JUDGMENT 5th October, 1991 was a black Saturday in the lives of Phulabai, Vimalabai, Gourabai, Channabasappa, Masuteppa, Sadashiva, Malkappa, Shivanand, Shrishail and Mallappa Havappa Kattimani. It was on that day, these persons were burnt alive in the house of Channabasappa. When the accused persons chased the above persons and the deceased persons took shelter in the house of Channabasappa, the accused encircled the house of Channabasappa and the neighbouring houses and they set fire to the house of Channabasappa as well as the house of Pavitra Bai, teacher (tenant of Channabasappa) and the said act was done by the process of procuring kerosene with the help some of the accused and it was sprinkled on the house of deceased Channabasappa and the teacher above named, and firewood was brought by some of the accused and some of the accused lit fire and set the houses ablaze and due to the fire engulfing the houses, the above named ten persons were literally baked to death. One of the victims had a child in her womb and the said child also did not see the light of the day. Thus in all eleven lives were lost. 2. The reason for this ghastly act of the accused was that deceased Channabasappa assaulted one Amogi of Anjutagi Village on the same day in the morning and angered by this act of Channabasappa, Amogi's son Anand and other accused persons committed the gruesome murders of above named ten persons by setting the houses on fire by which not only ten lives were lost, but the houses were damaged causing great loss to the property. 3. The accused persons numbering 27 were put at trial and the offences alleged against them were under Sections 148, 302, 506, 342 and 436 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons and hence, the two appeals by the State. Cri. A. No. 276 of 1999 is in respect of 24 respondents and Cri. A. No. 1201 of 1999 is in respect of 1 accused i.e., accused 18 against whom the case was split up earlier and tried separately, but the judgment rendered in both the cases is based on common evidence. 4. Cri. A. No. 276 of 1999 is in respect of 24 respondents and Cri. A. No. 1201 of 1999 is in respect of 1 accused i.e., accused 18 against whom the case was split up earlier and tried separately, but the judgment rendered in both the cases is based on common evidence. 4. The factual matrix of the prosecution case can be stated briefly as under: Deceased Channabasappa was resident of Baradol Village and he was an elderly person who used to settle the disputes among the villagers by holding the Panchayat. Sometimes later, one Amogi the father of the accused Anand joined hands with deceased Channabasappa and both of them were engaged in settling the disputes among the villagers. Later on difference arose between the two, because Channabasappa wanted Amogi to adopt fair procedure in settling the disputes. The difference widened between the two, leading to two factions in the village. One led by deceased Channabasappa and the other was headed by Amogi. There were number of petty quarrel between the two in the past, which is reflected in the cases registered against both the parties. It was this background that led to the incident in question. 5. On 5-10-1991, an incident took place first at the place where Amogi was residing and the said Amogi was assaulted by deceased Channabasappa and his group. Following this incident, rumours spread in the village about the assault on Amogi and his faction led by Amogi's son Anand (accused 9) and other accused persons chased Channabasappa and his group. Channabasappa and his party took shelter in the house of Channabasappa. This was around 7 a.m. on that day. The accused persons led by accused 9-Anand supported by accused 1-Ramappa, accused 19-5hrishail, accused 20-Siddarth ensured that deceased Channabasappa and nine of his colleagues who went inside the house of Channabasappa, do not come out of the house, by bolting the doors from outside and some of the accused stood around the house of Channabasappa holding axe in their hands. Some of the accused, who were women brought kerosene in vessels and the kerosene was sprinkled on the house of Channabasappa. Firewood was also brought to the place and so also the items like salt and chilli powder. Some of the accused, who were women brought kerosene in vessels and the kerosene was sprinkled on the house of Channabasappa. Firewood was also brought to the place and so also the items like salt and chilli powder. Accused 9-Anand climbed the roof of the house of Channabasappa and from the ventilator of the house on top, he threw fireballs inside the house and as the house started to bum, all the other accused joined in the act by giving all the assistance to main accused persons to ensure that the house of Channabasappa gets engulfed in fire, so that all the inmates of the house numbering ten do not survive at any cost. The act of the accused was successful, in the sense all the ten persons who were inside the house of Channabasappa were burnt to death and due to suffocation all of them died and their bodies were charred. The accused persons threatened the eye-witnesses who were present at the spot with dire consequences. The house of the teacher above named was also set on fire. The incident of setting the house on fire leading to death of ten persons was witnessed by several eye-witnesses. One person went and informed the police constables and other officials who were at the Police Station at Chadachana. P.Ws. 36, 37, 38, 47 and 50 were at the police station and they received the information about the house or Channabasappa being set on fire. P.W. 23-Havappa also went to the spot on hearing about the incident. P.W. 1-Vatsala Bai gave her complaint and it was reduced into writing by P.W. 49 as per Ex. P. 1. P.W. 45-CPI took the complaint and gave it to P.W. 43. The PSI sent it to the PC 734 and P.W. 43 after receiving Ex. P. 1 registered th8 case in Cr. No. 134 of 1991 and sent the FIR as per Ex. P. 39 through PC 734. P.W. 48 carried FIR to the Court and delivered at 12.30 p.m. to the Magistrate. 6. P.W. 36-Mallappa the Head Constable who goes to the spot finds accused 1-Ramappa still throwing salt to the house which was burning and the said accused 1 is apprehended by the PSI and handed over to PC 1556. P.W. 43-Prabhakar, Head Constable informed the Fire Brigade to come and extinguish the fire. 6. P.W. 36-Mallappa the Head Constable who goes to the spot finds accused 1-Ramappa still throwing salt to the house which was burning and the said accused 1 is apprehended by the PSI and handed over to PC 1556. P.W. 43-Prabhakar, Head Constable informed the Fire Brigade to come and extinguish the fire. P.W. 36 and others get the dead bodies removed from the house, which was burnt during the incident. P.W. 34 assisted in removing the dead bodies from the house of Channabasappa and the dead bodies were subjected to inquest and the panchas who spoke about the incident are P.Ws. 13, 14, 26, 29 and 44. The inquest is held and the dead bodies are identified as those of ten persons first above mentioned and all belonged to Channabasappa's group including Channabasappa. The Fire Brigade arrives to the spot and the fire is extinguished is spoken to by P.Ws. 28, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45 and 49. Requisitions were sent to the doctors to conduct post-mortem examination. The charred bodies were subjected to post-mortem examination and the doctors P.Ws. 24, 25 and 31 conducted the postmortem examination over the charred bodies of the deceased persons. P.W. 54 is another doctor who has identified the signature of Dr. Kadam in the post-mortem report Exs. P. 52 to 55. The investigation was conducted by the police officers P.Ws. 15, 51 and 55. The damage caused to the houses of Channabasappa and the teacher has been spoken to by P.W. 32. Accused 1-Ramappa is apprehended at the spot, which is spoken to by P.Ws. 36, 37, 40, 42, 45 and 47. The inquest panchas who spoke to the inquest being held on the dead bodies are P.Ws. 13, 14, 26, 29 and 44. The investigation which included conducting of various panchanamas, seizure of material objects at the spot and the clothes of the deceased as well as weapons from the accused persons, arrest of the accused persons and recording of the statements of the material witnesses. To mention briefly, P.W. 20 speaks to the seizure of weapons, P.Ws. 40 to 48 and 53 speak to the arrest of the accused persons. •P.W. 55 who is the main Investigating Officer in this case completes the entire investigation and submits the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 7. To mention briefly, P.W. 20 speaks to the seizure of weapons, P.Ws. 40 to 48 and 53 speak to the arrest of the accused persons. •P.W. 55 who is the main Investigating Officer in this case completes the entire investigation and submits the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 7. At the trial, the prosecution in order to establish its case against the accused persons, examined P.Ws. 1 to 55. The documents Exs. P. 1 to P. 65 were marked. Material Objects M.Os. 1 to 48 were produced. Certain portions of the statement of the witnesses as well as certain documents, which were got marked by the Police Officers on behalf of the accused, are also placed on record as per Exs. D. 1 to D. 34. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence after recording of the statement under Section 313. 8. The learned Trial Judge after appreciating the entire evidence on record formulated certain conclusions, which are mentioned at para 225 of the judgment and based on those conclusions and more particularly, on finding that the testimony of the eye-witnesses did not inspire confidence because of the difficuity to separate grain from the chaff or truth from the falsehood, discarded the eye-witnesses testimony in toto. The Trial Court also found defects in the prosecution case with regard to the presence of some of the accused persons at the spot, the complaint being suppressed by the police, the conduct of the deceased as well as the witnesses being unnatural and there were lapses in the investigation and taking note of these defects, the Trial Court acquitted the accused persons of all the offences with which they stood discharged. The Trial Court also did not believe the evidence adduced by the prosecution in regard to arrest of the accused persons and recovery of the weapons and ultimately, the order of acquittal was passed. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal in both the cases, the State has preferred the two appeals against the judgments dated 30-11-1998 and the other one is dated 30-4-1999. 9. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal in both the cases, the State has preferred the two appeals against the judgments dated 30-11-1998 and the other one is dated 30-4-1999. 9. We have heard the submissions made by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State Sri B.V. Pinto and the two Counsels appearing in the two appeals as Amicus Curiae at the instance of this Court on the entire matter and with their assistance, carefully perused the entire material on record including the judgments of the Trial Court. 10. Learned State Counsel, referring to the evidence on record submitted that the prosecution has examined as many as 17 eye-witnesses to establish its case against the accused persons and the evidence of the eye-witnesses clearly implicates the accused persons and their testimony has not suffered anything in the cross-examination and as such, all the eye-witnesses have spoken more or less in one voice with regard to the accused setting the houses of Channabasappa and the teacher Pavitra Bai on fire and the role played by the accused persons has also been spoken to by the eye-witnesses. There is corroboration in the evidence of the eye-witnesses when compared with one another. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the eye-witnesses which is cogent and consistent and has wrongly concluded that the testimony of the eye-witnesses will have to be discarded because of the difficulty in separating the grain from the chaff. This conclusion of the Trial Court is totally erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record with regard to the complaint Ex. P. 1 is concerned. There is no discrepancy at all and if at all there is any lapse on the part of the police, at the most, it may be because of negligence on the part of the police officials, but the fact that the complaint has been lodged within few hours of the incident and the police reached the spot within 12 noon on the very same day, itself goes to show that there is promptness in both lodging of the complaint and delivering it to the Court. As such, the Trial Court has totally erred in holding that there was suppression of complaint. As such, the Trial Court has totally erred in holding that there was suppression of complaint. With regard to the presence of the accused persons, it was submitted that the testimony of the eye-witnesses would go to indicate the role played by each of the accused persons in the incident and the accused having not been able to place any convincing evidence to show that some of them were not present during the incident in question therefore, the Trial Court has proceeded totally in a wrong direction and has disbelieved the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Referring to the medical evidence and the evidence leading to recovery of the weapons and arrest of the accused 1-Ramappa at the spot, learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the Trial Court could not have rejected the evidence of the eye-witness who were numbering 17 and therefore, there has been a grave injustice done to the case on hand and having regard to the manner in which the accused persons have committed the brutal act, the prosecution has not only established the case against the accused in its entirety, but also submitted that severe punishment will have to be given to the accused persons. In support of the above submissions, learned State Public Prosecutor took us through the entire evidence of the medical witnesses in detail and also referred to the Trial Court's reasoning in this regard. 11. On the other hand learned Amicus Curiae Sri C.H. Jadhav for the respondents in Cri. A. No. 276 of 1999 supported the Trial Court's findings and submitted that the Trial Court has discussed every aspect of the matter in great detail and the reasoning of the Trial Court cannot be termed as perverse. It was further submitted that the complaint which was given by Havappa and another person at police station was not registered at the first instance and therefore Ex. P. 1 cannot be termed as the original complaint and there is suppression of the original complaint itself Secondly, it was submitted that the presence of accused persons viz., accused 9, 11 and 20 at the spot cannot be believed, particularly having regard to the documents Exs. P. 1 cannot be termed as the original complaint and there is suppression of the original complaint itself Secondly, it was submitted that the presence of accused persons viz., accused 9, 11 and 20 at the spot cannot be believed, particularly having regard to the documents Exs. D. 3 and D. 10 and some of the police witnesses have stated about the presence of accused 11-Dundappa at the police station and the said Dundappa accompanied injured Amogi to the Police Station and to the Hospital at Bijapur as well as presence of these witnesses has not been proved by the prosecution and this is clear from the reply given by these persons in 313 statement also and the testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be believed because of the false implication and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the testimony of the eye-witnesses as unreliable because of this reason that the truth and falsehood are found to be mixed in their evidence and it was found difficult to separate the truth from the falsehood and as such, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting all the eye-witnesses in toto. For this reason alone, the acquittal of the accused persons requires to be upheld by this Court. It was also submitted that there was unfairness in the investigation as could be seen from the evidence of the police officers, and who apprehended accused 1 is not clear from the evidence of the police officers and likewise, who handed over accused 1 to whom is also not clear from the evidence on record. Therefore, possibility of concoction, deliberation and false implication cannot be ruled out. Learned Counsel also referred to the omissions in the evidence of the eye-witnesses which have been brought out from the evidence of Investigating Officer, P.W. 55 and to this reference has also been made by the Trial Court in the courses of its judgment. In the light of such omissions and contradictions, it was unsafe to accept the testimony of the eye-witnesses in particular. On these grounds, learned Amicus Curiae Sri Jadhav submitted that no interference is called for by this Court sitting in the appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court having regard to the scope of interference by this Court while sitting in appeal. 12. Learned Counsel Sri Mallikarjun S. Masali, Amicus Curiae for the sole respondent in Cri. 12. Learned Counsel Sri Mallikarjun S. Masali, Amicus Curiae for the sole respondent in Cri. A. No. 1201 of 1999 also adopted the argument advanced by learned Counsel Sri Jadhav, but supplemented it by stating that having regard to Ex. D. 3 and the other observations made by the Trial Court at para 135 of the judgment, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused persons. Learned Counsel also submitted by referring to para 147 of the judgment of Trial Court, that the investigation was not proper and in Ex. P. 1 names of some of the accused i.e., accused 8, 11, 12, 14, 20 and 25 do not find a place. Therefore, it was submitted by the learned Counsel that the respondent in Cri. A. No. 1201 of 1999 has been rightly acquitted by the Trial Court and hence, the said acquittal does not call for interference. By way of reply, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the presence of the accused persons who accompanied injured Amogi to the hospital has been spoken to by the witnesses and as such, there is no force in the submission made by the respondents that accused 9, 11 and 20 did accompany injured Amogi to the hospital. 13. Having thus heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the question for consideration is, whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby requiring interference by us against both the judgments and orders of acquittals passed by the Trial Court? 14. Before answering the above question, we would like to recall the observations of the Apex Court with regard to the power of the Appellate Court in re-appreciating the evidence while sitting in appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, has observed thus: "There is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with, because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, has observed thus: "There is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with, because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that, if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice, which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence, where the accused had been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not". 15. Keeping in view the above parameters of law laid down by the Apex Court, we shall examine the evidence on record. 