JUDGMENT (Per K.C. Bhanu, J.) Criminal Appeal No. 996 of 2006 has been filed by A-1, A-6, A-9 and A-1 0, and Criminal Appeal No. 1026 of 2006 has been filed by A-2 to A-5 and A-7, in Sessions Case No. 337 of 2005 on the file of the Session Judge, Guntur, challenging the judgment dated 16-62006, where under and whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the appellants- (i) Guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years; (ii) Guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3021PC r/w 1491PC accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life; (iii) Guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years; (iv) Guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years; (v) Guilty of the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, may be stated as follows: Vellanur village of Guntur district is within the limits of Pedanandipadu police station. It is a faction village. One group is constituted by 'Suda' families, while the other group by 'Somaroutha' families. Sessions Case No. 522 of 2004 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Guntur is pending for the murder of Tirupathiah and Siva Kumar. P.Ws. 1 t06herein, Suda Samudariah, s/o. Venkatappaiah (Deceased No.1), Batchu Srinivasa Rao @ Vasu, s/o. Venkayamma, (DeceasedNo. 2) and Suda Venkateswara Rao @ Badvai, s/o. Venkatappaiah (Deceased No.3) and 9 others, are the accused in the said Sessions Case, and conditional bail was granted to them. Out of the total18 accused, 5 were directed to stay at Guntur and report at Lalapet police station everyday, and rest of 13 accused were directed to report at the same police station every Sunday. The said conditions were relaxed by this Hon'ble Court on 18-6-2004. On 22-6-2004, without having knowledge about the relaxation of the condition, P. Ws. Out of the total18 accused, 5 were directed to stay at Guntur and report at Lalapet police station everyday, and rest of 13 accused were directed to report at the same police station every Sunday. The said conditions were relaxed by this Hon'ble Court on 18-6-2004. On 22-6-2004, without having knowledge about the relaxation of the condition, P. Ws. 1,3,6 and the deceased 2 and 3 went to Lalapet police station at 9.30 a.m. and reported to the Station House Officer, and thereafter, they went to market where they wee joined by P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and deceased No.1. All of them boarded a bus to go to Vengipuram, to see mother-in-lawofP.W.1, who was ailing. They got off from the bus at Prathipadu and P.Ws. 1 to 6 engaged one auto rickshaw, while the three deceased took another auto rickshaw. P.W. 7-the driver of the second auto, took two more passengers P.Ws. 8 and 9. P.W. 8 was Assistant Engineer in D. P. E. P. and he was going from Vangipuram to examine progress of a school building. The second auto boarded by the deceased persons, was going behind the first auto boarded by P.Ws.1 to 6, at a distance of 40 to 50 yards. At about 11.30 a.m. when the second auto rickshaw was to take a turn near Abbineniguntapalem village, bombs were hurled on the 2nd auto rickshaw. On hearing the bomb explosion, P.Ws. 1 t06, who were traveling in the first auto, stopped their auto, went some distance back and witnessed all the accused hacking the three deceased with hunting sickles, battle axes and badise. They ran to the auto rickshaw and noticed the three deceased lying dead, and the co-passengers and the driver lying on the road with injuries. They also noticed the accused going away from the place of occurrence in a jeep and a car towards Guntur. Many villagers, who were working in the neigh bouring fields, rushed to the scene of occurrence. While so, P.W. 19-5ub-lnspectorof Police, Pedanandipadu, received a telephone at 11.45 a.m. from a stranger informing that murder took place near church in Abbineniguntapalem village. He came to the scene of offence with his staff and found the auto turned turtle and 3 dead bodies lying near the auto. He also found P.Ws. 7, 8 and 9 with injuries. He sent them to Guntur General Hospital for treatment. He came to the scene of offence with his staff and found the auto turned turtle and 3 dead bodies lying near the auto. He also found P.Ws. 7, 8 and 9 with injuries. He sent them to Guntur General Hospital for treatment. Then, P.W.1 submitted Ex. P-1 written report. P.W. 19 received it, went to police station and basing on the same, registered a case in crime no 32/2004 at 2.00 p.m. Ex. P-34 is the First Information Report. P.W. 19 requested the Guntur Police to send clues team for investigation. P.W. 22 in charge Inspector of Ponnur circle, reached the scene of offence at 3.00 p.m. and took up investigation. On the direction of P.W. 22, P.W. 19 held inquest on the dead body of the deceased NO.2 between 4.00p.m. t06.30p.m. under Ex. P-35-inquest report. He examined P.Ws. 1, 3 and 6 and recorded their statements. P. W. 22 observed the scene of occurrence in the presence of mediators under Ex. P-6 report, and prepared rough sketch Ex. P-43. On the instructions of P.W. 22, P.W. 20 held inquest on the dead body of deceased NO.3 under Ex. P-12 inquest report. P.W. 22 held inquest on the dead body of deceased NO.1 under Ex. P-7inquest report. After inquests, the dead bodies were sent to Government Hospital, Guntur for autopsy. P.W. 16 Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of the deceased Nos.1 to 3, under post-mortem certificates