JUDGMENT T. Vaiphei, J. 1. The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.3.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in ST No. 16(ST/B) of 1992 convicting all the Appellants under Sections 148/149/326/436/448/302 IPC and sentencing them to undergo (1) rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default thereof, to suffer another rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 148 IPC; (2) seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default thereof, to suffer another RI for one year in respect of the offence under Section 326 IPC; (3) seven years RI with fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default thereof to suffer another RI for two years for the offence under Section436/149 IPC and (4) life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 302/149 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. We have extensively heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, the learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Shankar Das, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State-Respondent. 3. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that on 12.10.1988 at about 2210 hours, one Braja Mohan Jamatia lodged a written ejahar with the O/C, Manpathar Police Outpost stating that on that day at about 1510 hours, while the CPI (M) supporters under his leadership was re-opening their party office at Birchandranagar Bazar, which was earlier closed due to the atrocities of the Congress (I) party workers, the supporters of Congress (I) under the leadership of Tamal Sen, Amal Biswas, Ganesh Debnath, Dayamoy Debnath, Arun Debnath, Parimal Debnath, Santosh Roy, Gopal Debnath. Bhuban Debnath, Dulal Sharma and others suddenly attacked them with sharp cutting weapons, bombs, bricks, acid bulbs, etc. and set on fire the house of Nibaran Das and killed Sudhir Debnath, Netai Sarkar, Nitya Hari Mura Singh, Sukha Ranjan Mura Singh, Kala Chakma, Security Constables Ratan Datta and unknown one. Sridarn Paul, ADC member was missing, etc. On forwarding the written complaint by the O/C Manpathar Outpost, the O/C, Belonia PS registered Belonia PS Case No. 14(10) 88 under Section 148/149/326/302/436 IPC and endorsed the same to S.I. Rabindra Bhowmik, O/C Manpathar Outpost for investigation. 4. Sridarn Paul, ADC member was missing, etc. On forwarding the written complaint by the O/C Manpathar Outpost, the O/C, Belonia PS registered Belonia PS Case No. 14(10) 88 under Section 148/149/326/302/436 IPC and endorsed the same to S.I. Rabindra Bhowmik, O/C Manpathar Outpost for investigation. 4. During investigation, this I.O. visited the place of occurrence, prepared hand sketch of the P/O with index, the inquest reports on the bodies of the 13 (thirteen) deceased including two security constables, seized a number of materials/objects, examined some of the witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. He also arrested some of the accused and arranged for post mortem examination of the dead bodies. Subsequently, the case was transferred to CID whereupon one Bikash Sarkar, Inspector of Police, CID took up the investigation. The Investigation Officer, in the course of investigation, visited the place of occurrence, prepared hand sketch of the P/O with separate index, took photographs of the P/O, examined material witnesses and recorded the statements of the remaining witnesses under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. He collected the post mortem examination reports in respect of the 13 (thirteen) deceased and other evidence. The findings of the investigation conducted by the CID are that the date 12.10.1988 was the market day of Birchandranagar Bazar as well as the day of the final football match in the school field situated adjacent to Birchandranagar Bazar. A large number of people had gathered there to witness the football match and for marketing for the forthcoming Durga Puja festival. On that day at about 1530 hours, a procession comprising of a good number of the supporters of CPI (M) under the leadership of Lai Mohan Debnath, Dipak Reang, Sudhir Debnath, Biralal Das and others using loud speakers paraded in the bazaar and eventually coverage at the party office of CPI(M) party. The processionists were waving their party flags mounted on long and stout lathis. They were shouting with provocative slogans. At this stage, some members of the public objected to the conduct of the processionists and against the allegedly provocative speech delivered by the leaders of the CPI(M) through microphone there. While the police were trying to calm down the crowd, suddenly brick bats were hurled towards CP1(M) party office from the direction of the western and north western side of the said party office. While the police were trying to calm down the crowd, suddenly brick bats were hurled towards CP1(M) party office from the direction of the western and north western side of the said party office. In retaliation, according to the Investigating Officer, the supporters of CPI (M) also threw brick bats towards the mob and so for a while, there were exchange of brick bats between the two sides. Some workers of the CPI(M) including MLA Braja Mohan Jamatia (the complainant), ADC member Sridam Paul and also their security constables took position inside the party office of the CPI (M) by shutting the doors. After a few minutes, the door of the office of the CPI (M) office was slightly opened and a hand with a revolver came out which fired 3/4 rounds. As a result, Narayal Paul, Rupen Garu and Nanai Patary sustained bullet injuries and one Dulal Debnath was killed. On hearing the sound of firing, the football match stopped and the crowd rushed towards the main road and became violent on seeing the incident of innocent people falling victim to the bullets being fired from the revolver from inside the party CPI (M) party office. The prosecution story further stated that at this stage, the public in general turned into a frenzied mob and became absolutely unruly and violent and attacked CPI (M) party office and CPI (M) party workers and as a result many of them fled to a nearby jungle through the back door being chased by the agitated mob from various directions. The agitated mob killed thirteen persons, namely- (i) Sridam Paul, ADC Member, (2) Sukha Ranjan Mura Singh, (3) Nitya Hari Mura Singh, (4) Lalit Noatia, (5) Purna Ch. Noatia, (6) Nitai Sarkar, (7) Bira Lal Das, (8) Sudhir Debnath, (9) Guna Hari Mura Singh, (10) Ratan Datta, (11) Amal Biswas, (12) Chatramani Debbarma and (13) Kalia Chakma. After investigation of the case, the CID found a prima facie case against 25 persons, namely- (1) Amal Kr. Biswas, (2) Santosh Roy, (3) Arun Debnath, (4) Birendra Ch. Noatia, (6) Nitai Sarkar, (7) Bira Lal Das, (8) Sudhir Debnath, (9) Guna Hari Mura Singh, (10) Ratan Datta, (11) Amal Biswas, (12) Chatramani Debbarma and (13) Kalia Chakma. After investigation of the case, the CID found a prima facie case against 25 persons, namely- (1) Amal Kr. Biswas, (2) Santosh Roy, (3) Arun Debnath, (4) Birendra Ch. Banik @ Bharat Banik, (5) Man Kumar Mura Singh, (6) Tamal Krishna Sen, (7) Balai Das, (8) Parimal Debnath, (9) Dayamoy Debnath, (10) Ganga Charan Debnath, (11) Tapan Sen, (12) Rakhal Shil, (13) Nemai Debnath, (14) Manik Mitra, (15) Manindra Debnath, (16) Nakul Paul, (17) Dasarath Reang, (18) Ganesh Debnath, (19) Tapan Debnath, (20) Nikhil Paul, (21) Suresh Mitra, (22) Kefru Mog, (23) Sanjit Dutta, (24) Narayan Paul and (25) Anil Mitra, under Sections 148/149/448/326/323/302/436/114 IPC and accordingly challaned them to stand their trial. At this juncture, it may be noted that during the pendency of the trial, the accused Anil Mitra and Tapan Debnath died while the co-accused Rakhal Shil, Nemai Debnath, Amal Biswas, Santosh Roy, Ganesh Debnath, Tamal Sen, Balai Das, Ganga Charan Debnath and Birendra Banik could not be arrested despite employing even coercive measures allowed under the law and were accordingly declared as proclaimed absconders. The remaining accused are the present Appellants. 5. On committal of the case, which was now registered as ST No. 16(ST/8)92 (GR No. 389/89) the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura endorsed the same to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura for trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge thereafter framed the following charges against the fourteen Appellants: FIRSTLY: That all of you alongwith others on 12.10.88 AD from 1510 hours to 2000 hours at Birchandra Manu, and its surrounding area, under PS Belonia, Sub-Division-Belonia District, South Tripura, were a member of unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the common object of that assembly you were armed with deadly weapons i.e. sharp cutting Ram Dao, Bomb, Acid Bulb, Brick bat, Lathi, Pistol, Gun, sharp cutting Cheni, axe. etc. which were used as a weapon of offence, did commit the offence of rioting and all of you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section148 of IPC and within the cognizance of the court of Session. etc. which were used as a weapon of offence, did commit the offence of rioting and all of you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section148 of IPC and within the cognizance of the court of Session. SECONDLY: That all of you alongwith other miscreants on the same date, time and place, were a member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, when some of the members of the said assembly namely- (1) Kefru Mog, (2) Manik Mitra, (3) Suresh Mitra, (4) Nikhil Mitra, (5) Nakul Paul. (6)Tapan Sen. (7) Manincra Debnath, (8) Parimal Debnath. (9) Narayan Chandra Paul, (10) Surajit Dutta alias Sanju. (11) Dasarath Reang, (12) Dayamoy Debnath, (13) A run Chandra Debnath, (14) Man Kumar Mura Singh and many others did commit voluntarily caused grievous hurt by means of sham cutting weapons like Ram Dao, Cheni Dao. Spears etc. to Shri Binode Debnath and Sri Lai Mohan Debnath and others and all of you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and within the cognizance of the Court of Session. THIRDLY: That all of you alongwith others on the same date, time and place, were a member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, when some of the members of the said unlawful assembly namely-(I) Kefru Mog, (2) Manik Mitra, (3) Suresh Mitra, (4) Nikhil Mitra, (5) Nakul Paul, (6) Surajit Dutta @ Sanju Dutta, (7) Dasarath Reang, (8) Rapan Sen, (9) Manindra Debnath, (10) Parimal Debnath, (II) Narayan Paul, (12) Dayamoy Debnath, (13) Arun Chandra Debnath, (14) Man Kumar Mura Singh and many others, intentionally did commit murder to: (1) Sridam Paul, (2) Nitai Sarkar, (3) Amal Biswas, (4) Sudhir Debnath, (5) Ratan Dutta, Sukha Ranjan Murasingh. (7) Nitya Hari Mura Sing, (8) Chatramani Debbarma, (9) Kalia Chakma, (10) Lalit Moatia, (11) Gunahari Mura Sing, (12) Biralal Das, (13) Puma Noatia, and all of you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section302 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and within the cognizance of the Court of Session. (7) Nitya Hari Mura Sing, (8) Chatramani Debbarma, (9) Kalia Chakma, (10) Lalit Moatia, (11) Gunahari Mura Sing, (12) Biralal Das, (13) Puma Noatia, and all of you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section302 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and within the cognizance of the Court of Session. FOURTHLY: That all of your alongwith others on the same date, time and place, were a member of an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and in prosecution of the common object of that assembly some of the members namely-(1) Kefru Mog, (2) Manik Mitra, (3) Suresh Mitra, (4) Nikhil Mitra, (5) Nakul Paul, (6) Tapan Sen, (7) Parimal Debnath, (8) Manindra Debnath, (9) Narayan Chandra Paul, (10) Surajit Dutta (iv Sanju. (11) Dasarath Reang, (12) Dayamoy Debnath. (13) Arun Ch. Debnath, (14) Man Kumar Mura Singh and many others did commit house trespass by entering in the dwelling hut of Sri Parimal Das and others with intend to assault and hurt and mischief by fire and all of you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 448 IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and within the cognizance of the Court of Session. FIFTHLY: That all of you alongwith others on the same date, time and place were a member of an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, and in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, some of the members namely -(1) Kefru Mog, (2) Manik Mitra, (3) Suresh Mitra, (4) Nikhil Mitra. (5) Nakum Paul, (6) Tapan Sen. (7) Manindra Debnath, (8) Parimal Debnath, (9) Narayan Ch. Paul, (10) Surajit Dutta (a). Sanju, (11) Dasarath Reang, (12) Dayamoy Debnath. (13)Arun Ch. Debnath, (14) Man Kumar Mura Singh and many others did commit mischief by fire in the dwelling hut or Nibaran Das and as such all of you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 436 IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and within the cognizance of the Court of Session. 6. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 36 witnesses to bring home the charges against the Appellants. A number of documentary evidence and alamats were also exhibited by the prosecution to substantiate their case. 6. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 36 witnesses to bring home the charges against the Appellants. A number of documentary evidence and alamats were also exhibited by the prosecution to substantiate their case. The defence case as revealed from the cross-examination of the prosecution is that of total denial of the charges levelled against them which, according to them, was the result of public reaction to the provocative acts of the members of the CPI (M) party. In other words, the case of the defence is that the incident took place due to the misbehaviour and unruly acts of the workers of the CPI (M) party, for which they were not to be blamed and, at the most, it was a case of exercise of right to private defence. No evidence was, however, adduced on behalf of the defence apart from submitting a copy of the report of the S. ML Ali Commission of Inquiry dated 31.1.1990. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence upon the Appellants as indicated earlier. We have carefully examined the impugned judgment and order and are constrained to observe that the trial court did not apply its mind at all to the facts of the case or property appreciate the evidence on record. The exercise undertaken by it was, at the most, ad verbatim reproduction of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and thereafter of making some passing remarks in the form of "I find no material contradiction in his evidence". It needs no reiteration that the recording of reasons is an essential requirement of a judgment of a law court because recording of reasons alone can show whether the Court has applied its mind to all the facts and circumstances relevant to the points in dispute. Recording of reasons necessarily implies the appreciation and consideration of evidence. In other words, every judgment of a criminal Court should show sufficient particulars so taken into account by it to enable a Court of appeal to know what facts are proved and how. A criminal Court has to sift and analyse evidence very carefully so as to determine whether the case against the accused persons is established beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, every judgment of a criminal Court should show sufficient particulars so taken into account by it to enable a Court of appeal to know what facts are proved and how. A criminal Court has to sift and analyse evidence very carefully so as to determine whether the case against the accused persons is established beyond reasonable doubt. It is most unfortunate that the impugned judgment does not fulfil this basic and essential requirement and is, therefore, no judgment in the eye of law. Ordinarily, this is a fit case for setting aside the impugned judgment solely for this reason and remand the case to the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. However, keeping in mind the fact that the appeal has been pending since 1999, to remand the case at this stage will not be a very good option and justice demands that we dispose of the appeal without the benefit of a judgment passed by a trial court fulfilling the essential requirements of law. 7. The sole question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence on record to sustain the conviction of the Appellants. Assailing the conviction, Mr. P.K. Biswas, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, vehemently argued that the findings of the trial court are based on conjectures and surmises and are also mostly founded on first time statements in Court, which are full of mbellishments, exaggeration and padding to their statements recorded under Section 161Code of Criminal Procedure so that they cannot be relied on by a court of law to sustain the impugned judgment of conviction. According to the learned Counsel, the trial court committed serious error in relying upon such untrustworthy testimonies to base the conviction. The learned Counsel further contended that the evidence of all the so-called ocular witnesses are conspicuous by inconsistencies thereby creating serious doubt on the entire prosecution case and, as such, there can be one and one verdict alone, that is, the verdict of honourable acquittal. Referring to the material omissions in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, which have been duly proved, the learned Counsel strenuously urged that where evidence of all the ocular witnesses are wholly unreliable, the question of one witness corroborating the other would not arise nor would the question of separating the chaff from the grain. It is his further submission that when Belonia PS Case No. 15(10)1988, which was admittedly the counter-case of this case arising out of the murder of one Dula Debnath due to the firing of the prosecution witnesses in this case, was abruptly withdrawn by the Respondent, obviously to save the accused persons in that case, it was incumbent upon the trial court to draw adverse inference and acquit the Appellants for that reason. It was thus submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the impugned judgment of convictions and sentences could not be sustained in law. On the other hand, Mr. Shankar Das, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State-Appellant supported the impugned judgment and submitted that no interference was called for. In particular, he contended that though some relevant facts not stated in the statement of the prosecutions made under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure were undoubtedly mentioned by them for the first time before the trial court, that could not be a ground for rejecting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on those aspect when their evidence are otherwise creditworthy and acceptable. In other words, it is his submission that such lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer would not take away the nature and character of the evidence. He also submitted that the evidence of eyewitnesses were also supporting each other, variations in the name of the Appellants cited by witnesses cannot be a ground for disbelieving their testimony, more so, when accused persons large in numbers were engaged in chasing and assaulting the victims in different directions. Finally, he contended that discrepancies were bound to arise in a case such as the where there are many accused and witnesses and where the incident occurred at a place where a very large number of persons were gathering and it was also possible that in the melee, it would not be possible for all the eyewitnesses to see in a clear way who amongst them were the injured or dead and that grave miscarriage of justice would be caused if the Appellants are acquitted by this Court by ignoring those realities. 8. The first point which calls for consideration in this appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence against the Appellants to bring home the charge against them under Section 148 IPC. 8. The first point which calls for consideration in this appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence against the Appellants to bring home the charge against them under Section 148 IPC. According to P.W. 4, he was in the cattle market of Birchandra Manu and when he heard that the party of CPM office would be opened, he proceeded to the party office situated to the eastern side of the road at 3:30 p.m. He deposed that there were 70/80 persons in front of the CPM office and there were also 60/70 persons present in front of Congress (I) office; who were in excited and that there was an altercation between the police and Tapan Sen (A 6), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Manik Mitra (A 2), Arun Debnath (A 13), one Mog person-Tamal Sen along with many others. He further deposed that when the police failed to control Tamal Sen (absconder) and others, the police made blank fire and left the place and that when Braja Mohan Jamatia (P.W. 1) completed half of the flag hoisting, the public threw brick bats. He also narrated as to how Sridam Paul and others entered the CPI (M) office and how mayhem ensued thereafter. Towards the end of his examination-in-chief , he deposed that he identified Kefru Mog (A 1), Tapan Sen (A 6), Tamal Sen (absconder), Arun Debnath (A 13), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Manik Mitra (A 2), Nikhil Mitra (A 4), Amal Biswas (absconder), Dayamoy Debnath (A 12), Parimal Debnath (A 8) and Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14) as the persons who attacked the CPM party office. According to P.W. -6, on that day, he along with Mani Bhadna Jamatia, Ramsur Jamatia (P.W. 15). Netai Debbarma (P.W. 14), Chhatramani Debbarma (the deceased) and Biralal Das (deceased) had gone to Birchandranagar to reopen the CPM party office and that on arrival thereat, he saw 40/50 Congressmen were present in front of the Congress (1) party office, some of whom he identified as Sanjoy Dutta (A 10), Tamal Sen (absconder), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Amal Biswas (absconder), Arun Debnath (A 13), Dayamoy Debnath (A 12) Ganesh Debnath (absconder). He testified that when Braja Mohan Jamatia (P.W. 1) hoisted the party flag halfway, brick bats were hurled towards them from in front of the Congress (I) office. He testified that when Braja Mohan Jamatia (P.W. 1) hoisted the party flag halfway, brick bats were hurled towards them from in front of the Congress (I) office. He identified Tamal Sen (absconder), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Dayamoy Debnath (A 12), Ganesh Debnath (absconder), Arun Debnath (A 13), Amal Biswas (absconder) and Kefru Mog (A 1) as the persons who hurled brick bats towards them. 9. P.W. 7 in his evidence implicated Tamal Sen (absconder), Balai Das (absconder), Keafru Mog (A 1), Bharat Banik (absconder), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14), Sanjay Dutta (A 10) in the hurling of brick bats towards CPI(M) party office. P.W. 10 in his deposition who also participated in the flag hoisting ceremony, identified Manik Mitra (A 2), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Nakul Paul (A 5), Narayan Paul (A 9), Manindra Debnath (A 7), Dayamoy Debnath (A 12), Parimal Debnath (A 8), Sanju Dutta (A 10), Kefru Mog (A l), Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14), Dasarath Reang (A1), Amal Biswas (absconder), Nemai Debnath (absconder), Tapan Sen (A 6) and Tamal Sen (absconder) who hurled brick bats towards CPI(M) party office. P.W. 12 in his evidence pinpointed Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14), Kefru Mog (A l), Balai Das (absconder), Tamal Sen (absconder), Nikhil Mitra (A 4), Manik Mitra (A 2), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Nakul Paul (A 5) and Parimal Debnath (A 8) as among the persons who attacked CPM party office. P.W. 13 in his testimony identified Tamal Sen (absconder), Kefru Mog (A 1), Narayan Paul (A 9), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Arun Debnath (A 13), Ganesh Debnath (absconder), Manindra Debnath (A 7), Nakul Paul (A 5). Dasarath Reang (A 11) and Bharat Banik (absconder) as the persons who were present in front of Congress (1) office. According to P.W. 14, it was Tamal Sen (absconder), Arun Debnath (A 13), Narayan Paul (A 9), Anil Mitra (absconder), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Parimal Debnath (A 8), Manindra Debnath (A 7), Nakul Paul (A 5), who threw brick bats from in front of the Congress (I) party office. According to P.W. 14, it was Tamal Sen (absconder), Arun Debnath (A 13), Narayan Paul (A 9), Anil Mitra (absconder), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Parimal Debnath (A 8), Manindra Debnath (A 7), Nakul Paul (A 5), who threw brick bats from in front of the Congress (I) party office. According to him, Sakha Ranjan Mura Singh (deceased) was hit by the brick bat at his forehead whereupon Sridam Paul and P.W. 1 with their security personnel and others including Sukha Ranjan Mura Singh entered the party office and the attackers armed with dao, lathi, kural, ballam, axe shouted that none would be spared who took shelter with the CPI (M) party office. 