P. LAKSHMANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE three appeals are directed against the same judgment, dated 23-6-2004 passed in S. C. No. 728 of 1997 on the file of VI additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), anantapur at Gooty, and hence disposed of all these matters by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: the Inspector of Police, Gooty filed the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty against A-1 to A-15 alleging that on 22-12-1995 at about 10. 00 a. m. , while Konduru Srinivasulu Reddy hereinafter referred to as 'deceased No. 1', virupaksha Reddy hereinafter referred to as 'deceased No. 2' and Kanuma ramachandra Reddy hereinafter referred to as 'deceased No. 3' along with their relatives viz. , PWs. 1 to 3, L. Ramamohana reddy (LW-4) and PW-6 going towards pamidi by foot and by the time they reached boyageri Bus Stage in their village kalapuram, A-l to A-15 formed themselves into unlawful assembly, armed with country made bombs and hunting sickles, with the common object of killing the Deceased nos. 1 to 3 and who were laying in wait, suddenly came on to the road, and at the instigation of A-1, A-12 hurled a country made bomb and when the bomb exploded, due to fear the Deceased Nos. 2, 3 and pws. 1, 3 and 5 ran towards Pamidi side while Deceased No. l, PW-2, and one rammohan Reddy (who is not examined)ran back towards their village. Then A-1 to a-15 divided themselves into three groups in furtherance of their common object of killing the deceased, chased Deceased Nos. 1 to 3 and surrounded them and hacked them with their hunting sickles indiscriminately and caused bleeding injuries on their bodies and killed them on the spot. PWs. 1 to 3, ramamohan Reddy and PW-6 escaped from the attack and witnessed the entire occurrence by standing at some distance. When the villagers gathered at the scene of offence, the accused threatened them and pws. 1 to 3, 6 and Ramamohan Reddy ran away towards southern side hillock. PWs. 1 to 3, ramamohan Reddy and PW-6 escaped from the attack and witnessed the entire occurrence by standing at some distance. When the villagers gathered at the scene of offence, the accused threatened them and pws. 1 to 3, 6 and Ramamohan Reddy ran away towards southern side hillock. Thus, all the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'ipc') and further A-1 committed the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act (for short 'e. S. Act') and A-12 committed the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of e. S. Act. ( 3 ) ON the basis of the said charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took the case on file and issued summons to the accused and after observing all the formalities duly committed the case to the court of Session, Sessions Division, ananthapur, by virtue of a committal order passed under Section 209 Cr. P. C. On the basis of the said committal order, the learned sessions Judge, Ananthapur took the case on file as Sessions Case No. 728 of 1997 and made over the same to the Court of VI additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), ananthapur at Gooty, for trial. ( 4 ) DURING the course of preliminary registered enquiry A-2 and A-13 died and the case against them is abated. ( 5 ) THE learned Trial Judge after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence Counsel, framed the following charges against the accused: "1]. Under Section 148 IPC against A-1, a-3 to A-12, A-14 and A-15. 2]. Under Section 302 IPC for killing deceased No. 2 (Virupaksha Reddy)against A-1, A-3 to A-5. 3]. Under Section 302 IPC for killing deceased No. 3 (Kanuma Ramachandra Reddy)against A-6 to A-8. 4]. Under Section 302 IPC for killing deceased No. 1 (Konduru Srinivasul Reddy)against A-9, A-12 and A-14. 5]. Under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC against A-1, A-3 to A-12, a-14 and A-15 for killing Deceased nos. 1 to 3 in furtherance of their common object. 6]. Under Section 6 of the Explosive substances Act against A-1 for possession of country made bombs. 7]. Under Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive substances Act against A-1, A-3 to a-5 for possessing and hurling bombs on the complainant. 8]. 1 to 3 in furtherance of their common object. 6]. Under Section 6 of the Explosive substances Act against A-1 for possession of country made bombs. 7]. Under Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive substances Act against A-1, A-3 to a-5 for possessing and hurling bombs on the complainant. 8]. Under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Explosive substances Act read with Section 149 ipc against A-1, A-3 to A-12, A-14 and A-15 for having hurled bombs on the deceased and the complainant in furtherance of their common object, read over and explained the above said charges to the accused, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried". ( 6 ) THE learned Trial Judge conducted trial, during which the prosecution examined pws. 1 to 13 and exhibited Exs. P-1 to P-40 and marked M. Os. 1 to 30. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the learned Judge examined the appellants-accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , wherein they described the incriminating evidence found against them as false. They did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf, but marked Exs:d-1 to D-14 in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Their case is one of total denial. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the total denial of the appellants-accused, the learned judge found A-1, A-3 to A-8 and A-14 guilty of the offence punishable under sections 302 IPC and 148 IPC, convicted them for the said offences and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay find of Rs. 100/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 148 ipc, and A-l is further found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the E. S. Act and convicted him for the same and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-; and A-10, A-11 and A-15 are found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148 IPC and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and convicted them and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of rs. 100/-; and A-10, A-11 and A-15 are found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148 IPC and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and convicted them and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of rs. 100/- for the offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 148 I. P. C. A-12 is found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the E. S. Act and also under Section 148 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of E. S. Act and further sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 148 IPC. ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the said conviction and sentences, A-1, A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-9 filed Crl. A No. 1348 of 2004; A-11, A-12 and A-14 filed Crl. A No. 1445 of 2004 and a-4, A-7, A-8, A-10 and A-15 filed Crl. A no. 1489 of 2004. In all the appeals the grounds of appeal are almost common which can briefly be stated as follows: ( 9 ) THE learned Trial Judge erred in placing reliance on the highly interested and discrepant testimony of PWs. 1 to 3 and also erred in not attaching any importance to the abnormal delay in giving report and in the report reaching the Magistrate. The learned Judge ought to have drawn an adverse inference from the failure of the prosecution to examine any independent witness as the incident is said to have taken place in a broad day light in a residential locality. The learned Judge failed to see that there are number of circumstances to indicate that the incident happened in the early hours and nobody had really witnessed the occurrence. The Trial Judge erred in ignoring the doctor's evidence that the bladder of all the three deceased was full of urine and also there was feacal matter in the intestines, which would clearly indicate that the deceased was attacked in the early hours before answering their calls of nature. The evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 is falsified by the medical evidence. The evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 is falsified by the medical evidence. The learned Judge failed to see that the prosecution deliberately not examined Rammohan Reddy (LW-4) in spite of the fact that he is the only independent witness. The learned Judge should have seen that in the FIR, apart from the accused, some other persons were also shown as the assailants. The learned judge also failed to notice that the witnesses were speaking to a parrot like version regarding the overt acts attributed to the various accused. The learned Judge should have seen that A-12 is alleged to have hurled bombs, but not even a single witness received splinter injuries. ( 10 ) DURING the course of hearing of the appeals, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeals. He further submitted that Kalapuram Village is a highly faction village and some murders also took place since 1954 and therefore, it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of partisan witnesses PWs. l to 3, which is not supported by any independent evidence, and which is not supported by the medical evidence also. He submitted that there is enough material to show that the incident did not take place in the manner stated by the prosecution and that PWs. 1 to 3 did not at all witness the attack on any of the deceased and that they are planted as witnesses after due deliberations and that is the reason why no independent witness come forward to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution though there was scope for several independent witnesses to witness the incident as the incident said to have taken place in the village in a residential locality. He further submitted that the factionists in Rayalaseema are very much interested in falsely implicating the opposite faction people some times leaving even the real culprits and therefore, it is not at all safe to send as many as 13 persons to the gallows on the basis of the improbable and partisan testimony of PWs. l to 3 in the absence of corroboration by independent evidence or at least medical evidence. He further submitted that it is in the evidence that there are other enemies to the Deceased nos. l to 3 in the absence of corroboration by independent evidence or at least medical evidence. He further submitted that it is in the evidence that there are other enemies to the Deceased nos. 1 to 3 including the radicals other than the accused and therefore, there is every scope for the attack on the deceased by unknown persons other than the villagers of Kalapuram during the early hours and taking undue advantage of the same, PWs. l to 3 falsely implicated their opposite faction leaders and that is the reason why they did not choose to give report to the police immediately after the incident. He further submitted that according to the prosecution on information given by the Head Constable, the Inspector of police who was at Gooty went to Kalapuram via Pamidi and thereafter PW-1 gave report to the Circle Inspector of Police at the scene of offence and till then none of the prosecution party people reported the matter in the Police Station and that curiously enough the Head Constable, who said to have informed the Circle Inspector of Police and also Sub-Inspector of Police about the murders, is not examined and there is absolutely no explanation for non-examination of this important witness and it might be that some one gave report to the police mentioning the correct time of attack and also attack by some others or unknown persons and that subsequently after the inspector of Police reached the Police station, the present report was brought into existence planting the witnesses and changing the time and also the names of the assailants and after suppressing the previous report and that may be the reason why the Head Constable, who received the information about the murders at the first instance, is not examined and the general diary maintained in the Police Station is not produced before the Court for its perusal. In this regard the learned Counsel for the appellants invited the attention of this court to the peculiar endorsement of the inspector of Police on the report Ex. P-1 directing the Sub-Inspector of Police to register the same as Crime No. 78 of 1995. In this regard the learned Counsel for the appellants invited the attention of this court to the peculiar endorsement of the inspector of Police on the report Ex. P-1 directing the Sub-Inspector of Police to register the same as Crime No. 78 of 1995. He submitted that according to the inspector of Police he recorded the statement of PW-1 at the scene of offence at Kalapuram and endorsed the same at kalapuram and sent it through a Constable to Pamidi Police Station, situated at a distance of six kilometers and if such was the case, the Inspector of Police cannot give the direction to the Sub-Inspector of police to register the same as particular crime number as the crime numbers have to be given in the seriatom taking into consideration the time of registration of crime and that in case any crime is reported in the Police Station in between the recording of the statement of PW-1 by the inspector of Police at Kalapuram and the said report reaching the said Police Station, that crime is to be registered as Crime no. 78 and not the crime registered on the basis of the report Ex. P-1 endorsed by the police. This peculiar conduct of the Inspector of Police any amount of doubt regarding the place where Ex. P-1 was prepared and the manner in which it was prepared. In this regard the learned Counsel submitted that the report Ex. P-1 was received by the magistrate at Gooty at 4. 