16. Out of the 50 witnesses examined by the prosecution, the witnesses can be classified broadly under the following categories for the sake of convenience: The eye-witnesses to the occurrence are P.W. 1 who is also the complainant and P.Ws. 2 to 11, P.Ws. 16 to l8, 21, 22 and 23. The other witnesses who also support prosecution case with regard to incident of setting the house of Channabasappa on fire are P.Ws. 17 and 26. These are the material witnesses on whose the evidence the fate of the prosecution case rests. The medical evidence with regard to the death of ten persons in the incident of fire is spoken to by P.Ws. 24, 25, 31 and 54. The witnesses to inquest are, P.Ws. 13, 14, 26, 29 and 44. 17. P.W. 8 speaks to the assault of Amogi by deceased Channabasappa. The enmity between Channabasappa and Amogi is spoken to by P.Ws. 19, 27, 30 and 46. Arrest of the accused is spoken to by P.Ws. 42, 46 and 53. 24, 25, 31 and 54. The witnesses to inquest are, P.Ws. 13, 14, 26, 29 and 44. 17. P.W. 8 speaks to the assault of Amogi by deceased Channabasappa. The enmity between Channabasappa and Amogi is spoken to by P.Ws. 19, 27, 30 and 46. Arrest of the accused is spoken to by P.Ws. 42, 46 and 53. The Fire Brigade personnel and other police officers who speak to the fire being put off are examined as P.Ws. 28, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43 and 49. P.W. 15 is the witness who speaks to the kerosene being sold in the shop, but this witness has turned hostile. P.Ws. 36, 37, 40, 42, 45 and 47 speak to the effect of accused 1 being apprehended at the spot and P.W. 52 is the police official who carried the material object to FSL for examination. P.Ws. 36, 37, 38 and 47 speak to the effect that one person came and informed the police about the incident of fire taking place at the house of deceased Channabasappa. P.Ws. 43 and 48 speak to the effect that P.W. 23 came and informed about the incident that accused 11 assaulted P.W. 23 and the case was registered in that connection. As already mentioned, P.Ws. 50 to 53 and 55 are the police officers who speak to the investigation carried out by them and the submission of charge-sheet. 18. The prosecution has to establish first and foremost that ten persons died following the house of Channabasappa being set on fire by the accused persons. The medical evidence placed in this regard is spoken to by the doctors examined as P.Ws. 24, 25, 31 and 54. The post-mortem reports of the doctors are produced as per Exs. P. 18, 20, 22, 24, 32, 34, 52, 53, 54 and 55. The evidence of the above doctors clearly establishes that the dead bodies which were subjected to PM examination were all found charred and being burnt on account of fire and the cause of death of the deceased according to the doctors is that the deceased died due to suffocation and according to Dr. Shrishail P.W. 24, in case of suffocation, death will take place within 4 to 5 minutes. The evidence of P.Ws. 25, 31 and 54 corroborate in this regard. Shrishail P.W. 24, in case of suffocation, death will take place within 4 to 5 minutes. The evidence of P.Ws. 25, 31 and 54 corroborate in this regard. The various inquest panchanamas conducted over the dead bodies as per the testimony of the inquest witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 13, 14, 26, 29 and 44 leaves no doubt as to the cause of death of the deceased persons. All the deceased were identified not only by the complainant, but many other witnesses. The post-mortem report placed on record as well as the testimony of the doctors referred to above and the evidence of the inquest witnesses and those of the police officers who went to the spot soon after hearing the incident of fire, establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of ten persons first above mentioned. The Trial Court in the course of its judgment, has also observed that they died due to the burn injuries caused following the house being set on fire and they were suffocated to death. Hence, we have no difficulty in holding that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that death of all the ten persons of Channabasappa's group was of homicidal in nature. The Trial Court has also recorded the similar finding in the course of judgment and this is clear from the Trial Court observations in paras 58 to 60 of its judgment. Therefore, the prosecution has established that all the deceased in question died of homicidal death. 19. Now the question to be answered is who are responsible for causing the death of 10 persons, who died due to the incident of fire. It is the prosecution that all the accused persons are responsible as well as the deceased accused were mainly responsible for causing the death of 10 persons and in order to prove this, the prosecution has placed eye-witnesses testimony of number of persons already mentioned by us above. Out of them, P.W. 1 is an eye-witness and he is also the complainant in the instant case. This witness viz., Vatsala Bai is also related to deceased-Channabasappa as the deceased was the younger brother of mother of P.W. 1. Out of them, P.W. 1 is an eye-witness and he is also the complainant in the instant case. This witness viz., Vatsala Bai is also related to deceased-Channabasappa as the deceased was the younger brother of mother of P.W. 1. With regard to the incident of setting the house of Channabasappa on fire, P.W. 1 has given a graphic description of the entire incident and having regard to the nature of evidence given by her, we are compelled to reproduce the testimony of P.W. 1 hereunder: "5. Deceased Channabasappa was a member of Nyaya Panchayati in our village. He was deciding disputes. Amogi came to our village 20 years prior to incident. Our Mama (reference to deceased Channabasappa) was settling dispute in our village. Amogi was native of Anjutagi Village. Amogi came to our village as a Goundi (Mason) and started residing in our village. Our Mama and Amogi were settling dispute in our village. Our Mama was telling Amogi that Amogi was to settled the disputes properly as the villagers were amicably living and he should not create division in the villagers. Thereafter Amogi had his own party in our village. Therefore, villagers became two parties i.e., one party of our Mama and other party of Amogi. All the accused before Court are the members of Amogi party. 6. On that day, before sunrise, I was in my house. I learnt that hue and cry was going on from the side of house of our Mama. Our house and the house of our Mama are nearer to each other. Myself, Subhadrabai, Malakappa, Mallikarjun my son ran there. All the accused before Court, Shobha and Buddhappa were pelting stones towards the house of our Mama, windows and doors of his house. Dandappa came running near the house of our Mama. He told that close the doors and bolt it (Kondi hak bidari) and bum them. Flame fold came running near the house of our Mama. The said womenfolk brought firewood near the house of Chour Madam. That house of Chour Madam is adjacent to the house of our Mama. It belongs to our Mama. It was let out, Subhadravva brought fuel lying near her house and placed near the house of our Mama i.e., in front of the door of the house of our Mama. The said womenfolk brought firewood near the house of Chour Madam. That house of Chour Madam is adjacent to the house of our Mama. It belongs to our Mama. It was let out, Subhadravva brought fuel lying near her house and placed near the house of our Mama i.e., in front of the door of the house of our Mama. Women fold viz., Padma, Yallavva, Janabai, Vimalabai threw salt and chilli powder into the house of our Mama. Muktabai, Nimbewwa, Laxmibai, Janabai threw salt and chilli powder into the house. Anand s/o Amogi climbed the top of house of our Mama and threw salt and chilli powder through skylight of the house (Belakhindi). Also poured kerosene from a tin into the house of our Mama through Belakhindi. The said Anand tied the cloth to Ii stick made Hilal, set fire to it and threw the burning Hilal into the house of our Mama through Belakhindi. Flames caught in the house. He climbed down the house and told others to set fire to the doors of the said house. Siddarth poured kerosene oil to the door of the house of our Mama and also poured kerosene on the firewood placed near the said door. Siddarth brought one tin of kerosene, Buddappa had a tin of kerosene, Chikkappa had a tin of kerosene. Shobha brought a tumbler (chambu) Siddarth poured the kerosene from the tins into the tumbler and from tumbler the said kerosene was sprinkled on firewood and door of the house. Anand s/o Amogi told "I have set fire in the house and you set fire outside the house". Number of persons were present at that time. Laxman Savakar came there and told the accused not to set fire to the house and it may cause Anahuta (it may cause disaster) Shrishail, Buddappa, Dandappa, Channappa abused that Sawkar also threatened him that he will face the same fate. Siddarth striked the match stick and set fire the firewood and door. He told all others to go away and he set fire. 7. Our Mamas in the house shouted to leave them and not to burn them and raised hue and cry. We also requested the accused not to do so but accused threatened us saying that we also thrown into the burning house. He told all others to go away and he set fire. 7. Our Mamas in the house shouted to leave them and not to burn them and raised hue and cry. We also requested the accused not to do so but accused threatened us saying that we also thrown into the burning house. The accused also set fire to the adjacent house of our Mama which was let out to Chour Madam. Firewood was brought and placed near the door of the house of Chour Madam. Chikkappa poured kerosene from Dabbi on the said firewood near the door of house of Chour Madam. The fire was set to the said firewood near the door of the house of Mada. House of Mallappa is in front of the house of Channabasappa. Siddarth poured kerosene on the firewood placed near the house of Mallappa and set fire to the said firewood and door of the house. Children of Mallappa in the house of rushed out of the house. Shrishail held the child and attempted throw the same into the house. Rest of the accused were bringing firewood throwing near the house of our Mama, pouring Kerosene, throwing salt and chilli powder. Two houses of our Mama were burning. Sadashiva s/o Channabasappa attempted to rush into the burning house. Accused threw chilli powder into the eyes of Sadashiva. Persons in the said house were burnt and died. 8. Dasharat, Buddappa, Sidrama, Laxman, Mallappa, Sidaraya, Tukaram, surrounded the said burning house and were armed with weapons. They were shouting others should not come there and if they go there to rescue they will be assaulted. Shrishail was holding axe, Channappa was holding axe, Abhimanyu was holding axe, Ramappa and Buddappa were holding clubs. There was a shade (nikari chappar) in front of the house of our Mama. Other accused pulled it down and it was thrown into the burning house. Tukaram, Dasharat, Laxman pulled down neraki and threw it into the burning house. Other accused-Channappa, Sukhadev, Laxman, another Laxman were threatening other villagers not to rescue". 