10. P.W. 15, in his evidence, deposed that on that day, he along with 10/12 persons arrived at the CPM party office at Birchandra Manu at about 3:30 p.m. to clean up the same and that when the party flag was hoisted by P.W. 1 upto a height of 2/3 cubits,brick bats were thrown from the direction of the Congress (I) party office and that one of the brick bats hit Sukha Ranjan Mura Singh which drove Sridam Paul and others including his security guard to enter the party office. He further testified that when the police failed to control the Congressmen, they left the place and that thereafter the Congressmen armed with dao, wooden file, lathi, iron rod etc. in their hands attacked and surrounded the CPI(M) party office. According to him, it was Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14) who tried to break open the door of the CPI (M) party office. He also identified Kefru Mog as the other person involved in the attack. In the testimony of P.W. 16, he deposed that on that day at about 3/3:15 p.m., he had gone to Birchandra Manu Bazar to purchase yarn and that at the half time of football match, he was watching later on, he saw 20/25 persons assembling in front of the Congress (1) party office. In the testimony of P.W. 16, he deposed that on that day at about 3/3:15 p.m., he had gone to Birchandra Manu Bazar to purchase yarn and that at the half time of football match, he was watching later on, he saw 20/25 persons assembling in front of the Congress (1) party office. He then testified that when P.W. 1 was hoisting the party flag, brick were hurled from the direction of the Congress (1) party flag, brick were hurled from the direction of the Congress (1) party office like rain, which forced the party workers of CPM entering their party office while others fled the place in various directions and that he was chased by Parimal Debnath (A 8) and Manindra Debnath (A 7) in the house of Narayan Paul and in the process suffered grievous hurt on his head. He pinpointed Tamal Sen (absconder), Amal Biswas (absconder), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Kefru Mog (A l), Ganesh Debnath (absconder), Manindra Debnath (A 7) and Parimal Debnath (A 8) as the persons who were present in front of the Congress (I) party office. 11. P.W. 19 in his testimony identified Tamal Sen (absconder), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Kefru Mog (A 1) and Amal Biswas as the persons who were present in front of Congress (I) party office on that day. He also identified Suresh Mitra (A 3), Kefru Mog (A l) and Man Kumar Singh (A 14) as the ones who subsequently assaulted Sridam Paul with dao, lathi, ballam and axe. P.W. 20 deposed that on the fateful day, he along with Sridam Paul, P.W. 1 and their security guards went to Birchandra Manu for flag hoisting ceremony at their party office and that when P.W. 1 was pulling the rope of the flag, brick bats were thrown like rain from the direction of the Congress (I) party office. He testified that he could identify Tamal Sen (absconder), Amal Biswas (absconder), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Manik Mitra (A 2), Dayamoy Debnath (A 8), Nakul Paul (A 5), Parimal Debnath (A 8), Arun Debnath (A 13), Narayan Paul (A 9), Rakhal Shil (absconder), Tapan Sen (A 6), Balai Das (absconder), Paresh Debnath (absconder), Sanju Dutta (A 10) and Kefru Mog (A 1) among those who threw brick bats at the CPI(M) party office. P.W. 21 implicated Nakul Paul (A 5) and Nikhil Mitra (A 4) among the persons who were throwing stones towards CPI (M) party office while P.W. 22 identified Dasrath Reang (A 1), Nikhil Mitra (A 4) and Narayan Paul (A 9) as the ones who hurled brick bats towards CPI (M) party office. 12. Thus from the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 and 20, it is clearly established that Kefru Mog (A l) was among the Congressmen who was present in front of the Congress (I) party on 12.10.1988 from 1510 hours onward and who threw brick bats towards the party office of the CPI (M). The depositions of P.W. 10, P.W. 13 and P.W. 22 also proved the presence of Dasrath Reang (A 1) in that assembly and in the hurling of brick bats at the CPI (M) party office. The testimonies of P.W. 4, P.W. 7, P.W. 12, P.W. 14, P.W. 15 and P.W. 19 also established the presence of Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14 in the same incident. The evidence of P.Ws. 10, 12 and 14 established the presence of Nakul Paul (A 5) and Parimal Debnath (A 8) in that unlawful assembly and of the hurling of brick bats at the CPI (M) party office. Similarly, the evidence of P.Ws. 10, 14 and 19 proved the presence of Suresh Mitra (A 3) in the same incident. The statements of P.Ws. 4, 10, 12, 14 and 20 established the presence of Manik Mitra (A 2) in the unlawful assembly while the depositions of P.Ws. 4, 10, 12, 21 and 22 proved the presence of Nikhil Mitra (A 4) therein. The evidence of P.Ws. 10, 13, 14, 16 and 17 established the presence of Manindra Debnath (A 7) in the unlawful assembly while the testimonies of P.Ws. 10, 14 and 20 indicated the presence therein of Paul Narayan (A 9). Furthermore, the depositions of P.Ws. 4, 6, 10, 14 and 20 proved that Dayamoy Debnath (A 12) was a member of the said unlawful assembly. The evidence of P.Ws. 4, 6, 10 and 20 established the presence of Tapan Sen (A 6) in that unlawful assembly while the testimonies of P.Ws. 6, 7, 10 and 20 proved that Sanju Dutta (A 10) was a member of the unlawful assembly. Finally, the evidence of P.Ws. The evidence of P.Ws. 4, 6, 10 and 20 established the presence of Tapan Sen (A 6) in that unlawful assembly while the testimonies of P.Ws. 6, 7, 10 and 20 proved that Sanju Dutta (A 10) was a member of the unlawful assembly. Finally, the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 6, 11, 13, 14 and 20 clearly established the presence of Arun Debnath (A 13) in the same unlawful assembly. Thus, the evidence of at least three prosecution witnesses have established to the hilt that all the Appellants were members of the unlawful assembly who had gathered in front of the Congress (I) party office on the fateful day, that the unlawful assembly was armed with dangerous weapons such as sharp cutting ramdao, bombs, acid bulb, brick bats, axes, sharp cutting cheni, etc. and that the unlawful assembly used force and violence on that fateful day in prosecution of the common object of attacking the members of the CPI (M) party. 13. Section 148 IPC says that whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon, or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, among others, which may extend to three years. The Section 146 defines the terms "rioting" to mean that whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of a common object of such assembly, every member or such member is guilty of the offence of rioting. The essential ingredients of the Section 148 IPC are: (1) The accused must be a rioter, that is, he must be an unlawful assembly which or a member of which, uses force or violence in prosecution of the common object of the assembly; (2) He must be armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, when used as a weapon of offence, will cause death. On the facts found by us, the prosecution has proved to the hilt that all the Appellants were members of unlawful assembly, who had gathered in front of the Congress (I) party office on the fateful day, that the unlawful assembly was armed with deadly weapons, or with anything which, when used as weapons of offence, would cause death and that the unlawful assembly used force/violence in prosecution of their common object of attacking the members of the office of the CPI(M) party office located near their party office. Consequently all the Appellants are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. 14. The next question which falls for our consideration is whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the Appellants under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC. All the Appellants are charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of dangerous weapons upon Binode Debnath and Lai Mohan Debnath. On going through the evidence, we have no hesitation in holding that there is no evidence worth consideration against any of the Appellants in respect of the assault on Lai Mohan Debnath. Consequently, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the Appellants are involved in the assault on Lai Mohan Debnath. However, the evidence against the Appellants in respect of the assault on Binode Debnath deserves critical examination. Binode Debnath is P.W. 16. In his testimony, P.W. 16 testified that he was on that day watching football match at the school ground, and when he came to the road at the half time of the football match and was standing on the western side of the road, he saw about 25 (twenty five) persons assembling in front of Congress (I) office and that when Sridam Paul was announcing over the mike that Braja Mohan Jamatia would be hoisting the party flag, he saw brick bats being thrown at random from in front of the Congress (I) office towards CPM party office and at this, CPM party men were entering their party office while the crowd broke up and shopkeepers closed their shops. He further deposed that trembling with fear, he started running towards west when Ganesh Debnath (absconder) threw brick bat on him, which missed him and thereafter he went to the house of Narayan Paul (A 9). He further deposed that trembling with fear, he started running towards west when Ganesh Debnath (absconder) threw brick bat on him, which missed him and thereafter he went to the house of Narayan Paul (A 9). He also testified that Parimal Debnath (A 8) and Manindra Debnath (A 7) chased him to the house of Narayan Paul (A 9), hit him on his head and his face by wooden file causing injury on his jaw and uprooting his teeth of the upper jaw and of the lower jaw. He further testified that they also gave him a blow by wooden file on his left arm and waist resulting in bleeding injury and that when he fell on the ground, they assaulted him with wooden file and said "Sala has died" and then proceeded back to the CPM party office. It is also his deposition that after some time, he saw at a distance Biralal Das staiggling on the courtyard of Narayan Paul (A 9) with bleeding injuries and that the said Biralal Das died subsequently. He went on to say that seeing the condition of Biralal Das, he went to the loonga and thence to CRPF camp from where he was sent to Udaipur hospital to receive treatment and got his wound stitched on his head and face. He also deposed that he was thereafter admitted to GB Hospital as indoor patient for 14 days. He identified Tamal Sen (absconder), Amal Biswas (absconder), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Kefru Mog (A l), Ganesh Debnath (absconder), Manindra Debnath (A 7) and Parimal Debnath (A 7) as the persons who were present in front of the Congress (I) office on that day. At this stage, we may note the submission of Mr. P.K. Biswas, the learned Counsel for the Appellants that there is no injury report to substantiate the allegations of P.W. 16 that he sustained such injuries. This submission cannot be accepted. Ext. P-55 is the medical report in respect of this witness, and the same was exhibited by Bikash Sarkar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, the Investigating Officer, who was examined as P.W. 33. The nature of injuries found on his person arc as follows: 1. Abrasion Rs. 1/4 x 1/4 Over the arterior superior iliac spine (Rt.) 2. Swelling 1/3 x 1/4 x 1/2 Rt. Eyelids and eye 3. Elids and Blackeye 1/3 x 1/4 x 1/2 Rt. The nature of injuries found on his person arc as follows: 1. Abrasion Rs. 1/4 x 1/4 Over the arterior superior iliac spine (Rt.) 2. Swelling 1/3 x 1/4 x 1/2 Rt. Eyelids and eye 3. Elids and Blackeye 1/3 x 1/4 x 1/2 Rt. Eyelids and eye. Though the injuries were initially described as simple in nature, the Dental Surgeon, GB Hospital diagnosed as mandible, which was grievous injury i.e. for swelling of the mandibular region. 