D. APPA RAO, J. ( 1 ) A1, A2, A4 to A8 and A10 to A13 on the file of addition A1 Sessions Judge, Cuddapah in Sessions Case No. 375 of 1997 are the appellants. Through a judgment dated 5-4-2004, they were convicted on various charges viz; A1, A2, A4 to A8 and A10 to A13 for the offence punishable under section 148 of the Indian Pena1 Code (for short IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and A1so to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. ( 2 ) A1, A2, A4 to A8 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 ipc and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and A1so to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. ( 3 ) A6, A7, A10 and A13 were convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. ( 4 ) A2, A4 and A5 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. ( 5 ) A14 and A15 were acquitted. ( 6 ) A3 and A9 died during the pendency of the tria1 and the case against them was abated. ( 7 ) A1, A2, A4 to A8 and A10 to a13 preferred Crimina1 Appea1 No. 928 of 2004 against their conviction while the State preferred Crimina1 Appea1 No. 134 of 2006 against the acquitta1 of A14 and A15. Both the appea1s are disposed of by a common judgment. ( 8 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that there was an acute faction in chinta1ajatur Village, Vemula Manda1, cuddapah District, one faction led by kakarla Gangi Reddy belonging to the congress Party and the other faction led by a1 Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy, belonging to the Telugu Desam Party. The accused belong to the Annareddy sambasiva Reddy led by Telugu Desam party. The accused belong to the Annareddy sambasiva Reddy led by Telugu Desam party. The victims and others belong to kakarla Gangi Reddy group of Congress party. One year prior to the incident, one yeddula Gangi Reddy belonging to congress Party was murdered. About 16 days prior to the incident, one Sirigireddy pratapreddy of Telugu Desam Party was murdered. Anna Reddy Siva Reddy - deceased No. l (referred hereinafter as Dl) and some others were accused in the murder case of Pratap Reddy, as such he was staying at Pulivendula in the house of one pedda Chenna Reddy. ( 9 ) WHILE so, on 16-5-1996 on the day of incident, Annareddy Siva Reddy (Dl), yerram Reddy Pulla Reddy - Deceased no. 2 (referred hereinafter as D2), PW1-A. BA1a Gangi Reddy, PW3-A Jagan Mohan reddy, and one R. Narayana Reddy left pulivendula at 9. 00 a. m. in a private jeep driven by P~w2-A1a Krishnaiah for a1ava1apadu to get loan amounts from the bank. PW1 and Dl took a loan amount of rs. 6,000/- each from A1ava1apadu Grameena bank and left for Pulivendula at 11. 00 a. m. in the jeep. While Dl sat on the front seat by the side of the driver-PW2, D2 and pw1 sat in the second seat behind Dl and pw2. PW3 and R. Narayana Reddy sat on the rear seat. When the jeep reached near Harijanawada of Golla1aguduru A1l the accused came in another jeep in the opposite direction. Dl on seeing them directed PW2 to reverse the jeep. In the process of reversing the jeep, when it was near the bushes A1 to A15 formed into an unlawful assembly. A1, A2, A10 and A12 armed with axes and rest of the accused were armed with etapululu. They got down from the jeep and surrounded the jeep of Dl and others. A15 hacked PW2 the driver on the right side of the chin and on that PW2 the driver ran away. A1 to a9 hacked D1-Shiva Reddy with their weapons on various parts of the body. A3, a6, A7, A10 to A13 hacked D2-Pulla reddy and P. W. I on various parts of the body with their respective weapons. A7, a9, A10 and A14 hacked PW3-Jagan mohan Reddy and R. Narayana Reddy on various parts of the body. Dl and D2 died on the spot. A3, a6, A7, A10 to A13 hacked D2-Pulla reddy and P. W. I on various parts of the body with their respective weapons. A7, a9, A10 and A14 hacked PW3-Jagan mohan Reddy and R. Narayana Reddy on various parts of the body. Dl and D2 died on the spot. PW3 and R. Narayana reddy ran away from the scene of offence. PW4-Y. Venkata Lakshmi Reddy having learnt from Ramireddy Gangi Reddy and linga Venkata Reddy that his party people were hacked near Harijanawada of golaguduru, he A1ong with two others went to the scene of offence on a tractor and found Deceased 1 and 2 lying dead. PW1, who sustained various injuries, told PW4 about the attack. Immediately they took PW1 to the Government Hospita1 at Pulivendula. ( 10 ) PW 10-Dr. T. V. Raghavendra reddy the Medica1 Officer Government hospita1 examined P. W. I and found the following injuries:1. An incised wound in front of left parieta1 area and front bone measuring about 7 cm x l 1/2 cm x bone deep. (Depressed fracture of the fronta1 bone as per the specia1ist opinion ). 2. An incised wound on the left hand above the wrist measuring about 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep. Fracture of Ulna bone. (As per the specia1ist opinion)3. An incised wound on the postura1 part of the left parieta1 area measuring about 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep and cut of the bone. 4. An incised wound by the side of wound No. 3, 2 cm apart measuring about 3 cm x 1/2 cm x sca1p deep. 5. An incised wound on the left hand above wound No. 2 measuring about 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep. 6. An incised wound on the right wrist measuring about l /2 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep. 7. An incised wound on the anterior part of right parieta1 bone measuring about 2 cm x 1/4 cm x skin deep. 8. An incised wound on the anterior part of the left parieta1 bone measuring about 3 1/2 cm x % cm x skin deep. " ( 11 ) PW11- K Danam, Assistant Sub- inspector of Police of Vemula Police Station, who was at Pulivendula having heard about the incident, went to the hospita1 at 1. 