G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the State represented by the Public Prosecutor challenging the judgment of the III Additional Sessions judge, Kadapa, dated 12-4-2004 in S. C. No. 174 of 1999 acquitting all the accused for various offences including the offence under Section 302 of I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is briefly as follows: a-1, A-2, A-5 and A-19 are brothers and A-19 is the Chairman of the Agricultural market Yard, Pulivendula. The other accused are followers of A-19 and supporters of Telugu Desam Party. The deceased Y. S. Raja Reddy was an Ex-Sarpanch of Pulivendula. PW-1 is the Driver, pw-2 is the Private Body Guard, PWs. 3 and 4 are Carpenters, PWs. 5 and 6 are residents of Gondipalli Village of Vemula mandal and PWs. 7 and 8 are residents of vemula Village. In January, 1996, the deceased and his followers attacked A-19 and caused grievous injuries to him. Since then A-19 and his associates have decided to do away with the deceased. On 23-5-1998, the deceased along with pws. 1 to 4 went to his Estate situated at gandi Village in a car. When he was returning to Pulivendula and when the car reached Vemula Village, they found stagnation of water on the road near mdo Office. PW-1 slowed down the car to cross the water. At that moment, A-1 to a-13, A-16 and A-17 surrounded the car. When A-1 exhorted, the other accused uttered "kill Raja Reddy" and A-2 hurled a bomb on the deceased and the front glass of the car was broken. A-3 to A-13, A-16 and A-17 also hurled bombs on the car. The bomb hurled by A-3 hit the head of the deceased and exploded causing blasting of his skull resulting in his instantaneous death. The bombs hurled by the other accused hit the deceased and PWs. 1 to 4. They suffered splinter injuries all over the body and the car was also badly damaged. Due to explosion of bombs, A-5 sustained splinter injuries and fell down unconscious. A-5 was shifted to the house of his uncle by the other accused and PWs. 1 to 4 were shifted to Pulivendula Hospital for treatment. 1 to 4. They suffered splinter injuries all over the body and the car was also badly damaged. Due to explosion of bombs, A-5 sustained splinter injuries and fell down unconscious. A-5 was shifted to the house of his uncle by the other accused and PWs. 1 to 4 were shifted to Pulivendula Hospital for treatment. PW-25, the Head Constable of Pulivendula police Station, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW-1 at 4-00 p. m. and forwarded the same to Vemula Police station on the point of jurisdiction. On the basis of the said complaint, a crime was registered at 5-45 p. m. , and they sent the fir to all concerned. PW-30, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 9-00 p. m. to 12-00 midnight and got conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Immediately after inquest PW-32 took up further investigation and arrested the accused on various dates. On surrender of A-15, a judicial confession was recorded under section 164 of Cr. P. C. , by PW-17, the then iii Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah, and the case property was sent to Forensic science Laboratory for examination and after getting the report and obtaining sanction from the Collector, a charge-sheet was filed against all the accused. Charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 120-B, 148, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 435, 435/149 of I. P. C. and Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Explosive substances Act. All the accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. ( 3 ) A-5 died on the date of offence and A-8 died during the pendency of the case, therefore, the charge-sheet was not filed against A-5 and the case stood abated against A-8. Charge-sheet was not filed against A-14. ( 4 ) IN the lower Court, the Additional public Prosecutor conceded that there is no evidence against A-15, A-18 and A-19 and the Sessions Court accordingly found them not guilty and acquitted. After excluding the above mentioned accused, the evidence was considered against A-1 to A-4, A-6 and A-7, A-9 to A-13, A-16 and A-17. ( 5 ) THE prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs. l to 32 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-57 and m. Os. l to 18. After excluding the above mentioned accused, the evidence was considered against A-1 to A-4, A-6 and A-7, A-9 to A-13, A-16 and A-17. ( 5 ) THE prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs. l to 32 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-57 and m. Os. l to 18. On defence side, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs. D-1 to d-54 were marked. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted all the accused for all the offences, through the judgment, dated 12-4-2004. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the lower Court, the state preferred the present appeal challenging its validity and legality. ( 6 ) THE prosecution alleged that the accused attacked the car, in which the deceased was travelling along with PWs. 1 to 4, hurled bombs against them, killed the deceased and caused splinter injuries to pws. 1 to 4 due to previous enmity between a-19 and the deceased. ( 7 ) THE defence version is one of denial and there is no specific defence taken by the accused about their involvement in the commission of the offence. ( 8 ) THE lower Court, after considering the evidence, made the following observations: 1. That the murder of the deceased, y. S. Raja Reddy took place at 1-40 p. m. on 23-5-1998 at Vemula by hurling of the bombs. 2. That the Medical Officer P. W. 22 did not conduct the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Raja Reddy on 23-5-1998 but issued the post-mortem certificate without conducting any internal examination over the body. 3. That the confessional statement, ex. P. 20, said to have been made by a. 15 before the learned Magistrate (P. W. I7) cannot be treated as legal evidence against the other accused. 4. That Ex. P. l complaint could not have been recorded at the time mentioned in it and the reason propounded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vemula to cover up the delay in the F. I. R. , reaching the Magistrate is held to be far from truth. 5. That the presence of P. W. 5 to P. W. 8 at the scene of offence on 23-5-1998 is disbelieved by the Court. 6. 5. That the presence of P. W. 5 to P. W. 8 at the scene of offence on 23-5-1998 is disbelieved by the Court. 6. That the evidence of the injured witnesses, P. W. I to P. W. 4 is held to be not reliable and trustworthy besides being partisan and interested and their evidence cannot be accepted and believed to base a conviction against the accused. 7. That the evidence of the prosecution bristled with material inconsistencies, contradictions and improvements, which are fatal to the prosecution case. 8. That the evidence on record is inconsistent about the exhortation attributed to A. 1 and the overtacts alleged against A-2 and A-3 and hence, the case of prosecution against them cannot be accepted and believed. 9. That the investigation in this case is held to be deficient and tainted. ( 9 ) THE lower Court observed that the murder of the deceased at 1-40 p. m. , on 23-5-1998 by hurling bombs cannot be disputed as there is sufficient evidence from the officials and entries made in the general Diary during the course of official business. In the circumstances of the case, the lower Court held that the action of PW-21 in not registering the crime is not faulty. The lower Court further observed that the investigation conducted in this case is tainted and unfair and on the sole ground of tainted and unfair investigation, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out. The lower Court further observed that an ordinary prudent person doing his job for three months would not be able to identify the persons of different villages with whom he has no prior acquaintance, therefore, the evidence of PW-2, in the circumstances narrated above, did not inspire confidence in the Court. The capacity of PW-1 to identify the assailants is doubtful. As per the evidence of PW-1, a bomb hurled by A-2 hit the front glass of the car and caused injuries to him and PWs. 2 to 4 but their evidence did not corroborate those overtacts. They did not speak anything against A-2, therefore, the evidence of PW-1 cannot be believed for more than one reason. As per the evidence of PW-1, a bomb hurled by A-2 hit the front glass of the car and caused injuries to him and PWs. 2 to 4 but their evidence did not corroborate those overtacts. They did not speak anything against A-2, therefore, the evidence of PW-1 cannot be believed for more than one reason. The lower Court ultimately held that the attribution of fatal injury to the leader of the group of partisan witnesses cannot be ruled out and accordingly, entertained a doubt about the participation of the accused in the commission of the offence and gave the benefit of doubt to the accused. ( 10 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor representing the appellants submitted that the offence took place in the broad daylight on a public road near MDO Office of vemula Village and PWs. 1 to 4 are the injured witnesses. It is not the version of the defence that the injuries were self-inflicted, therefore, their presence at the scene cannot be doubted. He further stated that PWs. 1 to 4, who were travelling with the deceased, have no reason to identify some of the accused when they decided to implicate all the accused. The presence of other witnesses also cannot be rejected as they are natural witnesses who are expected to be present at the scene of offence by coming on their own works to the MDO office. He further submitted that as the skull of the deceased was broken due to bomb blast and PWs. l to 4 also suffered injuries due to splinters of the bomb, the presence of PWs. l to 4 cannot doubted and further submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the accused attacked the deceased and it is a fit case for conviction by setting aside the Judgment of the lower Court. ( 11 ) IN the light of the observations of the lower Court and in the light of the evidence given by PWs. l to 8, the point for consideration is: "whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether there are strong circumstances to reverse the Judgment of acquittal given by the lower Court?" ( 12 ) PW-1 is a native of Anantapur district. He was the driver of the car of the deceased for a considerable time. He was the driver of the car of the deceased for a considerable time. His presence as a driver of the car as on the date of offence is not disputed. He was one of the injured witnesses. He