50 p. m. , and the distance between Pamidi and Gooty is only less than 20 kms. , and therefore, the report appears to have been registered not at 1. 45 p. m. , but much latter than that and that even if it is taken that the occurrence took place at 10. 00 a. m. , there is abnormal delay in reporting the matter to the police. He further submitted that kalapuram is a faction village and the offences of this nature had taken place earlier also and therefore, the prosecution party is very much aware of giving report in the Police Station at the earliest and in spite of it they did not choose to make any effort to give report in the Police Station till the Inspector of Police reaches Kalapuram village. If really the incident took place in the manner stated by PWs. If really the incident took place in the manner stated by PWs. 1 to 3, they would not have failed to rush to the Police station or send somebody to the Police station to give report indicating the attack in the manner stated by PWs. 1 to 3. As the attack did not take place at 10. 00 a. m. , and it took place during the early hours and as nobody witnessed the real assailants, the prosecution party could not give the report immediately and they gained time for deliberations and only after due deliberations with the factionists, they implicated the present accused who are their opponents in the village faction. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel further contended that according to the prosecution the accused party waylaid near the cattle shed near Boyageri Bus Stop and attacked the deceased. According to PWs. 1 to 3 they went to the village Bus Stop with a view to go to Pamidi Village and after going their they came to know that on that day buses were not plying and then they decided to go to Pamidi by foot passing through the boyageri Bus Stop, and by the time they reached Boyageri Bus Stop, they were attacked. So, according to PWs. 1 to 3 they passed through Boyageri by chance and as per their original plan they wanted to go by bus in which case they need not go to boyageri Bus Stop. If such was the case, it was improbable that the accused were lying in wait in the cattle shed situated near Boyageri Bus Stop. Further as per admissions of PWs. 2, 4 and 5 the bus passes through Kalapuram Village to pamidi at 6. 00 a. m. , 9. 30 a. m. , 12. 00 noon and 6. 00 p. m. PW-1 also in his cross-examination stated that they expected the bus to come at 9. 30 a. m. , but on that day the bus did not come. But, all the witnesses have in one voice stated that they started at the house of Deceased No. 2 at 9. 55 a. m. , or 10. 00 a. m. , to go to the first Bus Stop situated in front of Chowdamma Temple. According to PW-1 they first went to first Bus Stop and after going there, they came to know that no buses were plying. 55 a. m. , or 10. 00 a. m. , to go to the first Bus Stop situated in front of Chowdamma Temple. According to PW-1 they first went to first Bus Stop and after going there, they came to know that no buses were plying. When the scheduled time of the bus is at 9. 30 a. m. , it is improbable to believe that those people started at the house of deceased No. 2 at 10. 00 a. m. , to go to the bus Stop situated in front of Chowdamma temple. He further submitted that the incident took place in the last week of december, 1995, which is the harvesting season and nobody would purchase fertilizers during that season and further no money was found in the pockets of any of the three deceased and further there was no necessity for both son and father to go to pamidi for purchase of fertilizers and all these improbabilities together clearly indicate that the version of prosecution that pws. 1 to 3, 6, the Deceased 1 to 3 and two others were going to Pamidi for purchase of fertilizers on that day is a concocted version. He further submitted that PW-6 is an independent witness and he did not support the case of the prosecution and he denied the version of the prosecution that he along with PWs. l to 3, three deceased and Rammohan Reddy were proceeding towards Pamidi for purchase of fertilizers, deceased Nos. 1 to 3 were attacked near boyageri Bus Stop. The other independent witness Rammohan Reddy is not examined. The learned Counsel further submitted that on either side of the scene of offence there are residential houses belonging to independent persons and according to the prosecution the occurrence took place during broad day light at 10. 00 a. m. , and in spite of it, no residents of the locality were examined even to speak about PWs. 1 to 3 are in the company of the deceased either at the Bus Stop situated in front of the Temple or at Boyageri Bus Stop. He further submitted that the perusal of evidence of the doctor and the postmortem reports clearly indicates that the bladders of dead bodies of Deceased Nos. 1 to 3 are in the company of the deceased either at the Bus Stop situated in front of the Temple or at Boyageri Bus Stop. He further submitted that the perusal of evidence of the doctor and the postmortem reports clearly indicates that the bladders of dead bodies of Deceased Nos. 1 and 2 contained 100 ml of urine and colan of all the deceased contained feacal matter and according to the doctor when the bladder is full of 100 ml of urine, in general, such condition will be prevailing in wee hours and that the doctor categorically stated that the description relating to feacal matter and urine will be found in the early hours and therefore, the version of partisan witnesses PWs. l to 3 that the incident took place at 10. 00 a. m. , cannot at all be believed. In this regard the learned counsel relied upon the observation of the apex Court in Babu and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 308 , wherein the Apex Court observed that the presence of the feacal matter in the large intestine does indicate that Dhani Ram had not evacuated and therefore, the possibility that Dhani Ram was done to death early in the morning before he had evacuated is not weeded out. ( 12 ) REGARDING the manner of attack spoken to by PWs. 1 to 3, the learned Counsel contended that their evidence is suffered with unnaturalities and improbabilities. According to PWs. 1 to 3, the accused first hurled a bomb and it exploded, but neither the deceased nor five persons accompanied them received any splinter injuries. According to PWs. 1 to 3, Deceased Nos. 2 and 3 and pws. 1 and 3 went towards one direction and PW-3, Deceased No. 1 and another ran towards opposite direction and the accused formed into three groups and each group attacked each one of the deceased, but yet, all the witnesses PWs. 1 to 3 stated that they witnessed the attack on each of three deceased though the three deceased were attacked at three different places and by three different sets of accused. According to PWs. 1 to 3 while running for their lives they witnessed the attack on the three deceased. The learned counsel pointed out that this version of pws. l to 3 cannot at all be believed by any prudent man. According to PWs. 1 to 3 while running for their lives they witnessed the attack on the three deceased. The learned counsel pointed out that this version of pws. l to 3 cannot at all be believed by any prudent man. He further submitted that all the three witnesses spoke in a parrot like manner and that some of the overt acts attributed to the accused are not supported by medical evidence. Relying on the improbabilities and the conduct of the witnesses in not going to the Police Station to give report and the delay in giving the report and the non-examination of the independent witnesses, the learned Counsel submitted that it is not at all safe to place reliance on the rank partisan testimony of PWs. 1 to 3 of Rayalaseema area in the absence of corroboration from the independent witnesses. In support of his contention that the factionists of rayalaseema always try to falsely implicate their opposite faction leaders and at times even leaving the real culprits, the learned counsel invited our attention to the Division bench decision of this Court in In Re, poreddi Venkata Reddy and others, AIR 1961 AP 23, wherein it is observed that especially in cases coming from the districts of Rayalaseema there is an incurable tendency in witnesses to rope in the innocent along with the guilty, not so much out of personal animosity but in the hope of furthering the interests of the faction and that to guard against the danger of condemning innocent persons on perjured testimony, it is imperative that evidence should be scrutinized with more than ordinary care and, in particular, sweeping statements and wholesale implications should be received with the utmost caution. He relied on another Division Bench decision of this Court in V. Sathyamaiah and others v. State of A. P. , 1978 (1) APLJ 83 (HC), wherein this Court observed that it is not unusual for a factionist to take advantage of every situation and occurrence for damaging the interests of the opposite faction and there is an incurable tendency in the factionists to rope in the innocent members of the opposite faction along with the guilty and to twist and manipulate the facts in regard to the mode and manner of the occurrence so as to make their case appear true with the innocent members of the opposite faction also as participants in the occurrence and in factious cases, the manipulation in the personnel of the actors in a crime is extremely easy but difficult to refute and whenever there is any delay in the first report of a faction case, the Court must be extremely chary and see if the delay was inevitable and unavoidable or if it was due to any deliberations for manipulation by the factionists. The learned counsel submitted that the evidence of pws. 1 to 3 is not reliable and trustworthy and it does not stand to scrutiny and therefore, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and that the learned Trial Judge grossly erred in recording conviction against the accused on the basis of the uncorroborated and improbable partisan testimony of PWs. 1 to 3. ( 13 ) ON the other hand, the learned public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 is consistent and their evidence could not be shaken in the cross-examination and nothing was elicited to discredit their testimony and therefore, the trial Court rightly believed the version of pws. 1 to 3 and there is no need for interference by this Court. He further submitted that non-examination of Head constable is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that in faction cases it is too much to expect any independent witnesses to come forward to give evidence and that in the instant case also nobody came forward to give evidence and that merely because the independent persons did not come forward to give evidence, it cannot be said that the consistent testimony of PWs. 1 to 3 has to be brushed aside. He submitted that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 has to be brushed aside. He submitted that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 is supported by medical evidence and that their evidence is not suffered with any patent improbabilities. He further submitted that there is no much delay in giving report to the police in this case and as it is a ghastly incident of three murders. PWs. 1 to 3 could not think of giving report immediately and that from their failure to go to the Police Station to report the matter or to send somebody to the police Station, it cannot be said that they did not witness the occurrence and they gained time for the purpose of concoctions after deliberations. The learned Public prosecutor further submitted that merely because the feacal matter found in the colan of the deceased, it cannot be said from that circumstance alone that the incident must have taken place during the early hours especially when eye-witnesses pws. 1 to 3 have categorically stated that the incident took place at 10. 