( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant/ state against the order of acquittal, dated 28-11-2001, recorded in Sessions Case no. 337 of 2000 on the file of the Principal assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole. ( 2 ) THE appellant herein is the State and the respondents 1 to 5 herein are A-1, A-3, a-4, A-5 and A-7 respectively before the trial court and therefore, for the purpose of convenience, they will be referred hereinafter in this judgment as the State and A-1, A-3, a-4, A-5 and A-7. ( 3 ) THE relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chimakurthy police Station, filed charge-sheet in Crime no. 57 of Chimakurthy Police Station, before the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, alleging that the accused and prosecution witnesses are residents of Chinaravipadu village and there are ill feelings between them and that on 23-5-1999 at about 5. 00 a. m. when P. W. 1-Dasari Lakshminarayana and his mother-Dasari Subbamma-P. W. 2 were sleeping on cots in front of their house and about 5. 00 a. m. when his mother woke him up for fetching hay, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, in pursuance of their common object of doing away the life of P. W. 1, attacked him with axes and sticks and that out of them, A-4, who took the lead, hacked with an axe on his head and A-2 axed him under the right knee in two directions, A-1 axed on his left leg below the knee in two directions and on his left thigh, A-3 axed on his right thigh, and rest of the accused beat him indiscriminately on nis right wrist, left toe and on the left arm pit and when his mother- P. W. 2-Dasari subbamma came to his rescue, A-1 axed on her left shoulder and the other accused beat her indiscriminately and on hearing theircries, dasari Krishna (brother of P. W. 1) and his wife and his paternal uncle Dasari Akkaiah (P. W. 3) and other villagers gathered and on noticing them, the accused absconded from the scene of offence. Later, both P. Ws. 1 and 2 were broughtto Chimakurthy Police Station, where, P. W. 1 lodged Ex. Later, both P. Ws. 1 and 2 were broughtto Chimakurthy Police Station, where, P. W. 1 lodged Ex. P-1 -report and later both the injured were referred to Government hospital, Ongole and from where P. W. 1 was taken to Government General Hospital, guntur, for better treatment. ( 4 ) ON the said allegations, the learned magistrate took the case on file against all the accused and as A-2 and A-6 died, case against them was abated and after observing all formalities, duly committed the case to the court of Session, Prakasam District, Ongole, against the remaining accused Viz. , A-1, a-3, A-4 A-5 and A-7, by virtue of a committal order passed under Section 209 Cr. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as Sessions Case No. 337 of 2000 and made over the same to the Court of Principal assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, for trial. ( 5 ) THE learned Principal Assistant sessions Judge, Ongole, after due hearing of both sides, framed charges under sections 147, 148, 307 read with section 149 IPC against A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-7; under Section 324 IPC against A-5 and A-7; under Section 326 IPC against A-1, a-3 and A-4, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 6 ) DURING the trial, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 11 and exhibited exs. P-1 to P-22 and marked M. Os. 1 to 5. ( 7 ) AFTER closure of the prosecution evidence, the learned Principal Assistant sessions Judge examined the accused under section 313 Cr. P. C. . wherein, all the accused described the incriminating evidence found against them as false. But, they did not choose to examine any witness nor marked any document on their behalf. The case of the accused is one of total denial. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the total denial of the accused, the learned Assistant sessions Judge found A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and a-7 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with section 149 IPC; A-5 and A-7 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC; a-1, A-3 and A-4 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and acquitted all of them. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order of acquittal, the State preferred the present appeal contending that the judgment of the trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trial Court ought to have seen that the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 4 is cogent, consistent and credit worthy. The trial Court ought to have seen that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the injured witnesses and the reason given by the trial court for brushing aside their evidence is not at all convincing. The trial court ought to have seen that the medical evidence is in support of the prosecution case. The trial Court acted illegally in terming P. Ws. 3 and 4 as interested witnesses, which is unwarranted, and the trial Court acted illegally in acquitting the accused on surmises and conjectures. Hence, the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. ( 10 ) DURING the course of hearing of the appeal, the learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the appellant/state reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and further submitted that the accused formed into an unlawful assembly with an intention to Kill P. W. 1 and while p. W. 1 was sleeping in front of his house along with his mother- P. W. 2 at about 5. 00 a. m. all the accused went armed with axes and sticks and attacked P. W. 1 and caused him injuries and when P. W. 2 went to the rescue of P. W. 1, she was also beaten and that P. W. 3 paternal uncle of P. W. 1 and P. W. 4 brother of P. W. 1 on hearing the cries of p. W. 2 went there and found all the accused attacking P. Ws. 1 and 2 and they are also eyewitnesses to the incident and all of them have in one voice stated that all the accused are responsible for the injuries found on p. Ws. 1 and 2 and that the nature of injuries found on P. W. 1 disclose the intention of the accused to Kill P. W. 1. 