15. Ext. P-55 was exhibited without any objection by the defence. Nor was the contents thereof disputed. Apart from contradicting him with his previous statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, no specific denial was made by the defence in respect of his statement that he was assaulted by Manindra Debnath (A 7) and Parimal Debnath (A 8) resulting in those injuries. When the medical report was exhibited by the prosecution as Ext. P-55 without objection from the defence, the non-examination of the Medical Officer cannot be a ground for discarding the same. So considered, we are of the opinion that Ext. P- 55 substantially corroborated the evidence of P.W. 16. At least, one of the injuries sustained by P.W. 16 was grievous in nature. It may further be noted that the statement of P.W. 16 that he received treatment for such injuries first at Udaipur Hospital and was then admitted to GB Hospital as indoor patient and recuperated there for 14 days has never been denied. His evidence that he was assaulted by Manindra Debnath (A 7) and Parimal Debnath (A 8) is highly trustworthy and is consistent throughout and does not leave any room for doubt on the identity of these two Appellants. It is axiomatic that evidence is not to be counted but only to be weighed and it is not the quantity of evidence but the quality that matters. There is no rule of thumb that the sole testimony of an injured, even if wholly reliable, cannot be acted upon to establish the identity of the Appellants. It is, however, submitted by Mr. P.K. Biswas, the learned Counsel for the Appellants that when P.W. 16 did not disclose these assaults on him by Manindra Debnath (A 7) and Parimal Debnath (A 8) in his previous statement before the police, this omission amounts to contradiction creating a serious doubt about his truthfulness. It is, however, submitted by Mr. P.K. Biswas, the learned Counsel for the Appellants that when P.W. 16 did not disclose these assaults on him by Manindra Debnath (A 7) and Parimal Debnath (A 8) in his previous statement before the police, this omission amounts to contradiction creating a serious doubt about his truthfulness. In our judgment, even if this omission amounted to material contradiction, still it cannot impair his otherwise unrebutted and wholly reliable evidence that he was assaulted by these two Appellants. The next question then is whether the remaining Appellants can be held liable for the offence with the aid of Section 149 IPC. We cannot overlook the glaring fact that there was proximity of time and place between the unlawful assembly of the Appellants and the causing of grievous hurt to the said Binode Debnath by Manindra Debnath (A 7) and Parimal Debnath (A 8) on the fateful day which undoubtedly constitute a part of the same transaction. It is irresistible to draw an inference that it was the same mob comprising of the Appellants who indiscriminately attacked any person suspected by them to be members of the CPI (M) party in the rioting and that the grievous hurt committed by the Appellants No. 7 and 8 upon P.W. 16 could be said to be immediately connected with the common object of the mob, of which all the Appellants were members. In other words, the offence of Section 326 IPC was committed by the Appellants No. 7 and 8 with a view to accomplish the common object of the mob, namely, to cause death or grievous hurt to their rival political arch rivals. Since the Appellants No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14 are found to be members of the unlawful assembly and the common object of the mob is clinchingly established, the unlawful assembly cannot cease to be so by merely splitting it into two groups for launching the attack. Since the Appellants No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14 are found to be members of the unlawful assembly and the common object of the mob is clinchingly established, the unlawful assembly cannot cease to be so by merely splitting it into two groups for launching the attack. Alternatively, since these Appellants are a part of the unlawful assembly along with the Appellants No. 7 and 8, bearing in mind the fact that the unlawful assembly was armed with deadly weapons and also of the surrounding circumstances and of the behaviour of the mob, the conclusion is inescapable that the Appellants No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 had the knowledge that grievous hurt would be caused to Binode Debnath by dangerous instruments. In the view that we have taken, we hold that the Appellants No. 7 and 8 are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC while the Appellants No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,11,12, Band 14 are guilty of the offence of Section 326 IPC with the aid of Section149 IPC. 16. Coming now to the fifth charge against the Appellants for the offence punishable under Section436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, the four ocular witnesses are P.Ws.-4, 11, 13 and 20. According to P.W. 4, on that fateful day, he saw 60/70 persons in front of the Congress (I) office and identified Tapan Sen (A 6), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Manik Mitra (A 2), Arun Debnath (A 13) and one Mog person and some others. He further deposed that after the attack on the CPM party office, out of fear, he took shelter at the house of Nibaran Das where he met P.W. 11 and 13, and that after remaining there for 10/15 minutes, one mob moved towards the said hut, which forced them to evacuate to the nearby jungle. P.W. 11 testified that when bricks were hurled towards the CPI (M) party office, he also took shelter at the house of Nibaran Das and met P.Ws.-4 and 13 thereon and that when they saw some persons coming towards the house to set it on fire, they fled to the jungle. P.W. 11 testified that when bricks were hurled towards the CPI (M) party office, he also took shelter at the house of Nibaran Das and met P.Ws.-4 and 13 thereon and that when they saw some persons coming towards the house to set it on fire, they fled to the jungle. P.W. 13 deposed that after the hurling of brick bats by the Congressmen towards the CPI (M) party office, he went to the house of Nibaran Das where he met P.Ws.-4 and 11 and that when they heard the Congressmen declaring that the house of Nibaran Das would be set on fire, they fled the house and took shelter in the nearby jungle. P.W. 20 testified that when the Congressmen comprising of Suresh Mitra (A 3), Manik Mitra (A 2), Dayamoy Debnath (A 12), Nakul Paul (A 5), Tapan Sen (A 6), Sanju Dutta (A 10) and Kefru Mog (A 1) threw brick bats towards the CPM party office, he went to the jungle near the house of Nibaran Das. He further deposed that he then saw some persons from the road side running rushing towards the house of Nibaran Das by shouting, "Set fire ! set fire!" and that at that time, he saw 2/3 persons whom he recognized as Jatindra Patari (P.W. 4), Benu Choudhury (P.W. 11) and Upendra Debnath (P.W. 13) who proceeded to the jungle from the house of Nibaran Das. According to him, he then heard Arun Debnath (A 13) shouting with the words, "Set fire to the house of CPI (M)!" and also saw them pouring something from a drum on the roof of Nibaran Das's house. He further deposed that after throwing substance from the drum, they set fire by match sticks to the house of Nibaran Das. According to him, there were 6/7 persons and he could recognize Arun Debnath (A 13), Sanju Dutta (A 10), Parimal Debnath and one absconder among them. He also deposed that there were three huts in the house of Nibaran Das and that all of them were burnt down. 17. As found by us earlier, all the Appellants were members of the same unlawful assembly, who had gathered in front of the Congress (I) office and who had attacked the CPI (M) party office. He also deposed that there were three huts in the house of Nibaran Das and that all of them were burnt down. 17. As found by us earlier, all the Appellants were members of the same unlawful assembly, who had gathered in front of the Congress (I) office and who had attacked the CPI (M) party office. The sequence of events as narrated by these prosecution witnesses undoubtedly shows that there is proximity of time and place between the formation of the unlawful assembly comprising of the Appellants and the subsequent rioting on the one hand and the torching of the house of Nibaran Das. In our view, both the events form a part of the same transaction or were a continuous, transaction. P.W. 20 has clearly implicated Arun Debnath (A 13), Sanju Dutta (A 10) and Parimal Debnath (A 8) by name as the persons who set on fire the house of Nibaran Das. It is true that this vital fact was omitted by the witness in his previous statement. But the statement of this witness is credible, cogent and consistent throughout and, apart from such omission; his cross-examination does not elicit anything to discredit his testimony. The Apex Court in Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi) (2003) I SCC 21, held that the omission to mention a relevant fact in the statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure but stated before court by P.W. would not be a ground for rejecting his evidence on that aspect if his evidence is otherwise credit worthy and acceptable and that such lapses on the part of the police official would not take away the nature and character of the evidence. The evidence of P.W. 20 has been fully corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of P.Ws.-4, 11 and 13. Furthermore, P.W. 35, who is a police officer, in his unrebutted evidence confirmed that the house of Nibaran Das had been burnt down. From the consistent and trustworthy statement of P.W. 20, it is thus clinchingly established that the Appellants No. 13. 10 and 8 are directly responsible for the torching of the house of Nibaran Das and are, accordingly, guilty of the offence under Section 436 IPC. From the consistent and trustworthy statement of P.W. 20, it is thus clinchingly established that the Appellants No. 13. 10 and 8 are directly responsible for the torching of the house of Nibaran Das and are, accordingly, guilty of the offence under Section 436 IPC. Furthermore, on the facts found by us, when the presence of the remaining Appellants in the unlawful assembly, of which the Appellants No. 13, 10 and 8 were members, have been clearly established and when there was proximity of time and place between the formation of the said unlawful and the arson committed by the Appellants No. 13, 10 and 8, there is no difficulty in holding that the Appellants No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14 had, at any rate, the knowledge that such an offence was likely to be committed and are, therefore, constructively liable for the offence punishable under Section 436 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. It must be noted that the house of Nibaran Das was situated at a distance about 200 cubits from the offices of both the parties. The unlawful assembly of the Appellants, on the facts and circumstances of the case, would not have ceased to be so by merely splitting it into groups for launching the attacks on the other party. 