20. P.W. 1 in her evidence has further stated that a police jeep came at 8.00 a.m. and the houses were found burning and accused-Ramappa was throwing salt into the burning house and the police apprehended Ramappa and other accused persons ran away and so also the villagers. 20. P.W. 1 in her evidence has further stated that a police jeep came at 8.00 a.m. and the houses were found burning and accused-Ramappa was throwing salt into the burning house and the police apprehended Ramappa and other accused persons ran away and so also the villagers. She has also stated that she and others poured water into the burning houses and the vehicle with water came from Bijapur and fire was put of and all the dead bodies were removed from the burning house and she identified the dead bodies as thus: "(1) Channabasappa; (2) Masuteppa; (3) Mallappa; (4) Shrishail; (5) Sadashiva; (6) Malkappa; (7) Shivanand; (8) Pulabai; (9) Gourabai and (10) Vimalabai i.e., seven male and three female persons. Subhadra, Malku, Sharanappa saw the dead bodies and identified them". She has also stated that her complaint was recorded by the police and it was read over to her and the complaint, which was reduced into writing in Ex. P. 21. 21. The other eye-witnesses, who have supported the testimony of P.W. 1 and also gave detail account of the incident, are P.W. 2-Subhadra; P.W. 3-Malakappa; P.W. 4-Kamalabai; P.W. 5-Sharanappa; P.W. 6-Shivaningappa; P.W. 7-Mahadev; P.W. 9-Vimalabai; P.W. 10-Sushilabai; P.W. 16-Sarubai; P.W. 18-Narasappa; P.W. 21-Mallikmjun and P.W. 22-Shivabai. These witnesses have spoken to almost on the lines of the testimony of P.W. 1 with regard to the role played by the accused-Anand, Nimbewwa, Ramappa and Subhadra and other accused persons and they also speak to the role played by the women accused during the course of the incident and the women accused brought fire wooden, supplied kerosene and also sprinkled kerosene on the house of Channabasappa and the other accused persons threatened with dire consequence. 22. The cross-examination of all the eye-witnesses reveals that the substratum of the prosecution case has not been affected in many manner and these witnesses have been questioned with regard to the topography of the place surrounding the house of Channabasappa and certain omissions have also been put to them in the course of the testimony. Some of the eye-witnesses, who have given detail account of the incident, have not been seriously cross-examined and they are P.Ws. 11, 16, 18,21 and 22. Even P.W. 1 has deposed in her cross-examination with regard to the material part of the evidence deposed by her. 23. Some of the eye-witnesses, who have given detail account of the incident, have not been seriously cross-examined and they are P.Ws. 11, 16, 18,21 and 22. Even P.W. 1 has deposed in her cross-examination with regard to the material part of the evidence deposed by her. 23. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of eye-witnesses, we are fully satisfied that the eye-witnesses have spoken about the incident in truthful manner and their testimony appears to us as truthful and reliable. 24. In fact, we would like to refer to the able assistance given by learned Amicus Curiae, Sri C.R. Jadhav and Sri Mallikmjun S. Masali and they have placed on record the chart indicating individual overt act attributed to each of the accused persons and we feel that it would be proper to place the chart itself in the judgment as it would help us to know at a glance the role played by each of the accused persons as spoken to by the eye-witnesses in the course of their examination. The said chart reads thus: Al A2 A3 A4 P.W.1 (1) Armed with (1) Armed with Threw salt and Threw salt and club weapon chilli powder into chilli powder (2) Threw salt (2) Pulled house of into house of (20) down nikari deceased (18) deceased (18) chappar and threw into fire (20) PW: 2 (1) Locked door (1) Armed with Threw salt into of house of club fire (31) deceased (30) (2) Threatened (2) Threatened PW. 12 PW.12(31) (3) Armed with club (4) Threw wood into fire (31) PW.3 (1) Locked door Armed with (1) Pulled down of house of club (35) nikari chappar deceased (34) and threw into fire (2) Threatened (2) Threw salt PW. 12 PW.12(31) (3) Armed with club (4) Threw wood into fire (31) PW.3 (1) Locked door Armed with (1) Pulled down of house of club (35) nikari chappar deceased (34) and threw into fire (2) Threatened (2) Threw salt PW. 12 into fire (35) (3) Armed with club (4) Threw wood into fire ~35) P.W.4 (1) Locked door Armed with Threw salt into Put wood in of house of club (39) fire (39) front of house of deceased PW.32(40) (2) Armed with club (39) PW.5 Armed with Armed with club (43) club (43) PW.6 (1) Locked door Bought salt and of house of number (46) , deceased (2) Threatened P.W.12 (3) Armed with club (4) Threw salt into fire (46) P.W.7 (1) Threatened (1) Armed with people club (2) Anlled with (2) Threatened club people (51) (3) Threw salt into fire (51) P.W.9 (1) Locked door Armed with (1) Threw salt of house of club (57) into fire (57) deceased (56) (2) Abused PW. 12 (3) Armed with club (4) Threw salt into fire (57) P.W.10 (1) Locked door Pulled down Bought salt and of house of nikari chappar was throwing it deceased and threw in (60) (2) Armed with front of house club (59) ofP.W. 32(60) P.W.11 (1) Locked door Bought salt, of house of chilli and threw deceased it into fire (62) (2) AbusedPW.12 (3) Armed with club (4) Threw salt into fire (62) P.W.12 P.W.16 (1) Throwing Threw salt (73) salt (2) Armed with club (73) P.W.17 P.W.18 (l)Armed with Threw salt into club fire (77) (2) Throwing salt (77) P.W.21 (1) Threatened p.w. 12 (2) Put wood in front of house of P.W. 32 (82) P.W.22 Armed with Threw salt (84) club (84) P.W.36 Threw salt (123) P.W.37 Threw salt (127) P.W.45 Threw salt (151) P.W.47 Threw salt (156) P.W.49 Threw salt (162) A5 A6 A7 AS P.W.1 Threw salt and Threw salt and Bought fuel chilli into house chilli into house from her house (18) of deceased (18) and placed in front of door of house of deceased (18) P.W.2 Bought wood from her house (31-32) P.W.3 Pulled down Bought wood nikari chappar from her house and threw in and threw it in fire (35) fire (34) PW.4 Put wood in Put wood in front Bought wood front of house of house ofP.W. from her house ofP.W.32(40) 32(40) (39) P.W.5 P.W.6 Threatened Bought wood people (47) from her house and placed in front of door of house of deceased (45) P.W.7 Bought wood from her house and threw into fire (on house of deceased) (50) PW.9 Bought wood from her house (56-57) P.W 10 Bought wood from her house and threw in front of house of deceased (60) P.W.11 Brought wood from her house and threw (62) A9 A10 All A12 PW.1 (1) Climbed Armed with (1) Told to lock (1) Armed with house of weapon (20) door of house of weapon deceased deceased and set fire (18) (2) Threw salt (2) Threatened (2) Pulled down and chilli PW. 12(19) nikari chappar powder, poured and threw in kerosene fire (20) through belakindi and set fire (3) Instigated others to set fire (18-19) P.W.2 (1) Bought Threatened kerosene people (31) (2) Climbed house of deceased (3) Poured kerosene through belakindi and set fire (30 and 31) PW.3 (1) Climbed (1) Instigated to Threatened house of bum deceased people (35) deceased (34) (2) Poured (2) Threatened kerosene people (35) through belakindi and set fire (340) P.W.4 (1) Bought Instigated to Instigated to bum kerosene kill others (40) deceased (39) (2) Climbed house of deceased (3) Poured kerosene through belakindi and set fire (4) Instigated accused 20 to set fire to door (39) P.W. 5 P.W.6 (1) Bought (1) Instigated to kerosene bum deceased (45) (2) Climbed house of deceased (3) Poured kerosene through belakindi and set fire (4) Instigated accused 20 to set fire at the bottom (46) P.W.7 (1) Bought Pulled down kerosene nikari chappar, (2) Climbed placed it near house of the door of deceased house ofP.W. (3) Poured 32 poured kerosene and kerosene set fire (51) through .belakindi and set fire (4) Instigated accused 20 to set fire to door (50 and 51) PW.9 (1) Climbed Instigated to set house of fire (56) deceased (2) Poured kerosene through belakindi and set fire (3) Instig8ted accused 20 to set fire (57) P.W.10 (1) Bought (1) Pulled Instigated to set (1) Threatened kerosene down nikari fire to deceased people chappar, (59) placed in front of house of P.w.32 (2) Climbed (2) Threatened (2) Pulled down house of people (60) nikari chappar, deceased placed in front (3) Poured of house of P.W. kerosene 32(60) through belakindi and set fire (4) Instigated accused 20 to set fire to door (60) P.W.11 (1) Bought kerosene (2) Climbed house of deceased (3) Poured kerosene through belakindi and set fire (4) Instigated others to set fire (62) P.W.16 (1) Climbed house of deceased (2) Poured kerosene through belakindi and set fire (73) P.W.17 P.W.18 (1) Climbed house of deceased (2) Poured kerosene through I belakindi and set fire (3) Instigated others to set fire (77) P.W.21 (1) Climbed house of deceased and set fire (2) Poured kerosene