witnessed the occurrence when he was in the drivers seat and the deceased by his side. PW-1 deposed that on the date of incident, at about 8-00 a. m. , the deceased, himself and PWs. 2 to 4 went to Estate of the deceased near Gandi Village in a car. They reached the Estate by about 9-00 a. m. The deceased and PWs. 2 to 4 went into the estate to attend the repairs of a shed. He stopped the car at the guest house to the Estate and remained in the car. At about 1-00 p. m. , in the afternoon, the deceased and PWs. 2 to 4 returned to the car. The deceased sat in the front seat by his side. PW-4 sat in the middle of the back seat. PW-2 sat in the back seat behind the deceased. PW-3 sat in the back seat behind his seat. They started at gandhi at about 1-00 p. m. to go to pulivendurla. At about 1-40 p. m. , the car reached the road near the MDO Office, vemula. As the road near the MDO office was full of pits and water, he slowed down the car. Soon after the car was slowed down, A-1 came from the right side of the car and shouted saying "rajareddini champandira". About 13 or 14 people surrounded the car. A-2 hurled a bomb from the front side and it hit the front side glass of the car. He received injuries on his right shoulder. He turned to the left side and found all of them hurling bombs. The bomb hurled by A-3 hit the deceased on his head and the head bursted. He saw a-1 to A-13 hurling bombs against them. ( 13 ) NO identification parade has been conducted after the commission of the offence. He received injuries on his right shoulder. He turned to the left side and found all of them hurling bombs. The bomb hurled by A-3 hit the deceased on his head and the head bursted. He saw a-1 to A-13 hurling bombs against them. ( 13 ) NO identification parade has been conducted after the commission of the offence. But when the Public Prosecutor requested the Court to permit PW-1 to identify the accused, the Court granted permission with a liberty to the defence counsel to disturb the places of the accused and accordingly, the accused were arranged in a disturbed manner without any serial and the witness identified A-l to a-13, but he did not identify the rest of the accused. ( 14 ) PW-1 further deposed that PWs. 2 to 4 and himself received injuries due to blasting of the bombs hurled by the accused. A-1 and A-3 came and peeped into the car and shouted by saying "raja Reddy is killed as per the directions of their leaders satish Kumar Reddy (A-14) and pardhasaradhi Reddy (A-19 ). Our Man umamaheswar Reddy (A-5) fell down and you take him away from the scene and we will go to the above mentioned leaders and inform them about the murder of Raja Reddy". So saying, they went away. At that time, 10 to 15 villagers came to the car. They shifted PWs. 2 to 4 and himself from the car and laid them under the neem tree by the side of the MDO office and supplied water to them. Within 10 to 15 minutes, one Dr. Y. S. Purushotham Reddy (PW-9) came from Pulivendula and took them to the Government Hospital, pulivendula. They reached Pulivendula at about 2-30 or 3-00 p. m. At about 4-00 p. m. , the Head Constable recorded Ex. P-1 statement from him at the hospital. On the next day morning at 6-00 a. m. , he was examined by the Police. On the third day, the officer from C. B. C. I. D. also examined him in the hospital and went away. In the incident, he received injuries on the right shoulder, right side below the hips and on the testicles. His clothes were bloodstained and they were seized from him on the second day which were marked as M. Os. 1 and 2. In the incident, he received injuries on the right shoulder, right side below the hips and on the testicles. His clothes were bloodstained and they were seized from him on the second day which were marked as M. Os. 1 and 2. During that time, any candidate selected by the deceased would win the election. The accused, being not able to defeat the deceased politically, resorted to murder him. In the cross-examination, he stated that he cannot give the fathers names of any of the accused. He denied a suggestion that he does not know any of the accused by the date of incident or that he did not get ex. P-1 prepared and it was prepared at the instance of the family members of the deceased. ( 15 ) PW-1 first saw the accused surrounding the car. When he first saw the accused, they were armed with bombs. He had no enmity with any of the accused. He thought that the accused came there to kill Raja Reddy. He did not think going out of the car or hiding in the car itself. On hurling the bomb, the front glass was broken. The bomb exploded after falling on the front glass. By the time he saw the accused coming from three sides, he was driving the car slowly. He denied a suggestion that the incident did not occur as stated by him and he is giving false evidence under pressure and on receipt of money. ( 16 ) PW-2, a resident of Chakrayapet village, deposed that he worked under the deceased since three months prior to the incident. He knows all the accused. The deceased was murdered on 23-5-1998. By the time they reached Vemula near mdo Office at about 1-40 p. m. , they found pits on the road filled with water. The car was slowed down. About 13 to 14 persons surrounded the car from left, right and front. A-1 shouted saying "raja Reddini champandira" and a bomb fell on the front side glass opposite to the driver. Another bomb fell on the car exploded and PW-1 received injuries. All the accused hurled bombs. The bomb hurled by A-3 hit the head of the deceased. He observed all the accused throwing bombs. He can identify all the persons who threw the bombs. Another bomb fell on the car exploded and PW-1 received injuries. All the accused hurled bombs. The bomb hurled by A-3 hit the head of the deceased. He observed all the accused throwing bombs. He can identify all the persons who threw the bombs. Except a-15, A-18 and A-19, all other accused present in the Court were the assailants who threw bombs at the time of offence. He sat in the back seat of the car. A bomb fell on the back seat and it did not explode. A-l and A-3 peeped into the car and shouted saying "we killed the deceased. We have to inform A-14 and A-19 that we killed Raja Reddy. A-5 fell down, therefore, he has to be taken and they have to inform a-14 and A-19 about the killing of the deceased. " By so saying A-l and A-3 went towards South. Some of the villagers presented there shifted him and others from the car and took them to Pulivendula. Dr. Purushotham Reddy (PW-9) shifted them to Government Hospital, Pulivendula and they reached there at about 2-30 or 3-00 p. m. On the date of offence, at about 9-00 p. m. , he was examined by the police during the inquest in the Government hospital. On 25-5-1998 he was again examined by the police. He received injuries at the ankle of the leg, middle of the back portion of the left leg, on the back portion of the left thigh and on the left scapula on account of explosion of bombs. In the cross-examination, he stated that he does not know the surnames, fathers names and the ages of A-l to A-4. After hurling the bombs, A-l and A-3 peeped into the car and shouted that they committed the murder of the deceased as per the instructions of their leaders A-14 and A-19 and their man Umamaheswara Reddy (A-5) fell down and they told others to shift A-5. He further stated that his job was "sahayakudu", though he said to have stated to the police that he is a Private body Guard of the deceased. He denied a suggestion that he is giving evidence at the instance of the private prosecuting expert. ( 17 ) PW-3, a Carpenter of Pulivendula, deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 8-00 a. m. , he was sent for by the deceased to repair a shed. PWs. He denied a suggestion that he is giving evidence at the instance of the private prosecuting expert. ( 17 ) PW-3, a Carpenter of Pulivendula, deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 8-00 a. m. , he was sent for by the deceased to repair a shed. PWs. 1, 2, 4, the deceased and himself started at 8-00 a. m. , from Pulivendula to go to the Estate at gandy. They reached the Estate at about 9-00 a. m. He got down from the car. PWs. 2, 4 and himself went along with the deceased to the shed. The deceased instructed them to remove the old sheets on the old shed and then cover with new sheets. At 12-45 p. m. or so, the deceased returned to the place where they were working and told that he underwent an operation, therefore, he has to take meals in time and asked him to come along with him, though the shed was not fully covered. All of them entered the car and PW-1 was driving the same. They reached Vemula near MDO Office at about 1-40 p. m. There were pits on the road filled with water. On seeing the pits and water, PW-1 slowed down the car. When the car is just entering into the pit, 13 persons came from left, right and front sides and surrounded the car. A-1 shouted saying "champandira raja Reddini". Immediately, a bomb hit the front side glass of the car making a whole and causing injuries to PW-1. All of them found hurling bombs against them. When he saw towards left side, the bomb hurled by A-3 came and hit the head of the deceased and bursted on account of the hit. He saw the accused hurling bombs. He identified A-1, A-3 and A-7 to A-9 in the court hall by coming nearer to them. A bomb hurled by the accused fell besides him touching his shirt in the back seat and it did not explode. A-1 to A-3 came to the car, peeped into it and shouted saying that "as per the instructions of A-14 and A-19, the deceased was killed. A-5 fell down on the road and they have to lift him and take to the village. " So saying they went away towards right side into the village. A-1 to A-3 came to the car, peeped into it and shouted saying that "as per the instructions of A-14 and A-19, the deceased was killed. A-5 fell down on the road and they have to lift him and take to the village. " So saying they went away towards right side into the village. He also received injuries on head, left temple region and on the dorsum of the hands. PWs. 1, 2 and 4 also received injuries. After the assailants went away, some of the villagers came there and shifted them to the nearby neem tree and provided water to them. After sometime, Dr. Purushotham reddy (PW-9) came and took them to the government Hospital and they reached the hospital by about 2-30 or 3-00 p. m. He was examined by the police at 9-00 p. m. on the date of offence. In the cross-examination, he stated that his left eye is a glass eye and he cannot see through it. His right eye developed defective eyesight. He denied a suggestion that he was having defective eyesight on the date of incident. The deceased was related