorded the statements of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5 and seized their blood stained clothes under seizure mahazars, Exs. P-6 to P-8 respectively, on 17-12-1997. On the same day, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 11. Ex. P-4 is the inquest report. He visited the scene of offence and conducted panchanama and drew the rough sketch of the scene of offence (Ex. P-7 ). ( 14 ) ON 16-12-1997, on the basis of report given by A-2, a counter-case was also registered against P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 5 in Cr. No. 45 of 1997 under Sections 147,148 and 324 IPC in Jaladanki Police Station wherein it was alleged by A-2 that when himself and A-4 were removing the obstruction placed by P. W. 1 in the disputed cart-road, P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 5 attacked him and the other accused and caused injuries to them. ( 15 ) AT about 5. 20 p. m. , on 16-12-1997, p. W. 17, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, government Community Hospital, Kavali, examined P. Ws. ( 15 ) AT about 5. 20 p. m. , on 16-12-1997, p. W. 17, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, government Community Hospital, Kavali, examined P. Ws. 1, 2, 5 and also the deceased and issued wound certificates, ex. P-22, Ex. P-23, Ex. P-24 and Ex. P-25, respectively. ( 16 ) ON 17-12-1997, on receipt of requisition from the Station House Officer, jaladanki Police Station, P. W. 18, the then civil Assistant Surgeon, Government community Hospital, Kavali, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage and injury to brain. Ex. P-26 is the postmortem certificate. ( 17 ) ON 30-12-1997, P. W. 16 arrested all the accused in the presence of P. W. 11 and 12 at Hanumakondapalem junction. During the course of investigation and at the instance of A-1, he recovered Iron pipes (M. Os. 1 and 2), axes (M. Os. 3 and 4), and four sticks (M. O. 17) under Ex. P-21 panchanama- Later, he sent all the accused for judicial remand. ( 18 ) ON 31-12-1997, P. W. 16 sent A-3 and a-4 to the Government Community Hospital, kavali, for treatment for the injuries received by them. Ex. D-18 and Ex. D-19 are the wound certificates issued by P. W. 17, Civil Assistant surgeon, Government Community Hospital, kavali in respect of A-3 and A-4. ( 19 ) DURING the course of investigation, p. W. 16 examined and recorded the statements of P. Ws. 3,4,7,9,10 and others. Subsequently, after receiving the relevant documents and on completion of investigation, P. W. 15 laid charge sheet in the Court of Additional Judicial First Class magistrate, Kavali, against the accused. ( 20 ) THE Additional Judicial First Class magistrate, Kavali, after observing the procedural formalities, in P. R. C. No. 7 of 1998, committed the case to the Court of Session, nellore, under Section 209 of the Code of criminal Procedure. ( 20 ) THE Additional Judicial First Class magistrate, Kavali, after observing the procedural formalities, in P. R. C. No. 7 of 1998, committed the case to the Court of Session, nellore, under Section 209 of the Code of criminal Procedure. ( 21 ) UPON appearance of A-1 to A-8 before the Court of Session, the learned Sessions judge framed as many as 16 charges against the respective accused for different offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, as detailed below:- (1) A-1 to A-8 under Section 148 IPC; (2) A-3 under Section 307 IPC; (3) A-2 under Section 307 IPC; (4) A-1 under Section 307 IPC; (5) A-4 under Section 307 IPC; (6) A-5 to A-8 under Section 307 IPC; (7) A-1 to A-8 under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC:- (8) A-2 to A-8 under Section 302 IPC; (9) A-1, A-4 to A-8 under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC; (10) A-4 under Section 307 IPC; (11) A-8 under Section 307 IPC; (12) A-5 under Section 307 IPC; (13) A-6 to A-8 under Section 307 IPC; (14) A-1 to A-8 under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC; (15) A-3 under Section 307 IPC; and (16) A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-8 under section 307 read with Section 149 ipc. ( 22 ) THE plea of the accused is one of total denial. All the accused denied the commission of any offence, as alleged by the prosecution, and claimed to be tried. ( 23 ) IN order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses and got marked twenty-six exhibits. P. W. 6 and P. W. 7 did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. M. Os. 1 to 17 were also marked by the prosecution. ( 24 ) AFTER closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to explain away the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. All the accused denied the prosecution evidence and stated that they did not commit any offence and that they were all falsely implicated in this case. ( 25 ) THE accused examined D. Ws. 1 to 4 and got marked Exs. D-1 to D-19 on their behalf. All the accused denied the prosecution evidence and stated that they did not commit any offence and that they were all falsely implicated in this case. ( 25 ) THE accused examined D. Ws. 1 to 4 and got marked Exs. D-1 to D-19 on their behalf. ( 26 ) AFTER conducting full-fledged trial and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the learned Sessions Judge- (a) convicted A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month each; (b) convicted A-1 to A-8 for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month each; (c) convicted A-2 and A-3 for the offence under Section 302 I PC and sentenced each of them to suffer Imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default to suffer Simple imprisonmentfora period of two months each; (d) convicted A-1, A-4 to A-8 for the offence under Section 302 read with section 149 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer Imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months; (e) acquitted A-1 to A-8 for the offences under Sections 307 IPC and 307 read with 149 IPC respectively. ( 27 ) AGGRIEVED by the respective convictions and sentences imposed by the court below, against each of them, for the respective charges, A-1 to A-8 filed the present appeals. Criminal Appeal No. 974 of 2004 is filed by A-1 to A-5; Criminal Appeal no. 1054 of 2004 is filed by A-6; and Criminal appeal No. 1112 of 2004 is filed by A-7 and a-8. Hence, these appeals. ( 28 ) WE have heard the learned Senior counsel-Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy and sri E. Ayyapu Reddy-appearing for the accused as well as the learned Public prosecutor, appearing for the State. 