1 and 2 and they are also eyewitnesses to the incident and all of them have in one voice stated that all the accused are responsible for the injuries found on p. Ws. 1 and 2 and that the nature of injuries found on P. W. 1 disclose the intention of the accused to Kill P. W. 1. He further submitted that P. W. 5 is the neighbour and P. W. 6 is the father of P. W. 1 who was sleeping in the cattle shed also came there on hearing the cries and by the time they came there all the accused were found going leaving the injured p. Ws. 1 and 2 at the scene of offence. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 is amply corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 9 who examined p. Ws. 1 and 2 within hours after the occurrence and that P. W. 1 was immediately taken to the police station and the police recorded the statement of P. W. 1 and the said statement amply corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 1 was sent to the hospital and P. W. 9 examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 at about 8. 20 a. m. Thus, the prosecution succeeded to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges framed against the accused. But, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty on some flimsy grounds and that the reasons given for acquittal are perverse and unsound and therefore this is a fit case to in there with the order of acquittal and punish the respondents- accused suitably. ( 11 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-accused submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 as P. W. 10, the doctor at Ongole found only three injuries and further he described the age of the injuries as two days. Therefore, the evidence of P. W. 10 contradicts the evidence of P. W. 9 and also the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4. Hence, the learned trial Judge rightly disbelieved the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6 and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. The learned counsel further submitted that all the witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 6 are closely related to P. Ws. 1 to 4. Hence, the learned trial Judge rightly disbelieved the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6 and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. The learned counsel further submitted that all the witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 6 are closely related to P. Ws. 1 and 2 and therefore they are interested witnesses and that though according to the prosecution several neighbours gathered at the scene of offence, none of the independent witnesses are examined and further the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 6 is full of improvements made during the course of evidence as observed by the learned trial Judge. Further, the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the accused to attack P. W. 1 and further the first information report reached the magistrate only at 5. 10 p. m. on 23-5-1999 and the doctor-P. W. 10 did not find any injury on the head of P. W. 1 and that taking all these circumstances into consideration, the learned trial Judge rightly acquitted the respondents- accused and therefore this is not a fit case to interfere with the order of acquittal and that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ( 12 ) THE points that arise for determination in this appeal are: (1) Whether the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court against a-1 to A-7 is not sustainable in law? (2) If so, that is the punishment to be imposed on the accused? (3) To what result?point No. 1: ( 13 ) AS seen from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the victims and P. Ws. 3 and 4 are also eyewitnesses and P. Ws. 5 and 6 are the witnesses who immediately went to the scene of offence and found all the accused going away and P. W. sl and 2 with injuries in front of the house of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 stated that he studied M. A. , B. Ed. 3 and 4 are also eyewitnesses and P. Ws. 5 and 6 are the witnesses who immediately went to the scene of offence and found all the accused going away and P. W. sl and 2 with injuries in front of the house of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 stated that he studied M. A. , B. Ed. , and he was appointed as Para Teacher and he is working at gadipatrivaripalem of Chimakurthy Mandal and that during the summer vacation he went to his native village Chinnavaripadu and on the intervening night of 22/22p-5-1999 himself and his mother slept on two different cots in front of their house and at about 5-00 a. m. on 23-5-1999 his mother woke him up saying that he has to get up early to bring hay and at that time all of a sudden all the accused A-1 to A-7 and two others suddenly came and attacked him. A-4 who was leading the accused from the side of his house, came upon him shouting "champandira veedini" and when he tried to get up, in the meanwhile a-4 came and beat him with an axe on the left side of his head, A-1 beat him with an axe on his left leg, A-2 axed him on his right leg, a-7 and A-1 rolled him and axed him on his thighs, again A-1 beat him on his left leg and rest of the people who were armed with sticks beat him indiscriminately and when his mother came to his rescue and requested them not to beat him, his mother was pushed aside and she was also beaten and as he was by then seriously injured, he did not observe as to who beat P. W. 2 but P. W. 2 sustained injuries on both hands and back. He further stated that his mother and sister-in-law also came out of the house and saw the accused beating him and out of fear they did not come near to him. He further stated that his senior paternal uncle (P. W. 3) who is his neighbour also witnessed the incident and raised cries and when many people gathered the accused ran away. One of the broken axes and one stick were left at the scene of offence. He further stated that his senior paternal uncle (P. W. 3) who is his neighbour also witnessed the incident and raised cries and when many people gathered the accused ran away. One of the broken axes and one stick were left at the scene of offence. Afterwards his brother P. W. 4 and others