G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by A-1 to A-10 in s. C. No. 532 of 2001 on the file of the III additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur. All the accused were charged for the offences under Sections 148, 302 under three counts, 302 read with 149 underthree counts and 307 of IPC. They denied the charges and claimed for trial. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story leading to the conviction of the appellants is briefly as follows: p. W. 6 is the wife and P. W. 4 is the cousin brother of D-1. P. W. 7 is the wife of D-3. D-1 and D-3 are agriculturists and D-2 was an mptc member of Singanamala Mandal. They are all residents of Loluru village. The offence took place on 16-2-2000 at about 10-00 PM near Loluru cross roads. D-1 had illicit intimacy with one Kuliayamma, the sister of A-6. On account of that, there was a quarrel between d-1 and A-6 on the date of offence at 4-00 PM and they beat each other as a result of which d-1 received injuries. On the date of offence at about 7-30 PM, D-1 to D-3 and P. Ws. 1 and 4 went to a private hospital at Ananathapu r for treatment to the injuries received by D-1. While they were returning to their village by foot, after getting down from a lorry at Loluru cross road at 12-00 midnight, A-1 to A-10 suddenly emerged from the bushes and surrounded D-1 to D-3. A-1 and three others attacked D-1 by hacking on the neck and right side of the skull above the ear. A-4, A-5 and a-7 hacked D-2 with sickles. While D-3 was running, A-8 to A-10 chased him and attacked with sickles. When A-6 tried to kill P. W. 4, he caught hold of the sickle, pushed A-6 and ran away, as a result of which he received an injury on his right hand fingers and left thumb. Thereafter, P. W. s. 1 and 4, being afraid of going to their village, went to Ananthapur and from there went to Singanamala Tank, got drafted Ex. P-1 complaint and presented the same to Singanamala Police Station. Thereafter, P. W. s. 1 and 4, being afraid of going to their village, went to Ananthapur and from there went to Singanamala Tank, got drafted Ex. P-1 complaint and presented the same to Singanamala Police Station. On 17-2-2000 at 7-00 A-M, the police registered it as a crime and the Inspector of Police took up investigation, visited the scene of offence along with the mediators and witnesses, observed the scene of offence, held inquest overthe dead bodies of D-1 to D-3 and sent the dead bodies to postmortem examination. The doctors after conducting postmortem examination, opined that all the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries received by them. The sub-inspector of Police arrested A-1 to A-10, and sent them for judicial custody. After completion of the investigation the police laid the charge sheet. ( 3 ) THE prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined P. Ws. 1 to 13 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-18 and M. Os. 1 to 18. No oral evidence was adduced of defence side, but Exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked. After conclusion of the trial, the lower Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. ( 4 ) A-1 to A-10 were convicted for the offence under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. A-1 to A-3 and A-6 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for killing deceased No. 1 and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. A-4, A-5 and A-7 to A-10 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC for killing deceased No. 1 and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. A-4, A-5 and A-7 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for killing deceased No. 2 and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. A-4, A-5 and A-7 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for killing deceased No. 2 and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. A-1 to A-3, A-6 and A-8 to A-10 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC for killing deceased No. 2 and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. A-8 to A-10 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for killing deceased no. 3 and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. A-1 to A-7 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC for killing deceased No. 2 and each of them are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. A-6 was convicted for the offence under section 307 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. A-1 to A-5 and A-7 to A-10 were found not guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and they were acquitted. The lower Court directed that all the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. All the accused, being aggrieved by the Judgment of the lower court, dated 10-6-2005, preferred the present appeal challenging the validity and legality of the convictions and sentences imposed on them. ( 5 ) THE