00 a. m. He further submitted that the stomach of the deceased 1 and 2 contain partially digested rice particles and therefore, the version of the accused that the attack must have taken place during the early hours falls to the ground. The learned Public Prosecutor invited the attention of this Court to the following decisions: " (1) State of U. P. v. Rasid and others, 2003 AIR SCW 1633, wherein the apex Court observed that presence of semi digested food in stomach of deceased is not a proof of fact that deceased died before he had opportunity to answer calls of nature i. e. , before day break and that the high Court erred in coming to conclusion that incident occurred before day break, based on probability, while rejecting oral evidence. (2) Ram Bali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2004 (4) Scale 611 = 2004 AILD 310 (SC), wherein it is held that the evidence of the doctor that the stomach was found empty cannot be given credence to the oral evidence of PW-2 though PW-2 had taken lunch at about 2. (2) Ram Bali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2004 (4) Scale 611 = 2004 AILD 310 (SC), wherein it is held that the evidence of the doctor that the stomach was found empty cannot be given credence to the oral evidence of PW-2 though PW-2 had taken lunch at about 2. 00 p. m. , and that the time taken normally for digesting of food would also depend upon the quality and quantity of food as well, besides others and only when the ocular evidence is wholly inconsistent with the medical evidence the Court has to consider the effect thereof. (3) Jaishree Yadav v. State of U. P. , (2006) 1 SCC (Crl.) 160, wherein it is held that the evidence of allegedly partisan witness otherwise corroborated, cannot be brushed aside. (4) Balbir Singh and others v. State of punjab and others, 2005 SCC (Crl.)1245 = 2006 AILD 231 (SC), wherein it is held that the evidence of son cannot be disbelieved for not having intervened in the melee where there were four assailants armed with weapons and that the contradictions between medical evidence and oral evidence would not be of much consequence when the eye-witness was not in a position to specifically say as to which portion of the weapon was used when there was a sudden attack by a group of persons. " ( 14 ) DURING the reply the learned defence Counsel submitted that the deceased were running gambling club at Pamidi and after closing the club while they were returning to the village Kolapuram, the incident must have taken place and during later hours while playing gambling they must have taken some food and therefore, the semi digested food particles were found in the Deceased Nos. 2 and 3 and that the presence of feacal matter in the colan are the determining factors to arrive at the actual time of attack. ( 15 ) THE points that arise for determination in this appeal are: "1. Whether the attack on the Deceased nos. 1 to 3 took place in the manner stated by the prosecution at 10. 00 a. m. ? 2. If so, whether PWs. 1 to 3 were in the company of Deceased Nos. l to 3 when the deceased were attacked? 3. If so, whether the evidence of PWs. Whether the attack on the Deceased nos. 1 to 3 took place in the manner stated by the prosecution at 10. 00 a. m. ? 2. If so, whether PWs. 1 to 3 were in the company of Deceased Nos. l to 3 when the deceased were attacked? 3. If so, whether the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 is reliable and trustworthy regarding the manner of attack and regarding the names of assailants? 4. Whether the alleged confession of the accused leading to discovery of weapons is reliable and trustworthy? 5. Whether the conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court against the appellants in all these appeals are sustainable in law? 6. To what result? point Nos. 1 to 3" ( 16 ) THE burden is on the prosecution to prove that the attack on the deceased took place in the manner stated by the prosecution and PWs. 1 to 3 are eyewitnesses to the attack. The prosecution cited five persons as eye-witnesses to the actual attack on the three deceased. Out of them LW-1 (M. Bheemalinga Reddy), lw-2 (Konduru Venkata Sivareddy), lw-3 (Konurthuru Prabhaker Reddy)are examined as PWs. 1 to 3 respectively. LW-4 (L. Rama Mohan Reddy)is given up and he is not examined. The other eye-witness LW-5 (Konduru Ranga Reddy) is examined as PW-6. But he did not support the case of the prosecution. He stated that he does not know who killed the Deceased 1 to 3 and he was not examined by the police. He is treated as hostile by the prosecution and it was suggested to him by the learned additional Public Prosecutor in the cross-examination that on that day while himself along with PWs. 1 to 3, L. Rama mohan Reddy and three deceased were proceeding towards Pamidi to purchase fertilizers, by the time they reached Boyageri bus Stop in Kalapuram Village, all the accused A-1 to A-15 armed with hunting sickles attacked Deceased 1 to 3 and he stated so before the police as in Ex. P-2 and that on account of fear of the accused, he deposed falsely contrary to what he stated before the police. He denied the said suggestion. ( 17 ) SO the evidence of this witness pw-6 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. So far as the other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are not direct witnesses to the occurrence. He denied the said suggestion. ( 17 ) SO the evidence of this witness pw-6 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. So far as the other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are not direct witnesses to the occurrence. PW-4 is the son of Deceased No. 2 and pw-5 is the wife of Deceased No. 1. PW-4 who is son of Deceased No. 2 stated about the faction in the village and about the dispute in between both the parties and also about the previous incidents including an incident which occurred about 25 days prior to the date of the incident. Regarding the attack, he stated that on that day at about 9. 50 a. m. PWs. l to 3, 6, Deceased 1 to 3 and Rama Mohan Reddy started at 9. 50 a. m. , from the house of PW-1 to go to pamidi to purchase fertilizers and that afterwards while he was at his residence somebody informed him that Deceased 1 to 3 were murdered by the accused and immediately himself, his mother, wife of deceased No. 3 and others went to the scene of offence and found the dead bodies of Deceased 1 to 3 and they found PWs. 1 to 3 near the dead bodies. ( 18 ) PW-5's evidence also is to the same effect as that of PW-4. She too stated that while she was at her house somebody informed her that Deceased 1 to 3 were murdered and then herself and her neighbours went to the dead bodies and found the dead bodies of Deceased 1 to 3 and also PWs. l to 3, 6 and Rama Mohan reddy near the dead bodies and on enquiry pw-1 told him that A-1 to A-15 murdered the Deceased 1 to 3 ( 19 ) PW-7 (Kurla Krishna Reddy) is one of the inquest panchayatdars. He stated that the Inspector of Police held inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased from 1. 30 p. m. , to 5. 00 p. m. on 22-12-1995 and during inquest the police seized the clothes from the dead bodies and also seized two finger rings from the dead body of Deceased no. 3 and also seized bloodstained earth and control each and that himself and other panchayatdars opined that all the deceased died on account of injuries found on the dead bodies. 00 p. m. on 22-12-1995 and during inquest the police seized the clothes from the dead bodies and also seized two finger rings from the dead body of Deceased no. 3 and also seized bloodstained earth and control each and that himself and other panchayatdars opined that all the deceased died on account of injuries found on the dead bodies. ( 20 ) PW-8 (Dr. K. Krishna Gopal Reddy)stated about his conducting postmortem over the dead body of Deceased no. 2 on 22-12-1995 and about post-mortems conducted by another Dr. Lakshmamma over the dead bodies of Deceased Nos. 1 and 3 at 11. 00 a. m. and 1. 00 p. m. , respectively. ( 21 ) PW-9 (K. Krishna Reddy) is one of the alleged mediators at the time of arrest of A-1 to A-15 at 7. 00 a. m. on 5-1-1996 and also at the time of alleged confession leading to the discovery of hunting sickles M. Os. 15 to 22 at the garden of A-l on 5-1-1996 at 11. 45 a. m. ( 22 ) PW-10 (E. Anjaneyulu) is the ministerial clerk in the Office of the Collector who was examined to speak about the sanction orders passed by the District magistrate to prosecute A-1 and A-12 under the Explosive Substances Act. ( 23 ) PW-11 (A. Pulla Reddy) is the circle Inspector of Police who said to have recorded the statement of PW-1 at the scene of offence and conducted inquest over the dead bodies and examined other witnesses and also arrested the accused and seized M. Os. 8 to 24. ( 24 ) PW-12 (N. S. Karunanidhi) is another Inspector of Police who succeeded pw-11 and who received F. S. L. Report and also sanction orders and laid charge-sheet. ( 25 ) PW-13 (Y. Ravi Krishna Kumar)is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the report Ex. P-1 endorsed to him by the circle Inspector of Police and issued F. I. R. Ex. P-10. ( 26 ) FROM the above cited witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, the only direct evidence available for the prosecution is the evidence of PWs. l to 3. PW-1 (M. Bheemalinga Reddy) is no other than the son of Deceased No. 2. PW-3 (Konuthuru Prabhakar Reddy) is the son of the sister of Deceased No. 3. P-10. ( 26 ) FROM the above cited witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, the only direct evidence available for the prosecution is the evidence of PWs. l to 3. PW-1 (M. Bheemalinga Reddy) is no other than the son of Deceased No. 2. PW-3 (Konuthuru Prabhakar Reddy) is the son of the sister of Deceased No. 3. The other witness PW-2 (Konduru venkata Siva Reddy) is related to all the deceased as per his own admission. PW-2 stated that the Deceased 1 and 3 are his maternal uncles. Thus, PWs. 1 to 3 are closely related to the Deceased 1 to 3. Besides that it is the admitted case of the prosecution that there is long standing faction in the village Kalapuram and that all the deceased belonged to the faction headed by Deceased No. 2 and the other faction is headed by A-1's father. PW-1 stated that the said faction is there since 1973 in which year the faction people of deceased No. 2 killed the father of A-1 and on the same day the faction led by A-1 and others killed two people belonging to the faction of Deceased No. 2 and both the cases ended in acquittal. He further stated that subsequently A-1 became the leader of the accused party and in the year 1994 during assembly elections, the prosecution party herein supported the congress Party while the accused group supported the Telugu Desam Party and in the month of June, 1995 there were elections for Single Window Co-operative society and since then there were illfeelings between them and the accused and that on account of those ill-feelings on 22-12-1995 deceased 1 to 3 were murdered. He further stated that about 25 days earlier to 22-12-1995 there was a dispute and in that connection criminal case is registered against their group and since then there were strained relations between A-1's group and their group. Thus, it is clear that there was acute faction in the village Kalapuram and all the accused belonged to one group and PWs. 1 to 6, three deceased and others belonged to the opposite group. No independent witness has been examined to speak about the incident. The prosecution solely relied on the partisan and interested testimony of PWs. 1 to 6 out of whom pw-6 did not support the prosecution case. 1 to 6, three deceased and others belonged to the opposite group. No independent witness has been examined to speak about the incident. The prosecution solely relied on the partisan and interested testimony of PWs. 1 to 6 out of whom pw-6 did not support the prosecution case. The contention of the defence Counsel is that as the incident did not take place in the manner set up by the prosecution, no independent witness has come forward to give evidence though the attack took place in the village where there are residential houses belonging to independent witnesses situate on either side of the road where the three dead bodies were found and that in all probability the occurrence must have taken place in the early hours by unknown persons and under those circumstances it is not safe to place reliance on the highly partisan and interested testimony of PWs. 1 to 3 in the absence of corroboration. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that in a highly faction ridden village, it is too much to expect the independent witnesses to come forward to give evidence and that merely because there is no independent evidence to corroborate the testimony of PWs. 1 to 3, their evidence cannot be brushed aside on that ground. ( 27 ) THE law is well settled that the evidence of partisan witnesses cannot be brushed aside on the ground that it is not corroborated by independent witnesses and that the conviction can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of partisan witnesses depending upon the circumstances of each case, provided that their evidence is reliable and trustworthy. It is also well settled that the evidence of partisan witnesses has to be scrutinized carefully with more than ordinary care and caution with reference to the probabilities, medical evidence and other circumstances of each case. In this regard it is useful to refer to some of the decisions of this Court regarding the appreciation of oral testimony in faction cases. As long as in the year 1961 the division Bench of this Court in In Re, poreddi Venkata Reddy's case (supra), observed as follows: "to insist on independent evidence in faction cases, is to ask for the impossible. As long as in the year 1961 the division Bench of this Court in In Re, poreddi Venkata Reddy's case (supra), observed as follows: "to insist on independent evidence in faction cases, is to ask for the impossible. It is matter of common knowledge that in cases arising out of acute factions, as a rule, persons unconnected with either faction, do not care or dare to come forward as witnesses lest they should incur the wrath of the other party. At the same time, in such cases, especially in cases coming from the districts of Rayalaseema there is an incurable tendency in witnesses to rope in the innocent along with the guilty, not so much out of personal animosity but in the hope of furthering the interests of the faction and that to guard against the danger of condemning innocent persons on perjured testimony, it is imperative that evidence should be scrutinized with more than ordinary care and, in particular, sweeping statements and wholesale implications should be received with the utmost caution. In another Division Bench decision of this court in V. Sathyamaiah's case (supra), the division Bench of this Court dealt with appreciation of evidence in faction cases and observed as follows: "amongst the factionists, blood-relationship is secondary while their loyalty to the faction and their desire to promote the interests of their faction are primary and paramount. It is not unusual for a factionist to take advantage of every situation and occurrence for damaging the interests of the opposite faction and there is an incurable tendency in the factionists to rope in the innocent members of the opposite faction along with the guilty and to twist and manipulate the facts in regard to the mode and manner of the occurrence so as to make their case appear true with the innocent members of the opposite faction also as participants in the occurrence and in factious cases, the manipulation in the personnel of the actors in a crime is extremely easy but difficult to refute and whenever there is any delay in the first report of a faction case, the court must be extremely chary and see if the delay was inevitable and unavoidable or if it was due to any deliberations for manipulation by the factionists. With a view to separate the possibility innocent from the really guilty, the Courts apply the overt act test. With a view to separate the possibility innocent from the really guilty, the Courts apply the overt act test. But, in a case where the Court finds that overtacts were attributed to the members of the opposite faction in a deliberately belated first report after considerable discussions, it may not be safe to conclude participation on the basis of overt-acts unless the perpetration of the overt act is proved by evidence of a highly reliable nature carrying conviction of truth in the mind of the Court. Where the occurrence is not witnessed by the members of the victim-faction, it would not be difficult for the factionists to note the injuries of the victim and attribute overt acts to the members of the opposite faction according to the degree of their illwill and importance of the members of the opposite faction. In such cases, even the test of corroboration of the ocular evidence by medical evidence cannot have much value. " Both the cited cases arose out of faction in rayalaseema Districts. The first one viz. , in Re, Poreddi Venkata Reddy's case (supra), relates to Kadapa District and the second one viz. , V. Satyamaiah 's case (supra), relates to Anantapur District in rayalaseema Region. As observed supra, kalapuram Village is a highly faction ridden village in Anantapur District and the faction was acute by the date of the incident in this case. In the instant case also main overt acts were attributed to the leader A-1 stating that at the first instance a-1 instigated A-12 to hurl bombs and then a-12 hurled bombs and thereafter A-1 instigated remaining accused to kill the deceased and further A-1 hacked the first blow on the right knee of the Deceased no. 2. In the background of the caution given in the above-cited two decisions of this Court, the evidence in the instant case is to be scrutinized with reference to the probabilities, medical evidence and other circumstances. ( 28 ) PW-1, (M. Bheema Linga Reddy)stated that on 22-12-1995 at about 9. 50 a. m. , himself, PWs. 2, 3, 6, Rama Mohan reddy and three deceased started at the house of their leader Deceased No. 2 to the first Bus Stop situate in Chowdamma temple in the village in order to go to pamidi for the purpose of purchase of fertilizers by catching a bus and reached the bus Stop at 9. 2, 3, 6, Rama Mohan reddy and three deceased started at the house of their leader Deceased No. 2 to the first Bus Stop situate in Chowdamma temple in the village in order to go to pamidi for the purpose of purchase of fertilizers by catching a bus and reached the bus Stop at 9. 55 a. m. , and after they reached the first Bus Stop, they came to know that no buses were plying and then they were determined to go to Pamidi by walk and proceeded towards Boyageri Bus stop and by the time they reached Pedda obulesu Kottam, they found all the accused out of whom A-12 was carrying bombs in a bag and on the instigation of A-1, A-12 hurled the bombs against them and the said bombs exploded with thundering sound and then himself, Deceased Nos. 2, 3, PWs. 3 and 6 ran towards eastern side i. e, towards Pamidi direction and the remaining deceased No. 1, PW-2 and Rama Mohan reddy ran back towards Kalapuram village and that A-1 instigated the remaining accused to kill them and further A-1 armed with hunting sickle hacked below the right knee of Deceased No. 2 and thereafter A-1 to A-5 who were armed with hunting sickles hacked the Deceased No. 2 indiscriminately on his throat, face, shoulder and chest. He further stated that at that time Deceased no. 1 also chastised them not to kill Deceased no. 2 and in the meanwhile A-6 who was armed with hunting sickle hacked deceased No. 3 and he fell on the ground facing downwards, then A-7 and A-8 along with A-6 hacked the Deceased No. 3 with sickles on his throat indiscriminately and also hacked on his right hand and head and that though he cried not to kill them, the accused hacked the Deceased No. 2 indiscriminately. He further stated that A-9 hacked Deceased No. 1 on his right below the knee and A-10, A-11, A-13 and A-14 surrounded Deceased No. 1 and hacked on his body indiscriminately with hunting sickles on the instigation of A-15. He further stated that he observed the entire incident and he was weeping and in the meantime, the villagers, his mother and brother came to the scene and then the accused ran away towards hillock and that thereafter while they were present at the dead bodies at about 11. He further stated that he observed the entire incident and he was weeping and in the meantime, the villagers, his mother and brother came to the scene and then the accused ran away towards hillock and that thereafter while they were present at the dead bodies at about 11. 30 a. m. , the Circle Inspector of police came to the scene of offence and recorded his statement Ex. P. 1. ( 29 ) PW-2 (K. Venkata Siva Reddy)also stated that himself, PWs. 1, 3, 6, Rama mohan Reddy and all the three deceased started at the house of PW-1 at about 9. 55 a. m. , to go to Pamidi for purchase of fertilizers and that they first went to the first bus Stop of Kalapuram, there they came to know that the buses were not plying, then they decided to go to Pamidi by walk and while they were proceeding the attack took place near the house of Pedda Obulesu and that at the instigation of A-1, A-12 hurled bombs and those bombs exploded and then himself, Deceased No. 1, Rama mohan Reddy stepped back towards his village; whereas Deceased Nos. 2, 3, PWs. 1, 3 and 6 proceeded towards Pamidi Village and that A-l hacked on the right leg below the knee of Deceased No. 2 and thereafter a-1 to A-5 hacked Deceased No. 2 on his chest, face, head across the left eye and right shoulder indiscriminately, A-6 hacked on the back side of the neck of the Deceased no. 3 and fell him down, then A-6 to A-8 hacked the Deceased No. 3 indiscriminately including head, thereafter A-15 instigated remaining accused to kill Deceased No. 1, then A-9 hacked on the right hand of deceased No. 1 and he fell down, then A-9, a-10, A-11, A-13 and A-14 hacked deceased No. 1 indiscriminately. Meanwhile the villagers and relatives came to the scene and the accused ran away towards southern side and at about 11. 45 a. m. , the Circle inspector of Police along with Pamidi Police came to the scene of offence and PW-1 gave report. ( 30 ) PW-3 (Prabhakar Reddy) also stated that all of them started at the house of PW-1 at 9. 45 a. m. , the Circle inspector of Police along with Pamidi Police came to the scene of offence and PW-1 gave report. ( 30 ) PW-3 (Prabhakar Reddy) also stated that all of them started at the house of PW-1 at 9. 55 a. m. , to the first Bus Stop and after they reached first Bus Stop, they came to know that no buses were plying and therefore they decided to go to Pamidi by walk and by the time they reached the house of Pedda Obulesu, they found all the accused and that A-1 instigated the remaining accused to attack them and that a-12 was armed with bombs and at the instigation of A-1, A-12 hurled the bombs and the bombs exploded and after the explosion himself, PWs. 1, 6, Deceased 2 and 3 ran towards Pamidi while Deceased no. 1, PW-2, Rama Mohan Reddy went towards Kalapuram and that A-1 hacked with sickles on the right leg below knee of deceased No. 2 while A-1 to A-5 surrounded deceased No. 2 and hacked him with sickles on his head, face and that A-6 to A-8 hacked with their sickles on the body of deceased No. 3 and also on his head, throat and on his right hand, thereafter A-9, A-10, a-11, A-13 and A-14 armed with sickles hacked Deceased No. 1 and thereafter all the accused proceeded towards Southern side hillocks and that while himself and other witnesses were weeping at the dead bodies, at about 11. 40 a. m. , the Circle inspector of Police came there and recorded the statement of PW-1. ( 31 ) AS seen from the above narrated evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, all of them have stated in a parrot like manner consistently with minute particulars. Merely because their evidence is inconsistent in all the particulars including the minute particulars, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that it is reliable and trustworthy. It is the common phenomenon in faction cases that the witnesses would be tutored thoroughly before putting them into the witness box. In this case PWs. 1 to 3 are examined nearly seven years after the occurrence. Yet they gave minute particulars also consistently. It is not possible to give such consistent evidence unless they are tutored. It is the common phenomenon in faction cases that the witnesses would be tutored thoroughly before putting them into the witness box. In this case PWs. 1 to 3 are examined nearly seven years after the occurrence. Yet they gave minute particulars also consistently. It is not possible to give such consistent evidence unless they are tutored. So their evidence has to be scrutinized with reference to probabilities, medical evidence and other circumstances of the case. ( 32 ) FIRSTLY according to PWs. 1 to 3 the purpose for which they wanted to go to pamidi is for purchase of fertilizers. The learned Counsel pointed out the improbability of the purpose contending that the incident took place during December, which is harvesting season and no ryot, would purchase fertilizers during that season. He also pointed out the circumstance that none of the deceased were found in possession of any cash required for purchase of fertilizers basing on the admission of PW-11 inspector of Police. A suggestion was put to PW-1 that the crops will be harvested in the month of December and there was no necessity to purchase fertilizers in the month of December. Of course, the said suggestion was denied. In spite of such suggestion nothing was elicited by the prosecution in the evidence of other witnesses about the necessity of purchase of fertilizers during december. Coupled with the absence of money found in possession of the deceased it lends corroboration to the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that the purpose of going to Pamidi appears to have been invented. ( 33 ) PWS. 1 to 4 admitted that there is only one bus from their village to go to pamidi. The timings of the said bus have been elicited in the cross-examination of pws. 2 and 4. PW-2 stated that the bus comes from Nagasamudram to go to Pamidi and it makes four trips a day i. e. , at 6. 