to him as brother by Courtesy. He denied a further suggestion that he did not see any of the assailants hurling bombs and that nothing was visible on account of emission of smoke and somebody came near the deceased and beat him on the head with a bomb. He also denied a suggestion that he is speaking falsehood being the follower of the deceased and he further denied a suggestion that he lost his eyesight about 20 years. ( 18 ) PW-4, a Carpenter of K. Yelamavaripalli, deposed that when they reached near MDO Office, Vemula at about 1-40 p. m. , PW-1 slowed down the car on account of pits and water stagnated on the road. About 13 people came from front side, left side and right side and shouted "rajareddyni Champandira" and so saying hurled bombs. A bomb was hurled on the front side glass and due to that hit, the glass was broken and the driver received injuries. Being afraid of that, he hide under the seat. After the assailants went away, some villagers shifted all of them from the car to a neem tree located by the side of the road. A bomb was hurled on the front side glass and due to that hit, the glass was broken and the driver received injuries. Being afraid of that, he hide under the seat. After the assailants went away, some villagers shifted all of them from the car to a neem tree located by the side of the road. He received injury on the right of his head, below right ear, on the right shoulder, right upper arm and dorsum of his left hand. His clothes became bloodstained. On the next day in the early hours the police seized his clothes covered by M. Os. 14 to 16. In the cross-examination, he stated that he does not know to which part of the body, the driver received injuries. He denied a suggestion that he is a follower of the deceased Raja Reddy and that he is giving false evidence being afraid of the family members of the deceased. ( 19 ) PW-5, a resident of Gondipalli village of Vemula Mandal deposed that on the date of offence, he came to MDO office of Vemula at 1-30 p. m. and ascertained about the MDO. He was informed that the MDO went out and he may return after 1-30 or 2-00 hours. He was talking with others in the front of the offence adjacent to the room of the mdo. Then he heard the sound of explosion. He immediately came out to the road and found a car on the road logged in water. Some people were found hurling bombs on the car. He saw the assailants who hurled bombs on the car. They were a-1 to A-4, A-8 and A-16. One of the assailants fell down and some of the assailants carried the person into the village. The rest of them went towards south. He went to the car along with 14 or 15 others and found the deceased head burst and fell in the car. All of them shifted pw-1 and other injured to the nearby neem tree and provided water to them. In the cross-examination, he stated that he came to MDO office to get the hand pump repaired. At that time, the mechanic who attends to the repair work was not in the office. He denied a suggestion that he had no work in the MDO office on the date of offence and he is deposing falsehood. In the cross-examination, he stated that he came to MDO office to get the hand pump repaired. At that time, the mechanic who attends to the repair work was not in the office. He denied a suggestion that he had no work in the MDO office on the date of offence and he is deposing falsehood. He further stated that he did not give the ages and names of the fathers of the accused identified by him. He did not know the people of which villages gathered at the scene of offence. He denied a suggestion that he went to MDO office only on his personal work. He further stated that his village Gondipalli is at a distance of 2 Kms. from Vemula. He also denied a suggestion that he did not hear the sound of bomb explosion at 1-40 p. m. and the incident occurred at 1-00 pm. ( 20 ) PW-6, a resident of Gondipalli village and an agriculturist, deposed that on the date of offence, he went to Vemula to purchase groundnut seeds to sow his field. At about 1-30 p. m. , he was going from vemula busstand towards the house of vemula Krishna Reddy by walk. The house of the said Krishna Reddy is situated towards the right side of the road. When he was about to cross the road from left to right, he looked to the right side and did not find any vehicle coming. Then he saw to left and found a white car stationed in the water on the road after the MDOs office. He found some of the accused throwing bombs at the car. (In the Court, while trial was going on, he identified A-7 to A-9 and a-11 and A-17 ). He further stated that one of the assailants fell on the ground. Some of them took the said person into the village. The rest of the accused went towards South. After the assailants went away, he went to the car and saw the deceased lying in the front seat and the head found burst on account of bomb hit. He found PWs. 1 to 4 with bleeding injuries. They shifted them to the nearby neem tree. He found people came in groups to the scene of offence. Later, he went away to his village. He found PWs. 1 to 4 with bleeding injuries. They shifted them to the nearby neem tree. He found people came in groups to the scene of offence. Later, he went away to his village. In the cross-examination, he 2006 (2) ALD (Crl.)-F-58 denied a suggestion that he is giving false evidence being the follower of the deceased. ( 21 ) PW-7, a resident of Vemula village, deposed that he was running a tea shop at Vemula near MDO office adjacent to the road. He knows the deceased and all the accused. He saw hurling of bombs on the car of the deceased. He saw the persons who hurled bombs and they are A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-7, A-9 and a-10. This witness gave the names of the accused. He saw A-5 falling down on the road. Some people carried him to the village. The rest of them went towards South. After the assailants went away, he went to the car and found Raja Reddy in the front seat and his head was found burst on account of bomb hit. He also found the driver of the car and three other persons in the back seat with bleeding injuries. As people were coming there in groups and he is a lame person, he went to his shop and thereafter to his house by closing the shop. In the cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that he does not have any ownership over the improvised shelter erected by the side of the road. He denied a suggestion that he has no fixed place for running the shop. In the further cross-examination, he stated that he did not find any smoke from the explosion of the bomb. He denied a suggestion that he is a supporter of Congress Party lead by the deceased and that his younger brother, who is A-7, is the supporter of TDP. He also denied a suggestion that he has grouse against A-7. He denied a suggestion that he is a supporter of the deceased and his family members and he was financially helped. In the further cross-examination, he stated that his residential house is situated at distance of 20 baras to the right side of the Ambassador car while going to pulivendula. He denied a suggestion that his house is at a distance of one furlong from the scene of offence. In the further cross-examination, he stated that his residential house is situated at distance of 20 baras to the right side of the Ambassador car while going to pulivendula. He denied a suggestion that his house is at a distance of one furlong from the scene of offence. ( 22 ) PW-8, a resident of Vemula village, deposed that on the date of offence he was standing at the hotel of PW-7 to catch a bus to Pulivendula. At that time, he heard a big sound of bomb. He went ahead to a distance of two feet and saw a car stationed in a pit on the road where water was stagnated. He saw 13 person hurling bombs standing in front of the car. They are A-1, A-2, A-6, A-7, A-9, A-10, A-12 and A-13. A-5, one of the assailants, fell down to the right side of the car. Some of them carried him to the new locality of the village. The rest of the accused went towards right of the road into cheeky bushes. He went to the car and found the deceased lying dead. He also found PW-1 and three others sitting with bleeding injuries. About 7 or 8 persons shifted the injured to the nearby neem tree and provided water to them. In the cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that he was not present at the scene of offence and he did not witness the occurrence and he is the follower of the deceased and he is giving false evidence. In the further cross-examination, he stated that he told the police that he witnessed the occurrence standing at the hotel of venkata Reddy and his residence is situated more than one furlong towards South. ( 23 ) AFTER considering the evidence of pws. 1 to 8 and the evidence of PW-21, the lower Court accepted the prosecution version that the deceased was murdered at about 1-40 p. m. , on the date of offence at vemula Village due to hurling of bombs. The evidence of PWs. l to 4 is consistent regarding the time of offence and the manner in which the accused attacked the deceased. PWs. l to 4 also identified the accused during the trial to impress upon the Court that the accused were known to them. The evidence of PWs. l to 4 is consistent regarding the time of offence and the manner in which the accused attacked the deceased. PWs. l to 4 also identified the accused during the trial to impress upon the Court that the accused were known to them. Though the witnesses were branded as the henchmen of the deceased, their presence at the scene of offence cannot be disputed on account of splinter injuries caused to, them due to explosion of bombs. ( 24 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor submitted that PWs. l to 4 are the injured witnesses and PWs. 5 to 8 are the persons from the neighbouring villages, who came to vemula Village for their persons works, witnessed the occurrence. The presence of PWs. l to 4 cannot be denied on account of their receiving injuries from the splinters of the bombs. Though they are men working under the deceased, they cannot be described as partisan witnesses and they are the witnesses present along with the deceased in the normal course without anticipating the attack on the deceased and if their version is disbelieved on corroborating the version of one witness to the other, it is impossible for the prosecution to prove any offence. ( 25 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Court, while assessing the evidence, has to consider whether they are chance witnesses or witnesses present in the normal circumstances, whether their version is truthful and corroborative and whether there are embellishments and exaggerations in the version of those witnesses and if the court