1054 of 2004 is filed by A-6; and Criminal appeal No. 1112 of 2004 is filed by A-7 and a-8. Hence, these appeals. ( 28 ) WE have heard the learned Senior counsel-Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy and sri E. Ayyapu Reddy-appearing for the accused as well as the learned Public prosecutor, appearing for the State. ( 29 ) THE point for consideration in these appeals is: whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the respective offences with which they stood convicted and sentenced by the court below, and whether the judgment under appeals is sustainable in law? ( 30 ) IN order to decide these appeals, it is apposite to notice the oral and documentary evidence available on record. ( 31 ) OUT of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the alleged eye-witnesses. ( 32 ) THE evidence of P. W. 1, Vaka Venka reddy, is to the effect that P. W. 2 Vaka venkata Rami Reddy and the deceased are his sons; that himself and all the accused are the residents of Brahmanakraka Village; that on 16-12-1997 at about 10. 00 a. m. , he and his two sons went to their land which is situate at about 1 k. m. , to the west of their village; at that time there was paddy crop in hisland;andthatthesaidland was pu rchased by him about ten years ago which was barren without any cultivation by then. 00 a. m. , he and his two sons went to their land which is situate at about 1 k. m. , to the west of their village; at that time there was paddy crop in hisland;andthatthesaidland was pu rchased by him about ten years ago which was barren without any cultivation by then. ( 33 ) COMING to the incident proper, P. W. 1 deposed that for the last five or six months prior to the date of incident there was a dispute between him and the accused in respect of the cart-road existing in his land; at about 10-30 a. m. , on 16-12-1997 they were informed by P. W. 3 and his sons that A-1 to a-8 were discussing about the cart-road and that all the accused were coming to his (P. W. 1 s) land; that with an expectation that something would go wrong P. W. 3 advised him and his sons to leave the land; at that time P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 who were going in that way also advised him and his sons to leave the cart-road passing through his land to the first accused and the other villagers as a passage; that in the meanwhile, all the accused came to his land and started removing the sticks embedded in the earth in his land; that when he questioned the acts of the accused, Kalareddy (A-2) and Krishna reddy (A-3) dealt one blow each with axes on his head; that when his two sons, viz. , vaka Venkata Rami Reddy (P. W. 2) and the deceased intervened and questioned the accused as to why they were attacking their father, Devarapalli Krishna Reddy @ Venkata krishna Reddy (A-3) dealt one blow each with axes on the head of the deceased; that thereupon the deceased fell down and then thummala Srinivasulu Reddy (A-1), devarapalli Mallikarjuna Reddy (A-4) and devarapalli Eswara Reddy (A-5) beat the deceased indiscriminately with iron rods; that his other son Vaka Venkaia Rami Reddy (PW. 2) was also attacked by Kalareddy (A-2) krishna Reddy (A-3), Srinivasulu Reddy (A-1), Mallikarjuna Reddy (A-4), Dronadula venkata Krishna Reddy (A-6), Eswara Reddy (A-5), Sankara Reddy (A-7) and Dronadula sreenivasulu Reddy (A-8) with axes and iron pipes and sticks indiscriminately as a result of which P. W. 2 also fell down with bleeding injuries; that subsequently P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 along with others came to the scene of offence and shifted him and his two sons to the government Community Hospital, Kavali; that after some time one of his sons, i. e. , the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the attack; that police examined him and recorded his statement, and that police seized his blood-stained clothes. ( 34 ) IT is important to note that P. W. 1 categorically stated that the accused did not receive any injuries in the scuffle nor any one of the accused was beaten. It is the specific case of P. W. 1 that after attacking him and his sons, all the accused left scene of offence. ( 35 ) UPON a specific suggestion put to him on behalf of the accused, P. W. 1 stated that the villagers never questioned him about the cart-road. However, P. W. 1 admitted that the villagers used to take their carts through the disputed cart-road even after he purchased the land in question. ( 36 ) P. W. 1 further deposed that two years prior to the incident in question he closed the disputed cart-road and started raising crops in that part of the land also. P. W. 1 admitted that ryots of the village came and questioned him about closing of the cart-road; that the ryots filed a petition before the M. R. O. to come and settle the matter, pursuant to which the V. A. O. and Revenue Inspector visited the disputed cart-road and advised P. W. 1 to leave the cart-road area in his land as a passage for the accused and the villagers because it was in existence from times immemorial and that he (P. W. 1) agreed for that course. ( 37 ) DURING his cross-examination, P. W. 1 volunteered and admitted that he planted sticks