00 a. m. , in the morning from Nagasamudram to go to Pamidi, again at 9. 30 a. m. , 12. 00 noon and at 6. 00 p. m. PW-4 the other son of Deceased No. 2 also in his cross-examination stated that only one bus was plying from Pamidi via Kalapuram four times a day and it reaches the Bus Stop at kalapuram at 6. 00 a. m. , 9. 30 a. m. , 12. 00 noon and at 6. 00 p. m. PW-4 the other son of Deceased No. 2 also in his cross-examination stated that only one bus was plying from Pamidi via Kalapuram four times a day and it reaches the Bus Stop at kalapuram at 6. 00 a. m. , 9. 40 a. m. , 12. 30 noon and 4. 30 p. m. From the above admissions it is clear that the bus comes to kalapuram Bus Stop at 9. 30 or 9. 40 a. m. , in the morning. But, PWs. l to 4 in a parrot like manner stated that all the three deceased, PWs. 1 to 3, 6 and Rama Mohan reddy started at the house of the Deceased no. 2 at 9. 50 a. m. , to go to the first Bus stop to catch the bus. The version that all of them started at 9. 50 a. m. , at the house of PW-2 to the Bus Stop and reaching the bus Stop at 9. 55 a. m. , looks highly improbable, as the scheduled time of the bus is 9. 30 a. m. It is not the case of pws. l to 3 that even while they were at the house of Deceased No. 2 they came to know that the buses were not plying and therefore they started at the house of deceased No. 2 to go to Pamidi by walk. On the other hand, it is their evidence that till they reached the first Bus Stop at 9. 55 a. m. , they did not know that the buses were not plying on that day. In fact, PW-1 in his cross-examination stated that there were about 8 to 10 persons at the first Bus Stop and those persons informed them that the bus was not coming on that day. When he was questioned whether those eight persons who furnished the information that the bus was not plying followed them towards Pamidi by walk, he stated that they did not follow them. None of those persons have been examined at least to show that all these persons including the three deceased persons came to the Bus Stop at 9. 55 a. m. , in order to prove that PWs. 1 to 3 were in the company of the deceased on that day near the scene of offence. None of those persons have been examined at least to show that all these persons including the three deceased persons came to the Bus Stop at 9. 55 a. m. , in order to prove that PWs. 1 to 3 were in the company of the deceased on that day near the scene of offence. PW-1 and Deceased No. 1 are son and father. There is no special reason for both PW-1 and his father-deceased No. 2 to go to Pamidi to purchase fertilizers. Generally only one member in the family would go to nearby town for such purpose. ( 34 ) FURTHER as seen from the medical evidence of PW-8 the contents of stomach of three deceased disclosed that the colan contained feacal matter and the bladder of two of the dead bodies contained 100 ml of urine. According to the admission of the doctor, generally a person releases feacal matter in the early hours and when the bladder is full of 100 ml of urine, in general the said condition will be prevailing in wee hours. It is elicited from PW-4 the son of Deceased No. 2 that his father was hale and healthy on the date of his death and that his father used to attend calls of nature during early hours. It is not the case of the prosecution that all the deceased were suffering from constipation. The circumstance of presence of feacal matter in the colan of the deceased coupled with the opinion of the doctor and also the admission of PW-4 regarding the habit of the Deceased No. 2 to answer calls of nature in the early hours lends support to the contention of the defence Counsel that in all probability the occurrence must have taken place not at 10. 00 a. m. , but in the early hours. ( 35 ) OF course, the learned Public prosecutor relied upon observations of the apex Court in Ram Bali's case (supra), wherein it is observed in Paragraph 11 that the state of the contents of the stomach found at the time of medical examination is not a safe guide for determining the time of occurrence because that would be a matter of speculation, in the absence of reliable evidence on the question as to when exactly the deceased had his last meal and what that meal consisted of. But, the facts of the cited case are not similar to the facts of this case. In that case the point considered was only about the semi-digested food found in the stomach of the deceased at the time of death. The Apex Court observed that the time taken normally for digesting of food would also depend upon the quality and quantity of food as well, besides others and it was required to be factually proved as to the quantum of food that was taken, atmospheric conditions and such other relevant factors to throw doubt about the occurrence as stated by the witnesses. In that context, the Apex Court observed that only when the ocular evidence is wholly inconsistent with the medical evidence the Court has to consider the effect thereof. In the instant case, the circumstance relied on by the defence Counsel is not semi digested food but the presence of feacal matter and full of urine in the bladders and also the habit of Deceased No. 2 to answer calls of nature in the early hours as admitted by PW-1. Thus, the facts of the cited case are not similar to the facts of this case and hence the observation made by the Apex Court in the cited case does not come to the aid of the prosecution in this case. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on another decision of the Apex Court in state of U. P. 's case (supra), wherein the Apex Court observed that presence of semi-digested food in stomach of deceased is not absolute proof of fact that the deceased died before he had opportunity to answer nature's call i. e. , before day break. The facts of that case are also not similar to the facts of this case because in the cited case there were two injured witnesses and they categorically stated that the occurrence took place at 9. 30 a. m. , and there was no successful challenge of that evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 who are injured witnesses and that their presence was established by other independent evidence. Under those circumstances, the Apex Court held that on the basis of the presence of the semi-digested food in the stomach of the deceased, the oral evidence of injured witnesses regarding the time of the incident cannot be brushed aside. But, here in the instant case, none of the alleged eyewitnesses pws. Under those circumstances, the Apex Court held that on the basis of the presence of the semi-digested food in the stomach of the deceased, the oral evidence of injured witnesses regarding the time of the incident cannot be brushed aside. But, here in the instant case, none of the alleged eyewitnesses pws. 1 to 3 received any injuries and their very presence is disputed and in order to decide about their presence or otherwise, the probabilities are being considered. Further in the cited case the apex Court did not state that such a probability cannot at all be considered for determining the time of the incident. On the other hand, in Paragraph 16 the Apex court observed that this is a probability, which can be utilized for the purpose of determining the time of incident, provided there is no other acceptable evidence. Further in the cited case the Apex Court observed that there was no material to show on record as to the possibility of deceased having or not having an opportunity to answer the calls of nature before his death and that it is not as if every human being without exception goes to ease himself first thing on the day break and there may be innumerable reasons not to do so and therefore presence of semi-digested food in the stomach of the deceased is not an absolute proof of the fact that the deceased must have died before the day break. Here in the instant case it is elicited from PW-4 the son of Deceased No. 2 that his father used to answer calls of nature in the early hours. Further in the instant case, the stomach of all the three deceased contained feacal matter and bladders were also full in two cases and therefore the decision in the cited case cannot be applied to the facts of this case. Thus, this decision also does not come to the aid of the prosecution in this case. ( 36 ) COMING to the evidence regarding the attack, according to PWs. l to 3 by the time they reached the house of Pedda obulesu, they were attacked. PW-1 stated that he saw the accused when they were at a distance of 40 to 50 feet towards North of Pedda Obulesu Kottam, which is situated on the northern side of the road running north-south. l to 3 by the time they reached the house of Pedda obulesu, they were attacked. PW-1 stated that he saw the accused when they were at a distance of 40 to 50 feet towards North of Pedda Obulesu Kottam, which is situated on the northern side of the road running north-south. PW-2 stated that he saw the accused for the first time when the accused were at a distance of 40 yards at the kottam of Pedda Obulesu. Pw-3 stated that for the first time he saw the accused at the house of Pedda Obulesu at a distance of 40 yards from them. According to him he saw the accused when he and others were at the Bus Stop situate near the house of Pedda Obulesu. According to PWs. 1 to 3, A-12 hurled bomb at them on the instigation of A-1 and the said bomb exploded at a distance of about 5 or 6 feet from them. PW-1 stated that the bomb exploded at a distance of 5 feet from him. PW-2 stated that the bomb exploded at a distance of 5 or 6 feet from him. PW-3 also stated that it exploded at a distance of 5 to 6 feet from him. But curiously enough all of them have stated that they did not receive any splinter injuries. PW-1 stated that after explosion of bomb they expected danger to their lives, but at the same time they stated that in spite of explosion they did not try to run away to save their lives and that his father stood there itself even after the explosion and that himself and others proceeded forward. PW-2 stated that he found all the accused armed with hunting sickles from a distance of 40 yards and they were afraid on seeing the sickles, but yet they did not try to run away from that place. PW-3 stated that the accused raised their sickles while approaching them and in spite of it they never run away due to fear. He further stated that they did not raise cries even after the explosion of bomb. The conduct of these witnesses PWs. 1 to 3 is highly improbable to believe. PW-3 stated that the accused raised their sickles while approaching them and in spite of it they never run away due to fear. He further stated that they did not raise cries even after the explosion of bomb. The conduct of these witnesses PWs. 1 to 3 is highly improbable to believe. If really they accompanied the deceased and they saw the Accused 1 to 15 armed with hunting sickles from such a distance of 40 to 50 yards, they would not have failed to run away to save their lives, as admittedly they were unarmed. At least even after the explosion of bomb, they would not have failed to run away to save their lives. Their evidence that they did not try to run away even after the explosion of bomb is highly improbable. The evidence that the bomb exploded only at a distance of 5 to 6 feet from them, and in spite of it they did not receive any injuries is also highly improbable to believe. Had they really been attacked in the manner stated by them, they should have necessarily received splinter injuries and they should have immediately run away to save their lives as there was sufficient time for them to run away as according to them the accused were found at a distance of 40 to 50 yards. ( 37 ) FURTHER according to PWs. l to 3, pws. 1, 3, Deceased Nos. 2 and 3 proceeded towards east while the Deceased No. 1 and pw-2 returned back towards South. As seen