finds such inherent and incredible version from those witnesses, there is every justification for the Court to reject their evidence. But, in the present circumstances, the lower Court, on some pretext or other, rejected the evidence of all the witnesses by branding them as interested witnesses. ( 26 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the lower Court, by taking into consideration the minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, disbelieved their entire version, which is erroneous, therefore, he requested to set aside the Judgment of the lower court and convict the accused for the charges framed against them. ( 27 ) THE learned Senior Counsel, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, representing the respondents submitted that the Court has to take into consideration that this a faction case. ( 27 ) THE learned Senior Counsel, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, representing the respondents submitted that the Court has to take into consideration that this a faction case. There is a tendency of roping up the leaders of the other group by foisting the case against them. The deceased was a seasoned factionist and a rowdy sheeter and he was an accused in number of cases. There was political rivalry between the deceased and the accused as they belong to rival political parties. ( 28 ) THE learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Ex. P-1 is a fabricated document brought into existence on the next day of inquest and post-mortem examination. PW-21, who heard the bomb blast at a distance of 2 furlongs, did not venture to reach the scene of offence immediately, though it will not take more than 5 to 7 minutes to reach the scene. When there is a hospital at Vemula Village having the facility for post-mortem examination, there was no explanation from the prosecution as to why the dead body of the deceased was taken to Pulivendula without the knowledge of the police. PW-21 played into the hands of the prosecution party and the explanation given that due to law and order problem, he could not reach the scene immediately and could not register the crime is utterly false. ( 29 ) THE learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there are so many laches in the investigation. But, the laches attributed by the accused to the Investigating Officers are not so serious to vitiate the trial of the accused. ( 30 ) IN Dhanaj Singh v. State of punjab, 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 687 (SC) = 2004 SCC (Crl.) 851, the Supreme Court held that: "even if the investigation is defective, that pales into insignificance when ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. In the case of a defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of an investigating Officer if the investigation is designedly defective. " ( 31 ) THE learned Counsel further submitted that there was delay in registration of the crime and sending the FIR to the court. " ( 31 ) THE learned Counsel further submitted that there was delay in registration of the crime and sending the FIR to the court. The prosecution did not venture to explain the said delay which is fatal to the prosecution. He further submitted that the doctor did not mention about the internal examination in the P. M. certificate, which is an indication that the doctor did not conduct the internal examination and without conducting the internal examination by rejecting the body, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion as to what is the cause of death. The doctor, in order to cover up the said lacuna, fabricated post-mortem notes and gave an explanation that he forgot to mention the internal examination in the pm report. He further submitted that had all the accused hurled bombs against the car, it would have caused extensive damage, but except the damage of the widow screen and some marks on the car, there was no extensive damage, therefore, there is any amount of doubt whether all the accused hurled the bombs and there is a doubt about the version of PWs. 1 to 4 and there is also a doubt whether the occurrence took place in the manner narrated by the prosecution. He further submitted that though A-15 said to have made confessional statement, he retracted from the said version in Section 313 Cr. P. C. examination and under Section 30 of the evidence Act, the confessional statement made by A-15 cannot be used against the other accused. He further submitted that unless there are compelling reasons to reverse the acquittal recorded by the lower court, the Judgment of the lower Court shall not be disturbed and as the lower court gave sufficient reasons for recording the acquittal, that Judgment needs no interference. ( 32 ) IN Jaishree Yadav v. State of u. P. , (2006) 1 SCC (Crl.) 160, the Supreme court held that: "simply because a witness is closely connected or interested or partisan to the deceased, it cannot be presumed that this witness has volunteered to be a false witness to the incident. When his evidence is otherwise corroborated with the other witnesses, challenging the evidence of such witness is not sustainable. When his evidence is otherwise corroborated with the other witnesses, challenging the evidence of such witness is not sustainable. " ( 33 ) IN State of U. P. v. Kishan Chand, 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 759 (SC) = 2004 SCC (Crl.) 2013, the Supreme Court held that: "animosity is a double-edged sword. It cuts both sides. It could be a ground for false implication and it could also be a ground for assault. Just because the witnesses are related to the deceased would be no ground to discard their testimony, if otherwise their testimony inspires confidence. Being the relatives or interested witnesses, it would be their endeavour to see that the real culprits are punished and they would not implicate wrong persons so as to allow the real culprits to escape the punishment. " The Supreme Court further held that: "the testimony on injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witnesses sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence lends support to their testimony that the witnesses were present during the occurrence. " ( 34 ) THE lower Court discarded the evidence of PW-1 on the ground that the capacity of PW-1 to identify the assailants is doubtful as he was working under the deceased since four years prior to the date of incident and he did not have any occasion to see or know the accused who are residents of Vemula and other villages as they were at loggerheads with the deceased from 1995. PW-1 categorically stated that he was frequently going with the deceased and many of the assailants were coming to the deceased when they were in congress Party and he identified the assailants during the trial before the Court, therefore, the evidence of PW-1 cannot be brushed aside on the ground that there were some minor contradictions. PW-1 categorically stated that he was frequently going with the deceased and many of the assailants were coming to the deceased when they were in congress Party and he identified the assailants during the trial before the Court, therefore, the evidence of PW-1 cannot be brushed aside on the ground that there were some minor contradictions. ( 35 ) IN Jaishree Yadav v. State of u. P. s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that: "when a witness is subjected to a lengthy cross-examination over a lengthy period of time, there is always a possibility of the witness committing mistakes which can be termed as omissions, improvements and contradictions, therefore, those infirmities will have to be appreciated in the background of ground realities which makes the witness confused because of the filibustering tactics of the cross-examining counsel, and if not found fatal to the evidence given in the examination-in-chief, would not in any manner affect the evidentiary value of the examination-in-chief. " ( 36 ) IN Shamsuddin v. State of M. P. , 2005 SCC (Crl.) 842 = 2004 AILD 276 (SC), the Supreme Court held that: "minor variations in the evidence of a witness, which do not effect the credibility of the evidence, cannot be the basis to discard the intrinsic value of the evidence. " ( 37 ) THE lower Court also held that the evidence of PW-2 did not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. The lower Court observed that though he was a body guard of the deceased, he told that he was one of the companions (Sahayakudu)of the deceased. The Lower Court further observed that PW-2 stated that about 13 or 14 persons surrounded the car. But he stated to the police that 13 persons surrounded the car. The number of the accused as per the record were 15. The evidence of PW-2 was inconsistent regarding the number of the accused. The Lower Court, by describing them as material contradictions, discarded the evidence of PW-2. As seen from the evidence of PW-2, a detailed version was given by PW-2 from the time of reaching the scene of offence till the attack on the deceased. After considering the evidence of PW-2, we are of the view that there were no material contradictions in the version given by PW-2 and his version corroborated with the version of PW-1 in all respects of the incident. After considering the evidence of PW-2, we are of the view that there were no material contradictions in the version given by PW-2 and his version corroborated with the version of PW-1 in all respects of the incident. ( 38 ) THE Lower Court disregarded the evidence of PW-3 also on the ground that there was a material improvement in his testimony about the assailants on the ground that this witness lost the left eye and there was defective eyesight in the right eye, therefore, it is not possible to him to identify the assailants. PW-3 asserted during his evidence that his eyesight was quite all right by the date of the incident. But, by the date of the trial, the eyesight was diminished to some extent. This witness also identified the assailants in the Court during the trial, therefore, on the ground that he lost one eye, his evidence cannot be disregarded when it is corroborative with the evidence of other witnesses in all respects. ( 39 ) THE Lower Court disbelieved the evidence of PW-4 on the ground that there was no possibility of his identifying the assailants since he was hidden in the back seat of the car. The doctors evidence clearly indicates that PW-4 also received splinter injuries all over the body, therefore, the Lower Court was not right in holding that pw-4 did not identify any of the accused. ( 40 ) THE evidence of PW-5 was disbelieved by the Lower Court on the ground that he has animosity against A-8 and there is also a discrepancy for the purpose for which he came to