in the cart-road much prior to the revenue Inspector and V. A. O. coming to the disputed area for inspection. ( 37 ) DURING his cross-examination, P. W. 1 volunteered and admitted that he planted sticks in the cart-road much prior to the revenue Inspector and V. A. O. coming to the disputed area for inspection. P. W. 1 denied the suggestion that P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 did not witness the incident. ( 38 ) P. W. 2, Vaka Venkata Rami Reddy, is the son of P. W. 1 and brother of the deceased. In his evidence P. W. 2, while admitting the background with regard to the cart-road dispute between his family and the accused, deposed that all the accused came to the scene of offence, armed with axes, iron pipes and sticks and attacked him, his father and his brother (deceased ). ( 39 ) DURING cross-examination, P. W. 2 categorically deposed that none of the accused received any injuries at the time of their attacking him, his father and brother. ( 40 ) P. W. 2 also deposed that P. W. 3 and p. W. 4 requested the accused to maintain peace and that the accused without paying any heed pushed them aside; that A-3 tried to remove some sticks embedded in the earth in their land; that when himself and his father (P. W. 1) questioned A-3 as to why he was so doing and when P. W. 1 requested A-3 to make use of the separate cart-road left in the remaining extent of his land as the cart-road, a-3 beat P. W. 1 with the butt-end of an axe on the head of P. W. 1; that A-2 also dealt a blow with the butt-end of another axe on the head of P. W. 1; that afterwards all the remaining accused came and beat P. W. 1 with iron pipes and sticks indiscriminately and P. W. 1 fell down. ( 41 ) IT is also the evidence of P. W. 2 that when his brother, Venkateswara Reddy (i. e. , the deceased) intervened in the matter, A-2 beat him with the butt-end of an axe on his head; that A-3 also beat the deceased with the butt-end of an axe; that the deceased fell down; and then all the remaining accused beat the deceased indiscriminately with iron pipes and sticks. ( 42 ) THE evidence of P. W. 2 is also to the effect that when he intervened in the matter, mallikarjuna Reddy (A-4) beat him with an iron pipe on his right fore-arm and left forearm and the remaining accused beat him with iron pipes and sticks indiscriminately, as a result of which he fell down losing consciousness, and that on regaining consciousness he found himself to be in the government Community Hospital, Kavali. ( 43 ) IN effect, P. W. 2 deposed that it is only because the accused were not allowed to use the disputed cart-road they developed grudge against his family members and attacked him, his father and his brother (deceased ). During cross-examination, p. W. 2 emphatically stated that none of the accused received any injuries at the same time, i. e. , during the course of attack. ( 44 ) P. W. 3 and P. W. 4, who are cited as the alleged eye-witnesses to the incident by the prosecution, also deposed in the same fashion as was deposed to by P. W. 1 and p. W. 2 in order to corroborate the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2. ( 45 ) THE evidence of P. W. 5 Thummala chinna Kota Reddy is to the effect that on the date of incident, by the time he went to the scene of offence, P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and the deceased were lying on the ground in their land with injuries and the accused were coming in his opposite direction; that on seeing him all the accused attacked and beat him with axes, sticks and iron pipes causing injuries to his head and other parts of his body. ( 46 ) BUT, the most conspicuous aspect borne out of record is that in the first report ex. P-1 which is the basis for registering the case and issuing the First Information Report ex. P-16 it was mentioned that P. W. 3 and p. W. 4 along with others came to the scene of offence subsequent to the accused leaving the scene of offence after beating P. W. 1, p. W. 2 and the deceased. Same is the version spoken to by P. W. 1 before the Court. ( 47 ) THEREFORE, the evidence of P. Ws. Same is the version spoken to by P. W. 1 before the Court. ( 47 ) THEREFORE, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 clearly, indicates that P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 were not present when the alleged incident took place. To put it in a different way, the absence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 at the scene of offence when the alleged incident place has been successfully established by the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 themselves. Therefore, P. Ws. 3 and 4 shall not be treated as eyewitnesses to the incident and their knowledge regarding the offence, alleged to have been perpetrated by the accused, is limited. Their role was limited to the extent of shifting the deceased and other injured i. e. , p. W. 1, P. W. 2, P. W. 5 to the hospital and nothing beyond. ( 48 ) THE cumulative effect of the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 read with Ex. P-1 is that there was a dispute with regard to the cart- road which is lying across the land of P. W. 1 and which was being used by the villagers as a passage from one place to the other from times immemorial and that P. W. 1 did place some obstruction to the said cart-road. ( 49 ) P. W. 1 clearly admitted in his evidence that the V. A. O. and the Revenue Inspector visited the disputed cart-road area to resolve the dispute between him and the villagers and that he agreed to remove the obstructions placed in the said cart-road. But, obviously, the said obstruction was not removed by p. W. 1, which aspect is the genesis for the whole episode, which resulted in the perpetration of the alleged offence. ( 50 ) THE other important evidence on record to be looked into is the medical evidence. ( 51 ) P. W. 