18. It is with regard to the third charge i.e. the murder of thirteen persons that we are confronted with unrivalled complexities. In this gruesome and bizarre incident, which may be described as a political genocide, thirteen precious lives, namely (1) Sridam Paul, (2) Nitai Sarkar, (3) Amal Biswas, (4) Sudhir Debnath, (5) Ratan Dutta, (6) Sukh Ranjan Mura Singh, (7) Nitya Hari Mura Singh, (8) Chatramani Debbarma, (9) Kalia Chakma, (10) Lalit Noatia, (11) Gunahari Mura Singh, (12) Biralal Das and (13) Purna Noatia, have been lost. There is no dispute on the death of these victims nor is there any dispute on the nature of injuries sustained by them which resulted in their death. There is no dispute on the death of these victims nor is there any dispute on the nature of injuries sustained by them which resulted in their death. From the evidence on record, we have no hesitation to hold that due to the absence of even a semblance of evidence against the person or persons responsible for the death of Kalia Chakma, Lalit Noatia, Gunahari Murasingh, Biralal Das, Purna Noatia, Ratan Datta, Subha Ranjan Mura Singh, Nitya Hari Mura Singh, Nitai Sarkar, Chhatramani Chakma and Sudhir Debnath, the matter does not require our scrutiny. It is with respect to the murder of the remaining 2 (two) persons, namely Amal Biswas and Sridam Paul that we decided to scrutinize the evidence on record. We shall also undertake the task of re-appreciating the evidence against the Appellants concerning the offence of Section 149 IPC. When a mob of assailants who were members of an unlawful assembly proceeded to commit an offence of murder or any other offence for that matter, in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of them. As observed by the Apex Court time and again, appreciation of evidence in such a complex case is no doubt a difficult task, but a criminal court has to do its best in dealing with such a case and it is its duty to sift the evidence carefully and decide which part of it is true and which is not. This exercise, howsoever onerous it may be, is of paramount importance to ensure that the guilty persons do not go unpunished and, conversely, to ensure that innocent bystanders or mere spectators are not punished. After all, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot take the place of proof. It is still our criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Having said that, the expression "proof beyond reasonable doubt" is, however, not a fetish; prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused; a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based on reason and common sense-see Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) 11 SCC 271 . The tried, tested and widely accepted formula adopted over a long period of time by the Apex Court for appreciating the evidence in respect of a case involving a number of assailants and a number of witnesses is best described in the language of the Apex Court in Masalti v. State of UP, AIR 1965 SC 202 : It is true that under the Evidence Act trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses which is not trustworthy would not be enough to sustain the conviction. But where a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical: but it cannot be treated as irrational or unreasonable. It is, no doubt, the quality of the evidence that matters and not the number of witnesses who had given evidence. But sometimes it is useful to adopt a mechanical test. 19. It is the evidence of P.W. 6 that it was Sanjoy Dutta (A 10), Tapan Sen (A 6), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Arun Debnath (A 13) and many others including absconders Kefru Mog (A 1) and many others including absconders who hurled brick bats from in front of the Congress (I) party office towards them, which ultimately aborted their hoisting of the party CPI (M) flag. According to this witness, due to this, he along with Sridam Paul, Chhatramani Debbarma, Brajamohan Jamatia (P.W. 1), Sukha Ranjan Mura Singh (deceased), Gathi Rai Mura Singh (deceased), Sudhir Debnath, Netai Sarkar (deceased), Deepak Reang (P.W. 10) and others took shelter at their party office by closing all the doors from inside. He further deposed that the attackers broke open the doors by using dao, lathi, axe, sebal, etc. and also threw bombs in their party office and that after breaking the door, they threw acid bulb inside and poured kerosene oil on the door. He further deposed that the attackers broke open the doors by using dao, lathi, axe, sebal, etc. and also threw bombs in their party office and that after breaking the door, they threw acid bulb inside and poured kerosene oil on the door. He also testified that the acid bulb fell on his body causing him severe injury and that when Sridam Paul with his security came out from the party office, Sanju Dutta (A 10) gave a blow of rod upon Amal Biswas (Security guard and hereinafter called the deceased Amal Biswas) while the Amal Biswas (the Congress worker) gave rod blow on Sridam Paul, who thereupon fell on the ground. According to this witness, Tamal Sen then struck Sridam Paul with dao while Amal Biswas (Congress worker) and Kefru Mog (A l) gave dao blow on Amal Biswas (Security guard) whereupon the latter ran towards South. He further deposed that he also saw Suresh Mitra (A 3) and Dayamoy Debnath (A 12) armed with ramdao and lathi respectively in front of the party office. P.W. 10 deposed that when Sridam Paul emerged from the party office, he was assaulted by Tamal Sen, Sanju Dutta (A 10), Suresh Mitra (A 3) with dao, lathi, ballam, etc. while security guard Amal Biswas was struck by Amal Biswas with wooden file when he was running away. He testified that Congress worker Amal Biswas with Kefru Mog (A 1) and Ganesh Debnath (absconder) were seen. P.W. 12 stated that Man Kumar Mura Singh, after breaking open the CPM party office by axe, hacked Sridam Paul with the axe while Kefru Mog (A 1), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Manil Mitra (A 2), Nakul Paul (A 5) and another person also assaulted him with dao and lathi. P.W. 13 testified that about 15/16 Congressmen were running behind Netai Sarkar, the deceased Amal Biswas and Sudhir Debnath and that these Congressmen were identified by him as Manidra Debnath (A 7), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Nakul Paul (A 5) and the other absconders, who were thereafter joined by Narayan Paul (A 9) with lathi. Though he deposed that dao, ballam, lathi, kirich, etc. were used in the assault, he could not remember as to who assaulted whom and by what weapon when the deceased was assaulted by the said Congressmen. Though he deposed that dao, ballam, lathi, kirich, etc. were used in the assault, he could not remember as to who assaulted whom and by what weapon when the deceased was assaulted by the said Congressmen. According to P.W. 14, when Sridam Paul come out of the party office, he was first hit by Kefru Mog (A l) with lathi whereupon he collapsed on the ground and then Tamal Sen (absconder) struck him with dao and others joined him in the assault. Thereafter, P.W. 14 further deposed, Anil Mitra (absconder) and Narayan Paul (A 9) and others chased other persons who came out from the CPI (M) party with Sridam Paul. P.W. 15 testified that Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14) tried to break open the back door of the party office and after he broke the door open, Sridam Paul with his security guard, Sudhir Debnath and 2/3 persons emerged from the CPI (M) party office by the front door when Kefru Mog (A l) hit security guard Amal Biswas with wooden file while Tamal Sen slashed Sridam Paul with dao and that others also assaulted Sridam Paul. He also deposed that Amal Biswas, Tamal Sen and Sudhir Debnath ran away towards South. P.W. 19 testified that 30/40 persons including Tamal Sen, Suresh Mitra (A 3), Kefru Mog (A l), Amal Biswas, who were assembling in front of Congress (I) office, hurled brick bats at random towards CPM party office and injured Sukha Ranjan Mura Singh. He further deposed that this forced Braja Mohan Jamatia, Sridam Paul, Sukha Ranjan Mura Singh and others to evacuate to their party office while they took shelter at the shop of Ashu Mechanic. He also testified that they heard the sounds of bomb, firing and the hurling of brick bats from the direction of Congress (I) office and that the mobs were shouting outside saying. "Sridam Paul, Braja Mohan Jamatia, you will not be spared today and we will take bath in your blood". He also deposed that when Sridam Paul and his body guard Amal Biswas started for Manu Bazar, he saw 10/11 persons including Tamal Sen. Suresh Mitra (A 3), Kefru Mog (A 1) and Man Kumar Singh (A 14) assaulting Sridam Paul with dao, lathi, ballam and axe, etc., who then collapsed on the ground. He also deposed that when Sridam Paul and his body guard Amal Biswas started for Manu Bazar, he saw 10/11 persons including Tamal Sen. Suresh Mitra (A 3), Kefru Mog (A 1) and Man Kumar Singh (A 14) assaulting Sridam Paul with dao, lathi, ballam and axe, etc., who then collapsed on the ground. This witness identified Tamal Sen (absconder), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Kefru Mog (A 1) and Man Kumar Singh (A 14) as the persons who assaulted Sridam Paul. On careful examination of the evidence of P.Ws. No. 6, 13,14 and 15, it becomes apparent that the case of the prosecution in respect of the murder of Amal Biswas is not supported by the consistent account of even two prosecution witnesses. Therefore, applying the formula laid down by the Apex Court in Masalti case (supra), it will not be safe to hold that the Appellants No. 1, 3 and 9 are responsible for the death of Amal Biswas. 20. Coming now to the death of Sridam Paul, P.W. 10 deposed that when Sridam Paul came out from the party office, he was assaulted by Tamal Sen, Sanju Dutta (A 10) and Suresh Mitra (A 3) with dao, lathi, ballam, etc. P.W. 12 testified that Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14) broke open the door, and then Sridam Paul emerged from the southern door with V2 persons with him and that as soon as Sridam Paul came out, Man Kumar (A 14) struck him with an axe, who was also joined in the assault be Kefru Mog (A l), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Manik Mitra (A 2), Nakul Paul (A 5) and Tamal Sen by giving dao and lathi blows. P.W. 14 gave the evidence that when Sridam Paul emerged from the party office, he was hit by Kefru Mog with lathi and in the process Sridam Paul collapsed on the ground and thereafter Tamal Sen struck him with dao and others also started assaulting him. According to P.W. 19, when Sridam Paul and his bodyguard Amal Biswas started for Manu, he saw 10/11 persons assaulting Sridam Paul with dao, lathi, ballam, axe, etc. whereupon he collapsed on the ground. He identified Tamal Sen, Suresh Mitra (A 3), Kefru Mog (A l) and Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14) as the persons who assaulted Sridam Paul. According to P.W. 19, when Sridam Paul and his bodyguard Amal Biswas started for Manu, he saw 10/11 persons assaulting Sridam Paul with dao, lathi, ballam, axe, etc. whereupon he collapsed on the ground. He identified Tamal Sen, Suresh Mitra (A 3), Kefru Mog (A l) and Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14) as the persons who assaulted Sridam Paul. The statement of P.W. 10 that Sridam Paul was assaulted by Suresh Mitra (A 3) has been corroborated by P.W. 12 and P.W. 19. The statement of P.W. -12 that Kefru Mog (A 1) was among the persons who assaulted Sridam Paul has been fully supported by P.W. 14 and P.W. 19. The statement of P.W. 12 that it was Man Kumar Mura Singh who also assaulted Sridam Paul has been corroborated by P.W. -19. No doubt, there are some variations in the exact manner in which each of the aforesaid Appellants assaulted Sridam Paul. It must be remembered that those statements were given in Court after 10 years or so and, as such, the inconsistency in narrating the events might have been due to fading of memory. At the most, these discrepancies can be said to be normal discrepancies. Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and they are always there, however, honest and truthful a witness may be. Moreover, the injuries found on the body of the deceased as disclosed in the post mortem report are consistent with the weapons proved to have been used by the Appellants No. 1, 3 and 14. The result of the post mortem examination conducted on the body of the deceased Sridam Paul is as follows: 1. One sharp insized wound 4"x 2 with oblique cut of the sternoclcido mastoid muscles, alongwith deep vessels. 2. Stab wound 2" x 1 x 1' cm the lateral aspect of the left shoulder. 3. Stab wound 1 x 1/2 on the right cheek. 4. One bruish wound on the lateral aspect of the right Thai on the entire aspect. 5. One sharp cut injury on the right temporal region 5" x 2" including bones. 6. One crush injury on the temperoparietal region. 7. Crush injury on the right temperoparietal region. 8. 3. Stab wound 1 x 1/2 on the right cheek. 4. One bruish wound on the lateral aspect of the right Thai on the entire aspect. 5. One sharp cut injury on the right temporal region 5" x 2" including bones. 6. One crush injury on the temperoparietal region. 7. Crush injury on the right temperoparietal region. 8. Entire membrane was raptured due to Crush injury of the skull. 9. Brain matters was completely extruded out because of side to side compression of the skull. Multiple cut injuries on the scalp, neck, cheek (right) (left) were present caused by sharp and heavy cutting object. Entire skull was crushed caused raptured of the meningitis and extrution of entire brain materials. Major vessels on the left side of the front of the neck were cut due to sharp cut injury. Cause of death: Due to cardio respiratory failure because of severe haemorrhage and crush injury of the brain. The injuries are homicidal in nature and ante-mortem. Therefore, in our opinion, it was none but the Appellants No. 1, 3 and 14 who caused the death of Sridam Paul. In so far as the Appellants No. 2, 5 and 10 are concerned, in the absence of consistent account from at least two prosecution witnesses in their involvement, which is the case here, it will not safe to hold that they actually participated in the assault on Sridam Paul. 21. The next question which then falls for consideration is whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the remaining Appellants with the aid of Section 149 IPC. As already found by us, the membership of all the Appellants in the unlawful assembly in the aforesaid incident has been proved to the hilt. When a mob of assailants, who were members of an unlawful assembly, proceeded to commit an offence of murder or any other offence for that matter, in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful object assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each of them or the weapons used by each of them, etc. As observed by the Apex Court time and again, appreciation of evidence in such a complex case is no doubt a difficult task, but a criminal court has to do its best in dealing with such a case and it is its duty to sift separately the chaff from the grain and decide which part of it is true and which is not. This exercise, howsoever onerous it may be, is of paramount importance to ensure that guilty persons do not go unpunished and, conversely, to ensure that innocent by-standers or mere spectators of the incident are not punished. The Apex Court in Rajendra Shantaram Todankar v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 257 , succinctly restates the legal position thus: Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code provides that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same degree of certainty. The first clause contemplates the commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly which can be held to have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. The second clause embraces within its fold the commission of an act which may not necessarily be the common object of the assembly, nevertheless, the members of the assembly had knowledge of likelihood of the commission of that offence in prosecution of the common object. The common object may be commission of one offence while there may be likelihood of the commission of yet another offence, the knowledge whereof is capable of being safely attributable to the members of the unlawful assembly. In either case, every member of the assembly would be vicariously liable for the offence actually committed by any other member of the assembly. A mere possibility of the commission of the offence would not necessarily enable the court to draw an inference that the likelihood of commission of such offence was within the knowledge of every member of the unlawful assembly. It is difficult indeed, though not impossible, to collect direct evidence of such knowledge. A mere possibility of the commission of the offence would not necessarily enable the court to draw an inference that the likelihood of commission of such offence was within the knowledge of every member of the unlawful assembly. It is difficult indeed, though not impossible, to collect direct evidence of such knowledge. An inference may be drawn from circumstances such as the background of the incident, the motive, the nature of the assembly, the nature of the arms carried by the members of the assembly, their common object and the behaviour of the members soon before, at or after the actual commission of the crime. Unless the applicability of Section 149 either clause is attracted and the court is convinced. on facts and in law, both, of liability capable of being fastened vicariously reference to either clause of Section 149 IPC, merely because a criminal act was committed by a member of the assembly every other member thereof would not necessarily become liable for such criminal act. The inference as to likelihood of the commission of the given criminal act must be capable of being held to be within the knowledge of another member of the assembly who is sought to be held vicariously liable for the said criminal act. These principles are settled. Applying these tests to the facts found proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accused 1 to 5 can be held liable for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC for the assault resulting in the death of Gopikrishna while Accused 6 and 7 can be held liable for heir individual acts of assault committed on Sanjay Patil. 22. It may also be noted that Section 149 cannot apply unless there is proximity of time and place between both members of an unlawful assembly and the criminal act of individual members of that assembly, for there obviously cannot be an assembly unless the five or more persons constituting it are at the same place, while Section 149 itself speaks distinctly of "at the time" of the committing of the offence. For example, if any of the original member of the unlawful assembly, even though present in it and sharing its common object, separated himself prior to the commission of the offence, his membership in the unlawful assembly would stand terminated and, therefore, cannot be held liable under Section 149 IPC. For example, if any of the original member of the unlawful assembly, even though present in it and sharing its common object, separated himself prior to the commission of the offence, his membership in the unlawful assembly would stand terminated and, therefore, cannot be held liable under Section 149 IPC. Common object also means that the offence was committed immediately connected with the common object of the unlawful assembly, of which the accused are members. The act must have been done with a view to accomplish the common object attributed to the members of the unlawful assembly. As noted earlier, where the common object has been established, the unlawful assembly does not cease to be so by merely splitting itself into two groups for launching the attack. In determining the common object, the motive for the crime, the weapon used in the crime/attack, the conduct of the assailants both before and at the time of the attack is a relevant consideration. In Jaishree Yadav v. State of U.P., (2005) 9 SCC 788 , the Apex Court held that a person, who is a member of an unlawful assembly, even if he does not commit any overt act but shares the common object of such unlawful assembly, will be liable for the consequence of the same. 23. It is against the backdrop of the aforesaid legal principles that we propose to examine as to whether the Appellants No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 can be held vicariously responsible for the death of Sridam Paul with the aid Section 149 IPC. As noted earlier, 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 while the first part of Section 149 merely requires that the offence must be connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused was a member. As already found by us, the Appellants No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 along with Appellants No. 1, 3 and 14 formed an unlawful assembly and committed rioting on 12.10.1988 from 1510 hours onwards at the CPI (M) party office, Birchandra Manu. As already found by us, the Appellants No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 along with Appellants No. 1, 3 and 14 formed an unlawful assembly and committed rioting on 12.10.1988 from 1510 hours onwards at the CPI (M) party office, Birchandra Manu. The evidence of P.W. 6 clearly suggests that it was the same mob comprising of the Appellants, who after hurling brick bats, etc. at the CPI (M) party office where the deceased Sridam Paul and others were taking shelter, assaulted the said Sridam Paul. P.W. -10 also testified to the effect that it was Manik Mitra (A 2), Kefru Mog (A l), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Nakul Paul (A 5), Manindra Debnath (A 7), Parimal Debnath (A 8) and Man Kumar Singh (A 4) who hurled brick bats towards CPI (M) party office, broke open the door thereof and assaulted Sridam Paul with dao, lathi, ballam etc. It is the testimony of P.W. 12 that among the Appellants attacking the CPI (M) party office, the Appellant No. 14 ransacked the door by axe while others started shouting "Sridam Paul, you will not escape today and you will be buried today", that the attack continued for about an hour, that as Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14) broke the door open, Sridam Paul came out and was struck with an axe by A 14 who was joined in the assault by Kefru Mog (A l), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Manik Mitra (A 2), Nakul Paul (A 5) and Tamal Sen (absconder). In the deposition of P.W. 14, the Appellants after attacking CPI (M) party office, shouted by stating that none would be spared who took shelter inside the CPI (M) party office and that the attackers were armed with dao, lathi, kural, ballam, etc. He further deposed that they then surrounded the said party office, broke the door and that when Sridam Paul came out of the party office, he was first hit by Kefru Mog (A 1) with lathi and was joined by others in the assault. 24. He further deposed that they then surrounded the said party office, broke the door and that when Sridam Paul came out of the party office, he was first hit by Kefru Mog (A 1) with lathi and was joined by others in the assault. 