took him to Chimakurthy Police Station in the tractor owned by them and there police recorded his statement Ex. P-1 and sent him to Government Hospital for treatment. He further stated that after giving one bottle of blood and first aid, he was referred to government Hospital, Guntur where he took treatment for 45 days and thereafter he took treatment in private hospital. ( 14 ) P. W. 2, the mother of P. W. 1 stated that while herself and her son were sleeping outside the house, she got up early and asked her son P. W. 1 to get up as he has to go to bring hay and when P. W. 1 was about to get up, A-4 came with an axe in his hand, then she prayed him not to beat P. W. 1 and raised cries. When P. W. 1 tried to get up, a-4 beat her son with axe on his head and in the meanwhile other accused who were behind a wall came all of a sudden and beat p. W. 1. Soon after receiving the blow from a-4, her son P. W. 1 fell down, ,aie Dasari venkateshwarlu (A-2) beat her son on his right leg near the ankle and A-7 axed he! son p. W. 1 on his things of both legs. ( 15 ) P. W. 3 (Dasari Akkaiah) the senio paternal uncle of P. W. 1 stated that on that day at about 5-00 a. m. while he was sleeping in front of the house at a distance of 4 yards from where P. W. 1 was sleeping and that he witnessed the accused attacking P. Ws. 1 and 2. He stated that while P. Ws. 1 and 2 were talking. 1 and 2. He stated that while P. Ws. 1 and 2 were talking. A-4 went with an axe and beat P. W. 1 on his head and when P. W. 1 raised cries, a-1 beat him on his leg with axe, then late venkateshwarlu beat P. W. 1 on his left leg, a-7 beat P. W. 1 on his thighs with axe, A-3 beat P. W. 1 with axe on his right hand, then a-5 and A-6 beat P. W. 1 with sticks and when p. W. 2 went to the rescue of P. W. 1, she was also beaten and she sustained injuries on her left back, above forearm and below forearm. But, he could not say which of the accused inflicted which of the injuries on p. W. 2. He further stated that the brother of p. W. 1 also came there and witnessed the incident. ( 16 ) P. W. 4 the brother of P. W. 1 stated that on 23-5-1999 at about 5. 00 a. m. himself and his wife were sleeping in the outside of their house and inside the compound wall while his brother and mother were sleeping outside the compound wall and on hearing the cries, he came out opening the gate of the compound wall and found A-4 beating P. W. 1 on his left side of the head with an axe, A-1 beat P. W. 1 on his left leg with an axe, A-2 beat on his right leg. A-7 axed P. W. 1 on his thighs, A-3 axed his brother on his left hand, a-2 also axed his brother on his left hand, a-1 beat on his right hand with an axe and when he (P. W. 4) raised cries not to beat, the accused tried to attack him, then he went inside and came out with a stick and then the accused tried to attack him, that when A-1 and A-2 attempted to axe him, the axe of a-1 hit the sun shade of the door and the stick of axe was broken and fell down on the ground. Meanwhile people gathered there and the accused ran away. He further stated that by the time he went inside and came out with a stick, his mother P. W. 2 was also beaten. Meanwhile people gathered there and the accused ran away. He further stated that by the time he went inside and came out with a stick, his mother P. W. 2 was also beaten. Therefore, he could not observe which of the accused beat his mother at which place of her body. He further stated that he took P. Ws. 1 and 2 in a tractor to chimakurthy Police Station and there P. W. 1 gave statement. ( 17 ) P. W. 5 resident of Chinaravipadu stated that his house is situated in the same lane at a distance of 20 yards from the house of P. W. 1 and on that day he was sleeping in front of his house and on hearing some galata, he woke up and saw A-1 to A-7 going away armed with axes and sticks and ne found P. Ws. 1 and 2 with injuries. Later some more people gathered and the injured was taken to Chimakurthy Police Station. He spoke about the presence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 and P. W. 4 s wife there. He admitted that p. W. 2 and his wife are cousins. ( 18 ) P. W. 6, the father of P. W. 1 stated that on that day he was sleeping in a thatched hut at the cattle shed situated at a distance of 20 yards from his house and on hearing some galata, he woke up and went to his house and found his son P. W. 1 and his wife P. W. 2 with injuries and that by the time he went there, a-1 to A-7 were found going armed with axes and sticks and when he asked people gathered there, they stated that A-1 to A-7 attacked P. Ws. 1 and 2 and caused injuries. He spoke about the presence of P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 there. ( 19 ) AS seen from the above said evidence, p. Ws. 1 to 4 are the direct witnesses to the incident and P. Ws. 5 and 6 are the track witnesses. P. Ws. 1 to 4 stated that A-1 to a-7 are responsible for the injuries on P. Ws. 1 and 2. 3, 4 and 5 there. ( 19 ) AS seen from the above said evidence, p. Ws. 1 to 4 are the direct witnesses to the incident and P. Ws. 5 and 6 are the track witnesses. P. Ws. 1 to 4 stated that A-1 to a-7 are responsible for the injuries on P. Ws. 1 and 2. ( 20 ) P. W. 9, Civil Assistant Surgeon in district Hospital, Ongole stated that on 23-5-1999 at 8-20 a. m. he examined P. W. 1 and found the following injuries: (1) A lacerated wound of 5" x " x bone deep on the left parietal region of head. (2) A chopped wound of inverted V, shape on the left thumb " x " x muscle deep. (3) An incised wound of 4" x 1" x muscle deep on the posterior aspect of left thigh. (4) An incised wound of 5" x 1" x bone deep on the posterior aspect of lower of left leg. (5) An incised wound of 5" x 1" x bone deep on the front of lower half of left leg with compound fracture of tibia and fibula bones. (6) A lacerated wound of 2" x 1" x bone deep on the front of right leg with fracture of both bones of right leg. The doctor opined that injuries 1,5 and 6 are grievous in nature and those injuries are aged 4 to 6 hours and might have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like axe. She further stated that on the same day at about 8. 