50 p. m. and recorded the statement of PW1, marked as Ex. " ( 11 ) PW11- K Danam, Assistant Sub- inspector of Police of Vemula Police Station, who was at Pulivendula having heard about the incident, went to the hospita1 at 1. 50 p. m. and recorded the statement of PW1, marked as Ex. P. l, in the presence of PW10. PW10, the doctor, made an endorsement that PW1 was conscious at the time of recording the statement. PW11 went to vemula Police Station, registered the case as Crime No. 26 of 1996 under Sections 148, 341, 326, 302 and 307 of IPC in FIR ex. P. 20 and sent it to the Judicia1 Magistrate of First Class at Pulivendula. He went again to the hospita1 at Pulivendula and recorded the statements of PWs. l, 2, 3, 5 and R. Narayana Reddy. In view of the serious condition of PW1, he was referred to the Government Head Quarters Hospita1 at Cuddapah and from there to s. V. R. R. G. G. Hospita1 at Tirupathi where pw7-Dr A. Sudhakar Reddy, Neuro surgeon conducted operations on the heads left fronta1 compound depressed fracture elevation and excision of depressed bone fragments of skull and repair of dura1. ( 12 ) PW12-A, Venkateswara Reddy, the Inspector of Police came to the scene of offence at 10 p. m. and took over the investigation. He left Pulivendula and examined PW2 and PW3. On 17-5-1996, pw12 conducted inquest (Ex. P. ll) over the dead body of D1 in the presence of PW9- k. Krishna Murthy, VAO, Chinta1ajatur village and others. PW12 seized bloodstained clothes from the body of the deceased. MOs. 2 to 7 are the bloodstained clothes. MO-8 is the waste thread. MO-9 is citizen watch. He A1so collected MO-11-broken glass pieces of the Jeep, MO-12-the steering cover, MO-13 a pair of chappa1s, besides mo 14 bloodstained earth and MO-15 control earth. An inquest was A1so conducted over the dead body of the D2-Yerramreddy Pulla reddy, evidenced under Ex. P. l2-inquest report. They have seized bloodstained clothes. Mos. 16 to 18 and 20, MO-19 the waste thread, MO-21 white blue havai chappa1s with bloodstains of D2, MO-22 the bloodstained earth, MO-23 the control earth. MO-24 is the white full shirt of R. Narayana reddy. P. l2-inquest report. They have seized bloodstained clothes. Mos. 16 to 18 and 20, MO-19 the waste thread, MO-21 white blue havai chappa1s with bloodstains of D2, MO-22 the bloodstained earth, MO-23 the control earth. MO-24 is the white full shirt of R. Narayana reddy. ( 13 ) PW10, the doctor, conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased anna Reddy Siva Reddy (D1) and found as many as 10 incised wounds on various parts of the body and importantly on the head wherein brain was injured, the neck muscles were A1so cut and the doctor opined that the deceased died due to haemorrhage, shock and cut of neck vessels under postmortem certificate Ex. P. 18. ( 14 ) PW10 A1so conducted post-mortem on the body of D2-Yerram Reddy Pulla reddy and found 7 incised wounds importantly on sternum, nape of the neck, left parita1 area and the doctor opined that the death was due to haemorrhage, shock and injury to vita1 organs under post-mortem certificate Ex. P. 19. ( 15 ) PW10 examined PW1 and found as many as 8 incised wounds on various parts of the body, which were A1ready mentioned and gave Wound Certificate ex. P. 14. ( 16 ) PW10 examined PW3, Annareddy jaganmohan Reddy and found two incised wounds one on the left hand, below the elbow and another on the left thigh outer part, evidenced under Ex. P. 16. ( 17 ) PW10 A1so examined Ramireddy narayana Reddy and found two incised wounds, one on the right hand above the wrist, and other on the right shoulder evidenced under Ex. P. 17-Wound Certificate. ( 18 ) DURING the course of investigation, a14 and A15 filed petitions before the superintendent of Police that they were elsewhere and pleaded A1ibi and on that pw12-Inspector of Police conducted enquiry and found that the A1ibi pleaded by them were true. Therefore, after completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against A1 to A13 deleting the names of A14 and A15. Aggrieved, PW1 filed a private complaint impleading A14 and A15, which was registered as S. C. No. . . . . . . . . Both the cases were clubbed together and common evidence was recorded in S. C. No. 375 of 1997. ( 19 ) THE defence of the accused is that of complete denia1. Aggrieved, PW1 filed a private complaint impleading A14 and A15, which was registered as S. C. No. . . . . . . . . Both the cases were clubbed together and common evidence was recorded in S. C. No. 375 of 1997. ( 19 ) THE defence of the accused is that of complete denia1. They pleaded that due to previous enmity and factions, a fa1se case was foisted against them. A-14 and a-15 pleaded A1ibi. A14 did not examine any witness in proof of his plea of A1ibi that he was admitted in a hospita1 at Adoni. A. 15 examined DWl-Shanker Singh, assistant Commercia1 Tax Officer. However, he turned hostile. The learned Sessions judge disbelieved the plea of A1ibi of the above accused. ( 20 ) AFTER considering the evidence placed on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A1, A2, A4 to A8 and A10 to a13 to various charges, which I have earlier detailed, while acquitting A14 and A15. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentences, the accused preferred Crl. A. No. 928 of 2004 and the State preferred Crl. A. No. 134 of 2006 against the order of acquitta1 of a14 and A15. ( 21 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants-accused contended that no reliance could be placed on the highly interested and partisan evidence of the eye-witnesses pws. 1 and 3. The learned Judge ought to have seen that PW1 was not in a position to give any statement as his condition was serious and was in unconscious state of mind. PW7-Dr. A. Sudhakar Reddy, Neuro surgeon opined that in view of the fact that PW1 was severely injured and he was sub-conscious by the time of receiving injuries on the head, he must have gone into a state of shock. No efforts were made to get dying declaration recorded by the magistrate. Ex. P. l, the statement of PW1 is omnibus in nature. PW3 could not have been present at the scene of offence as injuries were simple and superficia1 in nature. It was caused by one BA1aswamy Reddy, an RMP doctor, in order to press into service as an injured witness. PW3 did not give any report, though he passed through Vemula in the bus nor he disclosed the said fact to anybody till he was examined by the police on that night. It was caused by one BA1aswamy Reddy, an RMP doctor, in order to press into service as an injured witness. PW3 did not give any report, though he passed through Vemula in the bus nor he disclosed the said fact to anybody till he was examined by the police on that night. The version of pw11, the Investigating Officer, that he came to learn about two persons having been injured and on that he went to the hospita1 and recorded Ex. P. l statement of pw1 cannot be believed. It was prepared after consultations and confabulations with the leaders. There was enormous delay in sending FIR to the Magistrate. There was no proof that PW1 and others went to a1ava1apadu to get the loan amount. The conduct of PW3 in not going to Chinta1ajatur, his own village where there was police bundobust, is suspicious. No independent witness was examined from Harijanawada where the incident took place. The medica1 evidence did not support the version projected by the eye-witnesses. There were no bloodstains either in the jeep or at the place of A1leged incident. R. Narayanareddy was not examined in the Court with an oblique motive. When the A1ibi pleaded by A14 and A15 was believed, and having acquitted them, the tria1 Court ought to have disbelieved the evidence against others on the ground of fa1se implication. ( 22 ) THE learned public prosecutor refuted by arguing that PW1 and PW3 being injured, their presence cannot be doubted and their evidence is reliable and trustworthy. There is no reason why they should implicate the accused leaving the rea1 culprits. PW10, the Medica1 Officer has categorica1ly stated that PW1 was conscious while giving statement to PW11- asi of Police and he made an endorsement ex. P. l5 to that effect. The evidence of pw1 and PW3 was sufficient to hold the part played by the accused. In an incident where two persons died and four were injured and when 15 assailants surrounded them, the minor contradiction would in no way create suspicion on the substratum of the case of prosecution. The contention that there was confabulations with the leaders in creating Ex. P. l has no basis. He further contended that the learned sessions Judge did not believe the A1ibi that was put forth by A14 and A15. The contention that there was confabulations with the leaders in creating Ex. P. l has no basis. He further contended that the learned sessions Judge did not believe the A1ibi that was put forth by A14 and A15. Their presence and the overt acts caused by them were true and they ought to have been convicted for the offences for which they were charged. ( 23 ) IT is an undisputed fact that there are two factions in Chintha1ajutur Village of vemula Manda1 where the accused and the victims reside. While A1 is the leader of telugu Desam Party, one Kakarla Gangi reddy was the leader of the Congress party. PW1, PW3 and the deceased belonged to Congress Party. It is A1so not in dispute that the father of PW1 Venkat reddy and Konda Reddy-paterna1 father of A8 are brothers. The elder sister of A4 was given in marriage to the elder brother of China Gangi Reddy. Thus PW1 and pw3 are closely related to A4 and A8. ( 24 ) IT is an admitted fact that one yedula Ganga Reddy belonging to Congress party was murdered one year prior to the date of offence. One Singi Reddy Pratap reddy of the group belonging to A1 was murdered 16 days prior to the offence. Anna reddy Shiva Reddy (D1) brother of PW1 was figured as A1 in the said case. ( 25 ) FROM the narration of the above facts, it can be said beyond doubt that there were deep ill feelings between them and that there was immediate motive to take revenge on the other party viz. , Dl, D2, pw1, PW3 and others belonging to the group of Kakarla Gangi Reddy. ( 26 ) PW1 is the injured eye-witness and he graphica1ly narrated as to how the incident took place and the part played by the accused. He stated that origina1ly they are residents at Chinta1ajatur Village. Since PWs where involved in the case where Pratap reddy was murdered, they were evading arrest and staying at Pulivendula. He A1so stated that there are bushes on both the sides of the road at the scene of offence, leading to Harijanawada, which is situated at a distance. It is in a way an isolated area where the villagers were not present by then. He A1so stated that there are bushes on both the sides of the road at the scene of offence, leading to Harijanawada, which is situated at a distance. It is in a way an isolated area where the villagers were not present by then. ( 27 ) PW1 mentioned, at the earliest, in his statement before PW10 that on the said date they went to A1ava1apadu Grameena bank from Pulivendula and that he and his brother Shiva Reddy (Dl) received a sum of Rs. 6,000/- each and while they A1ong with PW2, PW3 and others were returning to Pulivendula on the way they were attacked near Harijanwada of Gollagudur village. ( 28 ) PW5 is the Branch Manager of the Bank. PW6 is the clerk-cum-cashier. They have confirmed the disbursement of amounts