24. Finally, it is the testimony of P.W. 19 that on that day, he saw 30/40 person in front of Congress (I) office, some of them he identified as Suresh Mitra (A 3), Kefru Mog (A 1) and two absconders, who threw brick bats towards CPI (M) party members witnessing the hoisting of their party flag in front of the party office and were shouting whereupon Sridam Paul, Braja Mohan Jamatia and others took shelter inside their party office. He then heard the sounds of bomb, firing and throwing of brick bats from the outside of their party office and of the shouting outside, "Sridam Paul, Braja Mohan Jamatia, you will not be spared today and we will take bath in your blood". From the aforesaid evidence, there can be no shadow of doubt that the Appellants No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 along with Appellants No. 1, 3 and 14 and other unknown persons formed an unlawful assembly in front of the Congress (I) party office on that fateful day and these Appellants were with the Appellants No. 1, 3 and 14 when the latter killed Sridam Paul. Even though no specific roles could be assigned to each of them, the hurling of brick bats at the office of the CPI (M) party and of the shouting that Sridam Paul and Braja Mohan Jamatia would not be spared or that Sridam Paul would not escape and would be buried, etc., and of the subsequent killings of Sridam Paul were parts of the same transaction. Even if the murder of Sridam Paul was not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, the weight of the evidence leaves no room for doubt that the offence fall under the second limb of Section 149 IPC since it can be held that the offence was such as they knew was likely to be committed. 25. Even if the murder of Sridam Paul was not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, the weight of the evidence leaves no room for doubt that the offence fall under the second limb of Section 149 IPC since it can be held that the offence was such as they knew was likely to be committed. 25. Though no hard and fast rule can be laid down on the circumstances from which a common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, the arms it carried and the behaviour of the said Appellants at the time or before the occurrence. The sequence of events as unfolded from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not leave any room for doubt that the orgy of violence unleashed by the mob comprising of the Appellants was executed in a fast paced manner which culminated in the death of thirteen persons and that none of the Appellants got separated from the unlawful assembly prior to the commission of the murder of Sridam Paul and Amal Biswas. The weight of evidence also clinchingly established that there was proximity of the time and place between the unlawful assembly comprising of the Appellants and the commission of the offence in question. After taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the inference is irresistible and the conclusion inescapable that the Appellants No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 together with the Appellants No. 1, 3 and 14 formed the unlawful assembly in front of the Congress (I) party, which is located opposite the CPM office, that on that day they were carrying deadly weapons and that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause rioting initially, which subsequently turned into one for causing the death of Sridam Paul. The knowledge of the assembly that grievous hurt or death would be caused can be safely attributed to the Appellants No. 2,4, 5,6,7,8,9,10, 11,12 and 13 because of the fact that some of the above named Appellants were carrying dangerous weapons such as daos, ramdao, ballam, axe, iron rods etc. The knowledge of the assembly that grievous hurt or death would be caused can be safely attributed to the Appellants No. 2,4, 5,6,7,8,9,10, 11,12 and 13 because of the fact that some of the above named Appellants were carrying dangerous weapons such as daos, ramdao, ballam, axe, iron rods etc. As noted earlier, an inference can be drawn of the knowledge of common object from the behaviour of the members of the assembly, of which these Appellants were part, who came together with deadly weapons and started the orgy of violence against the members of the CPI (M) party members. It turned out that as many as 13 precious lives were lost in this senseless violence. We are, therefore, of the firm view that the Appellants No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are vicariously responsible for the death of Sridam Paul with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 26. Coming to the submission of Mr. P.K. Biswas, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, that the evidence of the so-called ocular witnesses are full of material contradictions inasmuch as they were never mentioned in their statements recorded under Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure, it is true that such first time statements in courts normally amount to material contradiction creating serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witnesses. The cross examination of P.W. 6 reveals that he never mentioned in his previous statement the name of A 10, A 6, A 3, A 13, A 12 and the absconders as the ones who assembled in front of the Congress (I) party office on the fateful day. Nor did he mention in his previous statement that Kefru Mog (A l) gave a dao blow on Amal Biswas. Similarly, P.W. 10 did not disclose in his previous statement that he saw Congressmen assembling in front of the Congress (I) office, who were in exciting mood and armed with dao, lathi, rod, etc., or that these Congressmen threw brick bats towards their party office or that he could identify A 2, A 3, A 5, A 9, A 7, A 8, A 18, A 12, A 10, A l, A 14, A 11 and 3 others absconders as some of the persons who threw brick bats. Nor did he mention in the previous statement that he saw Sanju Dutta (A 10) and Suresh Mitra (A 3) assaulting Sridam Paul. Likewise P.W. 12 in his previous statement did not mention that from all sides, about 30/40 persons armed with dao, lathi, ballam, etc. attacked the CPI (M) party office. Neither did he disclose in his previous statement that among the attackers, Kefru Mog (A 1), Nikhil Mitra (A 4), Nakul Paul (A 5) and Parimal Debnath (A 8) also were present. Similarly, this witness never stated in his previous statement before the police that the others stated by shouting, "Sridam Paul, you will not escape today! You will be buried today?" He also did not state in his previous statement that as soon as Sridam Paul came out, Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14) gave a blow by axe on Sridam Paul while Kefru Mog (A 1), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Manik Mitra (A 2) and Nakul Paul (A 5) also assaulted. His statement that he did not state to the daroga that as soon as Sridam Paul came out from the office, one unknown person gave him blow of lathi has been contradicted by his previous statement which was exhibited as Ext. D-12. 27. P.W. 13 also in his previous statement did not mention that he could also identify Narayan Paul (A 9), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Manindra Debnath (A 7), Nakul Paul (A 5) and Dasarath Reang (A 11). He also did not disclose to the Investigating Officer that he saw Suresh Mitra (A 3) and one absconder to assault them and Narayan Paul (A 9) to join them. P.W. 14 in his previous statement also did not disclose that he saw Arun Debnath (A 13), Narayan Paul (A 9), Dayamoy Debnath (A 12), Kefru Mog (A 1), Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14), Suresh Mitra (A 3), Parimal Debnath (A 8), Manindra Debnath (A 7), Nakul Paul and others including the absconders throwing brick bats from in front of Congress (I) party office nor did he state that they would not spare anybody who took shelter in the CPI (M) party office. He also did not mention in his previous statement that the attackers were armed with dao, lathi, kural, ballam, etc. He also did not mention in his previous statement that the attackers were armed with dao, lathi, kural, ballam, etc. nor did he mention that the axe was in the hand of Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14) who first gave blow on the door of CPI(M) parry office. He also did not disclose in his previous statement that the attackers surrounded the CPI (M) party office and broke the door nor did he disclose that when Sridam Paul came out from the party office, Kefru Mog (A 1) gave a blow of lathi on him. Neither did he mention in his previous statement that Narayan Paul (A 9) and Anil Mitra (absconder) chased other persons who came out from the CPI (M) party office. P.W. 15 also did not state to the Investigating Officer that Congressmen were throwing brick bats and when the police failed to control them, they left nor did he state to the Investigating Officer that the Congressmen armed with dao, ballam, wooden file, lathi, iron rod etc. in their hands attacked and surrounded the CPI (M) party office. 28. At this stage, it is interesting to note that the statements of P.W. 15 that when Sridam Paul and 2/3 persons came out from the CPI (M) party office, Kefru Mog (A 1) gave blow of wooden file on security guard Amal Biswas and Tamal Sen gave a blow of dao on Sridam Paul and others assaulted Sridam Paul are not denied in the cross examination. P.W. 19 also did not disclose to the Investigating Officer the names of Kefru Mog as one of the persons present in front of the Congress (I) party office nor did he disclose that among the persons who assaulted Sridam Paul, he could identify Suresh Mitra (A 13), Kefru Mog (A l) and Man Kumar Mura Singh (A 14), though he mentioned the name of Suresh Mitra (A 3) as the person and Tamal Sen (absconder) as persons assaulting Sridam Paul. Normally, the omission on the part of the aforesaid witnesses to mention those facts in their previous statements could be fatal for the prosecution. This is the result of perfunctory investigation made by the Investigating Officer of the case. It would have been better if those statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer, which would easily vindicate the prosecution case. Normally, the omission on the part of the aforesaid witnesses to mention those facts in their previous statements could be fatal for the prosecution. This is the result of perfunctory investigation made by the Investigating Officer of the case. It would have been better if those statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer, which would easily vindicate the prosecution case. When an investigation is not conducted in a manner expected of an Investigating Officer, material questions are not asked by the Investigating Officer to the witnesses. Though it is true that some statements were made for the first time in court and not during the investigation, it has to be seen as to what extent they diluted the testimony of the aforementioned prosecution witnesses. If contradictions are found in the evidence, as in this case, what is required is that evidence as a whole should be appreciated so that chances of false implication should be totally eliminated. If the prosecution evidence as a whole rings true and inspires confidence, then despite the contradiction, conviction can be sustained. In the instant case, despite the contradictions, looming large in the evidence of the prosecution, considering the fact that the evidence of the said witnesses are cogent, credible and trustworthy, such contradictions cannot affect the substratum of the prosecution case. It must be remembered that apart from the omission in the previous statements of the prosecution witnesses, the basic features of the case as unfolded by those witnesses on the incident could not be destroyed by the defence in their cross examination. As noted earlier, those omissions arose out of the haphazard manner in which the investigation was conducted by the police. But faulty investigation could hardly be a ground for rejection of the testimony of the eyewitness which has a ring of truth. It must be pointed out that a case of this serious nature which resulted in the death of thirteen persons ought to have been conducted with more circumspection and seriously. Viewed from any angle, we are of the opinion that the lapses or omissions on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot materially affect the core of the prosecution case which stood established by cogent and reliable evidence. This is what was held by the Apex Court in Alamgir case (supra). 29. It is next contended by Mr. Viewed from any angle, we are of the opinion that the lapses or omissions on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot materially affect the core of the prosecution case which stood established by cogent and reliable evidence. This is what was held by the Apex Court in Alamgir case (supra). 