through belakindi and set fire (3) Instigated others to set fire (82) P.W.22 (1) Climbed house of deceased (2) Poured kerosene through belakindi and set fire (3) Instigated accused 20 to set fire (84) A13 A14 A15 A16 PW.1 Armed with Threw salt and Threw salt and Threw salt and weapons (20) chilli powder chilli powder into chilli powder into house of house of into house of deceased (18) deceased (18) deceased (18) PW.2 Pulled down nikari chappar, threw in fire (31) P.W.3 Threw wood Pulled down Threw wood into Threw wood into house of nikari chappar, house ofP.W. 32 into house of PW. 32 (35) threw in fire (35) PW. 32(35) (35) P.W.4 Pulled down Threw wood into Threw wood nikari chappar, house ofP.W. 32 into house of threw in fire (40) (40) P.W. 32(40) P.W.5 PW.6 Threatened people (47) P.W.7 Pulled down . nikari chappar, placed it to door of house ofP.W. 32,poured kerosene and fire (51) P.W.9 Pulled down nikari chappar and threw in front of house of PW. 32(56) P.W.10 P.W.11 P.W.16 Armed with club (73) P.W.17 P.W.18 Pulled down nikari chappar and threw in front of house of deceased (77) P.W.21 P.W.22 Pulled down nikari chappar and threw in front of house of deceased (84) A13 A14 A15 A16 P.W.1 Armed with Threw salt and Threw salt and Threw salt and weapon (20) chilli powder chilli powder into chilli powder into house of house of into house of deceased (18) deceased (18) deceased (18) PW.2 Pulled down nikari chappar, threw in fire (31) PW.3 Threw wood Pulled down Threw wood into Threw wood into house of nikari chappar, house ofP.W. into house of P.W. 32(35) threw in fire 32(35) PW.32(35) (35) P.W.4 Pulled down Threw wood into Threw wood nikari chappar, house ofP.W. into house of threw in fire (40) 32(40) PW.32(40) P.W.5 PW.6 Threatened people (47) PW.7 Pulled down nikari chappar, placed it to door of house ofP.W. 32, poured kerosene and fire (51) P.W.9 Pulled down nikari chappar and threw in front of house of PW. 32(56) P.W.10 P.W.11 P.W.16 Armed with club (73) P.W. 17 P.W.18 Pulled down nikari chappar and threw in front of house of deceased (77) P.W.21 P.W.22 Pulled down nikari chappar and threw in front of house of deceased (84) A17 A18 A19 A20 P.W.1 Threatened (1) Bought (1) Threatened Brought villagers (20) kerosene P.W.12 kerosene and (2) Threatened (2) Tried to poured it on PW. 12(19) throw children of wood placed on Malappa into fire the door of (19) house of (3) Armed with (3) Armed with deceased and house of club (20) club (20) Malappa and set fire (19) P.W.2 Pulled down Bought Armed with (1) Bought nikari chappar kerosene (31) sickle (31) kerosene and and threw in poured it on fire (31) wood placed on the door of house of deceased and house of Malappa and set fire (2) Instigated others to set fire (30, 31) p.w.a Put wood into (1) Threatened Armed with Poured house ofP.W. P W. 12 sickle (35) kerosene on 32(35) wood placed on (2) Armed with the door of club (35) house of deceased and house of Malappa and set fire (35) P.W.4 Armed with Poured sickle (39) kerosene to house of deceased and house of Malappa and set fire (39, 40) P.w.5 Armed with sickle (43) P.W.G Threatened Bought Armed with (1) Armed with people (47) kerosene (46) sickle (46) sickle (2) Bought kerosene, . poured it on wood and set fire (3) Threatened P.W. 12(46) P.W.7 Pulled down Pulled down (1) Armed with Poured nikari chap par, nikari chappar, sickle kerosene on placed it to placed it to (2) Threatened wood placed in door, poured door, poured people (51) front of house of kerosene and kerosene and deceased and set fire (51) set fire (51) house of Malappa and set fire (50 and 51) P.W.9 (1) Abused Armed with (1) Bought P.W.12 sickle (57) kerosene, (2) Bought poured it on kerosene and wood placed on poured on door of house of wood (57) deceased and house of Malappa and set fire (57) P.W.10 Poured Armed with (1) Bought kerosene (60) sickle (59) kerosene, poured it on wood placed en door of house of deceased and house of Malappa and set fire (60) P.W.11 Abused PW. (1) Kept wood on (1) Bought 12(62) door of house of kerosene, deceased poured it on (2) Armed with wood placed on sickle (62) door of house of deceased and house of Malappa and set fire (62) P.W.16 Armed with Poured sickle (73) kerosene on wood placed on door of house of deceased and house of Malappa and set fire (73) P.W.17 Poured kerosene on the window of house of Malappa and set fire (75) P.W.18 (1) Pulled down Armed with (1) Poured nikari chappar sickle (77) kerosene on threw in front of wood placed on house of door of house of deceased deceased and house of Malappa and set fire (2) Armed with (2) Pulled down sickle (77) nikari chappar threw in front of house of deceased (77) P.W.21 (1) Put wood in Put wood in front (1) Poured front of house of house of P.W. kerosene on of P.W.32 32(82) wood placed on (2) Threatened door of house of people (82) deceased and set fire (82) P.W.22 Pulled down Armed with Armed with Set fire to house nikari chappar sickle (84) sickle (84) of deceased (84) threw in front of house of deceased (84) A21 A22 A23 A24 P.W.1 (1) Armed with Armed with (1) Threatened (1) Armed with weapon sickle (20) P.W. 12 and weapon villagers (2) Threatened (2) Armed with (2) Threatened villagers axe (19~ 20) villagers (3) Pulled down (3) Pulled down nikari chappar nikari chappar and threw it in and threw it in fire (20) fire (20) P.W.2 Threatened Armed with (1) Instigated to people (31) sickle (31) bum deceased (2) Armed with sickle (30 and 31) P.W.3 Threatened Armed with Armed with I people (35) sickle (35) 'sickle (35) P.w.4 Armed with Armed with sickle (39) sickle (39) P.W.5 Armed with Armed with sickle (43) sickle (43) P.w.6 Armed with Armed with sickle (46) sickle (46) P.W.7 Pulled down (1) Armed with Armed with Pulled down nikari chappar, sickle sickle (50) nikari chappar, poured (2) Threatened poured kerosene and people (51) kerosene and set fire (51) set fire (51) P.W.9 Pulled down Armed with Armed with Pulled down nikari chappar sickle (57) sickle (57) nikari chappar and threw it in and threw it in front of house of front of house of p.w. 32 fire (57) P.W. 32 fire (57) P.W.10 ( 1) Pulled down Armed with Armed with (1) Pulled down nikari chappar sickle (59) sickle (59) nikari chappar and threw it in and threw it in front of house of front of house of P.w.32 P.W.32 (2) Threatened (2) Threatened neonle (60) neonle (60) P.W.11 Armed with (1) Armed with sickle (62) sickle (2) Kept wood on the door of house of deceased (62) P.W.16 Armed with Armed with sickle (73) sickle (73) P.W.17 P.W.18 Pulled down Armed with Armed with (1) Pulled down nikari chappar sickle (77) sickle (77) nikari chappar and threw it in and threw it in front of house of front of house of deceased (77) deceased (77) P.W.21 P.W.22 Pulled down Armed with Armed with (1) Pulled down nikari chappar sickle (84) sickle (84) nikari chappar and threw it in and threw it in front of house of front of house of deceased (84) deceased (84) A25 A26 A27 Shoba (juvenile) P.W.1 Armed with Threw salt and Bought kerosene, Bought tumbler weapon (20) chilli powder poured and set (19) into house of fire to house of deceased (18) PW.32(19) P.W.2 Pulled down Bought kerosene, Threw salt into nikari chap par poured and set fire (31) and threw in fire to house of fire (31) P.W. 32 (31) P.W. :3 Threw wood to Pulled down Poured kerosene Threw salt into the house of nikari chappar and set fire to fire (35) P.W.32(35) and threw in house ofP.W. 32 fire (35) (35) P.W.4 Pulled down Threw wood in (1) Poured Bought salt and nikari chappar front of house kerosene and set threw it into and threw in of PW. 32(40) fire to house of fire (39) fire (40) PW.32 (2) Instigated accused 20 to set fire to house of Malappa (40) P.W.5 P.W.6 Bought salt and tumbler (46) P.W.? Pulled down Bought and Bought salt and nikari chappar, poured kerosene tumbler (51) put it to door and set fire to and set fire (51) house of P.W. 32 (51) P.W.9 Pulled down Bought and (1) Bought nikari chappar poured kerosene tumbler and threw it in and set fire to front of house of house of P.W. 32 (2) Poured salt P.W. 32(57) (57) (51) P.W. 10 Pulled down (1) Pulled down (1) Bought salt nikari chappar nikari chappar and tumbler and threw it in and threw in (2) Poured salt front of house of front of house of into fire (60) P.W.32(60) P.w.32 (2) Bought and poured kerosene and set fire to house of P.W. 32 (60) P.W. 11 Armed with Bought and (1) Bought club (62) poured kerosene tumbler and set fire to (2) Poured salt house of P.W. 32 (62) (62) P.W.16 Poured kerosene Threw salt (73) and set fire to house of P.W. 32(73) P.W.17 P.W.IS Pulled down Poured kerosene Threw salt (77) nikari chappar and set fire to and threw it in house of P.W. 32 front of house of (77) deceased (77) P.W.2I Along with 4-5 persons threw wood in front of house of P.W. 32 (82) P.W.22 Pulled down Threw salt (84) nikari chappar and threw it in front of house of deceased (84) 25. Thus we find that the evidence of eye-witnesses has got a ring of truth and having regard to the fact that the incident happened in the year 1991 and the witnesses were called upon to depose before the Court almost 4 to 5 years, that is, in the year 1994-95, certain lapses are bound to occur in their evidence when compared to their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. But some omissions and lapses are but natural when there is a long time gap between the date on which the incident had happened and the date on which the witnesses were called upon to depose before the Court. Therefore, the contradictions and omissions marked through the evidence of P.W. 55 by the defence cannot be given undue importance as they do not affect the root of the prosecution case. 26. Therefore, the contradictions and omissions marked through the evidence of P.W. 55 by the defence cannot be given undue importance as they do not affect the root of the prosecution case. 26. Thus we find that the evidence of eye-witnesses has been fully supported by the medical evidence on record and