to PW1 and Dl on the said date. However, they did not file the documents evidencing the disbursement of amount. They are independent witnesses, workirig in a bank, not residing in the village where PW1 and accused are residing and nothing to do with their factions. Their evidence would undoubtedly show that PW1, deceased 1 and 2 and other witnesses came to the bank and took the amount and left the village. The fact remains that PW1 and others went to A1ava1apadu Village from pulivendula and on their return they were intercepted near a village by name Gollagudur and were beaten. ( 29 ) PW1 not only stated in Ex. P1 but a1so in his evidence that when they were returning in the jeep, the accused a1so came in another jeep in the opposite direction and on seeing them Dl asked pw2-jeep driver to reverse the jeep. When the PW2-jeep driver was reversing the jeep, a1, A2, A10 to A13 armed with axes and others with Etapululu got down from the jeep and surrounded them. Both in the statement before the police as well as in the evidence, PW1 maintained that A15 hacked pw2 the driver on his right chin, the injury of which finds a place in the wound certificate-Ex. P. 13. ( 30 ) PW10 has categorica1ly stated that he examined PW2 at 3. 45 p. m. on 16-5-1996. PW2 has turned hostile partia1ly, in the sense, he did not state the presence of the accused and acts attributed by them against PWs. P. 13. ( 30 ) PW10 has categorica1ly stated that he examined PW2 at 3. 45 p. m. on 16-5-1996. PW2 has turned hostile partia1ly, in the sense, he did not state the presence of the accused and acts attributed by them against PWs. However, PW2 deposed that on 16-5-1996, he drove the jeep from Pulivendula to A1ava1apadu Bank a1ong with Shiva Reddy and others. He a1so stated that Shiva Reddy sat by his side in the jeep and handed over Rs. 6,000/- to keep the same in the box fitted to the jeep. When they reached a village, a jeep was found in the opposite direction. On seeing them, he was asked to reverse it. PW2 further stated that he drove jeep back in the reverse gear near the bushes, the other jeep stopped at a distance of one bara from his jeep. Five or six persons from that jeep came and broke the front glass of the jeep with ethapululu. Being afraid, he got down the jeep and ran away. Since he did not depose as to the presence of the accused, he was declared hostile. ( 31 ) PW1 and PW3 corroborated the evidence of PW2 in this regard. They deposed that while they were travelling in the jeep, D1 sat by the side of the driver in the front seat. PW1 and D2 sat in the second seat. PW3 and R. Narayana Reddy sat on the rear side of the seat. They stated that A1 to A9 hacked Shiva Reddy. A3, a6, A7 and A10 to A13 hacked D2 Pulla reddy with their respective weapons. PW1 further stated that A3, A6, A7 and A10 to a13 hacked him with their respective weapons. A7, A9, A10 and A14 hacked pw3 and R. Narayana Reddy with their respective weapons. This was corroborated by PW3. ( 32 ) THE learned advocate for the accused contended that the accused were convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC simplicitor without any aid of either section 149 IPC or Section ~34 IPC. The prosecution failed to establish the overt acts of each of the accused. They gave omnibus statement that A1l the accused inflicted blows with axes and ethapululu and caused death of Dl and D2 and injuries to PWs. 1 to 3. The witnesses deposed without amplifying the overt acts. The prosecution failed to establish the overt acts of each of the accused. They gave omnibus statement that A1l the accused inflicted blows with axes and ethapululu and caused death of Dl and D2 and injuries to PWs. 1 to 3. The witnesses deposed without amplifying the overt acts. ( 33 ) IT is no doubt true that no overt acts were attributed except mentioning that they surrounded the deceased and pw1 to PW3 and beat them indiscriminately with the weapons. Undoubtedly, in such circumstances observing each of the overt act by the each of accused might not be possible. The eye-witnesses themselves were beaten. If they depose, it would be argued that it was highly artificia1. They being witnesses to the murders and they themselves being beaten, they would not have been in detail as to the overt acts. ( 34 ) THE learned Counsel for the accused further contended that having found PW1 had sustained 8 injuries, while pw3 had sustained 4 injuries. Dl had sustained 10 injuries, D2 had sustained 7 injuries on various parts of the body. The prosecution has assigned each of an injury to the accused without mentioning overt act or seat of the injury. So that A1l of them could be convicted. ( 35 ) PW1 in Ex. P. l did not state the overt acts caused by the accused. However, at the time of evidence, he deposed that A1 to A9 hacked Dl, while A3, A6, A7 and a10 to A13 hacked D2. A1, A3, A6, A7 and A10 to A13 had inflicted injuries on him whereas A7, A9, A10 and A14 inflicted injuries on PW3 and Rami Reddy and narayana Reddy. It is the case of the prosecution that A14 attacked PW3, A15 attacked PW2-driver. PW2 had turned hostile. He did not state that A14 had inflicted injuries on him. PW10 doctor however confirmed injuries on PW2. He was examined by the doctor at 3. 45 p. m. on the very same day of the incident. Equa1ly PW3 was found with an injury confirmed by pw10. He was examined at 3. 45 p. m. P. W3 is another injured eye-witness who is the elder brother of PW1. He corroborated the evidence of PW1. PW1 and PW3 did not specifica1ly attribute any specific overt acts to the accused. Equa1ly PW3 was found with an injury confirmed by pw10. He was examined at 3. 