40 a. m. she examined P. W. 2 and found the following injuries. (1) A lacerated wound of 1" x 1" in " on the back of left scapular area. (2) An incised wound of 2" x " x " on the right forearm. (3) Swelling and tenderness over the left wrist. She opined that the injuries 2 and 3 are grievous in nature and injury No. 1 is simple in nature and that age of injuries is 4 to 6 hours and might have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like axe. ( 21 ) THUS, the evidence of P. W. 9 also supports the ocular evidence that the injuries found on P. Ws. 1 and 2 could have been caused by axe and sticks. ( 22 ) AS seen from Ex. ( 21 ) THUS, the evidence of P. W. 9 also supports the ocular evidence that the injuries found on P. Ws. 1 and 2 could have been caused by axe and sticks. ( 22 ) AS seen from Ex. P-1, the statement of p. W. 1, the Police Chimakurthy recorded the same at 6. 30 a. m. on 23-5-1999 and issued f. I. R. and sent it to the magistrate. As seen from the F. I. R. Ex. P-6 the Village chinaravipadu is at a distance of 15 kms. from Chimakurthy Police Station. According to P. Ws. 1 to 4 they were taken in a tractor from the village to Chimakurthy Police Station. Police recorded the statement of P. W. 1 at 6. 30 a. m. and sent both the injured to government Hospital, Ongole. As seen from the wound certificate, P. W. 9, the doctor working in Government Headquarters hospital, Ongole examined P. W. 1 at 8. 20 a. m. Therefore, immediately after the occurrence P. W. 1 was taken to the police station and there the police recorded the statement of P. W. 1 under Ex. P-1. In the said statement itself P. W. 1 stated that A-4 beat him on his head with an axe and A-1 beat him on his left leg and late Dasari venkateshwaralu (A-2) axed him on his right leg and other accused beat him with sticks and when his mother came to his rescue, the accused beat her also and on hearing his cries, P. Ws. 3, 4 and neighbours also came there. ( 23 ) THOUGH the report was given immediately after the occurrence naming the accused and also the witnesses, the learned trial Judge rejected the evidence of all the witnesses in its entirety on the ground that p. Ws. 1 to 6 are interested witnesses and there is no independent evidence to corroborate their evidence and that the evidence of Orthopaedician in Government hospital, Guntur who is examined as P. W. 10 gave the age of injuries as two days and did not find injuries on the head of P. W. 1, and also on the ground that there is delay in the f. I. R. reaching the magistrate. The learned trial Judge further found that there are improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and therefore their evidence is not trustworthy. The learned trial Judge further found that there are improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and therefore their evidence is not trustworthy. Further the learned trial Judge found that the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the accused to attack P. W. 1. ( 24 ) SO it has to be seen as to how far these reasons are justifiable to discredit the evidence of injured witnesses supported by the earlier statement-Ex. P-1 and also medical evidence besides other interested ocular evidence. ( 25 ) FIRSTLY it has to be seen whether the learned trial Judge is justified in discarding the evidence on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the motive. In paragraph 32 of the judgment, the learned trial Judge observed that according to P. W. 1 the immediate motive for the offence is that he might contest elections for the post of sarpanch and also that there was land dispute between him and A-4 and that as seen from ex. P-1,p. W-1 did not furnish any details with regard to motive for the accused to attack him and it is simply stated therein that on account of old disputes, the accused made an attack on him and thus P. W. 1 made a major improvement in evidence with regard to motive. The learned Judge further observed that the motive part spoken to by P. W. 1 that again he may contest for the post of Sarpanch is proved to be false by the evidence of his own father. The learned trial Judge relied on the admission of P. W. 6, the father of P. W. 1 that by the date of incident there was no publication or notification to conduct elections to the local bodies. I am unable to understand as to how such admission of P. W. 6 falsifies the evidence of P. W. 1 that the accused might have attacked him on the ground that he may contest for Sarpanch elections. The learned trial Judge failed to note that motive is a double edged weapon and further the victim cannot correctly guess the mind of the culprits as to what prompted them to attack him and he can only make a guess work about the motive for the attack. In the report itself p. W. 1 categorically stated that there were old disputes between him and the accused. In the report itself p. W. 1 categorically stated that there were old disputes between him and the accused. Merely because P. W. 1 did not give the details for motive in the report, it cannot be said that it is a major development. The law is well settled that the first information report need not contain all the details and it is not be all and end all and it is only the information to move the investigating machinery into motion. Further, where the direct evidence is available, the motive plays an insignificant role and the prosecution need not prove the motive at all in such cases. Only in cases where the prosecution case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, the motive plays an important role and the prosecution has to prove the motive as one of the circumstances. But, when there is direct evidence available for the prosecution, there is no need to prove the motive. Further, in the instant case, p. Ws. 1 and 2 categorically stated that there was a land dispute between P. W. 1 and A-4. P. W. 5 also stated that at about 2 months prior to the incident, the accused had an altercation with P. W. 1 with regard to the land dispute. P. W. 3 also stated about the dispute between P. W. 1 and A-4 in connection with purchase of some land by A-4. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no motive for the accused to attack P. W. 1. The learned trial Judge grossly erred in observing that the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the accused to attack P. W. 1. The reason given by the learned trial Judge for disbelieving the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in this regard is perverse. ( 26 ) THE other reason given by the learned trial Judge is that though there are houses of independent persons situated near the scene of offence and though several villagers gathered pn hearing the cries of P. Ws. 1 and 2, the prosecution did not examine the independent witnesses and only relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6, who are interested witnesses. It is true that P. Ws. 1 to 6 are related to each other. It is also true that there are some houses belonging to different caste people near the scene of offence. 1 and 2, the prosecution did not examine the independent witnesses and only relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6, who are interested witnesses. It is true that P. Ws. 1 to 6 are related to each other. It is also true that there are some houses belonging to different caste people near the scene of offence. But, there is no evidence to the effect that any independent witness witnessed the incident. Even otherwise, merely because the independent witnesses did not come forward to give evidence, it is not a ground to discard the entire testimony of as many as six witnesses out of whom two are injured witnesses. The law is well settled that the testimony of interested witnesses cannot be disbelieved on the ground that there is no corroboration from the evidence of independent witnesses. But, at the same time, the interested testimony has to be scrutinized carefully with more than ordinary care and caution and adopt the method of removing chaff from the grain. The learned trial Judge failed to note this position of law in appreciation of evidence. Hence, I am of the considered view that this reason for discarding the evidence of injured witnesses is perverse. The learned trialjudge oughtto have removed the chaff from the grain instead of discarding the entire evidence on the ground that there is no corroboration from the independent oral evidence. ( 27 ) THE other reason given by the learned trial Judge in paragraph 35 of the judgment is that the medical evidence completely destroy the theory of prosecution that the alleged offence occurred on 23-5-1999 and that the evidence of P. W. 10 suggests that probably the alleged incident might have occurred on 21-5-1999. This observation of learned Judge is not only perverse but also absurd. P. W. 10 is not the doctor who examined the injured witnesses at the earliest opportunity. P. W. 9 is the doctor in Government Headquarters hospital, Ongole who examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 at the earliest opportunity at 8. 20 a. m. on the same day and gave her opinion that the injuries are aged about 4 to 6 hours. P. W. 10 is an Orthopaedic doctor at Guntur General hospital. He did not state that he examined the injured on the same day i. e. on 23-5-1999 when P. W. 9 examined the injured. 20 a. m. on the same day and gave her opinion that the injuries are aged about 4 to 6 hours. P. W. 10 is an Orthopaedic doctor at Guntur General hospital. He did not state that he examined the injured on the same day i. e. on 23-5-1999 when P. W. 9 examined the injured. P. W. 10 simply stated that on 23-5-1999 the patient by name D. Laxminarayana was referred to government General Hospital, Guntur from government Hospital, Ongole and the said laxminarayana was admitted as inpatient and he treated the said patient and after examination he found the following injuries: (1) Compound communated fracture both the bones right leg upper 2/3 s of right leg. (2) Compound communated fracture both the bones left leg, lower 1/3 of left leg. (3) Closed fracture ulna right forearm middle 1/3. ( 28 ) THE doctor did not state that he examined the injured- P. W. 1 on the same day on 23-5-1999 when P. W. 1 was admitted in Guntur General Hospital. It was not elicited from him at what time and on what date he examined P. W. 1. The doctor said that the duration of injuries is two days. Merely because he stated that the duration of injuries is two days , it cannot be said that P. W. 1 could have received injuries on 21-5-1999. As seen from Ex. P-5-case sheet the signature of the orthopaedician- P. W. 10 is found only on 25-5-1999. So it is obvious that the doctor, P. W. 10 examined the patient only on 25-5-1999 by which time the injuries were two days old. Therefore, from such evidence of P. W. 10, the learned trial Judge is not justified to discard the evidence of P. W. 9 who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon in government Headquarters Hospital, Ongole who examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 on 23-5-1999 at 8. 20 a. m. Further, it is absurd to believe that even by 23-5-1999 those injuries were two days old because according to P. W. 10 had the injuries found on P. W. 1 not been attended to immediately, it would have been proved fatal. If really P. W. 1 received injures on 21-5-1999 and he was not treated till 23-5-1999 he would not have survived. If really P. W. 1 received injures on 21-5-1999 and he was not treated till 23-5-1999 he would not have survived. Further, it is improbable to believe that P. W. 1 did not approach the hospital or the police for 2 days with such severe injuries on his body. The learned trial Judge without applying the mind, look the statement of P. W. 10 "the duration of injuries is two days" as a statement in respect of the age of the injuries on 23-5-1999, though it is nowhere stated that p. W. 10 examined P. W. 1 on 23-5-1999 immediately after the admission. As seen from the evidence of P. W. 9 there is severe injury on the head of P. W. 1 which resulted in fracture of both parietal bones and therefore immediately after admission, he must have been attended to by some other doctors and probably thereafter he was referred to orthopaedic surgeon for other fractures. In fact, as seen from the evidence of P. W. 10, he spoke only about the compound communated fractures of both bones