from the sketch, the three deceased were not attacked at the same place and they were attacked at three different places. The dead body of the Deceased No. 1 was found in front of the house of one P. Sunkanna at a distance of 13 feet from the house and 12 feet from the road towards north. The dead body of the Deceased no. 2 was found exactly on the road in front of Boyageri Bus Stop and the distance between the dead bodies of Deceased Nos. 1 and 2 is 39 feet. The dead body of the deceased No. 3 was found on the road itself towards east of the dead body of the deceased No. 2. at a distance of 55 feet. According to PWs. 1 and 2 is 39 feet. The dead body of the deceased No. 3 was found on the road itself towards east of the dead body of the deceased No. 2. at a distance of 55 feet. According to PWs. 1 to 3 all the three deceased were attacked simultaneously by three different groups of the accused. But yet all these witnesses have stated that they witnessed the attack on each of the three deceased. It is not as if they were mere onlookers unconnected with the faction and therefore they could see the attack leisurely. Admittedly the accused belonged to the opposite faction and they were armed with deadly weapons and they hurled bombs against these people also. Under those circumstances, while they were running for their lives, it is impossible for them to witness the simultaneous attack on all the three deceased though the three deceased were attacked at three different places at a considerable distance. As per PWs. 1 and 3, they ran towards east and Deceased No. 3 was behind them. So PWs. 1 and 3 were on further east of the place where the dead body of Deceased No. 3 was found. As per the sketch the dead body of the Deceased no. 2 was on the west of the dead body of the Deceased No. 3 at a distance of 55 feet and the dead body of Deceased No. 1 was on the north-west of the dead body of the deceased No. 2 at a distance 39 feet. So, pws. l and 3 must have been at a considerable distance from the dead body of the Deceased No. 3. So the distance between PWs. 1 and 3 and the place where the Deceased No. 1 was attacked must have been more than about 120 feet and the distance between them and the place where deceased No. 2 was attacked must have been about 100 feet. The version of PWs. 1 to 3 that they witnessed the attack on the deceased 1 to 3 is highly improbable to believe as it is impossible for them to witness the attack on the Deceased 1 to 3 and to identify the assailants on each of the deceased and also to point out the place at which the accused dealt blows on the deceased. Further according to them they did not try to go to the rescue of the deceased and they did not even try to hurl stones on the accused from a distance or to raise cries to attract the attention of their party men or other villagers to come to the aid of the deceased. Had PWs. 1 to 3 been really present at the time of attack on deceased 1 to 3 who were closely related to them, they would not have behaved in the manner in which they said to have behaved. In this regard, the learned Public prosecutor invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Balbir Singh's case (supra), wherein the Apex Court held that the presence of the son cannot be disbelieved on the ground that he did not intervene while his father was being attacked. In that case the deceased and the witness were strangers to the village where the incident took place and the deceased and the witness had no acquaintance with that locality people. In that case there were none others other than the deceased and his son to come to the rescue of the deceased. But, here in the instant case, according to the prosecution five persons other than the three deceased belonging to the same faction were together going at the time of attack and the attack took place in front of several residential houses situated on either side of the road where the attack took place. PWs. 1 to 3 are young people aged 35 years, 30 years and 32 years respectively. There were two more persons viz. , Rama mohan Reddy and PW-6 (Ranga Reddy)according to the prosecution. When five persons were there other than the deceased when the attack took place, those persons would not have simply ran away leaving their leader and also close relations without even raising cries or hurling stones to prevent the accused from attacking the deceased. Therefore, the facts of this case cannot be equated with the facts in the cited case. Thus, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 looks improbable. As seen from the sketch map, it is clear that there are residential houses on either side of the road. Therefore, the facts of this case cannot be equated with the facts in the cited case. Thus, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 looks improbable. As seen from the sketch map, it is clear that there are residential houses on either side of the road. Had they really been present, they would not have failed to go to the rescue of the deceased in which case they too must have received injuries or at least they would not have failed to hurl stones from a distance or raise loud cries in order to attract the villagers and the neighbouring residents to come to the rescue of the deceased. It is in the evidence of the Inspector of Police that there are residential houses on either side of the road where the attack took place. ( 38 ) REGARDING the manner of causing injuries to the deceased, PWs. 1 to 3 stated that all the accused used hunting sickles to cause injuries to Deceased 1 to 3. As seen from the medical evidence of PW-8 there were different types of injuries on the dead bodies of the deceased viz. , transverse incised, obigque incised, incised injuries and chopped incised injuries. PW-8 in his cross-examination stated that the transverse injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report are possible with long blade heavy weapon and that injuries 6 and 7 on Deceased No. 2 could have been caused by a butchered knife and Injury No. 17 on Deceased No. 2 could have been possible with a weapon having sharp edged blade. Similarly a sharp edged weapon having long blade could have caused the Injuries 1 to 4 on Deceased no. 1. Similarly in respect of Injury No. 1 on deceased No. 1 it could have been caused by dagger or knife and the Injuries 3 to 5 on Deceased No. 1 could have been caused by sharp edged heavy weapon with long blade. PW-8 further stated that hunting sickle is a curved weapon having curved portion of one or two inches and that Injuries 1 to 7 on Deceased No. 2 could have been caused by butchered straight weapon. Similarly injuries 1 to 9 on Deceased No. 1 could have been caused by straight heavy weapon and that Injuries 1, 3, 4 an 5 on Deceased no. 3 could have been caused with cutting butchered straight weapon. Similarly injuries 1 to 9 on Deceased No. 1 could have been caused by straight heavy weapon and that Injuries 1, 3, 4 an 5 on Deceased no. 3 could have been caused with cutting butchered straight weapon. Thus, the medical evidence also does not corroborate the version of PWs. 1 to 3 regarding the weapons used by the accused to cause injuries on the deceased 1 to 3. Besides that we have already observed supra that the feacal matter found in the colan of all the three deceased and 100 ml urine found in the bladders of two of the deceased improbabalises the version of PWs. 1 to 3 that the occurrence took place at 10. 00 a. m. Thus, the medical evidence also does not corroborate the oral testimony of partisan witnesses PWs. 1 to 3. On the other hand to some extent the medical evidence belies the oral testimony of PWs. 1 to 3. ( 39 ) FURTHER the conduct of PWs. 1 to 3 in keeping quiet without either going to the police Station for giving report or sending somebody with a report to the Police Station also looks improbable. According to PWs. 1 to 3 they remained there at the dead bodies till the Inspector of Police came to the scene of offence. According to them, the inspector of Police came to the scene of offence by 11. 30 a. m. The Inspector of police who is examined as PW-11 stated that he worked as Inspector of Police, dharmavaram Urban Circle from 5-5-1995 to 1-8-1996 and during the month of december, 1995 he was kept in charge of the Gooty Circle from 10-12-1995 and on 22-12-1995 at about 11. 15 a. m. , while he was in the Circle Office, Gooty he received information about the murders and immediately he collected available staff from gooty Police Station and proceeded to pamidi Police Station in police jeep and reached Pamidi by 11. 40 a. m. , and secured more police from Pamidi Police Station and left Pamidi Police Station at 11. 50 a. m. , to kalapuram and he found large number of people gathered at Kalapuram around the three dead bodies and with the assistance of the staff, he dispersed the crown and secured the presence of PW-1 and recorded his statement Ex. P-1 and completed recording of it at 1. 50 a. m. , to kalapuram and he found large number of people gathered at Kalapuram around the three dead bodies and with the assistance of the staff, he dispersed the crown and secured the presence of PW-1 and recorded his statement Ex. P-1 and completed recording of it at 1. 20 p. m. , and endorsed the same directing the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pamidi to register it as Crime No. 78 of 1995 under sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and also under Sections 3 and 5 of e. S. Act. ( 40 ) THE then Sub-Inspector of Police, pamidi Police Station who is examined as pw-13 stated that on 22-12-1995 when he was in crime meeting at Anantapur, he received information through V. H. F. set from head Constable-869 stating that murders took place in Kalapuram Village and he immediately rushed to the Police Station and at about 1. 20 p. m. , the Inspector of Police contacted him on V. H. F. set and enquired the crime number and he informed the next crime number as 78 of 1995 to the Inspector of Police and that on receipt of Ex. P-1 from Kalapuram he registered the same as crime No. 78 of 1995 as directed by the circle Inspector of Police and that at about 2. 30 p. m. , he reached Kalapuram and assisted the Circle Inspector of Police in investigation. According to the Inspector of police, he completed the recording of statement of PW-1 at 1. 20 p. m. As seen from the F. I. R. Ex. P-10 the time of receipt of information in the Police Station is noted as 1. 45 p. m. , and the time of offence is noted as 10. 00 a. m. , and the distance between the place of occurrence and the police Station is 6 Kms. As seen from the endorsement of the Magistrate on the F. I. R. Ex. P-10, the Sub-Inspector of Police himself personally handed over the same to the magistrate and the Magistrate received the same at 4. 50 p. m. , on 22-12-1995 at Gooty. As seen from the admission of Inspector of police the distance between Pamidi Police station and Gooty where the Magistrate court is situate is about 10 Kms. and both the places are situate on National Highway no. 7. 50 p. m. , on 22-12-1995 at Gooty. As seen from the admission of Inspector of police the distance between Pamidi Police station and Gooty where the Magistrate court is situate is about 10 Kms. and both the places are situate on National Highway no. 7. Therefore, if really the F. I. R. Ex. P-10 was registered at 1. 45 p. m. , it should have reached the Magistrate at about 2. 00 p. m. , or at least by 2. 30 p. m. But as the report reached the Magistrate at 4. 50 p. m. , ex. P-1 appears to have been registered at about 4. 00 p. m. The contention of the defence Counsel is that the report appears to have been brought into existence at the police Station after the arrival of the inspector of Police after suppressing the earlier information after due deliberations and that is the reason why the crime number is also noted in the endorsement made on ex. P-1. Of course, the Inspector of Police in his evidence stated that after recording the statement of PW-1 at the scene of offence, he contacted Pamidi Police Station through V. H. F. set and obtained the next crime number from the Sub-Inspector of police and then made an endorsement directing the Sub-Inspector of Police to register the Ex. P-1 as Crime No. 78 of 1995. But, he failed to explain as to why he had to find out the crime number and as to why he had given the direction for recording the crime number also in his endorsement. Further according to the Sub-Inspector of police after he received information, he returned back to Pamidi Police Station, obviously in order to go to the scene of offence. The Sub-Inspector of Police remained there in the Police Station, Pamidi without going to the scene of offence at kalapuram from 1. 