17, Dr. C. Indiramma, was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government community Hospital, Kavali. She examined the injured P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and the deceased (in the first instance), and issued the wound certificates. ( 52 ) P. W. 18, Dr. Y. Devadas, was the then civil Assistant Surgeon, Government community Hospital, Kavali. He conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Vaka Venkateswara Reddy and issued the post mortem certificate. ( 52 ) P. W. 18, Dr. Y. Devadas, was the then civil Assistant Surgeon, Government community Hospital, Kavali. He conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Vaka Venkateswara Reddy and issued the post mortem certificate. ( 53 ) P. W. 17, in fact, examined the deceased in the first instance and P. Ws. 1,2 and 5. She also examined A-3 and A-4 (who are examined as D. Ws. 2 and 3 respectively ). ( 54 ) IT is the evidence of P. W. 17 that on 16-12-1997 at about4. 50 p. m. , she examined the deceased Vaka Venkateswara Reddy when he was alive and found the following injuries: 1. A bleeding incised wound 3" x X " present over the right frontal area 3" away from the mid-line; 2. A diffused swelling present over the occipital area in the middle. 3. A red abrasion 2" x " present over the nose. 4. Two dark red abrasions of same size 1" x 1" present over the left shoulder. ( 55 ) P. W. 17 further deposed that injuries 1 to 3 above were grievous in nature and injury no. 4 was simple in nature and they would have been caused by means of sharp and blunt objects. She opined that those injuries are possible by means of sharp edges of weapons like M. O. s. 1 to4 and blunt objects like M. O. 1 and M. O. 2 (blunt side) and M. O. 17 respectively. Ex. P-25 is the wound certificate issued in respect of the deceased. ( 56 ) IN cross-examination P. W. 17, while explaining the injuries found on the body of the deceased, stated that the incised wounds are possible by means of glass or any other sharp-edged objects; that an incised wound inflicted by ordinary knife will not be accompanied by contusions usually; that a heavy weapon not with very sharp edges can cause contusions surrounding incised wounds; that if an injury is caused by means of the sharper side of M. Os. 3 and 4 surrounding contusions are possible and same is the case with the sharper side of m. Os. 1 and 2. ( 57 ) P. W. 17 further deposed in cross- examination that she did not find any surrounding contusions around all the incised wounds mentioned in Exs. 3 and 4 surrounding contusions are possible and same is the case with the sharper side of m. Os. 1 and 2. ( 57 ) P. W. 17 further deposed in cross- examination that she did not find any surrounding contusions around all the incised wounds mentioned in Exs. P-22 to P-25 and that the contusions caused to P. W. 1 were possible by means of a fall on the ground; that injuries 1,2 and 4 caused to P. W. 2 were also possible by a fall on the ground; that injuries 2 and 4 caused to P. W. 5 were not possible by a fall on the road whereas the third injury caused to P. W. 5 was possible by a fall on the ground and that they were also possible by means of fall on irregular sticks embedded in the earth; that the swelling injuries noted in all the wound certificates were possible by means of a fall on such sticks; that the abrasions noted in all the wound certificates were also possible by a fall upon such sticks; and that the lacerated injuries were possible by means of stones or by fall on a rough surface. ( 58 ) P. W. 17, in her cross-examination, also stated that on 16-12-1997 at about 6. 30 p. m. , A-3 and A-4 were also brought to her by P. C. No. 613of Jaladanki police station for medical examination; that on examination of A-3 she noticed the following injuries on the person of A-3: 1. A bleeding incised wound 2" x x present over his left thumb; 2. A diffused painful swelling over right hand; 3. A diffused painful swelling present over right parietal region. ( 59 ) P. W. 17 further deposed that on the same day she examined A-4 and noticed the following injuries on the person of A-4: 1. A diffused painful swelling present over the left shoulder; 2. A bleeding incised wound 1" x " x " present over the right parietal region " away from the mid line. ( 59 ) P. W. 17 further deposed that on the same day she examined A-4 and noticed the following injuries on the person of A-4: 1. A diffused painful swelling present over the left shoulder; 2. A bleeding incised wound 1" x " x " present over the right parietal region " away from the mid line. ( 60 ) P. W. 17 opined thatthe injuries noticed on the person of A-3 were simple in nature and they were caused by means of sharp and blunt-edged objects about six hours prior to her examination; that the first injury suffered by A-3 was possible by means of a sharp- edged weapon and the other injuries were possible by means of blunt edged weapons. ( 61 ) P. W. 17 opined that the injuries noticed on the person of A-4 were simple in nature and were caused six hours prior to his examination; that the second injury noticed on the person of A-4 was possible by means of a knife and that the other injury was possible by any blunt object including stick; that exs. D-18 and D-19 are the extracts of wound certificates relating to A-3 and A-4. ( 62 ) FROM a perusal of the injuries noticed by P. W. 17 on the person of A-3, it appears that two injuries were inflicted on the hands of a-3 and, of course, the third injury was a painful swelling on the parietal region. From the injuries noticed on the person of A-3, it appears that those injuries would, in normal course, get inflicted on the hands only when an attempt was made by the injured to ward off some attack on him with some weapon by some other person. So also the injuries inflicted on A-3. ( 63 ) THE cumulative effect of these