45 p. m. P. W3 is another injured eye-witness who is the elder brother of PW1. He corroborated the evidence of PW1. PW1 and PW3 did not specifica1ly attribute any specific overt acts to the accused. Their statement was in genera1 terms that A1 to A9 attacked Dl, D2 and P. W. I. The tria1 Court having had the advantage of noting the demeanour of witnesses, opined that they are speaking truth. ( 36 ) THE learned Sessions Judge considering the evidence of PW1 and PW3 who are injured eye-witnesses, besides the evidence of PW10 doctor who certified that PW1 was conscious at the time of giving statement and further the narration of incident by mentioning the factum of going on a jeep driven by PW2, opined that the accused inflicted injuries on them. The non-mention of PW4, who is closely related to PW1 would in no way cause suspicion against P. Ws. l and 3 s veracity. PW1 is close relative to A4 and A8, he could not have implicated them, but for their participation in the offence. ( 37 ) A person s power to speak truth depends upon his knowledge i. e. , his accuracy in observation, memory, presence of mind and power of expression, depending on the circumstances and the subject he has to speak. The cumulative effect of these circumstances will be taken to judge the credibility or otherwise of the witness. ( 38 ) IN a factious village, partisan witness would A1one be available, as they would even otherwise be natura1 and probable witnesses to the incident. It would not be right to reject their testimony out of hand on the ground that they belonged to one faction or another. What A1l the Courts have to do is to exercise utmost care and caution. Merely because testimony of witnesses partly not worthy their entire testimony should not be rejected in its entirety. ( 39 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor relying a decision in the State of U. P. v. Kishan Chand, 2004 (2) A1d (Crl.) 759 (SC) = 2004 SCC (Crl.) 2013, contended that the mere fact there was enmity between them cannot be a ground to deduce fa1se implication. ( 39 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor relying a decision in the State of U. P. v. Kishan Chand, 2004 (2) A1d (Crl.) 759 (SC) = 2004 SCC (Crl.) 2013, contended that the mere fact there was enmity between them cannot be a ground to deduce fa1se implication. The contention that there was enmity between the parties and the witnesses deposed fa1sely because of animogity cannot be accepted on the ground that animosity is a double-edged sword. It cuts both sides. It could be a ground for fa1se implication and it could A1so be a ground for assault. Just because the witnesses are related to the deceased would be no ground to discard their testimony, if otherwise, their testimony inspires confidence. In the given facts of the present case, they are but natura1 witnesses. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. Similarly, being relatives, it would be their endeavour to see that the rea1 culprits are punished and norma1ly they would not implicate wrong persons in the crime, so as to A1low the rea1 culprits to escape unpunished. They are hardly a ground for rejecting their evidence when there is consensus as to the substratum of the case. ( 40 ) EXCEPT for the fact that the overt acts were not mentioned, P. W. I gave a statement in Ex. P. l, earliest mentioning A1l the names of assailants and presence of the injured to the police basing on which FIR was registered. It is settled principle of law that the specia1 status and the sanctity of the FIR is that it was not made during the investigation, it was made immediately after the occurrence, when the memory of the person giving it was afresh in his mind about the occurrence. It is not encyclopedia of entire prosecution case, it need not give a1l details. Omissions of important facts in fir is of significance and relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act to judge the veracity of prosecution case. Omissions of details in FIR will not effect the case information and particulars of witnessing the offence. ( 41 ) THE learned Counsel for the accused relied on a decision in MA1empati pattabi Narendra v. Ghattamaneni maruthi Prasad, 2000 (1) A1d (Crl.) 939 (SC) = AIR 2000 SC 2195 . Their Lordships, on evidence in that case, found that eye- witensses were not reliable. ( 41 ) THE learned Counsel for the accused relied on a decision in MA1empati pattabi Narendra v. Ghattamaneni maruthi Prasad, 2000 (1) A1d (Crl.) 939 (SC) = AIR 2000 SC 2195 . Their Lordships, on evidence in that case, found that eye- witensses were not reliable. Another witness, who was examined as a corroborating witness was held to be unreliable witnesses. The accused person showered with blows by using axe, knife and similar letha1 weapons. The incident took place at 11 p. m. Considering the above circumstances, their Lordships held that the prosecution has failed to establish that two accused persons, who were convicted, had attacked the deceased. The said decision could not be relied in case of this nature, where the incident took place in the broad daylight, where the witnesses have advantage of seeking the accused persons. ( 42 ) THE learned advocate for the accused contended that there were no bloodstain marks either in the jeep or scene of offence. The very version that the incident took place on the outskirts of Gollagudem cannot be believed. The version of PW1 and PW3 that none of the accused entered the jeep was fa1sified by the position of the bodies of the deceased. They stated that "none of the accused entered into the jeep". PW3 stated that "the accused did not even enter the jeep where pullareddy sat. The accused did not enter the jeep at any place; we remain in the jeep at the time of attack on D1 and D2 and pw1. " ( 43 ) IN Ex. P. 11 the inquest report of d1-Annareddy Shiva Reddy, in Column no. 8, it was mentioned