right and left leg and ulna right forearm middle. So obviously he spoke about the injuries to which he gave treatment. As P. W. 10 is an orthopaedician, he deals with only fractures on hands and legs. Curiously enough, the learned trial Judge took this evidence as evidence contrary to the evidence of P. W. 9 and held that by the time P. W. 10 examined P. W. 1, there was no injury on the head and therefore the medical evidence contradicts the oral evidence and it destroys the case of the prosecution. The reasoning given by the trial Court in this regard is perverse. Moreover, when there is evidence of P. W. 9 who is expected to note down all the injuries on the person, there is no need for the trial Judge to give importance to the evidence of P. W. 10 who is only an orthopaedician working in General Hospital, guntur and who gave only treatment for the injuries. P. W. 1 was referred to Guntur General hospital only for treatment and not for noting down the injuries in the medico legal case register. Moreover, it was not elicited in the cross-examination of P. W. 10 that there were no other injuries found on P. W. 1 other than three fractures noted down by him. P. W. 1 was referred to Guntur General hospital only for treatment and not for noting down the injuries in the medico legal case register. Moreover, it was not elicited in the cross-examination of P. W. 10 that there were no other injuries found on P. W. 1 other than three fractures noted down by him. In fact, it was not even suggested to P. W. 9 that there were only three injuries and not six injuries and there was no injury on the head. In fact, it was not the case of the accused during the trial that there was no injury on the head of p. W. 1 and that P. W. 1 and 2 received on 21-5-1999 and not on 23-5-1999. No suggestions were also put to any of the witnesses to that effect. Curiously enough, the learned trial Judge picked out the stray sentence "duration of the injuries is 2 days" from the deposition of P. W. 10 and also taking into consideration only three injuries spoken to by P. W. 10 to hold that medical evidence contradicts oral evidence. This kind of appreciation of evidence is nothing but perverse. ( 29 ) ANOTHER reason given by the learned trial Judge for acquittal of the accused is that there was delay in reaching the first information report to the magistrate Court. The offence in this case took place at 5. 00 a. m. on 23-5-1999 at a distance of 15 kms. from Chimakurthy police station and the matter was reported in the police station at 6. 30 a. m. The first information report was issued at Chimakurthy and the magistrate court is situated at Ongole but not at chimakurthy. The magistrate received the first information report along with the report ex. P-1 on the same day at 5-10 p. m. This is not a case of murder and the crime was registered for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 326, 307 r/w 149 I. P. C. and immediately the police sent P. Ws. 1 and 2 to the Government Headquarter Hospital at ongole along with the escort after recording the statement. 1 and 2 to the Government Headquarter Hospital at ongole along with the escort after recording the statement. For issuance of F. I. R. , it takes some time for the Station House Officer to incorporate all the contents of the statement in the printed form of F. I. R. and thereafter he has to make copies and then send to all the concerned including the magistrate. In the s aid process, generally it takes some time especially when the Magistrate Court is situated not at the place where the police station is located. As admittedly there is no magistrate Court at Chimakurthy and it is situated at Ongole, delay of 8 to 10 hours in reaching the printed F. I. R. along with the report Ex. P-1 to the Magistrate Court cannot said to be an inordinate delay. Further, as seen from the evidence of P. W. 9, P. W. 1 was admitted in the hospital at 8. 20 a. m. on the same day. Therefore, P. W. 1 must have given his statement prior to that time. Under those circumstances, the delay in reaching the f. I. R. to the Magistrate Court does not in any way discredit the statement made by P. W. 1 who was severely injured. Therefore, the learned trial Judge erred in holding that the delay in reaching the F. I. R. to the Magistrate court is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. Such a reason given by the learned trial Judge is unsound and not sustainable in law. ( 30 ) THE other reasons given by the trial court are that there are major omissions, which go to the root of the prosecution case. The learned trial Judge did not elaborate as to what are those major omissions. The contradiction according to trial Judge is the medical evidence of P. Ws. 9 and 10. As stated supra, it is not at all a contradiction and the evidence of P. W. 10 is only in respect of the injuries for which he gave treatment as an orthopaedician. No contradictions have been elicited in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6. Of- course, some omissions have been pointed out. The omission pointed out in the evidence of P. W. 1 is that he did not state that A-4 dealt blow on the left side of his head. No contradictions have been elicited in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6. Of- course, some omissions have been pointed out. The omission pointed out in the evidence of P. W. 1 is that he did not state that A-4 dealt blow on the left side of his head. The omission is only in respect of left side. As seen from ex. P-1, P. W. 1 stated in his statement given at the earliest opportunity that A-4 dealt blow on his head. In his evidence he stated this a-4 beat on the left side of the head. Admittedly, there was only one injury on the head. When such is the case, merely because p. W. 1 did not state in Ex. P-1 and also before the police specifically that A-4 beat on the left side of the head, it cannot be said that it is an omission much less a major omission. The learned Judge observed that P. W. 10 did not speak about this injury and therefore the medical evidence contradicts the evidence of P. W. 1 and other witnesses. I have already discussed about the evidence of P. W. 10 in this regard. ( 