injuries suffered by A-3 and A-4 would only suggest that they suffered injuries when they tried to ward off some attack made against them by somebody with some weapons. ( 64 ) THE specific case of the prosecution is that it is the accused who attacked P. W. 1, p. W. 2, P. W. 5 and the deceased in the first instance with common intention. But, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 would only suggest that the accused came to the cart-road area only to remove the obstruction admittedly caused by P. W. 1. But, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 would only suggest that the accused came to the cart-road area only to remove the obstruction admittedly caused by P. W. 1. This is evident from the evidence of P. W. 1 that the accused soon- after coming to the scene of offence first started removing the sticks embedded in the earth in the cart-road area in order to remove the obstruction. Only when the accused were questioned by the prosecution witnesses, there appears to have taken place some scuffle. ( 65 ) IN this context, it is to be noted that the prosecution witnesses, i. e. , P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and the deceased are no other than the father and sons respectively and P. W. 5 is the cousin (brother) of P. W. 2 and the deceased whereas the accused are all only the villagers and are not related to each other in any manner. In other words, the status of the accused was simply that of some the villagers, amongst other villagers, who were suffering from the obstruction caused by p. W. 1 the cart-road area for the ir free passage through it. ( 66 ) THE common grievance of the accused and the other villagers, as could be seen from the evidence on record, is only against the obstruction in the cart-road area caused by p. W. 1 for their passage through it, and their common interest is only removal of such obstruction and restoration of the cart-road area open for use of all the villagers as was being used by all of them earlier without any obstruction or hindrance. This could be seen more clearly from the admission made by p. W. 1 himself during the course of his, evidence to the effect that he placed obstruction in the cart-road area lying in his land. ( 67 ) BOTH the prosecution witnesses and the accused belong to the same village. All the villagers, though might have had the grievance about the obstruction, may not necessarily proceed to question the action of p. W. 1 in causing obstruction to the age-old passage. ( 67 ) BOTH the prosecution witnesses and the accused belong to the same village. All the villagers, though might have had the grievance about the obstruction, may not necessarily proceed to question the action of p. W. 1 in causing obstruction to the age-old passage. Only few villagers, in normal course, would take up the cause of all the villagers and in that course of action there appears to have taken place an unpleasant meet between the accused and the prosecution witnesses which resulted in, perhaps, an altercation followed by an attack and a counter-attack. ( 68 ) IN such circumstances, the incidental question that would crop up is as to who could be the aggressors? ( 69 ) THIS question has become relevant in the light of the specific defence taken by the learned Senior Counsel Sri C. Padmanabha reddy and Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy, appearing for the accused. ( 70 ) IT is the contention of the learned senior Counsel appearing for the accused that had there been common intention for the accused to commit any offence either to assault or kill someone in the family of P. W. 1, the attack would have been directly on the prosecution witnesses only and the accused would not have made any attempt to remove the obstruction placed by P. W. 1 in the cartroad in the first instance and would have directly attacked P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and the deceased. ( 71 ) THE learned Senior Counsel would submit that the evidence on record is so clear that the first step initiated by all the accused was to remove the sticks embedded in the earth by P. W. 1 in the cart-road area in order to remove the obstruction placed in it, despite the very presence of P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and the deceased at the scene of offence at that point of time. ( 72 ) FROM the above conduct on the part of the accused, it is clear that the common object of all the accused, as alleged by the prosecution, cannot be said to have been established. ( 72 ) FROM the above conduct on the part of the accused, it is clear that the common object of all the accused, as alleged by the prosecution, cannot be said to have been established. ( 73 ) THE first and foremost ingredient that is required to be established by the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 149 I PC is that there must be an unlawful assembly and that the members of such unlawful assembly must have knowledge about the commission of an offence. So the pre-requisite of Section 149 ipc is that first of all the assembly of the accused must be unlawful . ( 74 ) AS already noted, the accused came to the scene of offence only in order to remove the obstruction placed in the cart- road area by P. W. 1. They were actually engaged in that activity only, without directly attacking the prosecution witnesses. Precisely, their assembly at the scene of offence was primarily to remove the obstruction. In such circumstances, it is too hard to hold that the assembling of the accused at the scene of offence was unlawful . ( 75 ) IN this case, the common object of the accused assembled at the scene of offence, at best, as could be seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, was only and primarily to remove the obstruction caused by P. W. 1 to the cart-road. When such is the situation, it is rather incomprehensible