plea of the accused is one of denial, therefore, the point for consideration is: "whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the whether the convictions and sentences imposed on them are liable to be set aside? ( 6 ) THE prosecution alleged that while D-1 to D-3 along with P. Ws. ( 6 ) THE prosecution alleged that while D-1 to D-3 along with P. Ws. 1 and 4 were proceeding towards their village after getting down from a lorry at Loluru cross roads, the accused attacked them and caused injuries to D-1 to d-3 and on account of that D-1 to D-3 died instantaneously. When P. W. 1 tried to rescue by catching a sickle raised by A-6, he received injuries on the fingers of the right, hand, therefore, the prosecution alleged that all the accused attacked the deceased with the common object of killing them and also attacked. ( 7 ) THE prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, relied on the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 4 and examined P. Ws. 6 and 7 to prove the motive for the accused to attack the deceased. P. W. 5, the inquest panch and p. Ws. 9, 10 and 11, the doctors, who conducted postmortem examination, were examined to prove the cause of death. P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 8 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 5, on the next day of the offence, inquests were held over the dead bodies of D-1 to D-3 in the presence of the panches and witnesses and after examining the dead bodies and finding the injuries, they came to a conclusion that all the deceased met with homicidal deaths and died due to receipt of multiple injuries. ( 9 ) P. W. 9 the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased No. 2, Kullayappa, on 17-2-2000, found the following ante-mortem injuries: (1) An incised injury from left mouth to left shoulder. (2) Injury of "5 x " deep in the middle of the scalp. (3) An injury of 5" x 2" deep over left thigh. (4) Fracture of left hemorus. (5) Fracture of left title finger and attached to the skin. (6) Injury over left arm. (7) Right ulna fracture. (8) An abrasion over left arm. On P. M. examination of scalp: Injury of 6" x 1" x deep in the middle of the scalp. Skull: Right parietal bona fractured. Brain: contusion on right side hyoid intact. Chest wall no fracture. No fracture to ribs. Plural cavities. No free fluid in lungs. Lungs - on cut section congested. Heart- empty. (8) An abrasion over left arm. On P. M. examination of scalp: Injury of 6" x 1" x deep in the middle of the scalp. Skull: Right parietal bona fractured. Brain: contusion on right side hyoid intact. Chest wall no fracture. No fracture to ribs. Plural cavities. No free fluid in lungs. Lungs - on cut section congested. Heart- empty. Abdomen : Nofreefluid in the abdominal cavities. Stomach : contains 100 Ml. fluid. Intestines distended with gas. ( 10 ) AFTER conclusion of the postmortem examination, the Doctor opined that all the injuries found on the dead body of D-2 are ante-mortem in nature and the skull of the deceased was found fractured. He opined that the deceased might have died due to shock and hemorrhage on account of multiple injuries received by him with sickles and axes. ( 11 ) P. W. 10, the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination overthe dead body of deceased No. 1, Dudekula Masood, on 17-2-200, found the following ante-mortem injuries. (1) A complete transverse clean cut injury immediately below the mandible cutting muscles tendoms, vessels, vertibra, lariynx and all the structures of the upper neck only skin and subcutaneous tissue is attached to it. Clotted blood is present. (2) A transverse skull deep cut injury 1" above left ear present. (3) 2" x 2" x 1" cut injury if left forearm present. On internal examined head and neck:- 7" x 5" x haemotoma in the left tempero parietal region, hyoid bone is intact. Chest: No fracture of ribs. Both lungs are pale on cut section. Heart is empty. Other structures of chest showed no particular changes. Abdomen: peritoneum is pale. Stomach contains 30 ml. of white coloured fluid. Liver normal in size. Pale on cut section. Gall bladder contains 10 ml. of bile. Spleen, kidneys are pale on cut section. Urinary bladder is empty. General organs showed no particular changes. Approximate time of death is 12 to 24 hours prior to my P. M. examination. Most likely the death may be instantaneous. Injury No. 1 is a fatal one. Injury No. 1 might have been caused due to sharp edged weapon as well as Injury nos. 2 and 3. This is the P. M. certificate issued by me and Ex. P-10 is the P. M. certificate issued by me. Most likely the death may be instantaneous. Injury No. 1 is a fatal one. Injury No. 1 might have been caused due to sharp edged weapon as well as Injury nos. 2 and 3. This is the P. M. certificate issued by me and Ex. P-10 is the P. M. certificate issued by me. The doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries caused with sharp edged weapons. ( 12 ) P. W. 11, the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased No. 3, Rahamthulla, found the following ante-mortem injuries: (1) An incised injury extending from angle for mouth right side to right ear cutting through the soft tissues and mandible on right side measuring 6" x 4" x bone deep. (2) Cut injury just above the adorns apple cutting through the soft tissues and major vessels of neck measuring 6 "x 5" x bone deep. Cutting the cervical vertebra C-3, C-4. (3) Cut injury below the right index finger base extending upto righttumb measuring 5" x 3" x tendon deep. (4) abrasion on left wrist measuring " x " (5) Cut injury through right knee joint showing cut edges of fenorolcondyles measuring 7" x 4" x bone deep. (6) Cut injury just below the left knee joint cutting tibi measuring 6" x 3" x bony deep. (7) Cut injury measuring 4"x 5" x bone deep on left side of parietal bona with facture parietal bone present. (8) Cut injury measuring 2 x " x scalp deep on right side of parietal region. Internal examination:- head and neck:- skull fracture left parietal bone present. On opening skull cap brain normal in size and pale on cut section. Hyoid intact. Chest:- Both lungs normal in size and congested on cut section. Abdomen:- Normal in contour no free fluid in the peritoneal cavity. Stomach contains 200 ml of semi digested food particles. Intestines discarded gases. Liver:- Normal in size, pale on cut section. Both kidneys and spleen normal in size and pale on cut section. The doctor opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Stomach contains 200 ml of semi digested food particles. Intestines discarded gases. Liver:- Normal in size, pale on cut section. Both kidneys and spleen normal in size and pale on cut section. The doctor opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. ( 13 ) ALL the doctors stated that the deaths of the deceased might have occurred instantaneously between 12 to 24 hours prior to the postmortem examination and their opinions also disclosed that the injuries on the deceased were caused with sharp edged weapons like sickles and axes. ( 14 ) P. W. 4 also stated that all the deceased were attacked with axes and sickles and on account of that, all the deceased received bleeding injuries and died instantaneously. ( 15 ) SO, from the above evidence it is established by the prosecution that all the deceased met with homicidal death on account of the injuries received by them with sharp edged weapons like sickles and axes. Now, it has to be considered whetherthere is sufficient mtive for the accused to attack the deceased. ( 16 ) P. W. 6, the wife of deceased No. 1, deposed that deceased No. 1 is her husband, deceased No. 2 is the brother of deceased no. 1 and Deceased No. 3 is her brother and brother-in-law of D-1, All the accused are residents of Loluru village. Deceased No. 1 developed illicit intimacy with the sister of a-6 by name Kullayamma. One week earlier to the incident, there was a quarrel between d-1, and A-6. She witnessed D-1 in the company of Kullayamma and she informed the same to her father-in-law Nabi Sab. A panchayat was held by P. Ws. 2 and 3 regarding the illicit intimacy of D-1 with Kullayamma. One day priorto the occurrence, A-6 and D-1 quarrelled (the witness again deposed that the quarrel took place about 8 days prior to the occurrence) and in that quarrel D-1 was beaten by A-6, D-1 was taken to a doctor at Anantapur by P. Ws. 1, 4, D-2 and D-3 and on the way of return to their village, the accused killed all the deceased. 1, 4, D-2 and D-3 and on the way of return to their village, the accused killed all the deceased. ( 17 ) THE evidence of P. W. 6 discloses that on account of illicit intimacy of D-1 with the sister of A-6, there were differences between them and on account of that, all the accused resorted to kill the deceased. ( 18 ) P. W. 7, the wife D-3, deposed that D-1 developed illicit intimacy with the sister of a-6. There were disputes between D-1, and a-6, and a quarrel between took place between them, therefore, the accused killed the deceased. ( 19 ) THOUGH the accused denied the illicit intimacy of D-1 with the sister of A-6, there appears to be a truth in the version of P. Ws. 4 6 and 7 regarding the illicit intimacy of D-1 with the sister of A-6. As the prosecution is contending that there are eyewitnesses to the occurrence, the motive does not assume much importance, therefore, it has to be considered whether the evidence of P. W. 4, who is said to be an eyewitness to the occurrence, is true and whether the conviction can be based on the solitary testimony of p. W. 6 coupled with the circumstances explained by the prosecution. P. W. 1, who alleged to have witnessed the occurrence, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. ( 20 ) P. W. 4, the cousin brother of D-1 and d-3 and the person who alleged to have