that the dead body was hanging downwards from the front seat of the jeep. There is A1so a mention that bloodstain marks on the seat cover and the fact that the canvas of the top of the jeep was torn. The front glass was found broken. The clothes were bloodstained. So A1so the body of D2 was found on the ground near the jeep. Bloodstains were seen at the scene. There is every possibility of rollover the body after the injuries were received. This gives credence to the evidence of the eye-witness. The front glass was found broken. The clothes were bloodstained. So A1so the body of D2 was found on the ground near the jeep. Bloodstains were seen at the scene. There is every possibility of rollover the body after the injuries were received. This gives credence to the evidence of the eye-witness. ( 44 ) THE main contention that was taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant- accused is that PWl having received severa1 injuries could not have given a statement to PW11, the Investigating Officer. PW7- neuro Surgeon deposed that PW1 could not have been conscious immediately after sustaining injures on his head. The injuries were very serious in nature. ( 45 ) PW10 is the Medica1 Officer working at Pulivendula. He examined PWl and found him to be conscious when PW 11 recorded statement of PW 1, PW10 the doctor endorsed that PWl was conscious while giving statement. PW10 is a competent and professiona1 doctor, an independent witness. The fact of the state of menta1 agony of the person making the FIR who genera1ly is the victim himself, if not dead, or the relations or associates of the deceased victim apparently under the shock of the occurrence reported has A1ways to be kept in mind. ( 46 ) COMING to the facts, PW10 the very doctor, who treated PWl immediately after the incident categorica1ly, vouchsafed that PWl was conscious at the time when he gave statement to PW11. He even appended a certificate marked as Ex. P. 15. Nothing was suggested to PW10 to disbelieve the authenticated medica1 opinion. The evidence of PW7-Neuro Surgeon who treated PWl after two days of the incident is opined that the injured would become unconscious immediately after receipt of the injury and if he was unconscious he would not be able to make a statement. No genera1ized statement could be made in this regard. Therefore, I have no hesitation in stating that PWl was conscious while making the statement. ( 47 ) THE learned Counsel for the accused contended that by the time PWl was brought to the Police Station by Gangi reddy, leader of his party, and other relations were present, PWl must have given Ex. P. 1 after much confabulation with the leaders and other relations. PW10, the doctor, examined PWl at 12. 15 p. m vide ex. P. 14. PW11 recorded the statement of pwl at about 2. P. 1 after much confabulation with the leaders and other relations. PW10, the doctor, examined PWl at 12. 15 p. m vide ex. P. 14. PW11 recorded the statement of pwl at about 2. 30 p. m. vide Ex. P. l. In the meantime, PW10 has attended on PWl, administered sa1ine and rendered first aid etc. It is not in the evidence that Gangi reddy was there when PW11 recorded the statement of PWl. He might have come there after coming to know that his party members were killed. Therefore, the contention that FIR rs outcome of deliberations and confabulations cannot be deduced for the facts. ( 48 ) IT was contended that there was delay in sending FIR to the learned magistrate and this creates suspicion on the entire case of prosecution. In the interregnum, the report must have been created and later ante-timed . The FIR was registered after the statement was recorded by PW11 at 2. 30 p. m. at pulivendula Hospita1. PW. 11 returned to vemula Police Station situated at a distance of 12 kilometers, registered it as Ex. P. 20 at 3. 00 p. m. It was received by the learned magistrate at Pulivendula at 10. 40 p. m. The learned Counsel contended that had PW11 recorded the statement of PW1 and registered it as a case at 3. 00 p. m. , there could not have been that delay. The delay was not properly explained and therefore, it raises a doubt as regards to the complicity of some of the accused in the crime. Particularly in a group riva1ry, there is a tendency on the part of the prosecution to rope in innocent persons. ( 49 ) RELIANCE is made to the decision in bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, 2003 (Crl.) scc 1095. It was held that:"fir in a crimina1 case and particularly in a murder case, is a vita1 and va1uable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the tria1. The object of insisting upon lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actua1 culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as A1so the names of the eye-witnesses, if known to the informant. The object of insisting upon lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actua1 culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as A1so the names of the eye-witnesses, if known to the informant. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. Sending the copy of the specia1 report to the Magistrate as required under Section 157 of the Crimina1 Procedure Code is the only externa1 check on the working of the police agency, imposed by law which is required to be strictly followed. The delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful but sha1l put the court on guard to find out as to whether the version as stated in the Court was the same version as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of deliberations involving some other persons who were actua1ly not involved in the commission of the crime. Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157 Cr. P. C. is the mandate of law. Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the Court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. It is a1ways for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if tendered no adverse inference can be drawn against it. " ( 51 ) IN Bijoy Singh s case (supra), their Lordships opined that the delay in sending a copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful but sha1l put the court on guard to find out as to whether the version as stated in the Court was the same version as earlier reported in the fir or was the result of deliberations involving some other persons who were actua1ly not involved in the commission of the crime. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn. In the present case, the FIR was registered on 16-5-1996 at about 3. 45 p. m. and the same was received by the magistrate at about 10. 40 p. m. on the very same night. No suspicion could be attached in regard to the so ca1led delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. ( 52 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellants-accused relied on State of karnataka v. Papanaika and others, 2005 (1) A1d (Crl.) 97 (SC) = 2005 SCC (Crl.) 104 and Janardan Singh v. State of Bihar, 2002 (2) A1d (Crl.) 438 (SC), wherein it was held that:"the maxim fa1sus in uno, fa1sus in omnibus though not applicable in India, when a part of the evidence of a witness is found to be unreliable, Court should scrutinize the remaining part cautiously and if the same is found trustworthy and the basis of the prosecution case, the same can be accepted. " ( 53 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants-accused contended in view of the fact that A14 and A15 were acquitted on believing the plea of A1ibi and when PW1 mentioned their names in the FIR-Ex. P. 20 and subsequently by the witnesses, it could be said beyond doubt that they were fa1sely implicated. When two persons were fa1sely implicated, there was every possibility to incriminate others fa1sely. ( 54 ) AT the outset, it may be clarified that the learned Sessions Judge did not believe the plea of A1ibi by A14 and A15. Before considering the other aspects of the matter, it is useful to note that the presence of A14 and A15 was made a mention by pw1 while he gave a statement in Ex. P. l to PW11. ( 55 ) ACCORDING to A14, he was admitted as an in-patient in a nursing home of dr. V. V. Reddy at Adoni from 12-5-1996 to 20-5-1996. He fell sick on his way to mantra1ayam. When the police accepted the plea of A1ibi, and deleted his name at the time of filing of the charge-sheet, PW1 filed a private compliant impleading him. ( 56 ) IT is the plea of A15 that he was doing business at Tirupati under the name and style Aditya Enterprises. He fell sick on his way to mantra1ayam. When the police accepted the plea of A1ibi, and deleted his name at the time of filing of the charge-sheet, PW1 filed a private compliant impleading him. ( 56 ) IT is the plea of A15 that he was doing business at Tirupati under the name and style Aditya Enterprises. On 16-5-1996 be went to the office of Assistant commercia1 Tax at 10 a. m. for filing the form. In fact, he attended the office. In order to prove his case, he examined DW1- b. Shankar Singh, ACTO. DW1, on oath, denied that A15 was in his office from 1 p. m. to 1. 30 p. m. on 16-5-1996. He was declared as hostile. The suggestion was that he was giving fa1se statement under threat by prosecution witnesses, which he denied. There is no basis for them to make such a ba1d suggestion. When a responsible Government Officia1 did not admit the presence of A15 in his office and pw14 did not examine any witness to substantiate that he was admitted in the nursing home, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that they did not prove their plea of A1ibi. Obviously the learned sessions Judge gave benefit of doubt in spite of the fact he did not believe plea of a1ibi. He considered the other evidence let in against them that PW2 who had sustained the injury did not state that A14 beat him. He turned hostile. PW1 and PW3 stated that A14 hacked Ramreddy Gangi Reddy and Narayanareddy. The victim R. Narayanareddy was not examined to substantiate the said fact. Since PW2 did not state the presence of A14 and A15 and ram Reddy Gangi Reddy and R. Narayana reddy were not examined to state that A14 hacked him, though their participation was made a mention, the learned Sessions Judge gave a benefit of doubt. ( 57 ) IT is stated that in case on appea1 against acquitta1, genera1ly it should not be interfered unless there are compelling reasons and the appreciation of evidence by the sessions Judge is highly illega1 and perverse. It is settled proposition of law that the appellate Court cannot interfere with the findings of the tria1 Court even if the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that a different view is possible. It is settled proposition of law that the appellate Court cannot interfere with the findings of the tria1 Court even if the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that a different view is possible. In other words, if the views taken by the tria1 Court is possible and plausible, the mere fact that the Court can take a different view upon assessment and appraisa1 of the evidence, would not be sufficient for interference in exercising of powers under Section 378 cr. P. C. ( 58 ) COMING to the facts, the learned sessions Judge, after considering the evidence of PW2 who was turned hostile to the earlier statement given to PW11, obviously in the backdrop of plea of A1ibi taken by them gave benefit of doubt. We do not see any irregularity or illega1ity in acquitting A-14 and A-15 for the said offence. They are entitled to benefit of doubt. From that score A1one, it cannot be said