various inquest panchanamas have also confirmed the fact of dead bodies being brought out from the burnt house and subjected to examination and description given in the panchanamas would go to show that all 10 persons died by suffering severe bums and they were suffocated to death. The clothes of the deceased have been identified by the witnesses as can be seen from the evidence of P.W. 13-Jagadev, who has identified M.Os. 1 to 43 and he has also testified with regard to the inquest panchanama as per Exs. P. 4 to P. 6. P.W. 14 speaks to the inquest panchanama as per Exs. P. 9 to P. 11 and the seizure of firewood-M.Os. 44 and 45 as well as axe, M.O. 46 as per Ex. P. 12. P.W. 20 speaks to the seizure of M.Os. 47 and 48 axes from accused-Abhimanyu and Channabasu as per Exs. P. 14 and P. 15 respectively. P.W. 26 speaks to the inquest panchanamas as per Exs. P. 25 and P. 26. P.W. 29 speaks to the inquest panchanama as per Exs. P. 29 and P. 30. P.W. 36 speaks to the seizure of M.Os. 26, 27, 32 and 33. P.W. 37 speaks to the seizure of M.Os. 41 and 43 during the inquest. P.W. 38 speaks to the effect that he collected M.Os. 35 to 37. P.W. 41 speaks to M.Os. 28 to 31, which were collected by him during the inquest. P.W. 42 testifies with regard to the inquest and arrested accused 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 as per Ex. P. 38. P.W. 44 deposes about the inquest held on the deceased as per Ex. P. 9 and the arrest of accused 20, 21, 26, 25 and 24 as per Exs. P. 50 and 51 respectively. P.W. 53 speaks to the seizure of the material objects from the spot and arrest of accused 9 to 11. 27. Thus the various inquest panchanamas and the material objects go to corroborate the testimony of the eye-witnesses in every respect. 28. P. 50 and 51 respectively. P.W. 53 speaks to the seizure of the material objects from the spot and arrest of accused 9 to 11. 27. Thus the various inquest panchanamas and the material objects go to corroborate the testimony of the eye-witnesses in every respect. 28. The arrest of accused persons is spoken to by the persons mentioned above. The seizure of the weapons is also placed on record through the testimony of P.Ws. 50, 51 and 51 to 55-Police Officers. 29. The evidence of material witnesses in particular eye-witnesses supported by the evidence of doctor and the witnesses are various inquest panchanamas, seizure panchanamas and arrest of the accused persons coupled with the evidence of Investigating Officers go to establish that the testimony of the eye-witnesses has been fully supported by the other evidence placed on record by the prosecution. As such, we see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the eye-witnesses in particular when they have spoken in detail about the role played by the accused persons during the incident in question. The motive part of the case is also spoken to by the eye-witnesses and it is also supported by the other witnesses and the deceased-Channabasappa having enmity with accused-Amogi is spoken to by P.Ws. 18, 20, 30 and 40 and the fact that Amogi was assaulted on the same day in the morning by Channabasappa group and accused 11 going to the police station and lodging of the complaint in this regard is also placed on record and in this connection, the evidence of P.W. 8 throws the light on this aspect. Exs. D. 3 and D. 10, which have been marked in the course of examination on behalf of defence. also go to indicate that a case in Crime No. 133 of 1991 was registered against Channabasappa. Thus though the motive part in the instant case may not assume much importance having regard to the fact that there are as many as 17 eye-witnesses to the incident in question, nevertheless the motive factor also has been proved in the instant case by the prosecution. 30. Now we would like to refer to the contentions urged before us by the learned Counsel for the respondents and also would like to deal with the Trial Court's reasonings for not accepting the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 31. 30. Now we would like to refer to the contentions urged before us by the learned Counsel for the respondents and also would like to deal with the Trial Court's reasonings for not accepting the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 31. The first contention raised is that the original complaint was suppressed and Ex. P. 1 came to be recorded much later and therefore, there is every possibility of deliberation and concoction preceding Ex. P. 1. No doubt, in the evidence of police officers, accused 11 went to the police station and lodged the complaint concerning the assault on Amogi by deceased Channabasappa group and a case was registered in Crime No. 133 of 1991. The evidence of P.W. 40 is also supported by the testimony of other police officers that is P.Ws. 30, 36, 37, 39,43 and 48. Ex. P. 1-complaint in the instant case was given by P.W. 1 and this was sent to the police station for registration in Crime No. 134 of 1991 as per Ex. P. 39. FIR was sent to the Court and it reached the Court at 12.30 p.m. The incident took place in the morning around at 7.00 a.m. and Ex. P. 1-complaint came to be lodged at 10.00 a.m. and FIR reached the learned Magistrate at 12.30 p.m. on the same day. Therefore, absolutely there is no delay either in lodging of Ex. P. 1-complaint or it reached the Court. No doubt, it has come in the evidence of police, officers that one person came and informed about the fire incident and this is spoken to by P.Ws. 36, 37,38 and 42. Merely because the information to the police was given stating that the fire occurred at the house of Channabasappa, that itself does not give a clear picture to the police about the incident and who are all the accused persons involved in the act of setting fire and, therefore, when the police officials after receiving the said information and went to the spot and thereafter recorded the complaint of P.W. 1, it cannot be said that there is suppression of original complaint. It is settled law that cryptic information given to the police either in the form of telephonic message or telegram or just saying that the house of Channabasappa was put fire itself cannot be sufficient for the police to register the case and therefore when the police go to the spot to get more information before registering the case, the said act on the part of the police cannot be construed as an act of suppressing the original complaint. At the most not registering the case soon after coming to know of the incident may be an act of negligence on the part of the police officers concerned. Therefore, the Trial Court's reasoning that the complaint lodged by some persons at the police station or that someone informed the police about the incident or for that matter P.W. 23 informed the police itself cannot give room to hold that there was suppression of original complaint. Therefore, the said view according to us is also against the well-settled position in law as has been laid down by the Apex Court. Hence, the question of the original complaint being suppressed or there being any deliberation or concoction taking place does not appear to us as having any force behind it. 32. The next contention put forward before us by the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the presence of some of the accused persons as spoken by the eye-witnesses cannot be believed and, in this connection, we were taken through Ex. P. 3-complaint, which is lodged by accused 11, and Ex. D. 10, which is the inquest panchanama held in connection with the death of Amogi following the assault on him. So far as the absence of accused 9, 11, 18, 20, 21 and 23 is concerned, the evidence on record does not indicate that these persons were not present at the time of the incident of setting the house of Channabasappa on fire. 33. So far as Ex. D. 10-inquest panchanama held in connection with the death of Amogi is concerned, it is pointed out by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that the persons, who accompanied the injured to the hospital, were Kasturavva, Jagadev, Channabasu and Chidananda. P.W. 52 has stated in his evidence that deceased-Amogi was accompanied to the hospital by his wife and 2 or 3 women folk and nobody else. P.W. 52 has stated in his evidence that deceased-Amogi was accompanied to the hospital by his wife and 2 or 3 women folk and nobody else. In fact, this witness has stated in his cross-examination that no male members were in the jeep when Amogi was taken to the hospital. Therefore, from the above evidence on record, the possibility of accused 9, 11, 18, 20 and 21 accompanying with Amogi to the hospital has to be ruled out. This conclusion of ours is reinforced by another important circumstance, that is, all the eye-witnesses examined in the instant case have deposed positively about the presence of these accused persons during the incident in question and not even a suggestion was put to any of the eye-witnesses including P.W. 1 that accused 9, 11, 18, 20 and 21 were not present and that they accompanied Amogi to the hospital. We are convinced to observe that the defence has not been able to establish this contention by effectively cross-examining the eye-witnesses in this regard. 34. So far as the reply given by accused 9, 11, 18, 20 and 21 in 313 statement is concerned, no doubt these accused persons have stated that they had accompanied with Amogi to the hospital. The statement of accused 19 has been adopted by accused 9 and 11 and likewise accused 23 has adopted the statement of accused 9 and 11. Therefore, it was argued that the reply given in 313 statement has to be construed as evidence. 