accompanied D-1 to Anantapur at the time of the occurrence, deposed that D-2 married the sister of D-1. The accused are interrelated to each other. The sister of A-6 got married to person in the same village by name Babaiah. D-1 developed illicit intimacy with Kullayamma, the sister of A-6. One year priorto the incident, a-6, and D-1 quarrelled and bet each other. On the date of offence at about 4-00 PM, D-1 and a-6 bet each other and D-1 received injuries. On the date of incident, he went to Anantapur at 7-00 AM to attend mason work. He returned to Loluru at 6-00 PM. He came to know that there was a quarrel between A-6 and D-1 and d-1 received injuries. On the date of offence at about 4-00 PM, D-1 and a-6 bet each other and D-1 received injuries. On the date of incident, he went to Anantapur at 7-00 AM to attend mason work. He returned to Loluru at 6-00 PM. He came to know that there was a quarrel between A-6 and D-1 and d-1 received injuries. He went to the house of d-1 and later, D-1 to D-3, P. W. 1 and himself came to main road by walk and after half an hour they boarded a lorry and went to a private doctor at old town, Anantapur by 9-00 PM. The doctor gave treatment to D-1. They spent about one hour in the hospital and later they went to Gooty road to go to their village and waited for one and half hours at Gooty bus stop, Anantapur and at about 11 -30 PM, they boarded a lorry and reached and got down at loluru cross road. D-1 to D-3, P. W. 1 and himself were proceeding by walk from the cross road towards their village. When they walked to a distance of 10 feet, there were thorny bushes by the side of the road. A-1 to a-10 emerged from the buses and surrounded d-1 to D-3. All the accused are armed with sickles. A-1 and three others attacked D-1 and they caused two injuries on the neck of d-1 and an injury above the right ear. A-4, a-5 and A-7 hacked D-2 Kullayappa. When d-3 was running A-8 to A-10 hacked D-3, when D-1 fell down, A-6 came against him to kill. He caught hold of the sickle, and pushed p. W. 6 as a result of which he received injury on his left thumb and fingers of right hand. On receiving that injury, he ran away. He observed the occurrence in the moonlight and identified all the accused who attacked them. The accused also threatened that if he informs anybody, he will be killed. P. W. 1 also left the scene of offence earlier to him. He further deposed that when the accused were attacking d-1 to D-3, he concealed himself behind the thorny bushes due to fear and after the accused left the scene, he came to the road leading to anantapur and found P. W. 1 at the cross road. They waited for one and half hours at that place. He further deposed that when the accused were attacking d-1 to D-3, he concealed himself behind the thorny bushes due to fear and after the accused left the scene, he came to the road leading to anantapur and found P. W. 1 at the cross road. They waited for one and half hours at that place. Being afraid of going to the village, they travelled in a Tractor to Anantapur which was coming from Garladinne. The tractor was stopped at Tadipatri bus stop and they got down and remained at the bus stop till 4-30 am. Again they boarded a lorry and reached singanamala tank which is at a distance of 2 kms from Singanamala village and they reached Singanamala by walk by morning time. On reaching Signamala, they found one venkata Reddy, a resident of their village. When he enquired as to where were they coming from, he informed that the accused murdered three persons, therefore, requested to draft a complaint, accordingly, the said venkata Reddy drafted a complaint to his dictation by sitting in a hotel and presented the same to the police. ( 21 ) ACCORDING to the chief-examination of p. W. 4, the offence took place at about 12-00 mid night at a distance of 10 feet from cross road towards their village. All the accused emerged from the bushes and as there was moonlight, he observed the attack on all the deceased and identified all the accused. Though P. W. 1 was said to be an eyewitness to the occurrence, he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution, therefore, the evidence of P. W. 4 has to be scrutinized very carefully whether he is a truthful witness, whether he was present at the scene of offence at the time of occurrence, whether there is possibility of this witness observing the attack on each deceased and identifying all the accused during night time, whether the injuries on the right hand fingers were received by him when he caught hold of the sickle raised by A-6. ( 22 ) SO, let us verify the narration of the sequence of the events given by this witness with the answers given by him in the cross-examination and the surrounding circumstances. ( 23 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 4, he has present with the deceased at the scene of offence at midnight. ( 22 ) SO, let us verify