29. It is next contended by Mr. P.K. Biswas, the learned Counsel for the Appellants that assuming without admitting that the Appellants were responsible for the death of Amal Biswas and Sridam Paul, the facts and circumstances established in the evidence would show that the incident was the result of public reaction to the provocative acts of the members of the CPM party or was caused in the exercise the right of private defence by the Appellants. We have carefully gone through the prosecution story as projected in the charge-sheet and the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. As noted earlier, the Investigating Officer of the case had stated in the charge-sheet that on the fateful day, a procession comprising of a good number of the supporters of the CPI (M) party under the leadership of Lai Mohan Deb (P.W. 6), etc. and others using loud speakers paraded in the bazar and eventually converged at the party office of CPI (M) party, that the processionists were waving their party flags mounted on lathis and were shouting with provocative slogans and that at that stage, some members of the public objected to that. The charge-sheet further stated that while the police were trying to calm down the crowd, suddenly brick bats were hurled towards CPI (M) party office from the direction of the western and north western side of the said party office and that in retaliation, the supporters of CPI (M) also threw brick bats towards the mob and so, for a while, there were exchange of brick bats between the two sides. It is further stated therein that some workers of the CPI (M) including Braja Mohan Jamatia (P.W. 1), Sridam Paul (the deceased) and also their security constables took position inside their party office and that after a few minutes, the door of the CPI (M) office was slightly opened and a hand with a revolver came out which fired V* rounds, which caused bullet injuries on Narayan Paul (A 9), Rupen Ghosh and Nanai Patary and caused the death of Dulal Debnath. The charge-sheet further stated that on hearing the sound of firing, the football match stopped and the crowd rushed towards the main road and became violent on seeing innocent people falling victim to the bullets being fired from the revolvers from inside the CPI (M) party office. The prosecution story further states that at this stage, the public in general turned into a frenzied mob, became absolutely unruly and violent and attacked the CPI (M) party office and CPI (M) party workers and as a result, many of them fled to the nearby jungle through the back door being chased by the agitated mob from various directions. 30. In the cross-examination of P.W. 1, suggestions were made to him by the defence that Sridam Paul and his security killed Dulal Debnath by firing from their revolver in his shop and that when the people were excited, Sridam Paul and security men fired indiscriminately injuring Narayan Paul (A 9), Rupen Garu, Nripati Patari (Nanai Patari). The suggestions were, no doubt, denied by the witness. Further suggestions were made to the effect that when Dulal Debnath was killed, our partymen (Congress (I) Party) attacked the adjacent houses and shops at which the public of the area and the spectators of football game for the protection of life and property attacked the CPI (M) party office. The suggestion, however, denied. When P.W. 4 denied similar suggestion made by the defence, he was confronted with his previous statement before the police to that effect. The Investigating Officer at Ext. D- 6 duly proved that this witness stated before him that the heard the sound of firing from within the CPM office, that Dulal Debnath and Narayan Paul (A 9) were injured by the bullet whereupon Congress supporters and public became more excited and attacked the CPM office. This witness also admitted that another GR case was instituted in Belonia GR No. 390/88 on this incident in which his name was shown as accused when P.W. 8 denied having made the statement before the Investigating Officer that Milind Baidya, Lal Mohan Debnath (P.W. 6) and others were returning brick bats towards Congress (I) office, he was confronted with his previous statement and the same was proved by the Investigating Officer to have been made at Ext. D-8. D-8. Suggestions were also made to P.W. 15, though denied by him, that Sridam Paul (deceased) and Braja Mohan Jamatia (P.W. 1) that they took out the procession at Birchandra Manu raising provocative slogans, which excited the public and that when Sridam Paul and Braja Mohan Jamatia (P.W. 1) raised objectionable and provocative speeches, the public of Birchandra bazzar objected to that and as a result of this protest, they fired from their firearms in the market killing Dulal Debnath and injuring three persons. In the cross-examination of P.W. 32, who was the security guard of P.W. 1, he denied stating to the Investigating Officer that constable Ratan Dutta, security guard of Sridam Paul fired from his revolver through the hole of the door. But the Investigation Officer duly proved the making of this statement at Ext. D-20. 31. The question to be determined then is whether the plea taken by the defence of the right of private defence can be accepted from the aforesaid facts and circumstances. There can be no test in the abstract for determining such question since it is ultimately a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. Even in the absence of such plea, the court may consider it, if the same can be gathered from the evidence on record. But it cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. However, it must be noted that though the burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused, the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record. This is what the Apex Court succinctly explains in Babulal Bhagwan Khandare v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 10 SCC 404 : The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough for him to show as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of the plea. At para 29 of the same judgment, the Apex Court also observes: In order to find whether right of private defence is available or not, the injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to be considered. 32. 32. The difficulties in judging the plea of self-defence has been clearly explained by the Apex Court in Buta Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) 2 SCC 612 : A person who is apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales on the spur of the moment and in the heat of circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants who were armed with weapons. In moment of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is often difficult to expect the parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much force in retaliation commensurate with the danger apprehended to them; where assault is imminent. Such situations have to be pragmatically viewed and not with high powered spectacles or microscopes to detect slight or even marginal overstepping. Due weightage has to be given to, and hypertechnical approach has to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment on the spot and keeping in view normal human reaction and conduct, where self- preservation is the paramount consideration. But, if the fact situation shows that in the guise of self-preservation, what really has been done is to assault the original aggressor, even after the cause of reasonable apprehension has disappeared, the plea of right of private defence can legitimately be negatived. 33. In the instant case, the undisputable fact remains that the mob violence unleashed by the unlawful assembly comprising of the Appellant originated from the firing of 3/4 rounds from the revolver of Ratan Dutta, the security guard of Sridam Paul through the hole of the door of the CPI (M) party office in which Sridam Paul, his security guard and other leaders of the party were taking shelter. It is quite possible that these firing were done to protect themselves from the members of the Congress (I) party. But this cannot conceal the equally glaring fact that these firings, which admittedly caused death to Dulal Debnath and injuries to Narayan Paul (A 9) and others belonging to the rival political party, acted as the catalyst for the orgy of violence let loose by the workers of the Congress (I) party. The death of Dulal Debnath and the injuries caused to Narayan Paul (A 9) and others due to the firing made by Ratan Dutta, the imminence of threat to the mob comprising of the Appellants are worthy of consideration. The death of Dulal Debnath and the injuries caused to Narayan Paul (A 9) and others due to the firing made by Ratan Dutta, the imminence of threat to the mob comprising of the Appellants are worthy of consideration. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W. 33, who was the Sub-Inspector of Police present on the spot that he was unable to control the mob even after two rounds of blank fire were made clearly demonstrate the absence of time to take recourse to public authorities. In such moments of excitement and panicky situation, one can hardly expect the Appellants to preserve composure or sanity and use exactly only so much force in retaliation commensurate with the danger apprehended to them. Viewed from all angles and pragmatically, in our judgment, the Appellants cannot be held guilty of international murder of Sridam Paul. However, in the absence of premeditation, the facts and circumstances established on record permitted the Appellants to exercise the right of private defence to protect their lives, even though they exceeded the powers so granted by law in taking away the life of Sridam Paul. Consequently, the Appellants No. 1, 3 and 14 are liable to be convicted under Section 304 Pt. II IPC while the remaining Appellants are liable to be convicted under the Section 304 Pt II IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 34. The result of the foregoing discussion is that all the Appellants are guilty of the offence punishable under Section is 148 IPC, are convicted accordingly and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - (Rupees One thousand) to be paid by each of them and in default thereof, to undergo another rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months. The Appellants No. 7 and 8 are convicted under Section 326 IPC while the remaining Appellants are convicted under Section 326 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. All the Appellants are accordingly sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) to be paid by each of them and in default thereof, to undergo another rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Appellants No. 13, 10 and 8 are convicted under Section 436 IPC while the remaining Appellants are convicted under Section 436 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) to be paid by each of them and in default thereof, to undergo another rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Appellants No. 13, 10 and 8 are convicted under Section 436 IPC while the remaining Appellants are convicted under Section 436 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. All of them are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) and in default thereof, to undergo another rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Appellants No. 1, 3 and 14 are convicted under Section 304 Pt. II IPC while the remaining Appellants are also convicted under Section 304 Pt. II IPC read with Section 149 IPC. They are accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 (eight) years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) to be paid by each of them and in default thereof to undergo another rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The Appellants will of course be given the benefit of set-off of the period of detention already undergone by them as under trial prisoners or otherwise. All the sentences imposed upon the Appellants in the impugned judgment shall stand modified accordingly. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above.