Vemula Village on the date of occurrence by coming from Gondipalli village, which is 2 KMs from Vempalli. This witness stated that he came to the mdo office to get his pump repaired and as the MDO was not available in the office, he was waiting outside and he happends to see the accused attacking the car. During the course of trial, he identified a2 to A-4 and A-8 to A-16. As most of the accused belong to Vempalli Village and the people from the neighbouring villages very frequently come to Vempalli, there was possibility of identifying the accused by this witness. ( 41 ) PWS. 7 and 8 are residents of vempalli itself. During the course of trial, he identified a2 to A-4 and A-8 to A-16. As most of the accused belong to Vempalli Village and the people from the neighbouring villages very frequently come to Vempalli, there was possibility of identifying the accused by this witness. ( 41 ) PWS. 7 and 8 are residents of vempalli itself. PW-7 was running a Tea stall by the side of the road and PW-8 was waiting for a bus to go to Pulivendula at the time of incident. PWs. 7 and 8 are natural witnesses and their presence at the time of occurrence cannot be disbelieved by simply denying their presence at the scene of offence. Though it was suggested that PWs. 1 to 4 were the henchmen of the deceased and PWs. 5 to 8 were supporters of Congress Party, their presence at time of occurrence is reposing confidence in our mind that they are speaking truth regarding the manner of attack. The nature of injuries on PWs. l to 4 and the cause of death were strengthened by the evidence of PW-22. PW-22, the doctor, who examined PW-4, found the following injuries: 1. An abrasion on right shoulder (blackish)measuring about 3 x 2 cms. 2. Small multiple blackish round abrasions measuring about 1 cm to pinhead on right shoulder, right forearm and left forearm. 3. A lacerated wound on the dorsum of left palm (edges everted and blackish)measuring about 2 x 1 x bone deep. 4. A blackish abrasion on the dorsum of the left palm measuring about 6 x 5 cms. 5. A blackish outside and middle of pinna of right ear measuring about 1 x cm. 6. A lacerated wound in the middle of right forearm measuring about 2 x 1 cm x. muscle deep. 7. A lacerated wound on the left occipital area measuring about 2 x x bone deep. On the same day, he examined PW-3 and found the following injuries: 1. A lacerated wound on right parital area measuring about 2 x 1 cm x skin deep, edges are everted in blackish. 2. Small multiple abrasions (round and blackish) on the forehead and left forearm. On the same day, he examined PW-1 and found the following injuries: 1. A lacerated wound on the lateral aspect of right shoulder measuring about 12 x 10 cm x muscle deep surrounded with small round abrasions. 2. 2. Small multiple abrasions (round and blackish) on the forehead and left forearm. On the same day, he examined PW-1 and found the following injuries: 1. A lacerated wound on the lateral aspect of right shoulder measuring about 12 x 10 cm x muscle deep surrounded with small round abrasions. 2. A lacerated wound on the lateral aspect of right side of abdomen at the level of umbilicus measuring about 2 x 1 cm x muscle deep. 3. An abrasion on the dorsal aspect of right palm measuring about 1 x cm. 4. A lacerated wound at the root of penis on left side measuring about 1 x 1 cm x skin deep. On the same day, he examined PW-2 and found the following injuries: 1. A lacerated wound at the lateral malleolous of left leg measuring about 2 x 1 cm x bone deep. 2. Multiple round blackish abrasions on the back of the left leg measuring about 1 cm pinhead. 3. Multiple abrasions on the left side of face measuring about 1 cm to pin head (blackish ). The doctor opined that the injuries found on pws. 1 to 4 are simple in nature and caused due to bomb blast. On 24-5-1998, he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased at 0-10 hours i. e. , early hours of 24-5-1998 and found the following injuries: 1. Multiple blackish puncture wounds in front of right thigh measuring about pinhead to 1 cm diameter. 2. Multiple blackish puncture wound on the abdomen measuring about pinhead to 1 cm in diameter. 3. A big lacerated wound on the right arm medial side from upper 1/3 of upper arm to middle of forearm, measuring about 24 cm x 8 cm x bone deep. Muscles and tendons and bones are exposed and blackish. Irregular tear of muscles and edges and fracture of humurds at lower 1/3rd. 4. A blackish lacerated wound on right little finger measuring about 1 cm x 1 cm x bone deep and distal phalynx is missing. 5. A blackish lacerated wound on the ring-finger (right) measuring about 1 x 1 cm x bone deep, fracture of distal phalynx and lossely hanging. 6. A blackish lacerated wound in between right little and ring fingers at the root, measuring about 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep. 7. 5. A blackish lacerated wound on the ring-finger (right) measuring about 1 x 1 cm x bone deep, fracture of distal phalynx and lossely hanging. 6. A blackish lacerated wound in between right little and ring fingers at the root, measuring about 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep. 7. A blackish lacerated wound on right big finger near the nail-bed measuring about 2 x 1 cm skin deep. 8. A lacerated wound on the middle phalynx of right big finger measuring about 1 cm x 1 cm x skin deep. 9. A lacerated wound on right index finger measuring about 1 cm x 1 cm x skin deep. 10. A blackish lacerated wound in the middle and inner aspect of left thigh measuring about 2 x 3 cm x muscle deep. 11. Multiple blackish punctured wound on medial side from knee to ankle of left leg measuring pinhead to 1 cm diameter. 12. Multiple blackish punctured wound on the left side of abdomen measuring pinhead to 1 cm diameter. 13. Multiple blackish puncture wounds on left shoulder upper arm and forearm measuring about pinhead to 1 cm diameter. 14. An irregular lacerated wound from left little finger and ring finger to the wrist measuring about 8 cm x 3 cm x bone deep. Bones and tendons are exposed and blackish. Little finger hanging with skin and terminal phalynx of little finger missing. 15. A transverse lacerated wound on the dorsum of left palm measuring about 4 cm x 3 cm x bone deep. 16. A blackish lacerated wound below and lateral to the right nipple measuring about 1 cm x 1 cm x skin deep. 17. A blackish burn wound in front of right ear to forehead measuring about 4 cm x 3 cm and hairs are burnt. 18. A big irregular lacerated wound on the head from the left eye to left ear occipital area right parietal area to right eye measuring about 12 cm x 16 cm. Fracture of frontal, left and right parietal and occipital bones. Pieces of bones are missing. A small part of the brain present in the vault. The edges are irregularly torn and blackish and everted. Fracture of frontal, left and right parietal and occipital bones. Pieces of bones are missing. A small part of the brain present in the vault. The edges are irregularly torn and blackish and everted. The doctor opined that the deceased might have died due to injury to vital organ to brain and due to bomb blast and the time of death would be 8 to 16 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. The doctor further opined that the injury on the head would result in instantaneous death and the other injuries might have been caused due to splinters of the bomb. He also conducted internal examination on the body. But due to oversight he did not mention the internal injuries found on the body of the deceased in Ex. P. 31, postmortem certificate. ( 42 ) HE denied a suggestion that he did not conduct the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He received the order of the District Collector at about 12-00 midnight to conduct postmortem examination immediately in view of the law and order problem. In the further chief-examination, this witness stated that he prepared a rough notes covered by ex. P-47. He conducted internal examination of the dead body. He denied a suggestion that he brought into existence Ex. P-47 postmortem notes without making any internal examination as he was purchased by the prosecution agency to give false evidence. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PW-9 and others to prove the other circumstances. ( 43 ) PW-9, the brother of the deceased and who was working in the hospital of the deceased, Pulivendula, deposed that on 23-5-1998 at about 1-50 p. m. , he received a phone call that the deceased Y. S. Raja reddy was murdered at Vemula while travelling in a car. Immediately, he took a car and went to the scene. He found the deceased with injury on the head. He was told by the persons that there were some other injured. He found the injured at the neem tree by the side of the road. They were found with bleeding injury. Immediately, he shifted them in the jeep as they are in dangerous position and brought them to the Government Hospital, Pulivendula, at 2-40 or 2-45 p. m. In the cross-examination, he stated that he was elected as MLA in 1990 as a congress candidate. They were found with bleeding injury. Immediately, he shifted them in the jeep as they are in dangerous position and brought them to the Government Hospital, Pulivendula, at 2-40 or 2-45 p. m. In the cross-examination, he stated that he was elected as MLA in 1990 as a congress candidate. He is the Medical superintendent of the Raja Reddys hospital. He denied a suggestion that PW-1 was residing in O. P. room covered by Door no. 35/f. He did not state before police that he received phone call from Vemula at 2-00 p. m. , but stated it to be before 2-00 p. m. He denied a suggestion that PWs. 1 to 4 injured were shifted to Pulivendula with a view to bring pressure on them to falsely implicate important members of Telugu desam Party of Vemula Mandal. He did not think of giving any report to police at Vemula as he though it fit to get the injured treated first. The journey time from vemula to Pulivendula would be about 10 or 12 minutes and the distance between the two places is 8 miles. He denied a suggestion that, being the brother of the deceased, he actively participated in fabricating the false case against the accused with a view to eliminate opposition in Vemula mandal. ( 44 ) PW-10 is running a Telephone booth at Vempalli. He stated that the police took a printout wherein the telephone numbers to which the consumers made the telephone calls on 23-5-1998 from his telephone are noted. In the cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that A-18 came to his Telephone booth and made a telephone call to Vemula mandal Office bearing No. 82443. The time of the telephone call is 13-00 hours. ( 45 ) PW-11, the then MDO of Vemula, deposed that he