35. So far as the position in law is concerned, it is well-settled that the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. is no evidence and though it is not substantive evidence, it can be taken into consideration when judging the prosecution as well as defence evidence. It is well-settled that the statement of the accused may only be taken into consideration so far as the enquiry or trial in which the statement is made is concerned, and a statement made under this section does not take the place of evidence. This is the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Vijendrajit Ayadhya Prasad Goel v. State of Bombay. That apart, it has also been held in another case in 1968 SC 312 (sic), that it is only where the accused gives evidence under Section 315 of the Cr. This is the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Vijendrajit Ayadhya Prasad Goel v. State of Bombay. That apart, it has also been held in another case in 1968 SC 312 (sic), that it is only where the accused gives evidence under Section 315 of the Cr. P.C. that this statement can be read as evidence proper. Therefore, the position in law is that his statement of accused is a matter to be considered by the Court along with other evidence on record and his version should be accepted if it could be reasonable or unless the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt. 36. In the instant case, we find that there is evidence placed by the prosecution through the testimony of number of eye-witnesses to show the presence of these accused persons during the incident in question. In fact, all the eye-witnesses have spoken consistently that accused 9 was on the top of the house of Channabasappa and set fire by throwing fire-balls and another accused person-Siddarth also joined in the acts and rest of the accused persons helped in the incident. Therefore, we do not find any force in the submission made in this regard and at the same time, for the very same reason, we also do not find any justification in the Trial Court also taking the similar view as contended before us by the learned Counsel for the respondents. The said conclusion of the Trial Court has led to discarding the evidence of eye-witnesses. In our view, it is established that the presence of the accused persons has been spoken consistently by the eye-witnesses and their absence at the spot not being established by placing either defence evidence or effectively cross-examining the eye-witnesses on this aspect, the Trial Court could not have discarded the entire evidence of eye-witnesses in toto. 37. The Trial Court also found discrepancies, omissions and contradictions in the testimony of eye-witnesses when compared to the evidence of P.W. 55. In this connection, we would like to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court with regard to appreciating the evidence of the eye-witnesses. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Papanaika and Others. 37. The Trial Court also found discrepancies, omissions and contradictions in the testimony of eye-witnesses when compared to the evidence of P.W. 55. In this connection, we would like to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court with regard to appreciating the evidence of the eye-witnesses. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Papanaika and Others. The Apex Court has observed thus: "It is common experience that sometimes witnesses are prone to lapse of memory and sometimes they overstate the facts but simply because the statements of the witnesses are partly not trustworthy that does not mean that the whole of the testimony of the witnesses should be discarded. Criminal Courts while appreciating testimony of witnesses should not take easy approach. Some exaggeration or embellishment can appear in the testimony because of lapse of time or poor memory. Therefore, wherever Courts find sufficient corroboration then testimony of such witnesses should be accepted", 38. It is also settled law that undue importance cannot be given to 161 statement, but at the most it can be made use of to contradict the testimony of the witnesses and some exaggeration or minor discrepancies in the testimony of the eye-witnesses will not be fatal to the prosecution case. 39. The Trial Court has also discarded the evidence of eye-witnesses on one more ground, that is, with reference to the conduct of the deceased persons as well as the eye-witnesses. So far as the Trial Court’s reasonings in this regard is concerned, we are at a loss to understand as to how one could expect the deceased persons, who were caught inside the house and when the house was burning and the house being surrounded by the accused with weapons in their hands, to come out and such an act can only be excepted in reel life, but not in the real life. The Trial Court has observed that even the eye-witnesses could be prevented the incident in question, and they did not stop the accused persons in committing the act. This reasoning of the Trial Court is also unsound and is not based on proper scrutiny of the evidence on record. The eye-witnesses have spoken to the effect that the accused threatened them with dire consequence and the accused were found armed and such being the case, no person would take risk to rescue the persons caught inside the burning house. The eye-witnesses have spoken to the effect that the accused threatened them with dire consequence and the accused were found armed and such being the case, no person would take risk to rescue the persons caught inside the burning house. Even with regard to character or conduct of the witnesses is concerned, undue importance cannot be given, if the evidence of such witnesses finds corroboration in material particulars from the evidence of other witnesses. When the presence of witnesses is not doubted, their evidence requires to be accepted. This is the position in law as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Farid Khan and Others and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Singh (dead) and Others. 40. If we closely scrutinise the evidence of eye-witnesses in the light of the above position in law with regard to the appreciation of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the prosecution case and all the defects referred to by the learned Trial Judge in the course of his discussion of the evidence as well as the conclusions drawn are contrary to the well-established principles of law and as such, they have to be rejected and accordingly we reject the conclusions of the trial mentioned at paragraph 225. 41. Certain lapses in the investigation has also been brought to our notice in the course of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondents and the Trial Court has also noted these lapses to which we already made reference above. These lapses, with regard to arrest of the accused and the seizure of the material objects cannot be given undue importance. These lapses, with regard to arrest of the accused and the seizure of the material objects cannot be given undue importance. The Apex Court in the case of Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab has observed as thus: "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 157 and 160 to 168 Investigation - Defective investigation - Effect of - Not fatal to prosecution where ocular testimony is found credible and cogent - Court has to be circumspect while evaluating the evidence in a case of such type - Thus, accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defect in investigation - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 - Non-sending of bloodstained earth for chemical examination and weapons of assault and pellets for ballistic examination - On facts, held not fatal - Criminal trial — Infirmities/lapses/omissions - Defective investigation - Effect Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 34". Therefore, the investigation lapses in the instant case are not so serious enough to discard the trustworthy testimony of all the eye- witnesses and hence, the Trial Court could not have given much importance with regard to the lapses in investigation. Therefore, we reject the said finding of the Trial Court also. 42. Thus on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, having regard to the fact that there was faction between deceased and the accused, we are of the firm opinion that the testimony of the eyewitnesses deserves to be accepted as reliable and trustworthy. As many as 17 witnesses have given evidence against the accused persons and when there are two factions in the village the question of these witnesses trying to depose falsely against the accused persons or making false implications will not arise. As such, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court requires to be interfered by us in this appeal as in our view, the Trial Court's reasoning is not in accordance with the well-established principles of law and consequently when the material evidence on record has been ignored and more particularly, the entire evidence of the eye-witnesses has been discarded in one go, the said approach of the Trial Court has led to, in our opinion, to a totally perverse finding and unjust acquittal of the accused persons. Hence, there are compelling reasons made out by the State, for us to interfere in this appeal. 43. Hence, there are compelling reasons made out by the State, for us to interfere in this appeal. 43. One more aspect that requires to be referred to before proceeding further is with regard to application of Section 149 of the IPC to the case on hand. The evidence of all the eye-witnesses and other witnesses, who supported the eye-witnesses, would go to indicate that all the accused persons, who are respondents before us, have taken part in the incident of setting the house of Channabasappa on fire. The role played by all the accused persons has already been referred to by us by referring to the evidence on record through the chart, which was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents. The entire operation was carried out by accused-Anand and Siddarth and rest of the accused also joined hands and no one made any attempt to prevent the holocaust taking place. Thus all the accused persons with the common object of putting an end to the life of 10 persons committed the act in question. Therefore, in our view, each accused person becomes liable for the act in question. In this connection, we would like to place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar and Another v. State of Rajasthan. In the said case, the Apex Court has observed that even if no part is played, mere presence is sufficient to attract Section 149 of the IPC. The relevant observation is as under: "9. Section 149 of the 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 149, 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. 