20 p. m. , till the completion of registration of the crime. It is improbable to believe that the Sub-Inspector of Police remained there in the Police Station without rushing to the scene of offence just for the purpose of registration of the report Ex. P-1. Admittedly the Head Constable was present in the Police Station. The Head Constable can register Ex. P-1 statement and send express F. I. Rs. to the Sub-Inspector of police and to the Circle Inspector of Police to Kalapuram Village. P-1. Admittedly the Head Constable was present in the Police Station. The Head Constable can register Ex. P-1 statement and send express F. I. Rs. to the Sub-Inspector of police and to the Circle Inspector of Police to Kalapuram Village. Moreover, three murders took place and the situation was tense in the village according to the Inspector of Police, and the Inspector of Police had to conduct inquest over the three dead bodies. Under those circumstances, it is improbable to believe that the Sub-Inspector of Police remained there at Pamidi Police Station itself without proceeding to Kalapuram after his return from Anantapur just to inform the circle Inspector of Police through V. H. F. set the next crime number and then wait for Ex. P-1 to be received in the Police station and to register the same. There was no necessity for the Inspector of Police to find out the next crime number and to specifically mention the same in his endorsement made on Ex. P-1. It is not lawful also to give such direction to the Sub-Inspector of Police to register the said report as a particular crime number, because the crime numbers are to be registered in seriatim depending upon the time of the registration. If some other information relating to cognizable offence is received before ex. P-1 reaches the Police Station from kalapuram, the Station House Officer, pamidi has to necessarily register that information first giving next crime number viz. , Crime No. 78 of 1995 and he cannot keep one F. I. R. number vacant in the F. I. R. Register for the purpose of recording registration of Ex. P-1. Further the Inspector of Police did not mention in his case diary about his ascertaining crime numbers through v. H. F. set etc. The improbable conduct of these police officers lends support to the contention of the defence Counsel that there was something fishy in the matter and that in all probability Ex. P-1 was brought into existence at the Police Station just before registration. ( 41 ) IT is found supra that the report ex. P-1 appears to have been registered at 4. 00 p. m. Even if the time of the offence is taken as 10. 00 a. m. , there was delay of six hours in reporting the matter to the police. ( 41 ) IT is found supra that the report ex. P-1 appears to have been registered at 4. 00 p. m. Even if the time of the offence is taken as 10. 00 a. m. , there was delay of six hours in reporting the matter to the police. If the evidence of Inspector of Police is taken as true, PW-1 gave report only at 1. 00 or 1. 20 p. m. Even if it is assumed that the incident took place at 10. 00 a. m. , PW-1 kept quiet without giving any report for a period at least 3 to 5 hours. As Kalapuram village is a faction village and there were criminal cases including murder cases reported from that village, PWs. 1 to 3 must have been aware of the importance of prompt reporting of the matter to the police. The only explanation for their failure to give report in the Police Station is that they remained at the dead bodies weeping touching the dead bodies. They have gone to the extent of stating that on account of touching the dead bodies their clothes also became bloodstained. But the Inspector of police admitted that the presence of bloodstains on the clothes of the witnesses or otherwise is an important circumstance and that his observation did not disclose any bloodstains on the clothes of the witnesses. This admission of the Inspector of Police belies the version of PWs. 1 to 3 that they were weeping touching the dead bodies and therefore they did not go to the Police Station to report the matter. Even if it is assumed that they were in grief and could not go to police Station, nothing prevented them to send their party men or family members to go to the Police Station to inform the manner in which the incident took place. In all probability the prosecution party people must have gone to the Police Station and reported the matter. Only on such information, the head Constable must have informed the inspector of Police and the Sub-Inspector of Police. The Head Constable must have noted the information in the general diary of the Police Station also. The prosecution did not choose to examine the said Head constable who is an important witness who received the information at the earliest point of time about the murders. The Head Constable must have noted the information in the general diary of the Police Station also. The prosecution did not choose to examine the said Head constable who is an important witness who received the information at the earliest point of time about the murders. When the inspector of Police was questioned whether he verified the general diary after reaching the Police Station, the Inspector of Police gave evasive answers stating that there is no necessity for him to look into general diary of Pamidi Police Station before he left for Kalapuram. He has gone to the extent of stating that there was no necessity even to examine the Head Constable who informed him about the murders stating that he did not enquire the head constable whether he had any further information other than the information passed on through v. H. F. set. This evidence of Inspector of police cannot be believed. If the Inspector of Police considered it unnecessary to inspect the general diary and to examine the Head constable who gave him information, it is ununderstandable as to why the Inspector of Police had to go to the Police Station, pamidi instead of rushing straight to kalapuram Village where the incident took place. In spite of a specific suggestion put to the Inspector of Police that the general diary entry has been suppressed the prosecution did not choose to produce the general diary of the Police Station nor did the prosecution choose to examine the Head constable. The contention of the defence counsel is that the Head Constable appears to have received definite information about the murders and the same was entered in the general diary on the basis of the different report and that after arrival of the Inspector of Police the alleged information was suppressed and Ex. P-1 was brought into existence and that is the reason why the inspector of Police was conscious to mention the crime number in the report Ex. P-1 itself though the said endorsement said to have made at Kalapuram Village. ( 42 ) IN view of the conduct of the police officers referred supra and the non-examination of Head Constable and also the conduct of PWs. 1 to 3 it gives rise any amount of suspicion regarding the manner in which Ex. P-1 was registered. P-1 itself though the said endorsement said to have made at Kalapuram Village. ( 42 ) IN view of the conduct of the police officers referred supra and the non-examination of Head Constable and also the conduct of PWs. 1 to 3 it gives rise any amount of suspicion regarding the manner in which Ex. P-1 was registered. Further the inspector of Police in the cross-examination stated that there are residential houses on either side of the road where the incident took place and that he examined number of people with reference to incident in and around the locality and none came forward to depose about the incriminating evidence. Obviously what the Inspector of Police meant by incriminating evidence is the evidence in support of the version given in Ex. P-1. Probably the probable and natural witnesses of the locality did not choose to support the version given in Ex. P-1. Though the independent witnesses may not come forward to speak about the names of the assailants or the manner of the attack, at least the independent witnesses should have been examined to speak about the presence of PWs. 1 to 3 in the company of three deceased while the deceased were going from the house of Deceased No. 2 to the first Bus Stop. According to PW-1 there are number of residential houses on the way from the house of Deceased No. 2 to the first Bus Stop. PW-1 further stated that there were 7 or 8 people waiting in the first bus Stop when they went there and those persons informed them that the buses were not plying. At least those persons could have been examined to speak about PWs. 1to 3 in the company of the deceased. ( 43 ) FURTHER, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5 suffered from omissions and contradictions also. As seen from the evidence of PW-1 he denied having stated before the police as in Exs. D-1 to D-4. But, the Inspector of police asserted that PW-1 stated before him in his examination under Section 161 cr. P. C. as in Exs. D-1 to D-4. The Inspector of Police further stated that PW-1 did not state before him that A-9 hacked Deceased no. D-1 to D-4. But, the Inspector of police asserted that PW-1 stated before him in his examination under Section 161 cr. P. C. as in Exs. D-1 to D-4. The Inspector of Police further stated that PW-1 did not state before him that A-9 hacked Deceased no. 1 on the right leg below the knee and similarly PW-1 did not state about the specific overt acts with reference to injuries on the body of his father Deceased No. 2 except the overt acts attributed to A-1. He also did not state that A-1 instigated A-9, a-10, A-11, A-13 and A-14 and further pw-1 did not state before him that the accused waved their sickles in the air in jubilation while going away from the place. ( 44 ) SIMILARLY PW-2 denied having stated as in Ex. D-5. But the Inspector of Police asserted that PW-2 stated before him as in ex. D-5. PW-11 further stated that PW-2 did not state before him that A-1 to A-5 hacked Deceased No. 2 on his face and did not state before him that A-9 hacked on the right ankle of Deceased No. 1 and he also did not state that A-15 instigated other accused to hack Deceased No. 1. ( 45 ) SIMILARLY PW-3 denied having stated before the police as in Exs. D-6, D-7 and d-8. But, the Inspector of Police asserted that PW-3 stated before him as in Exs. D-6 to D-8. Similarly Inspector of Police stated that PW-3 did not state before him that a-1 to A-5 hacked on the face of the deceased No. 2 and that A-9 hacked on the right ankle of Deceased No. 3. ( 46 ) SIMILARLY PW-4 the other son of the deceased also denied having stated before the police as in Exs. D-9, D-10 and d-11. The Inspector of Police asserted that pw-4 stated before him as in Exs. D-9, D-10 and D-11. ( 47 ) SIMILARLY PW-5 the wife of deceased No. l denied having stated before the police as in Exs. D-12, D-13 and D-14. The Inspector of Police asserted that PW-5 stated before him as in Ex. D-12 to D-14. ( 48 ) THUS, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5 suffered from contradictions and omissions. Curiously enough PWs. 1 to 5 are consistent in their contradictions and omissions also, which indicates the tutored nature of the evidence. D-12, D-13 and D-14. The Inspector of Police asserted that PW-5 stated before him as in Ex. D-12 to D-14. ( 48 ) THUS, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5 suffered from contradictions and omissions. Curiously enough PWs. 1 to 5 are consistent in their contradictions and omissions also, which indicates the tutored nature of the evidence. All these partisan witnesses PWs. 1 to 5 have stated before the police at the time of their examination under Section 161 cr. P. C. that A-1 to A-15 and some others armed with hunting sickles committed murders and ran away. During the course of the evidence they have stated that they did not state before the police that some others also participated in the occurrence. Further in the report Ex. P-1 also it is stated that some others other than A-1 to A-15 had hunting sickles in their hands as is evident from Ex. D-2. Similarly he had stated in the report Ex. P-1 that Prabhakar Reddy and K. Rangareddy ran towards southern side. He denied having stated so in the report for obvious reasons, which indicates that he has no regard for truth. Moreover, as seen from the report Ex. P-1, the present version of all of them, that first they went to the first Bus Stop situate in front of the Temple in their village and after going there people present there informed them that the buses were not plying that day and then they decided to go to Pamidi by walk and while so going on the way near boyegiri Bus Stop they were attacked, does not find place in the report Ex. P-1. On the other hand, it is stated in Ex. P-1 that when they went to the Bus Stop with an intention to go to Pamidi they were attacked. As the Bus Stop nearer to the house of prosecution party is not Boyegiri bus Stop and it