knows the deceased of pulivendula. The deceased was murdered on 23-5-1998 within a short distance from his office. He went to his office at 11-00 am. At about 12-00 noon A-1 went out of the offence. At about 12-20 p. m. , he received a phone call requesting him to call one Sesha reddy (A-2) who was outside the office. He asked his Attender Lakshmi Devi to call Sesha Reddy. He came into their office and talked in the phone stating "aa, Aa" and put off the phone and went away. At about 12-20 p. m. , he received a phone call requesting him to call one Sesha reddy (A-2) who was outside the office. He asked his Attender Lakshmi Devi to call Sesha Reddy. He came into their office and talked in the phone stating "aa, Aa" and put off the phone and went away. Again at 1-00 p. m. , he received a phone requesting him to call A-2 and he again asked his Attender to inform the same to him. Again A-2 came and answered the telephone as "aa Aa" "sare Sare" and put off the phone. After attending to his office work, he left the office at 1-30 p. m. , to take his lunch at Vempalli. After taking his lunch, he came to the bus stand to come to vemula to attend the office. He was informed at the bus stand that the deceased was murdered. The buses did not ply to vemula, therefore, he could not attend the offence on that day and returned to home. He did not tell about the phone conversation to anybody till the police examined him. He denied a suggestion that he is in the habit of taking money from the teachers to post them to the nearer stations and A-2 interfered and questioned his conduct and therefore, he bore grudge against him and gave false evidence. ( 46 ) PW-12, a resident of Peddajuturu village, deposed that he was one of the panchas for the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased at about 9-00 p. m. , in the Government Hospital, Pulivendula. PWs. 2 to 4 were examined during the inquest. The injuries on the body of the deceased were noted and the inquest panchas opined that the deceased died due to bomb attack. ( 47 ) PW-13 is a resident of Pulivendula who acted as a panch for the seizure of blood stained clothes on 24-5-1998 from p. Ws. 1 to 4 at Government Hospital, pulivendula. The Inspector of Police seized the bloodstained clothes in his presence from PWs. 1 to 4 and he signed on the panchanama for seizure of the clothes covered by Ex. P-5. ( 48 ) PW-15 is a mediator for the observation of the scene of offence near mdo Office, Vemula, on 24-5-1998. They observed marks of explosion of bombs on the car. The front side glass suffered a hole. 1 to 4 and he signed on the panchanama for seizure of the clothes covered by Ex. P-5. ( 48 ) PW-15 is a mediator for the observation of the scene of offence near mdo Office, Vemula, on 24-5-1998. They observed marks of explosion of bombs on the car. The front side glass suffered a hole. The back side glass was completely broken. The window glasses were also broken. The bonnet was also hit by the bomb and suffered a dent. The front doors of the ambassador car on either side were also damaged. Many broken glass pieces are found in the car. An unexploded bomb was found in the car. He found glass pieces and remnants of thread pieces of bombs from the car. The Inspector of Police seized the unexploded bombs, the glass pieces and thread pieces from the car. A panchanama covered by Ex. P-15 was written at that time and he signed on it. He denied a suggestion that he affixed the signatures without knowing any content on account of his loyalty to the family of the deceased raja Reddy. ( 49 ) PW-16, a resident of Vemula and a Motor Mechanic, deposed that he was one of the mediators for the seizure of the car by the police on 25-5-1998 at 5-30 p. m. , at Vemula Police Station. The other mediators were also present. A panchanama covered by Ex. P-16 was prepared for the seizure of the car and he signed on it. ( 50 ) PW-17, the II Additional Junior Civil judge, Kadapa, deposed that on 10-5-1998, he received copy of the proceedings of the i Additional District Judge, Cuddapah directing to record the confessional statement of one K. Ramana Reddy (A-15 ). At the time of making the confessional statement, he cautioned A-15 that he has no obligations to make any statement or confession and if he makes such statement, it would be used against him and that A-15 after understanding the consequences, made the statement voluntarily. He denied a suggestion that the statement made before the Court is not voluntary and was made under the influence and fear of the police. ( 51 ) PW-18, the then Junior Assistant, who spoke about the sanction accorded by the Collector to prosecute the accused under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive substances Act. He denied a suggestion that the statement made before the Court is not voluntary and was made under the influence and fear of the police. ( 51 ) PW-18, the then Junior Assistant, who spoke about the sanction accorded by the Collector to prosecute the accused under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive substances Act. ( 52 ) PW-19, the then Village administrative Officer of Vemula Village, deposed that on 31-5-1998 at about 5-00 p. m. , he acted as a mediator for the panchanama for recovery of M. Os. 17 and 18 jip bag and cotton found in the jip bag. He further stated that he took out a jip bag from the cheeki bushes located near a Brandi shop. On opening M. O. I7, they found M. O. 18 cotton in it. A panchanama covered by ex. P-23 was prepared for the seizure of the articles. The witness further stated that he was also one of the panchas for the arrest of A-1 and on verification of the panchanama, he stated that he was A-7, but not A-10. Later, the police took them to kothapalli in a jeep on 5-6-1998 to the garden of A-10. On seeing them, A-7 and a-10 tried to run away. The police caught hold of them and questioned their names and noted them and a panchanama covered by Ex. P-24 was written at their instance. ( 53 ) PW-21, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Vemula P. S. , deposed that on 25-3-1998 at about 1-40 p. m. , while he was in the Police Station, he heard the bomb blasting from the side of MDO Office, vemula. Immediately, he came out from the Police Station and observed what had happened. After some time, somebody coming from Pulivendula side informed him that the deceased was killed by hurling bombs while he was proceeding on a car to pulivendula. Immediately, he made a GD entry and informed to his superior officers through V. H. F. set. He secured the men, arms and ammunition and left the Police station reached the scene of offence at about 2-00 to 10-00 p. m. , and found the dead body of the deceased in an ambassador car with bleedings injuries on his head on the road leading to Pulivendula to Vempalli in a pool of rain water on the road. He secured the men, arms and ammunition and left the Police station reached the scene of offence at about 2-00 to 10-00 p. m. , and found the dead body of the deceased in an ambassador car with bleedings injuries on his head on the road leading to Pulivendula to Vempalli in a pool of rain water on the road. He also learnt that the driver of the car and three other injured were shifted to government Hospital, Pulivendula for treatment. At 2-30 p. m. , huge public gathered there. Among them Y. S. Bhaskar Reddy and some others were at the scene of offence. They advised him to arrest the accused who participated in the offence and ran towards Venkateswarapuram. He posted one guard SWPC. 364 at the scene of offence and proceeded to arrest the accused towards Venkateswarapuram and went to a distance of km towards the filed. When they returned back, they fond the residential houses at Venkateswarapuram in flames. Then he and his staff to venkateswarapuram and found the houses of Gangireddy and Perala Venkata Reddy in flames. He also found the dead body of A-5 in the backyard of the house of perla China Venkata Reddy. He posted hc. 566 and PC. 339 where to guard the place. Later he and his staff maintained law and order at Vemula Village. At about 5-45 p. m. , he returned to Police Station, vemula. In the meanwhile, a constable of pulivendula came there and handed over to him the hospital intimation and the statement of PW-1 covered by Ex. P-1, which was registered as Cr. No. 22 of 1998 and submitted the copies of express FIR to all the authorities concerned including the magistrate. He also registered a case relating to the murder of A-5 as none came forward to give to him any complaint and sent all the FIRs to the concerned. He came to know that the body of the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, pulivendula to avert law and other problem. On the same day at about 8-00 p. m. , the investigation was taken over by the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty. In the cross-examination, he stated that the scene of offence is at 2 furlong west side of the Police Station. At the time of offence, he heard the sounds of explosives along with his staff. On the same day at about 8-00 p. m. , the investigation was taken over by the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty. In the cross-examination, he stated that the scene of offence is at 2 furlong west side of the Police Station. At the time of offence, he heard the sounds of explosives along with his staff. The place of offence was not visible from the Police Station. Only after going to 150 yards, the scene of offence would be visible. He did not immediately send any of the Constable to the scene of offence to ascertain as to what had happened. He denied a suggestion that he heard the sound of bomb blast at 1-40 p. m. , and it takes 5 to 7 minutes time to reach the scene of offence from the police Station. He stayed at the scene of offence for 15 to 20 minutes, but he did not collect or gather any information relating to the murder of the deceased at that time. He cannot say how much public gathered at the scene of offence at about 2-30 p. m. He denied a suggestion that Ex. P-1 was not made ready at 5-45 p. m. , and he did not see it at that time. The explanation given by PC. 1185 for handing over the FIR to the Court is not noted in the GD or any other record of investigation. ( 54 ) PW-23, the Village Administrative officer, who is supposed to have acted as mediator for the arrest of A-1, A-2, A-6, a-9, A-15 and A-17 at Vinayakanagar and for the recovery of the bombs at the instance of A-15 etc. , turned hostile and did no support the prosecution. He stated that he was called to the police guest house and asked to read a mediators report for the arrest of A-1, A-2, A-6, A-9, A-15 and a-17 and asked to sign. He read over the contents and signed the