Ex. P-15to P-17. P. Ws. 7 to 9 were examined by P.W. 21-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Guntur, for their injuries, and issued Exs. P-37 to P-39 wound certificates. On 30-6-2004, P.W. 23-Circle Inspector of Police, Ponnur took up investigation. He arrested A-1 to A-3, A-5, A-6, A-9and A-1 0 and recovered M.Os. 12 to 21 (10 weapons) from open place under EX.P-8. Later, the said accused led police to the house of one Manikyala Rao at Guntur and showed their clothes, which were seized under Ex. P-11. Thereafter, they were sent judicial remand. On 22-7-2004, A-4 was arrested and he showed his clothes M.Os. 39 and 40, kept in his mother-in-Iaw's house at Guntur and the same were seized under Ex. P-8 seizure panchanama. Thereafter, he was sent for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, police laid the charge sheet. 3. The charges framed against the appellants are as follows: 1. On 22-7-2004, A-4 was arrested and he showed his clothes M.Os. 39 and 40, kept in his mother-in-Iaw's house at Guntur and the same were seized under Ex. P-8 seizure panchanama. Thereafter, he was sent for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, police laid the charge sheet. 3. The charges framed against the appellants are as follows: 1. "Firstly. That A-1 to A-7, A-9, A-1 0 and A-8 (against whom the case was separated) of you on or about the 22nd day of June 2004 at about 11.30 a.m. near Velangini Matha Church, situated on the outskirts of Abbineniguntapalem village, were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of such assembly to wit in attacking with country made bombs and hacking (1) Suda Samudaraiah, s/o. Venkatappaiah, 42 yrs.; (2) Batchu Srinivasa Rao @ Vasu, s/o. Venkayamma, 25 yrs.; (3) Suda Venkateswara Rao @ Badvai, s/o. Venkatappaiah, 37 yrs., residents of Velialuru village, did commit the offence of rioting and at that time you wee armed with deadly weapons like hunting sickles, battle axes, spears and country made bombs, etc. and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 148 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. 2. "Secondly. ThatA-1 toA-7, A-9, A-10 and A-8 (against whom the case was separated) of you on some date, time and place and during the course of same transaction as mentioned in charge No. 1 above, did intentionally commit murder by intentionally (or knowingly) causing the death of Suda Samudaraiah, s/o. Venkatappaiah, 42 year. (Deceased No.1) by hurling country made bombs on an auto AP7X 7193 in which he along with 5 others was traveling, including the driver of the auto, and later hacking him repeatedly with hunting sickles, battle axes and spears all over the head and body indiscriminately and you thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. 3. 3. "Thirdly That A-1 to A-7, A-9, A-10 and A-8 (against whom the case was separated) of you on same date, time and place and during the course of same transaction as mentioned in Charge No. 1 above, did intentionally commit murder by intentionally (or knowingly) causing the death of Batchu Srinivasa Rao @ Vasu, s/o. Venkayamma aged 25 yrs., Vellaluru village (Deceased No.2) by hurling country made bombs on an auto in which he was traveling along with 5 others and later hacking him repeatedly with hunting sickles, battle axes and spears all over the head and body indiscriminately and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 302 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. 4. "Fourthly That A-1 to A-7, A-9, A-10 and A-8 (against whom the case was separated) of you on same date, time and place and during the course of same transaction as mentioned in Charge No.1, did intentionally commit murder by intentionally (or knowingly) causing the death of Suda Venkateswara Rao @ Badvai, s/o. Venkatappaiah, aged 37 yrs., Vellaluru village (Deceased No.3) by hurling country made bombs on an auto in which he was travelling along with 5 others and later hacking him repeatedly with hunting sickles, battle axes and spears all over the head and body indiscriminately and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 302 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. 5. "Fifthly: ThatA-1 to A-7, A-9, A-1 0 and A-8 (against whom the case was separated) of you on same date, time and place and during the course of same transaction as mentioned in Charge No.1, were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of you common object of which viz. committed an offence of hurling country made bombs and hacking 1.Suda Samudraiah; 2. Batchu Srinivasarao @ Srinu; and 3. Suda Venkateswara Rao, which you knew likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly and you there by committed an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. 6. committed an offence of hurling country made bombs and hacking 1.Suda Samudraiah; 2. Batchu Srinivasarao @ Srinu; and 3. Suda Venkateswara Rao, which you knew likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly and you there by committed an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. 