to hold that the common object of the accused was to annihilate somebody or to assault som6 other person. ( 76 ) IN these circumstances, having carefully scanned the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the requirements of Section 149 IPC are totally lacking in this case, more so, in the teeth of the very testimony of P. W. 1 read with the contents of Ex. P. 1, first report. ( 77 ) YET another contention urged by the learned Senior Counsel Sri C. Padmanabha reddy is that from the injuries suffered by a-3 and A-4 it is evident that there was an attack made on the accused by the prosecution witnesses also and only in order to ward off themselves from such an attack the accused might have also inflicted some injuries on the prosecution witnesses, including the deceased. In other words, his contention is that the accused have exercised their right of private defence and in so exercising, their right of private defence they did not exceed their limits. ( 78 ) IN this context, Sri C. Padmanabha reddy, learned Senior Counsel, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in laxmansingh v. Poonam Singh. ( 79 ) THE principles laid down in laxamansingh s case are well-settled and unexceptionable. In that Judgment, Their lordships, dealing with the scope of right of private defence observed: the only question which needs to be considered is the alleged exercise of the right of private defence. Section 96 ipc provides that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. The section does not define the expression "right of private defence". It merely indicates that nothing is an offence, which is done in the exercise of such right. Whether in a particular set of circumstances, a person acted in the exercise of the right of private defence is a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. No test in the abstract for determining such a question can be laid down. In determining this question of fact, the court must consider all the surrounding circumstances. It is not necessary for the accused to plead in so many words that he acted in self-defence. If the circumstances show that the right of private defence was legitimately exercised it is open to the court to consider such a plea. " their Lordships further observed: the burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record (see Munshi Ram v. Delhi admn. ( AIR 1968 SC 702 ) ; State of gujarat v. Bai Fatima ( AIR 1975 SC 1478 ); State of U. P. v. Mohd. Musheer khan (Al R 1977 SC 2226) and Mohinder pal Jolly v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1979 sc 577 ). Sections 100 to 101 define the extent of the right of private defence of body. Musheer khan (Al R 1977 SC 2226) and Mohinder pal Jolly v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1979 sc 577 ). Sections 100 to 101 define the extent of the right of private defence of body. If a person has a right of private defence of body under Section 97, that right extends under Section 100 to causing death if there is reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt would be the consequence of the assault. The oft-quoted observation of this in Salim Zia v. State of U. P. (1979) 2 SCC 648 , runs as follows (SCC p. 654, para 9):"it is true that the burden on an accused person to establish the plea of self- defence is not as onerous as the one which lies on the prosecution and that while the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused need not establish the plea to the hilt and may discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probabilities either by laying basis for that plea in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by adducing defence evidence. "the accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough for him to show as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea. ( 80 ) FROM the above, it is clear that firstly, there must be a plea of right of private defence made by the accused; secondly, that the right of private defence should be established as legitimately exercised; thirdly, that the burden of establishing the right of private defence lies on the accused and such burden can be discharged by the accused showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of material on record and other circumstances; and fourthly, it is not imperative for the accused to prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, it is sufficient for the accused to establish that they had exercised their right of private defence by preponderance of probabilities and other circumstances. ( 81 ) REVERTING back to the case on hand, though the wound certificates Exs. On the contrary, it is sufficient for the accused to establish that they had exercised their right of private defence by preponderance of probabilities and other circumstances. ( 81 ) REVERTING back to the case on hand, though the wound certificates Exs. D-18 and d-19, referable to A-3 and A-4, suggest that they received simple injuries as spoken to by the Doctor P. W. 17, it is important to note that a-3 had received two injuries on his head, may be by a blunt object. Though the nature of the said injuries was simple, the intention and object of the person who attacked A-3 and A-4 is obviously to inflict severe injuries. Further, as already noticed by us, the injuries caused to A-4 would only suggest that those injuries were received by A-4 in an attempt to ward-off the blows against him. The two injuries received on the hands of A-3 would suggest that A-3 received them in the course of warding off the serious attack on him. This was further strengthened by the said injuries suffered by him on the parietal region. Merely because the injuries found on the person of a-3 and A-4 are simple in nature, we are of the view that it cannot be said that the gravity of the offence and the seriousness of the perpetrators of the