the narration of the sequence of the events given by this witness with the answers given by him in the cross-examination and the surrounding circumstances. ( 23 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 4, he has present with the deceased at the scene of offence at midnight. P. W. 1, in the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, denied a suggestion that the quarrel between D-1 and A-6 was occurred at 4-00 PM on 16-2-2000 and D-1 received injuries and he accompanied D-1 to anantapur along with P. W. 4, D-2 and D-3 by walk to Loluru cross road and thereafter at about 11-00 PM, they got down a lorry at loluru cross road and while they were proceeding to Loluru, all the accused attacked them by emerging from the bushes etc. According to the prosecution, the quarrel between A-1 and D-1 took place in the evening on the date of offence. P. W. 4 deposed that at about 4-00 PM on the date of offence, A-6 beat the deceased and D-1 received injuries. ( 24 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 4, he received injury on his right hand fingers. P. W. 9, the doctor, who examined P. W. 4, found the following injuries: 1. A lacerated injury over left little finger, middle phainxring finger, proximal phalnx and base of left middle finger and palm. All measuring 3/4 " x 3/4 " x " respectively. The doctor opined that the injury would have been caused with sickle. In the cross-examination, the doctor stated that if a blow was given with a sickle on palm and fingers, there will be incised injury. ( 25 ) P. W. 13, the Inspectorof Police, stated that the village Loluru is situated at a distance of 2 KMs from the scene of offence. The dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 were found lying in a pool of blood at a distance of 500 feet from the cross road. Dead body of D-2 was found lying dead at a distance of 10 feet from the dead body of D-1. Dead body of D-3 was found lying at a distance of 200 feet from the dead body of D-2. The distances were also shown in ex. P-13 rough sketch prepared by him. Dead body of D-2 was found lying dead at a distance of 10 feet from the dead body of D-1. Dead body of D-3 was found lying at a distance of 200 feet from the dead body of D-2. The distances were also shown in ex. P-13 rough sketch prepared by him. In the cross examination, he stated that there were no bushes nearby the scene of offence except small plants on either side of the road. ( 26 ) THE learned Senior counsel Sri c. Padmanabha Reddy, representing the appellants submitted that P. W. 1, who is said to be an eyewitness, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution and the prosecution and the prosecution relied on the solitary testimony of P. W. 4, who is said to be an injured eyewitness, to prove the guilt of the accused, but the conduct of P. W. 4 creates a suspicion because he stated that he did not inform anybody till 7-00 AM. Though there was solitary testimony of P. W. 4 for the observation of the occurrence, his evidence cannot be brushed aside on the simple ground that there are no other witnesses to support the evidence of P. W. 4. ( 27 ) IT is settled law that the evidence of the solitary eyewitness if found credible cannot be rejected. The Supreme Court clarified this position in the following cases: in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of Delhi, the Supreme held: "it is well settled that evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or both, if otherwise the same is found to be credible. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions of this Court in the cases of Remeshwar v. State of Rajasthan, Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, Masalti v. State of u. P. , State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh and Gulichandv. State of Rajasthan. " In Pandappa Hanumappa Hanamarv. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court held: "one of the tests to judge the credibility of a solitary witness is the intrinsic quality and worth of his evidence, independent of other evidence and if such evidence measures up to the Courts satisfaction it can itself from the basis of conviction. State of Rajasthan. " In Pandappa Hanumappa Hanamarv. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court held: "one of the tests to judge the credibility of a solitary witness is the intrinsic quality and worth of his evidence, independent of other evidence and if such evidence measures up to the Courts satisfaction it can itself from the basis of conviction. " In Juseph v. State of Kerla, the Supreme court held: "it is permissible for the Court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eyewitness, but at the same time such a course can be adopted only if the evidence tendered by such witness is in cogent, tendered and inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. " In Chaco v. State of Kerala, the Supreme court held: "section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872 clearly states that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish the case. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the court is satisfied that the witness was specking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained. " ( 28 ) IF the testimony of an injured witness disclosed that he was present at the scene of offence, when the credibility of the witness is accepted, his evidence cannot be rejected. In state of M. P. v. Mansingh, the Supreme court held: "the evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exists, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. " In Prithvi v. Mam Raj, the Supreme Court held: "the evidence of an injured witness who sustained serious injuries gives credence to the prosecution story that he was at the spot when the offence was committed. " ( 29 ) IT is the specific version of P. W. 4 that he accompanied D-1 to D-3 to Anantapur and returned to Anantapur in a lorry and got down at Loluru cross and were proceeding along with the deceased towards their village. when they proceeded to some distance, the accused suddenly emerged and attacked all the deceased. " ( 29 ) IT is the specific version of P. W. 4 that he accompanied D-1 to D-3 to Anantapur and returned to Anantapur in a lorry and got down at Loluru cross and were proceeding along with the deceased towards their village. when they proceeded to some distance, the accused suddenly emerged and attacked all the deceased. He further stated that as the accused are residents of his village living in the neighbourhood of their locality and as they are well acquainted to him, there is no difficulty in identifying all the accused in the moonlight. P. W. 4 further submitted that though P. W. 1 ran away from the scene on seeing the accused, he stood by the side of D-1 and when A-6 raised a sickle on D-1, in order to prevent a-6 from hacking D-1, he caught hold of the blade portion of the knife with his hand and on account of that, he received lacerated injuries on the fingers of right hand. He further stated that he also observed the accused attacking d-2 and D-3 also by hiding himself behind bushes. Though the Inspector of Police stated that there were no big bushes by the side of the road, he stated that there were small plants, therefore, P. W. 4 might have hidden himself by the side of those plants in observing the accused under the moonlight. Though p. W. 4 stated that the occurrence took place two days prior to Amavasya (no moon day), it was revealed on verifying the almanac of the year 2000 the date of offence is 2 days prior to "full moon day". According to Telugu calendar, dt. 16-2-2000, the date on which the offence took place on "dwadasi" "sukla paksham" "magha Masam" "pramadinama samvatsaram". e. , the offence took place in telugu year Pramadi in the month Magham and the date was Suddadwadas. e. , two days prior to the full moon day and the full moon day was on 19-2-2000. From the particulars given above, it is very clear that there was almost full moon at 12-00 midnight on the date of offence, therefore, there was sufficient light for P. W. 4 to observe and identify the accused, who attacked the deceased. e. , two days prior to the full moon day and the full moon day was on 19-2-2000. From the particulars given above, it is very clear that there was almost full moon at 12-00 midnight on the date of offence, therefore, there was sufficient light for P. W. 4 to observe and identify the accused, who attacked the deceased. As the accused are known persons from their village, there cannot be any difficulty for P. W. 4 to identify those accused, who attacked each deceased. The presence of P. W. 4 cannot be denied as he received injuries on the fingers of right hand by catching hold of the sickle that was raised by A-6 against D-1. In Sewaka v. State of M. P. , the Supreme court held that: "an eyewitness identifying the known assailants in the moonlight cannot be doubted" In Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar, the supreme Court held: "even assuming that there was no moonlight then, we have to gauge the situation carefully. The proximity at which the assailants would have confronted with the injured, the possibility of some light reaching there from the glow of stars, and the fact that the murder was committed on a roofless terrace are germance factors to be borne in mind while judging whether the victims could have had enough visibility to correctly identify the assailants. Over and above those factors, we must bear in mind the further fact that the assailants were no strangers to the inmates of the tragedy- bound house, the eyewitnesses being well acquainted with the physiognomy of each one of the killers. We are, therefore, not persuaded to assume that it would not have been possible for the victims to see the assailants or that there was