6. "Sixthly: That A-1 to A-7, A-9, A-10 and A-8 (against whom the case was separated) of you on same date, time and place and during the course of same transaction as mentioned in Charge No.1, were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of you common object did an act to wit-by hurling country made bombs causing injuries to 1.Nadenla Subba Rao, s/o. Venkataswamy, aged 30 years, Vegipuram village, Driver of Auto No. P7X7193; 2. Gattupalli M oshe, s/o. Neelambaram, aged 51 years, Chinalingayapalem village, Kakumanu Mandai, working as Assistant Engineer, DPEP, Guntur; and 3. Gali Venkaiah, s/o. Yacob, aged 55 years, Harijanawada, Vangilpuram village and threatening them with dire consequences, with such knowledge and under such circumstances you caused hurt to the said persons and that you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 307 r/w 149 IPC and within my cognizance. 7. "Seventh/y. ThatA-1 toA-7, A-9, A-1 0 and A-8 (against whom the case was separated) of you on same date, time and place and during the course of same transaction as mentioned in Charge No.1, were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of your common object of which, all of you voluntarily caused hurt to 1. Nadendla Subba Rao, s/o. Venkataswamy; 2. Gattupalli Moshe and 3. Gali Venkaiah, by hurling country made bombs on an auto, in which they were traveling, which offence you knew likely to be committed and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 324 r/w. 1490fthe Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. 8. "Eighty: That A-1 to A-7, A-9, A-10 and A-8 (against whom the case was separated) of you on same date, time and place and during the cou rse of same transaction as mentioned in Charge No.1, were members f an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of your common object of which all of you voluntarily caused grievous hurts by dangerous weapons or means to 1. Nadendla Subba Rao, s/o. Venkataswamy; 2. Gattupalli Moshe and 3. Nadendla Subba Rao, s/o. Venkataswamy; 2. Gattupalli Moshe and 3. Gali Venkaiah, by hurling country made bombs on an auto, in which they were traveling which offence you know likely to be committed and you thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 326 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. 9. Ninethly/Lastly. That A-1 to A-7, A-9, A-10 and A-8 (against whom the case was separated) of you on same date, time and place and during the course of same transaction as mentioned in Charge No.1, causing explosion of country made bombs which were in your possession under suspicious circumstances, and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and within my cognizance. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 23 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-54, besides case property M.Os. 1 to 40. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of accused, but, Exs. 0-1 to 0-1 0 were marked. 5. The Trial Court, accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, who are eye-witnesses to the incident and some of them were injured, found the appellants guilty, accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present appeals are filed. 6. The learned senior counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 999 of 2006, who are A-1 , A-6, A-9 and A-1 0, vehemently contended that P.Ws. 1 to 6 are closely related to each other and all these witnes2es and the deceased persons were accused in Sessions Case No. 522 of 2004 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur, and therefore, the prosecution witnesses have strong reason to implicate the accused falsely; that, in view of the acute factions between the two groups, all the accused were falsely implicated; that, the witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 6 were equally important leaders in their group and if really the accused are the assailants, they would not have allowed these witnesses to go away from the scene of occurrence; that, there is no necessity for them to stay at Guntur, because the condition to stay at Guntur and report to police, was relaxed by this Court; that, the explanation offered by the prosecution witnesses that they had no knowledge about the relaxation of the condition, cannot be accepted; that, even if it is to be accepted, they are not supposed to go to Vengipuram village, and therefore, the theory set up by the prosecution that P.Ws. 1,3 and 6 and deceased Nos. 2 and 3 had gone to Guntur to report at Lalapet police station, is nothing but false; that, there is no corroborative evidence to show that P.Ws. 1 to 6 were proceeding in the auto rickshaw in front of the auto rickshaw in which the deceased Nos. 1 to 3 were traveling; that, the auto rickshaw in which P.Ws. 1 to 6 were allegedly traveling, was stopped at Prathipadu to enable some of the passengers to purchase clothes and therefore the question of the said auto rickshaw proceeding in front of the auto rickshaw in which the deceased persons were traveling, does not arise; that, if really P. Ws. 1 to 6 were present near the scene of occurrence, they would not have been spared by the assailants because they are also important persons in the opposite group; that, the testimony of P.Ws.1 t06isnotingbutaparrot-likeversion, because they are interested witnesses; that, the recovery of weapons is nothing but planted by the prosecution witnesses to strengthen the prosecution case; that, A-4, A-5 and A-7 belong to a different village and they had nothing to do with the faction prevailing in the village Vellaluru; that, in these state of affairs and because the prosecution witnesses are very interested in success of the prosecution case, it cannot be said that P.Ws. 1 to 6 can be termed as wholly reliable witnesses and no reliance can be placed upon their evidence. Hence, he prayed to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants/ A-1, A-6, A-9 and A-1 O. 7. The learned senior counsel Sri 1. 