panchanama for the arrest of A-l, A-2, A-6, A-9, A-15 and a-17. He denied a suggestion that A-15 never showed the bombs under his custody and he was giving false evidence. ( 55 ) PW-24, the Court Clerk, deposed that he received the case properties from the concerned police and forwarded them to the FSL, Ananthapur, for the purpose of the opinion. He denied a suggestion that A-15 never showed the bombs under his custody and he was giving false evidence. ( 55 ) PW-24, the Court Clerk, deposed that he received the case properties from the concerned police and forwarded them to the FSL, Ananthapur, for the purpose of the opinion. ( 56 ) PW-25, the then Head Constable at Pulivendula, deposed that on 23-5-1998, while he was incharge of the Police Station, he received intimation from Government hospital, Pulivendula. He handed over the station incharge to a constable and went to the OP cell in the Government Hospital and noticed the presence of the doctors and nurse with the injured Bayareddy. When he enquired the injured, he expressed his willingness to give a statement. He prepared the statement of the injured under Ex. P-1 and read over the contents to him and obtained his signature on the statement. Ex. P-1 bears the signature of the deceased. He further stated that on the date of offence, the officers and the police Constables went to Pulivendula town for bundobust at 2-00 p. m. He remained in the Police Station along with another constable. Till 3 and 4 days, he has no knowledge of the arson or damage caused to propeities of TDP supporters. He denied a suggestion that he gave the false evidence under the influence of the private prosecution agency. ( 57 ) PW-26 is the Senior Assistant in the office of the Collector, who spoke about the sanction accorded by the Collector under the provisions of Explosive Substances Act to prosecute the accused in the present case. ( 58 ) PW-27, the then Village Assistant of Kadapa, deposed that on 28-5-1998, the cid Police came to his house at 5-30 p. m. , and took him to Vinayakangar, Kadapa. When three persons tried to run away, the police officials caught hold of those persons and a panchanama covered by ex. P-41 was prepared. He denied a suggestion that he is habituated to sign panchanamas. He also denied a suggestion that he is giving false evidence at the instance of the private prosecuting agency. ( 59 ) PW-28 is the Property Clerk, who received the properties after examination from the FSL on 22-7-1998 and he was examined to mark the said document covered by Ex. P. 46. He also denied a suggestion that he is giving false evidence at the instance of the private prosecuting agency. ( 59 ) PW-28 is the Property Clerk, who received the properties after examination from the FSL on 22-7-1998 and he was examined to mark the said document covered by Ex. P. 46. ( 60 ) PW-29 is another mediator, but he did not wholly support the prosecution regarding the arrest of A-1 and A-15. ( 61 ) PW-30, the then Inspector, ray achoti, Rural deposed that on 25-5-1998, he received VHP information from the s. P. , Kadapa and directed to rush to pulivendula as there was law and order problem. Immediately, he proceeded to pulivendula along with the constables at about 8-00 p. m. When he was maintaining law and order at Pulivendula, the S. P. , kadapa directed him to take up investigation in this case. In the meanwhile, he received a copy of the expressed FIR through a police Officer. Immediately, he proceeded to the Government Hospital, Pulivendula to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He collected PW. 12 and two other mediators and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He denied a suggestion that he did not examine pw-1 at 4-00 a. m. , and did not seize the clothes under Ex. P-5 and that they are fabricated. ( 62 ) PW-31, the Inspector of Police, cid, deposed that during the course of investigation, A-15 surrendered before the dsp. He was taken into custody in the presence of the mediators and he signed on ex. P-2 panchanama along with other mediators. They also seized a bucket in which bombs were carried. ( 63 ) PW-32 is the DSP, CBCID, deposed that he got recorded the 164 cr. P. C. statements of PWs. 1 to 4 by the jfcm. He inspected the scene of offence along with the staff situated towards west of the MDO Office, Vemula, on the main road. He got prepared a rough sketch and seized the articles, arrested the accused and sent them to remand. He also spoke about the contradictions and omission given in the statements of the witnesses of the prosecution. He inspected the scene of offence along with the staff situated towards west of the MDO Office, Vemula, on the main road. He got prepared a rough sketch and seized the articles, arrested the accused and sent them to remand. He also spoke about the contradictions and omission given in the statements of the witnesses of the prosecution. ( 64 ) IN the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in the above decisions, their evidence cannot be ignored when it is reposing confidence in the mind of the court and corroborated with the evidence of one witness to the other. From the above evidence, the prosecution established that the accused attacked the deceased at the time and place as alleged by the prosecution and we have no doubt in our mind about the attack of the accused against the deceased. ( 65 ) REGARDING the cause of death, the lower Court observed that PW-22 did not conduct post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. But he issued post-mortem certificate without conducting any internal examination over the dead body. PW-22 in his evidence specifically stated that he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Though usually the doctors conduct post-mortem examination during day time, because of the law arid order problem and as per the direction of the collector, he conducted post-mortem examination during night immediately after the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased. There were 18 injuries on the dead body of the deceased. They were lacerated and punctured wounds. There was fracture of frontal left and right parietal and occipital bones. Pieces of bones were missing. Only small part of the brain was present in the vault. From the nature of the injuries, it is clear that due to hitting of the bomb and blasting, the skull was broken into pieces and the brain matter also escaped from the skull due to the intensity of the blast. The doctor opined that the injury of breaking of skull itself is sufficient to cause death instantaneously. ( 66 ) THE appellant contended that there was no mention of the internal examination in the post-mortem report, therefore, there was any amount of doubt about the conducting the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The doctor opined that the injury of breaking of skull itself is sufficient to cause death instantaneously. ( 66 ) THE appellant contended that there was no mention of the internal examination in the post-mortem report, therefore, there was any amount of doubt about the conducting the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The doctor gave an explanation that the non-mentioning of the internal examination is an accidental omission and he produced the rough notes of post-mortem examination to prove that he noted all internal features at the time of post-mortem examination. Even in the absence of the internal examination also, the cause of death could be easily identified due to blasting of the skull and the brain itself was missing from the skull. ( 67 ) THE evidence given by PW-22 is also lending support to the evidence of pws. l to 8. There is no doubt in our mind that the deceased died due to the hurling of the bombs and the lower Court erred in holding that there was no post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. ( 68 ) THE Lower Court farther observed that the judicial confession covered by ex. P-20 made by A-15 cannot be used against the other accused and it cannot be used against him also as he retracted from the said version subsequently through his 313 Cr. P. C. Examination, therefore, it cannot be treated as legal evidence against the other evidence. ( 69 ) IN State of Maharashtra v. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269 , the Supreme Court held that: "an accused can be convicted on the basis of his confession recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C. even though he retracted from the said statement later. However, the court requires some corroboration to the confessional statement. " From the above judgment, it is clear that the accused can be convicted on the basis of the judicial confession made by him even if it is retracted at a later stage. But the court cautioned that the said confession requires some corroboration from other evidence. In the present case, there was lot of evidence to corroborate the version given by PW-15 in his judicial confession, therefore, we find no force in the contention of the appellants Counsel in this regard. ( 70 ) THE Lower Court observed that ex. But the court cautioned that the said confession requires some corroboration from other evidence. In the present case, there was lot of evidence to corroborate the version given by PW-15 in his judicial confession, therefore, we find no force in the contention of the appellants Counsel in this regard. ( 70 ) THE Lower Court observed that ex. P-1 complaint could not have been recorded at the time mentioned in it and the reason given by PW-21 for the delay is not convincing. In the present case, PW-1 while in the Police Station, Vemula heard the bomb blast. He reached the scene of offence by securing the policemen and the weapons. By that time, the injured were taken to Pulivendula and the deceased was only found lying in the car. In the meanwhile, the prosecution party being engrained by the death of the deceased, started creating law and order problem, therefore, he went to the village to control those groups by patrolling in the street and preventing the groups from resorting to set fire to the house and from killing the persons. After that only, he reached the scene of offence. In the meanwhile, a complaint was received from pulivendula Police Station on the basis of the complaint recorded from PW-1. Vempalli was a strong hold for the accused, therefore, pw-9, who reached the scene of offence, on receipt of information, in a jeep might have thought that it is not safe to keep the injured at the scene of offence, therefore, he took them to Pulivendula for treatment and while giving treatment to them, pulivendula Police came to the hospital and recorded a complaint from PW-1 which was later forwarded to Pulivendula Police station on the