possibility for making a wrong identification of them. We are keeping in mind the fact that even the assailants had enough light to identify the victims whom they targeted without any mistake from among those who were sleeping on the terrace. " By following the above Judgment, Thander singh v. State of M. P. , the Supreme Court held that: "in certain circumstances lack of moonlight or artificial light does not per se preclude identification of a known assailant. When the occurrence was in an open place, the possibility of identification of the accused cannot be ruled out. " By following the above Judgment, Thander singh v. State of M. P. , the Supreme Court held that: "in certain circumstances lack of moonlight or artificial light does not per se preclude identification of a known assailant. When the occurrence was in an open place, the possibility of identification of the accused cannot be ruled out. " In Shivraj Bapuray Jadhav v. State of karnataka, the Supreme Court held: "where the parties are used to live in the midst of nature and accustomed to live without light, the assailants would have been identified by the witness easily not only from the voices of the assilants, from the fact that they are known persons and close relative living in the neighbouring huts. " In the light of the above legal position and in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case, we have no hesitation to hold that P. W. 4 identified all the accused not only on the ground that there is moon light, but also they are known persons, therefore, the evidence of P. W. 4 cannot be rejected and the accused are not entitled for any benefit of doubt on this ground. ( 30 ) THE learned counsel forthe appellants further submitted that though Ex. P-4 contained the particulars of all the accused, A-2 and a-3 were not attributed any overt acts in attacking the deceased. When there is evidence that all the accused came against the deceased with the common object of killing them, it will not make any difference when A-2 and A-3 were not attributed with specific overt acts. In Ex. P-1 complaint, P. W. 4 specifically mentioned that A-2 and A-3 attacked D-1, therefore, A-2 and A-3 are not entitled for any benefit of doubt on this ground. ( 31 ) THE learned counsel forthe appellants further submitted that though P. W. 4 stated that he identified the accused in the moonlight, his theory proved falsified through his answer given in the cross-examination that the occurrence took place two days prior to amavasya (no moon day ). This contention of the Appellants' counsel cannot be accepted for the reasons mentioned in the foregoing paras of this Judgment. This contention of the Appellants' counsel cannot be accepted for the reasons mentioned in the foregoing paras of this Judgment. ( 32 ) HE further submitted that though P. W. 4 reached Anantapur and remained there for the night, he did not prefer to give a report to aantapur police and he did not try to go to garladinne Police Station to prefera complaint. He further submitted that as the complaint was preferred at 7-00 AM on the next day, though the offence took place at 12-00 midnight, there was delay of seven hours in preferring the complaint to the police and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Though P. W. 4 along with P. W. 1 reached Anantapur, they were in a panic situation after witnessing three murders and they are illiterates, therefore, it might be possible that they could not take a decision as to where they have to give the report and that is why after reaching Singanamala, when one Venkata Reddy of their village met, they requested him to draft the complaint and presented it before the police. The conduct of p. W. 4 is not abnormal and the delay explained by him due to late night and waiting for transport is satisfactory and as the delay is not abnormal, the accused are not entitled for benefit of doubt on that ground. ( 33 ) IN Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala, the supreme Court held that the delay in every case cannot be a ground to arose suspicion. It can only be so when the delay is unexplained. In State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh, the supreme Court held: "delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the Court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the same would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the same cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution version. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the same would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the same cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution version. " In Malkhansingh v. State of M. P. , the supreme Court held: "the delay, if any, lodging the first information report was if fully explained by the prosecution and was strongly supported by the circumstantial evidence, such delay is not fatal to the prosecution case. " The above legal position also strengthens our view that the delay in the present case, in view of the explanation given by the prosecution witnesses, is not fatal to the prosecution. ( 34 ) HE further submitted that though P. W. 4 stated that he received injury to his right hand fingers, it would not have been possible with the weapon as indicated by P. W. 4 and there was no corroboration regarding the nature of the weapon used in the commission of the offence and he further submitted that in the light of the above discrepancies, there is a doubt whether the incident occurred in the manner narrated by the prosecution and whether all the accused participated in the commission of the offence. The doctor who examined P. W. 4 stated that those injuries are possible when the injured caught hold of the sickle, therefore, we have no hesitation to accept the version of P. W. 4 that he received those injuries when he tried to prevent A-6 from hacking D-1 by catching hold of the iron portion of the sickle and we do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard. ( 35 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor submitted that when several members attacked on the deceased, it will be very difficult for the witnesses to observe the attack and their emerging as a group with deadly weapons to kill all the deceased itself is an indication that there was common object for all the accused in the commission of the offence and the non mentioning of the specific overt acts to each of the accused is not fatal to the prosecution. In support of his contention, he relied on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in Gangadhar Behera and others v. State of orissa, where in the Supreme Court as follows: "section 149 IPC consists of two parts. The first part of the section means that the offence to be committed in prosecution of the common object must be one which is committed with a view to accomplish the common object. In order that the offence may fall within the first part, the offence must be connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused was a member. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under section 141, if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed and this is what is required in the second part of the section. The purpose for which the members of the assembly set out or desired to achieve is the object. If the object desired by all the members is the same, the knowledge that is the object which is being pursued is shared by all the members and they are in general agreement as to how it is to be achieved and that is now the common object of the assembly. An object is entertained in the human mind, and it being merely a mental attitude, no direct evidence can be available and, like intention, has generally to be gathered from the act which the person commits and the result therefrom. Though no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down under the circumstances from which the common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms it carries and behavior at or before or after the scene of incident. The word knew used in the second branch of the section implies something more than a possibility and it cannot be made to bear the sense of might have been known. Positive knowledge is necessary, when an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, it would generally be an offence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. Positive knowledge is necessary, when an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, it would generally be an offence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. That, however, does not make the converse proposition true; there may be cases which would come within the second part but not within the first part. The distinction between the two parts of section 149 cannot be ignored or obliterated. In every case it would be an issue to be determined, whether the offence committed falls within the first part or it was an offence such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object and falls within the second part. However, there may be case which would be within the first, offences committed in prosecution of the common object would be generally, if not always, within the second, namely, offences which the parties knew were likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common object. " ( 36 ) AFTER ransacking the entire evidence and the Judgment of the lower Court, we are convinced that the lower Court gave cogent and convincing reasons in accepting the truthfulness of the version given by P. W. 4 and we have no hesitation to concur with the view expressed by the learned Session Judge and we do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower Court. ( 37 ) IN the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the Judgment of the lower Court in all respects. .