is the other Bus Stop situated in the village, the prosecution witnesses appear to have realized that going to Boyegiri Bus Stop to go to Pamidi looks improbable and therefore all the witnesses pws. As the Bus Stop nearer to the house of prosecution party is not Boyegiri bus Stop and it is the other Bus Stop situated in the village, the prosecution witnesses appear to have realized that going to Boyegiri Bus Stop to go to Pamidi looks improbable and therefore all the witnesses pws. 1 to 3 consistently changed the version and stated that they first went to the Bus Stop situate in front of the Temple from the house of PW-1 and after going there they came to know that the buses were not plying on that day and then they decided to go to Pamidi by walk and in order to go to Pamidi by walk they have to necessarily pass Boyegiri Bus Stop and by the time they reached Boyegiri Bus Stop, they were attacked. If really the attack took place in the manner now stated by PWs. 1to 3, pw-1 would not have stated in the report Ex. P-1 that when they went to Bus stop in order to go to Pamidi, they were attacked. Further some of the overt acts now stated by PWs. 1 to 3 were not stated either in the report Ex. P-1 or in their 161 cr. P. C. , statements. PWs. 1 to 3 have consistently developed their version in order to attribute specific overt acts to some of the accused. In this context, it is useful to note the admission of PW-1 that all the accused-A-1 to A-15 are the important persons in the opposite faction. As seen from their earlier statements, it is clear that they wanted to implicate some more persons of their opposite faction at a later stage and therefore they have stated that other than A-1 to A-15, some more persons were there with hunting sickles. Apprehending that it may be contended on behalf of the accused that those some other persons might have been responsible for killing the accused, they wanted to restrict the assailants only to A-1 to A-15 and consistently denied having stated before the police that some others armed with hunting sickles participated in the attack. These contradictions and omissions in this case indicate that these witnesses are not reliable witnesses and they have no regard for whole truth. These contradictions and omissions in this case indicate that these witnesses are not reliable witnesses and they have no regard for whole truth. ( 49 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution A-1 to A-15 and others were waiting near peddaobulesu Kottam situate on the north of the road leading to Pamidi. The road leading to Pamidi on which the deceased and prosecution witnesses were said to have been proceeding runs east-west. There are residential houses near the said kottam where the accused said to have gathered. It is elicited from the evidence of pw-1 that none of the residents of that locality are inimical to them. Under those circumstances, it is improbable to believe that the accused party more than 15 in number armed with hunting sickles gathered at that place at about 10. 00 a. m. , as there is every possibility for the residents of that locality to send information to the deceased and the prosecution witnesses. Further the deceased 1 to 3 and prosecution witnesses went to that Boyagiri Bus Stop only by chance as they took that decision to go to pamidi by walk only after going to the first stop in order to board the bus. Had the bus was plying on that day, there was no need for the deceased party to go to Boyagiri bus Stop by walk. Further it is also improbable to believe that the accused party planned and attacked the deceased during broad day light at that time especially the deceased 1 to 3 were accompanied by five more persons belonging to the party of the deceased. Further as seen from Ex. P-1 it is stated by PW-1 that all the accused came on to the road and after going to the road, a-1 instigated A-12 to hurl bombs and then a-12 hurled the bombs. But for obvious reasons they changed their version during the course of evidence that A-12 hurled bombs from near Obulesu Kottam and it exploded on the road. If the accused had come to the road before hurling bomb, the question of Deceased Nos. 2 and 3 and pws. 1 and 3 running towards Pamidi does not arise as they should also return towards the village in the same manner in which deceased No. 1 and PW-2 ran back. Further the explosion mark was found on the road. In view of all these circumstances, PWs. 2 and 3 and pws. 1 and 3 running towards Pamidi does not arise as they should also return towards the village in the same manner in which deceased No. 1 and PW-2 ran back. Further the explosion mark was found on the road. In view of all these circumstances, PWs. 1 to 3 developed their version during the course of evidence stating that the bomb was hurled from near the Pedda Obulesu Kottam situated on the north of the road. All the above improbabilities are taken into consideration cumulatively coupled with the delay in giving report and also the opinion of the doctor regarding the stomach contents it gives rise any amount of doubt regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place and the presence of PWs. 1 to 3 at the time of the attack on the deceased. The said doubt shall go in favour of the accused as there is every possibility for the factionists of Rayalaseema districts to rope the innocent persons of their opposite faction, there is no scope for removing the chaff from the grain in this case as the very presence of PWs. 1 to 3 at the time of attack on Deceased Nos. 1 to 3 is doubtful. If the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 is excluded, there is no other evidence to prove any of the charge framed against the accused. ( 50 ) EVEN if it is assumed that PWs. 1 to 3 were present in the company of the deceased 1 to 3 at the time of attack, their evidence does not inspire confidence in view of their improbable conduct and also in view of the delay in giving the report to the police and also in view of the suspicious circumstances in which Ex. P-1 was brought into existence. Further their evidence suffered with contradictions and omissions. It is found supra that they have no regard for truth and they have consistently changed their version set out by the prosecution. Under those circumstances there is no guarantee that they have not implicated innocent persons also in Ex. P-1. It is in the evidence that all the accused are important persons in the faction opposed to PWs. 1 to 3. Therefore, the false implication of some of the accused in the case cannot be ruled out. Under those circumstances there is no guarantee that they have not implicated innocent persons also in Ex. P-1. It is in the evidence that all the accused are important persons in the faction opposed to PWs. 1 to 3. Therefore, the false implication of some of the accused in the case cannot be ruled out. Therefore, we are of the considered view that their evidence is not reliable and trustworthy and such evidence though parrot like and consistent cannot be relied upon in the absence of independent evidence especially when there was scope for several independent witnesses to witness the attack and the prosecution could not secure any such evidence. Thus, Points 1 to 3 are held accordingly. Point No. 4: ( 51 ) ACCORDING to the evidence of inspector of Police who is examined as pw-11 on 5-1-1996 while he was camping at Pamidi at about 6. 00 a. m. , he received information about the accused and then he collected Sub-Inspector of Police, Pamidi, staff and proceeded to Gooty along with panchayatdars and also collected Sub-Inspector of Police, Gooty and staff and left goody at 6. 40 a. m. , in a police bus and rushed to Kothapalli Bus Stop situate at a distance of 6 km from Gooty on Gooty-Tadipatri main road and reached the choultry opposite to the Bus Stop at 7. 00 a. m. and he noticed the accused in the said choultry and on seeing the police, the accused tried to run away, then they surrounded them and caught them. He further stated that he took A-1 aside and questioned him in the presence of panchayatdars and asked about his involvement and participation in this case and then A-1 confessed that he concealed the crime weapons in his cheeni garden on the terrace of boring room and further he led them to the cheeni garden and there he showed eight sickles M. Os. 15 to 22 in the presence of mediators. He further stated that when enquired A-3 to a-7, A-10 and A-11 they also stated that they would show the weapons and accordingly all of them led hem to the cheeni garden of A-1 and showed the hunting sickles M. Os. 15 to 22. 15 to 22 in the presence of mediators. He further stated that when enquired A-3 to a-7, A-10 and A-11 they also stated that they would show the weapons and accordingly all of them led hem to the cheeni garden of A-1 and showed the hunting sickles M. Os. 15 to 22. He further stated that he found A-12 in possession of brown colour rexine hand bag at choultry and on verification he found five country made bombs and seized the same under Ex. P-7 panchanama at 9. 30 a. m. ( 52 ) PW-13 the Sub-Inspector of Police, pamidi did not state about his accompanying the Circle Inspector of Police and about the arrest of the accused by the Circle inspector of Police at Kothapalli Bus Stop. ( 53 ) PW-9 is a resident of Kondapuram stated that himself and one Bypareddy acted as mediators on 5-1-1996 at the request of the Circle Inspector of Police, Gooty and that himself, Bypareddy followed the Circle inspector of Police along with his staff towards Gooty and proceeded to Tondapadu-Kothapalli Bus Stand which is on Gooty-Tadipatri Road and saw all the accused along with police at Satram situated opposite to the said Bus Stop and in their presence the police arrested A-l to A-15 at 7. 00 a. m. , on 5-1-1996 and the police seized a bag from the possession of A-12 containing five bombs under panchanama Ex. P-7 and on examination by the police A-1 confessed that the crime weapons were concealed in his garden at Kalapuram and that thereafter a-l led them to a room in his garden and showed the hunting sickles M. Os. 15 to 22 from the top of the room and the same were seized under Ex. P-8 panchanama. He admitted in the cross-examination that he is the paternal uncle of PW-6 and that the deceased No. 2 is the son of his niece and that PWs. 2 and 3 are also his relatives. There is absolutely no need for the Circle inspector of Police to take the relatives of the deceased as panch witnesses. As per section 100 Cr. P. C. , the residents of the locality are to be taken as mediators. Here the police said to have arrested the accused near Kothapalli Bus Stop. 2 and 3 are also his relatives. There is absolutely no need for the Circle inspector of Police to take the relatives of the deceased as panch witnesses. As per section 100 Cr. P. C. , the residents of the locality are to be taken as mediators. Here the police said to have arrested the accused near Kothapalli Bus Stop. So the persons waiting at Kothapalli Bus Stop or kothapalli villagers are the proper persons to be taken as mediators. But, the Circle inspector of Police did not take any of them as mediators. Further it is improbable to believe that all the accused in a group were there at Kothapalli Bus Stop and that too with bombs in their possession. The evidence of Circle Inspector of Police and mediator appears to be artificial and their evidence do not inspire any confidence and therefore, we are not inclined to place any reliance on their evidence. Thus, this point is also found against the prosecution and in favour of the accused. Point No. 5: ( 54 ) IN view of our findings on Points 1 to 4, the conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court are not sustainable in law. The learned Trial Judge failed to properly scrutinize the partisan evidence of pws. 1 to 3 with reference to the probabilities and other circumstances and medical evidence and he simply believed the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 without scrutinizing their evidence with more than ordinary care and caution though they are rank partisan witnesses who are not only related to the deceased but also inimical to the accused. Hence, in our considered view, the conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. Thus, this point is held accordingly. Point No. 6: ( 55 ) IN the result, all the three criminal appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentences, dated 23-6-2004 passed in S. C. No. 728 of 1997 on the file of the vi Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), anantapur at Goory are hereby set aside and the appellants-accused are found not guilty of the charges framed against them and accordingly they are acquitted of the same. The appellants-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants-accused shall be refunded to them.