offence is slight or minimal. ( 82 ) IN such doubtful circumstances, it is rather difficult for this Court to jump to any conclusion as to who was the aggressor- party. In fact, in the instant case, this court need not go into that aspect when the plea of right of private defence was specifically taken by the accused and has been successfully demonstrated to a reasonable extent, though not totally. ( 83 ) IN the fact-situation of the case hand, it is not the question as to who is the aggressor party, but the question is whether the accused exercised their right of private defence defence reasonably and within their limitations. ( 84 ) IN this context, it is rather useful to notice the following pertinent observations made by the Supreme Court in Hallu v. State of M. P. :"the post-mortem report prepared by dr. N. Jain shows that on the body of jagdeo were found three bruises and a hematom A- On the body of Padum were found four lacerated wounds and two bruises. N. Jain shows that on the body of jagdeo were found three bruises and a hematom A- On the body of Padum were found four lacerated wounds and two bruises. According to the eye-witnesses the two men were attacked with lathis, spears and axes but that clearly stands falsified by the medical evidence. None one of the injuries found on the person of Jagdeo and Padum could be caused by a spear or an axe. The High Court however refused to attach any importance to this aspect of the matter by saying that the witnesses had not stated "the miscreants dealt axe blows from the sharp-side or used the spear as a piercing weapon. " According to the high Court axes and spears may have been used from the blunt side and therefore the evidence of the eyewitnesses could safely be accepted. We should have thought that normally 2. AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1936. when the witness says that an axe or a spear is used there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness means is that the blunt side of the weapon was used. If that be the implication it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether a sharp-edged or a piercing instrument was used as a blunt weapon. " ( 85 ) IN fact, in Laxman Singh v. Poonam singh (1 supra), Their Lordship of the supreme Court categorically observed thus:"a plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculation. While considering whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, it is not relevant whether he may have a chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor. In order to find whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, the entire incident must be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting. Section 97 deals with the subject-matter of the right of private defence. The plea of the right comprises the body or property: (i) of the person exercising the right; or (ii) of any other person; and the right may be exercised in the case of any offence against the body, and in the case of offences of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, and attempts at such offences in relation to property. The plea of the right comprises the body or property: (i) of the person exercising the right; or (ii) of any other person; and the right may be exercised in the case of any offence against the body, and in the case of offences of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, and attempts at such offences in relation to property. Section 99 lays down the limits of the right of private defence. Sections 96 to 98 give a right of private defence against certain offences and acts. The right given under Sections 96 to 98 and 100 to 106 is controlled by section 99. To claim the right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him. The burden is on the accused to show that he had a right of private defence which extended to causing of death. Sections 100 and 101 ipc define the limit and extent of the right of private defence. " ( 86 ) THE aforesaid observations of the supreme Court make it abundantly clear that right of private defence can extent to voluntarily causing death of a person and in such a case the accused must establish the circumstances which led to the apprehension that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to them, and while establishing that right the accused can go to the extent of causing death. ( 87 ) IN this context, and of course at the cost of repetition, the medical evidence in this case is essentially to be gone into once again. ( 88 ) P. W. 17, the Doctor, though did say that some of the injuries inflicted on the deceased are grievous in nature, P. W. 18, the Doctor, who issued post mortem certificate, did not say as to which of those injuries was sufficient to cause death. In fact, the prosecution did not elicit this vital and important aspect from P. W. 18 when he was in the box. In fact, the prosecution did not elicit this vital and important aspect from P. W. 18 when he was in the box. ( 89 ) IN the light of the evidence on record, we hold that in this case the assembly of the accused at the scene of offence on the date and at the time of the alleged incident was not unlawful and there was no common object for the accused to injure or kill anybody. Keeping in view the other circumstances pointed out by us supra, we are of the considered view that there was reasonable chance for the accused to apprehend that they would be attacked or killed by the prosecution witnesses, viz. , P. W. 1 and others, - which fact had been reasonably demonstrated and established by the accused in the light of the injuries suffered by A-3 and a-4, - we hold that the accused had exercised their right of private defence well within their limitations. Inotherwords, neither the accused had exceeded their limits in exercising their right of private defence nor is it safe for this Court to jump to any