that the names of A14 ad A15 were fa1sely implicated. ( 59 ) YET another contention that D1 and his associates were interfering in the affairs of A1ava1apadu Village where there were acute factions. They might have resided at A1ava1apadu, and that the factionists might have caused the offence. If rea1ly they were residing at A1ava1apadu, they could not have engaged jeep from pulivendula to go to A1ava1apadu and return to Pulivendula via Golladaguduru. This intrinsic circumstance overrules their stay at a1ava1apadu and that they were beaten by somebody else from A1ava1apadu. ( 60 ) THE learned Counsel for the accused contended that the names of the accused were not found in the inquest report. The inquest report had reached the learned Magistrate on 17-5-1996. It shows that subsequently Ex. P. l was fabricated. The said contention pa1s into insignificance in view of the fact that the FIR had reached the Magistrate on 16-5-1996 at 10. 45 p. m. itself. The inquest was conducted on the next day i. e. , 17-5-1996 and the same was received by the Magistrate on the same day. It is not usua1 to mention the names of assailants. It is to find out the cause of death viz. , homicide, suicide or otherwise. 45 p. m. itself. The inquest was conducted on the next day i. e. , 17-5-1996 and the same was received by the Magistrate on the same day. It is not usua1 to mention the names of assailants. It is to find out the cause of death viz. , homicide, suicide or otherwise. ( 61 ) THE learned Counsel for the accused further contended that though bandobust constables were present in the village, none of the witnesses tried to inform them, which create suspicion against their version. There was no reason for p. W. 2, P. W. 3 and others not informing to the villagers or the police on their way to the hospita1 evidently. Dl was staying at pulivendula. The bandobust was at Chinta1ajatur. The offence had taken place at the outskirts of Harijanawada in Golla1agudem Village. Therefore, the non informing the said fact to bandobust police at Golla1aguduru or chinta1ajaturu creates no suspicion. Moreover p. Ws2 and 3 were themselves injured. Two persons were killed before their own eyes. They wanted to protect themselves. ( 62 ) THE learned Counsel for the accused further contended that the learned sessions Judge did not believe the evidence of PW2 and PW4 as such no credence could be given as they are coming with fa1se version. It is in the evidence of PW4 that on receiving the information that one ram Reddy Gangi Reddy, Dl and D2 and pw1 were attacked at Golla1agudur Village, he came there on the tractor and took PW1 to Government Hospita1, Pulivendula. He a1so stated that PW1 narrated A1l these facts to him as to what had happened. This fact was not stated before PW12. Even pw1 did not state that PW4 brought him to the Government Hospita1. The learned sessions Judge did not believe the evidence of PW4 and rightly, which would in no way effect the substratum of the case of the prosecution. ( 63 ) THE learned Advocate for the accused contended that the accused were convicted for the offence under Section 302 ipc simplicitor without any proof that the injuries caused by each of the accused caused the death. ( 64 ) EVIDENTLY the accused persons came in a group in a jeep, intercepted the jeep of pw1 and others knowing fully well that they were travelling in the jeep. ( 64 ) EVIDENTLY the accused persons came in a group in a jeep, intercepted the jeep of pw1 and others knowing fully well that they were travelling in the jeep. They armed with letha1 weapons and surrounded the jeep and inflicted severa1 blows indiscriminately leading to the death of D1 and D2 on the spot. They were rightly convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. ( 65 ) THE accused killed Dl and D2 by inflicting blows. They were armed with deadly weapons. They inflicted severe injuries on PW1 and injuries on PW and pw3. ( 66 ) THE question that aid of Section 149 or Section 34 IPC could have been made when there is no direct evidence that the injury inflicted by the accused caused the death. I may state that no charge was framed either under Section 149 or 34 IPC in regard to Section 302 IPC. Such charge was framed for the offence under section 307 IPC. There is no necessity to a1ter charge and convict them by incorporating with Section 149 or 34 IPC. At any rate, the sentence that could be imposed would be the same. ( 67 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, after carefully scrutinizing the evidence, opined that the medica1 evidence corroborated ocular evidence. He A1so observed that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 established that A1 to A9 hacked Annareddy Siva reddy (Dl) with axes and ethapululu resulting in his death that A3, A6, A7, A10 to A13 hacked Yerramreddy Pulla Reddy (D2) with their weapons. He gave cogent reasons. We agree with his conclusions and findings. ( 68 ) A close scrutiny of the evidence revea1s that the prosecution has successfully established the culpability of the appellants in conviction Appea1 No. 928 of 2004 for having committed offences punishable under sections 302, 148, 307 and Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The tria1 Court has considered A1l the relevant facts and circumstances on the relevant proposition of law. The impugned judgment is quite justified and does not require any interference. Consequently, conviction Appea1 No. 928 of 2004 and acquitta1 Appea1 No. 134 of 2006 at the instance of the State, both are meritless and are required to be dismissed confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. ( 69 ) IN the result, both the crimina1 Appeals are dismissed. The accused-appellants sha1l undergo sentences accordingly.