31 ) THE other omissions pointed out are that P. W. 1 did not state before the police that a-1 and A-7 rolled him on the floor and beat him on his thighs. It is true that P. W. 1 made only omnibus allegation in his statement ex. P-1 and also before the police and he did not give the overt acts in detail. To the extent of those overt acts not attributed, those accused can be given benefit of doubt on that ground. But, for that reason the entire evidence cannot be brushed aside. The other omission elicited from P. W. 1 is that he did not disclose that Dasari Subbarao son of satyanarayana beat him on the left side of his left leg. As seen from Ex. P-1, P. W. 1 stated that Dasari Subbarao beat him on his left leg with an axe. The learned counsel contended that there are two persons by name Dasari Subbarao sons of two different persons and that father s name is not mentioned in the report and also before the police and therefore it is an omission. P-1, P. W. 1 stated that Dasari Subbarao beat him on his left leg with an axe. The learned counsel contended that there are two persons by name Dasari Subbarao sons of two different persons and that father s name is not mentioned in the report and also before the police and therefore it is an omission. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the accused because p. W. 1 has categorically stated that Dasari subbarao beat him on the left side of his leg and P. W. 1 pointed out that Dasari Subbarao as A-1 son of Satyanarayana. Merely because p. W. 1 did not give the father s name in ex. P-1, it cannot be said that P. W. 1 did not attribute specific overt acts to A-1 in respect of the fractures on his left leg. So it cannot be termed as omission much less major omission in the evidence of P. W. 1. The other omission is regarding the motive. It is elicited from p. W. 1 that he did not state either in the report or in 161 Cr. P. C. statement that he had land and political disputes with the accused. But, as seen from Ex. P-1 it is clearly stated that on account of old disputes between A-4 and himself, the accused persons attacked him. As observed supra, the F. I. R. is not be all and end all and that it need not contain all the details. Therefore, this omission cannot be treated as major omission. So far as P. W. 2 is concerned, it is elicited that P. W. 2 did not state before the police that she woke up p W. 1 and requested him to fetch some hay and she did not state that A-7 hacked on the thighs of A-1 and that she did not state the father s name of A-1. These omissions are also not omissions amounting to contradictions, which affect the testimony of the witnesses. Moreover, P. W. 2 is an injured witness and therefore her presence cannot be ruled out at the time of offence. Further, as saen from Ex. P-1, P. W. 1 stated that while he and his mother were talking, the accused came and attacked them. Moreover, P. W. 2 is an injured witness and therefore her presence cannot be ruled out at the time of offence. Further, as saen from Ex. P-1, P. W. 1 stated that while he and his mother were talking, the accused came and attacked them. Therefore, it is immaterial whether P. W. 2 stated that she woke up P. W. 1 for specific purpose of getting hay. So far as the failure of P. W. 2 to speck about the specific overt acts at the earliest opportunity can be taken as major omission and to that extent the concerned accused can be given benefit of doubt but on that ground the entire evidence of P. W. 2 cannot be brushed aside. ( 32 ) SIMILAR is the case in respect of other eyewitnesses P. Ws. 3 and 4. It was elicited from P. W. 11 that P. W. 3 did not state before him the father s name of Dasari Subbarao and also did not state that A-7 beat P. W. 1. As already observed supra, the father s name need not be mentioned and that when the witness identified A-1 describing him as dasari Subbarao, there was no need to give much importance to such an omission. It was only a minor omission and it cannot be treated as major omission or an improvement. Similarly, it was elicited that P. W. 4 also did not state the name of A-1 and that he did not state that A-7 hacked P. W. 1 on his thighs and that P. W. 4 did not disclose that A-3 beat p. W. 1 on his left hand and A-1 and A-2 dealt blows on the left hand of P. W. 4. So far as the failure to mention the father s name of A-1, it is not at all an omission and so far as the omission in respect of other overt acts, those accused can be given benefit of doubt in respect of those particular injuries attributed to them. On the ground of such omissions, the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded. So, discarding the entire evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6 on the ground that there are certain omissions is perverse and is not sustainable. On the ground of such omissions, the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded. So, discarding the entire evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6 on the ground that there are certain omissions is perverse and is not sustainable. ( 33 ) THE law is well settled that in the absence of independent evidence, the interested testimony of the witnesses has to be scrutinized with more than ordinary care and caution and that the method of removing the chaff from the grain is to be adopted while appreciating the interested testimony. One of the acceptable methods in the process of removing the chaff from the grain is the overt act method. In the instant case, as seen from the statement-Ex. P-1 given at the earliest opportunity within 1 hours after the occurrence, P. W. 1 categorically stated that a-4 beat him on his head and A-1 axed him on his left leg. In the evidence also P. W. 1 stated that A-4 beat him with an axe on his head and A-1 beat him with an axe on his left leg. Of-course, in Ex. P-1 and also in the evidence of P. W. 1 and other witnesses it was stated that A-2 beat him on the right leg. But, as A-2 is no more and as the case is abated against him, it is not necessary to discuss about him. So far as A-4 is concerned, all the witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 4 consistently stated that A-4 beat P. W. 1 on his head with