ground of jurisdiction. The explanation given by the prosecution witnesses is quite natural therefore, the observation of the Lower Court that there was delay in registering the crime and sending the FIR to the Magistrate is not fatal to the prosecution. ( 71 ) IN Vidyadharan v. State of kerala, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1019 (SC) = (2004) 1 SCC 215 , the Supreme Court held that the delay in every case cannot be a ground to arose suspicion. It can only be so when the delay is unexplained. ( 71 ) IN Vidyadharan v. State of kerala, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1019 (SC) = (2004) 1 SCC 215 , the Supreme Court held that the delay in every case cannot be a ground to arose suspicion. It can only be so when the delay is unexplained. ( 72 ) IN Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1980 SC 638 , the Supreme court held that: "while reversing the acquittal, the appellate court must keep in mind very vital consideration as to whether or not the view taken by the lower Court could be reasonably possible. In such a case, reversal of the judgment by the High Court was not justified because the view taken by the Sessions judge was reasonably possible. " ( 73 ) IN Balak Ram v. State of U. P. , air 1974 SC 2165 , the Supreme Court held that: "normally the High Court is a final Court of appeal and the Supreme Court is only a special Court of jurisdiction. The powers of the High Court are as full and wide in appeals against acquittal as in appeals against conviction. But, if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, the High Court ought not to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. " ( 74 ) THE Lower Court further observed that the prosecution story is suffering with material inconsistencies, contradictions and improvements, therefore, there is any amount of doubt about the truthfulness of the story of the prosecution. ( 75 ) ON reading of the prosecution evidence, it is noticed that the evidence of all witnesses is corroborating with each other on all material particulars and the minor discrepancies, if any, on immaterial aspects would not affect the prosecution version, therefore, after going through the entire material, we are convinced that there are very strong circumstances coupled with cogent and convincing evidence from the prosecution witnesses to reverse the judgment of the trial Court and to convict the accused for the murder of the deceased and other offences. ( 76 ) WE have already mentioned that in view of the reasons mentioned by the lower court, A-5, A-8, A-15, A-18 and A-19 were acquitted and no charge-sheet was laid against A-14, therefore, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is confined only against A-l to A-4, A-6, A-7, A-9 to A-13, a-16 and A-17 among the accused found at the scene of offence. ( 77 ) IN Ex. P-1, there was mention about the names of A-l to A-13. The names of a-16 and A-17 came on record on a subsequent date during the course of investigation. No specific overtacts have been attributed to A-16 and A-17. There was no explanation as to why PW-17 failed to mention the names of A-16 and A-17 in the FIR when he came to know that they also participated in the commission of the offence. The other witnesses also did not attribute any specific role of A-16 and a-17. In the light of the above circumstances, we entertained a doubt whether A-16 and a-17 also participated in the commission of the offence, therefore, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to them and they are found not guilty of all the offences under which they were charged and they are entitled for acquittal. ( 78 ) NOW, A-l to A-4, A-6, A-7 and a-9 to A-13 remained. There is ample evidence from the prosecution witnesses that they participated in the commission of the offence, therefore, we are inclined to find them guilty and they are not entitled for acquittal. ( 79 ) THE accused were charged for the offence under Section 120-B of I. P. C. The evidence of the MDO, who was examined as PW-11, is a clear indication that the accused were in touch with the people at the helm of the affairs and they were monitoring the movements of the accused very closely passing on the communication from time to time to the accused at vemula and conspired to do away with the deceased and it was executed successfully, therefore, we find A-1 to A-4, A-6, A-17 and A-9 to A-13 guilty of the offence under section 120-B of IPC. ( 80 ) IN Dani Singh v. State of Bihar, 2005 SCC (Crl.) 127 = 2004 AILD 298 (SC), the Supreme Court held that: "mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141. Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of Section 149. The crucial question to determine is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects, as specified in Section 141. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overtact is proved against a person, who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of an unlawful assembly. The only thing required is that he should have understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to corfimit any of the acts, which fall within the purview of section 141. " ( 81 ) IN Jaishree Yadav v. State of u. P. s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that: "a person who is a member of unlawful assembly, even if he does not commit any overtact but shares the common object of such unlawful assembly, will be liable for consequences of the same. On facts, trial court finding accused concerned guilty of being members of an unlawful assembly with common object of causing the murder of the deceased. The High Court erred in acquitting the accused solely on the ground that there was no evidence to show that they had taken part in the actual assault. " ( 82 ) IN State of U. P. v. Kishan Chands case (supra), the Supreme Court, while considering Section 149 of I. P. C. , held that: "the common object has to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case. It can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence and in furtherance of such common object of that assembly, the accused committed the crimes in question. It can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence and in furtherance of such common object of that assembly, the accused committed the crimes in question. " ( 83 ) THE accused were charged for the offence under Section 148 of I. P. C. They formed into an unlawful assembly by emerging at the scene of offence with bombs which are deadly weapons. In pursuance of their conspiracy to kill the deceased, hurled bombs against the car and killed the deceased and caused injuries to PWs. 1 to 4. Though specific overtacts have not been attributed to some of the accused, the evidence pladed by the prosecution amply established that they committed rioting with deadly weapons and attacked the deceased and the witnesses, therefore, they are found guilty for the offence under section 148 of I. P. C. ( 84 ) THE accused were charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 149 of I. P. C. A specific overtact has been attributed to A-3 by way of hurling bomb against the deceased which exploded causing the blasting of the skull into pieces. The evidence placed by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that A-3 attacked the deceased by hurling bomb causing his instantaneous death, therefore, he was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of I. P. C. ( 85 ) A-1, A-2, A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-9 to A-13 are also members of unlawful assembly armed with bombs and they also hurled bombs against he deceased and witnesses, therefore, the evidence placed by the prosecution established that they formed into an unlawful assembly along with A-3 and hurled bombs against the deceased, therefore, all of them are found guilty under section 304 read with Section 149 of I. P. C. ( 86 ) IT is the version of the prosecution that all the accused hurled bombs against pws. 1 to 4 with an intention to kill the witnesses also and they survived after receiving the splinter injuries due to explosion of the bombs, therefore, there was a clear case made out against the accused that they tried to kill PWs. 1 to 4 with an intention to kill the witnesses also and they survived after receiving the splinter injuries due to explosion of the bombs, therefore, there was a clear case made out against the accused that they tried to kill PWs. l to 4, therefore, the they are found guilty for the offence under Section 307 of I. P. C. ( 87 ) THE accused hurled bombs against the deceased and PWs. 1 to 4 and caused severe injuries to the persons and properties, therefore, they are found guilty for the offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the explosive Substances Act. ( 88 ) THE accused were also charged for the offence under Section 6 of the explosive Substances Act and Sections 435 and 435 read with Section 149 of I. P. C. But as the prosecution did not place any material as to the nature and extent of the damage to the car of the deceased, they are found not guilty for the said offences. ( 89 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The acquittal of A-l to A-4, A-6, a-7 and A-9 to A-13 for all the offences is set aside. A-1 to A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-9 to A-13 are convicted for the offence under Section 120-B of I. P. C. and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. A-1 to A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-9 to A-13 are convicted for the offence under Section 148 of I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. A-3 is convicted for the offence under section 302 of I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-9 to a-13 are convicted for the offence section 302 read with Section 149 of I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-9 to a-13 are convicted for the offence section 302 read with Section 149 of I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. A-1 to A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-9 to A-13 are convicted for the offence under Section 307 of I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. A-1 to A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-9 to A-13 are also convicted for the offences under sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. A-1 to A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-9 to A-13 are acquitted for the rest of the charges. The acquittal of other accused recorded by the lower Court for all the charges framed against them stands confirmed. ( 90 ) THE respondents-accused, who are convicted now, are directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. Compliance report within six weeks by the District Judge.