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 behaviour at the time of or before or after the occurrence. The word "knew" used in the second limb 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. 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 cases which would be within the first part; but offences committed in prosecution of the common object would be generally, if not always, be within the second part, namely, offences which the parties knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common object. (See Chikkarange Gowda v. State of Mysore, AIR 1956 SC 731 : 1956 Cri. L.J. 1365 (SC)". (See Chikkarange Gowda v. State of Mysore, AIR 1956 SC 731 : 1956 Cri. L.J. 1365 (SC)". The above position in law is also to be found reiterated in the case of State of Punjab v. Hakam Singh. 44. Having regard to the above proposition of law with regard to Section 149 of the IPC, in the instant case, since the eye-witnesses have spoken about the role of the accused including accused 11, we are of the view that all the accused will be liable to be convicted for causing the death of ten persons and, therefore, Section 149 of the IPC will be applicable to all the accused. So far as the role of accused 11 is concerned, although the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents drew our attention to Ex. D. 3, the complaint given by accused 11, and the evidence of P.W. 8, all that we notice from that is that the complaint was given by accused 11 at 8.00 a.m. on 5-10-1991 as per Ex. D. 3 at Chadachana Police Station, whereas, the present incident took place in the early morning as per the say of all the witnesses i.e., around 7.00 a.m. Admittedly, the incident took place at 7.00 a.m. on 5-10-1991 and hence, when all the eye-witnesses have spoken about the presence of all the accused, and more particularly the presence and the overt acts of accused 11 being spoken to by as many as six eye-witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 to the effect that accused 11 gave instigation to the other accused to set fire to the house of deceased Channabasappa, the presence of accused 11 is also established by the prosecution and there is no positive evidence placed by accused 11 to disprove this and more importantly, not even a suggestion has been put to any of the eye-witnesses that accused 11 was not present during the incident in question and that, at that point of time, accused 11 was at the police station. Therefore, we do not find any force in the submission made in regard to accused 11 being not present at the time of the incident and the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the basis of the conjectures and surmises. Therefore, we do not find any force in the submission made in regard to accused 11 being not present at the time of the incident and the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the basis of the conjectures and surmises. As a matter of fact, it was accused 11 who started the initial instigation, which led the other accused to set the houses on fire. Hence, we are of the view that all the accused persons will be liable with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC for all the offences with which they stand charged. In other words, the prosecution has established the commission of all the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 506, 342 and 436 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 45. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the question of sentence. The learned State Counsel Sri B.V. Pinto submits that having regard to the ghastly act committed by the accused and in view of the offences under both the Sections 302 and 436 of the IPC being punishable with life imprisonment, the accused persons be dealt with severely for the manner in which they have caused the death of ten persons. On the other hand, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondents Sri C.R. Jadhav as well as Sri Mallikarjun S. Masali submitted that there is a long gap between the date of incident and the disposal of the appeal today and the accused had the benefit of acquittal all these years and this fact may be taken note of while considering the sentence to be imposed. 46. No doubt, there is a long time gap between the date of incident and as of now. This factor could have been a relevant one if the accused were to be punished for a lesser offence than the one under Section 302 of the IPC. This Court could have reduced the sentence having regard to the long time gap but, as the offences charged and proved by the prosecution includes Section 302 as well as Section 436 of the IPC both of which are independently punishable with life imprisonment, we are not inclined to accept the submission made in this regard by the learned Amicus Curiaes for the respondents. Moreover, with regard to the sentencing is concerned, the Apex Court has observed that the sentence to be imposed should respond to the society's cry for justice and the observations made in this regard are to be found in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem alias Chamaru and Another, at paragraphs 8 and 10, wherein it is observed thus: "8. The object should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. xxx xxx xxx 10. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal" ". 47. Having regard to the above settled position in law and taking note of the fact that the accused set fire to the houses of Channabasappa as well as teacher Pavithrabai because of the earlier incident on the same day, in which Amogi was said to have been assaulted by deceased Channabasappa's party, this is not a case coming under the rarest of rare cases category and, as such, the only alternative is to impose imprisonment for life on all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 302 and ten years fine for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the IPC and for the rest of the offences, though proved and though convicted, we do not propose to award any separate sentences for the said offences. 48. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order: (1) Both the State appeals are allowed. (2) The impugned judgments and orders of acquittal passed by the Trial Court dated 30-11-1998 and 30-4-1999 in both the appeals are hereby set aside. 48. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order: (1) Both the State appeals are allowed. (2) The impugned judgments and orders of acquittal passed by the Trial Court dated 30-11-1998 and 30-4-1999 in both the appeals are hereby set aside. (3) All the respondents in both the appeals viz., Ramappa Bhimappa Kattimani, Janabai, Yallawwa, Mudakavva alias Muktabai, Husanavva, Padma, Subhadra, Anand Amogi Kambale, Mallappa Bhimanna Kattimani, Dandappa Geneppa Kattimani, Tukaram Pundalik Kattimani, Sidram Mallappa Kattimani, Nimbewwa, Vimalabai, Sukhdev Bhimanna Kattimani, Shrishail Bhimanna Kattimani, Siddarth alias Siddappa Kallappa Kattimani, Laxman Bhimanna Kattimani, Abhimanyu Kallappa Kattimani, Channabasu Geneppa Kattimani, Laxman Revappa Kattimani, Sidraya Laxman Kattimani, Vimalabai and Chikkappa Laxman Kattimani in Cri. A. No. 276 of 1999, and Buddappa in Cri. A. No. 1201 of 1999 are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 506, 342 and 436 read with Section 149 of the IPC; (4) Each one of the above respondents is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and each one of them is also liable to pay find of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for a period of two years. The fine amount, if collected, shall be distributed equally among the legal heirs of the respective deceased persons; (5) For the offence punishable under Section 436 of the IPC, each one of the above named respondents is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of the fine amount being paid by them, to undergo further R.I. for a period of one year. If the fine amount is collected, the same shall be distributed equally between the heirs of deceased Channabasappa and Pavithrabai; (6) However, we do not propose to impose any sentence on each of the respondents herein for the rest of the offences, which have been proved against them; (7) The substantial sentences imposed as above shall run concurrently; (8) All the respondents herein shall also be entitled to set off as per Section 428 of the Cr. P.C. All the respondents above named shall forthwith surrender before the Trial Court to undergo the sentences upon them by us and if they fail to do so, the Trial Court shall take necessary and immediate steps to secure the presence of the respondents herein in order to serve out the sentences imposed upon them by us as above. Sri C.R. Jadhav and Sri Mallikarjun S. Masali have ably assisted us as Amicus Curiaes and we also place on record their assistance particularly in placing on record the chart, which we have incorporated in the judgment itself, has given us able assistance in appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective. Hence, we place on record our appreciation for the valuable services rendered by both of them and we fix the fee of Sri C.R. Jadhav at Rs. 5,000/- and the fee of Sri Mallikarjun S. Masali at Rs. 3,000/- and we direct the Registry to make necessary arrangement to pay the said fee to the learned Counsel at the earliest. A copy of the judgment shall be forthwith sent to the Trial Court for compliance. It is ordered accordingly.