conclusion, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances. ( 90 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, while contending that the judgment under appeal does not call for interference by this Court, placed reliance upon the decision of the supreme Court in Anil Kumar v. State of u. P. , for the proposition that non-explanation of injuries on the person of the accused would not affect the prosecution case. He also placed reliance upon another decision of the Supreme Court in State of M. P. v. Dharkole, for the proposition that minor discrepancies in the prosecution case should not be taken into account so as to doubt the prosecution case. ( 91 ) WE have gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor at the Bar. The principles laid down by the apex Court in those decisions are unexceptionable. The facts of those decisions are different from that of the case on hand. Therefore, in the present case, the need to apply those principles does not actually arise in the light of what we have discussed above. ( 92 ) AT this juncture, it is relevant to mention, though not very relevant, that the conduct of p. W. 1 is not satisfactory. Therefore, in the present case, the need to apply those principles does not actually arise in the light of what we have discussed above. ( 92 ) AT this juncture, it is relevant to mention, though not very relevant, that the conduct of p. W. 1 is not satisfactory. P. W. 1, clearly and categorically admitted during the course of his evidence before the Court below that there was a cart-road existing in his land and that he embedded sticks in it causing obstruction to villagers, including the accused, to pass through it. The other oral evidence on record clearly shows that the Village administrative Officer and the Mandal revenue Inspector visited the cart-road area and advised P. W. 1 to remove the obstruction placed by him in the cart-road area for free passage of the villagers as the same was in existence since times immemorial. Though p. W. 1 agreed to remove the said obstruction, in fact, he did not remove the same. The evidence of P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 would also disclose that they too advised P. W. 1 to remove the obstruction placed by him in the cart-road area- The conduct of P. W. 1 in not removing the obstruction placed by him in the cart-road area only goes to show that p. W. 1 is not a prudent and reasonable person. ( 93 ) WHEN the accused are to be liberated from the clutches of Section 149 IPC, what should follow? The necessary corollary is that the accused would be responsible for their individual commissions/overt acts and those commissions are no other than the overt acts committed by each of them in pursuit of exercising their right of private defence . In such circumstances, the injuries caused by the accused to P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and p. W. 5 should be attributable only to those accused who actually caused them. ( 94 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, and having regard to the oral and documentary evidence available on record, we are of the considered view that A-1 to A-8 cannot be held responsible for the respective offences alleged to have been committed by them under Sections 148, 302 and 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for which they were convicted and sentenced by the court below. On the contrary, all the accused are liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC. ( 95 ) THERE is ample evidence on record to show that all the accused are responsible for causing injure to P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 5. Ex. P. 1 the first report, the wound certificates, the evidence of the Doctor P. W. 17, coupled with the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5 amply establish that all the accused are responsible for causing injuries to P. Ws. 1,2 and 5 thereby rendering themselves liable for the offence punishable under Section 324 ipc. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Court below had rightly found all the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and convicted and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Accordingly, we confirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below on all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. ( 96 ) EXCEPT for the offence under section 324 IPC, all the accused are liable to be acquitted of the offences with which they stood convicted and sentenced by the court below as the evidence on record is not sufficient to convict and sentence the respective accused for those offences. ( 97 ) IN the result, all these three appeals are partly allowed in the following terms: (1) The conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below on A-1 to a-8 for the offence punishable under sections 148 IPC are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge. (2) The conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below on A-2 and a-3 for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge. (3) The conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below on A-1 and a-4 to A-8 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sec. 149 ipc are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge. (4) The conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below on A-1 to a-8 for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC are hereby confirmed. (4) The conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below on A-1 to a-8 for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC are hereby confirmed. Since A-1 to A-8 are in jail from April 2004 and as of today they have already undergone the imprisonment more than the period of imprisonment awarded by the Court below, A-1 to A-8 shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other cause.