an axe at the first instance. Their consistent evidence is supported by Ex. P-1. P. W. 9 the doctor also found lacerated wound of 5" x " x bone deep on the left parietal region of head and the x-ray of skull revealed fracture of both parietal bones. Thus, the medical evidence amply supports the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 4 in this regard. Therefore, A-4 can be safely found guilty of causing this grievous injury to P. W. 1. Similarly, in Ex. P-1 and also in his evidence P. W. 1 stated that A-1 axed him on his left leg. The doctor also found an incised wound of 5" x 1" x bone deep on the posterior aspect of lower half of left leg and the x-ray of left leg reveals fracture of tibia and fibula. Similarly, in Ex. P-1 and also in his evidence P. W. 1 stated that A-1 axed him on his left leg. The doctor also found an incised wound of 5" x 1" x bone deep on the posterior aspect of lower half of left leg and the x-ray of left leg reveals fracture of tibia and fibula. P. W. 3 also stated that A-1 beat p. W. 1 on his leg with an axe. P. W. 4 also stated that A-1 beat P. W. 1 on his left leg with an axe. Besides medical evidence, the oral evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 also corroborates trie evidence of P. W. 1 in this regard. Further, p. W. 2 also spoke about the presence of A-1 and attributed that A-1 beat her also and caused fracture on her hand. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that A-1 was also one of the persons who attacked P. W. 1 and it was A-1 who caused fracture on both bones of left leg. So far as other accused are concerned, in Ex. P-1 only omnibus allegations are made by P. W. 1. P. W. 1 could not say as to who among the culprits beat p. W. 2 in his statement-Ex. P-1. So far as a-2 is concerned, specific overt acts were attributed to him. But, as he is no more now, it is not relevant to discuss about A-2. So far as A-3, A-5 to A-7 are concerned, as no specific overt acts have been attributed to them and only omnibus allegations are made against them in the statement-Ex. P-1 given at the earliest opportunity and as there is no independent evidence to corroborate the testimony of interested witnesses in respect of the overt acts attributed to other accused, i am of the considered view that a benefit of doubt can be given to them in the process of removing chaff from the grain. ( 34 ) FURTHER, coming to the injuries found on P. W. 2, as already observed supra, the injuries received by P. W. 2 were not specifically attributed to any of the accused in the statement-Ex. P-1. ( 34 ) FURTHER, coming to the injuries found on P. W. 2, as already observed supra, the injuries received by P. W. 2 were not specifically attributed to any of the accused in the statement-Ex. P-1. But, P. W. 2-injured in her evidence stated that when she prayed the accused not to beat P. W. 1 and caught hold of their legs, she was pushed away and when she again went to the rescue of her son, A-1 beat her on her right hand, A-2 beat her on her left hand and A-3 beat on her back. P. W. 1 could not say as to who beat P. W. 2 on which part of the body. P. W. 3 also did not say as to which accused beat at which part of the body of P. W. 2. P. W. 4 also stated that her mother P. W. 2 was also beaten by the accused. He stated that he couldn t say which accused beat his mother at which place of her body. Therefore, regarding the overt acts attributed by P. W. 2 in respect of her injuries, there is no corroboration from oral evidence. Further according to her when she caught hold of the legs of accused not to beat P. W. 1, she was beaten by the accused on her back. In fact, no injuries were found on the back of p. W. 2. Moreover, P. W. 2 is an old woman. Therefore, I am of the considered view that it is not safe to place reliance on the solitary testimony of P. W. 2 in respect of the overt acts attributed by her to A-1 and A-3. Hence, a-1 and A-3 are entitled for benefit of doubt in respect of the injuries caused to P. W. 2. ( 35 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the order of acquittal recorded against A-1 and A-4 in respect of the grievous injuries found on P. W. 1 is liable to be set aside and the order of acquittal in respect of the other accused in respect of injuries found on P. Ws. 1 and 2 is to be confirmed. Thus, this point is found accordingly. Point No. 2: ( 36 ) IN view of the finding on point No. 1, a-1 and A-4 are to be convicted for the injuries caused to P. W. 1. 1 and 2 is to be confirmed. Thus, this point is found accordingly. Point No. 2: ( 36 ) IN view of the finding on point No. 1, a-1 and A-4 are to be convicted for the injuries caused to P. W. 1. As seen from the medical evidence P. W. 1 received grievous injuries on his head and also on his left leg, which were attributed to A-1 and A-4. As per the doctor, an axe could have caused the said injuries, which is a dangerous weapon. Therefore, A-1 and A-4 are guilty of offence punishable under Section 326 I. P. C. So far as Section 307 I. P. C. is concerned, there is no sufficient material to show that the accused had an intention to kill thp injured-P. W. 1. If at all the accused had intention to kill P. W. 1, they must have caused injuries on the chest portion as P. W. 1 was lying down on the cot. As the injuries were found on the legs except one injury on the head, I am of the considered view that the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt so far as Section 307 IPC is concerned. Hence, A-1 an A-4 are to be convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. Regarding the sentence, sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each on a-1 and A-4 would meet the ends of justice. Thus, this point is found accordingly. Point No. 3: ( 37 ) IN the result, the appeal filed by the state in so fat as it relates to A-1 and A-4 is allowed in part and the appeal filed against the acquittal in respect of other accused viz. A-3, A-5 and A-7 is dismissed. A-1 and A-4 are found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of THREE YEARS and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each (Rupees two thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.