1 to 6 can be termed as wholly reliable witnesses and no reliance can be placed upon their evidence. Hence, he prayed to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants/ A-1, A-6, A-9 and A-1 O. 7. The learned senior counsel Sri 1. Bali Reddy, appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal NO.1 026 of 2006, who are A-2 to A-5 and A-7, contended that, there was no necessity for some of the prosecution witnesses and the deceased persons to attend the Lalapet police station, Guntur and there was no need for them to go to Vengipuram along with other persons; that, the driver of the auto, in which P.Ws. 1 to 6 were traveling, is not examined; that, as a matter of fact, only 15 service autos were shuttling between Vengipuram and Prathipadu, and so, it was not difficult for the investigating agency to trace out the first auto in which P.Ws. 1 to 6 were traveling; that, for the reasons best known to them, the prosecution had not examined the auto driver of the first auto in which P.Ws. 1 to 6 were traveling; that, the contradictions elicited in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as to the manner in which the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence, would go to the root of the case; that, there was abnormal delay of 11 hours in sending the First Information Report to the Court. The learned senior counsel further contended that, A-2 is an adolescent, whereas A-3isajuvenile; hence, he prayed to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against A-2 to A-5 and A-l. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that, presence of P. Ws. 1 to 6 is quite probable and natural at the relevant point of time of the incident; that, their evidence is consistent and corroborating with each other; that, the delay of 11 hours in sending the First Information Report to Court is not fatal to the incident, in the circumstances of the case; that, the contradictions, if any, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are minor and they do not go to the root of the prosecution case; that, the trial Court, after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. 9. I n the light of the above contentions, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and whether the convictions and sentences imposed by the learned Sessions Judge are liable to be set aside or modified? 1 On it is not in dispute that there is a faction existing between 'Suda group' and 'Somarouthu group' in Vellaluri village. P.W. 1, deceased Nos. 3 and 1 are own brothers. P. Ws. 3 and 4 are sons of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 is sister's son of P.W. 1. P.W. 5 is son of late Veeraiah, another brother of P.W.1. P.W. 6 is second son of deceased Nos. 2. It is also not in dispute that, all the 3 deceased persons and P.Ws. 1 to 6 are accused in Sessions Case No. 522 of 2004 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Guntur. Similarly, P.W.1, deceased Nos. 1 and 3, bother of P.W.2, P.W. 3, P.W.1 's son Nagaraju, P.W. 5 and one Veeraiah, father of P.W. 6, are accused in Sessions Case No. 411 of 2004 on the file of the VII Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Guntur. Similarly, there is no dispute with regard to relationship among the accused. Father of A-1 by name Satyanarayana is deceased in Sessions Case No. 411 of 2004. A-4, A-6, A-9, A-1 0 and Tirupathaiah, who is deceased in Sessions case No. 522 of 2004, are brothers. A-2 is son of A-6 and A-3 is son of A-g. Therefore, all the close relations of father of A-1 were arrayed as accused. 11. It is also not in dispute that, except in respect of the deceased Nos. 2, 3, P.Ws. 1, 3 and 6, the conditions imposed while granting bail wee relaxed on 18-6-2004, thereby the deceased and witnesses have to appear before the Station House Officer, Lalapet police station, once in a week i.e. on every Sunday. Original condition imposed while granting bail in Sessions Case No. 522 of 2004 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, was that they had to stay at Guntur and report to Lalapet police station everyday. 12. It is the case of prosecution that the witnesses and the deceased have no knowledge about the relaxation of the conditions viz. 12. It is the case of prosecution that the witnesses and the deceased have no knowledge about the relaxation of the conditions viz. staying at Guntur and to report to police station, and therefore, on the date of the incident, P.Ws. 1, 3, 6 and deceased Nos. 2 and 3, went to police station at 9.30 a.m. and reported to the Station House Officer, Lalapet police station, and thereafter they went to market where they joined with P. Ws. 2, 4, 5 and the deceased No.1, and all of them boarded a bus with an intention to go to Vengipuram, to see mother-in-law of P.W. 1, who was ailing. It is the further case of prosecution that, they alighted the bus at Prathipadu, where P.Ws. 1 to 6 engaged an auto rickshaw while the three deceased boarded another auto rickshaw, and along with the deceased persons, P.Ws. 8 and 9, who are unconnected with the disputes between the accused and P.Ws. 1 to 6, also boarded the second auto. It is the further case of the prosecution that, the two auto rickshaws were going one behind the other with a distance of 40 to 50 yards, and that when the second auto rickshaw took a turn near the village Abbineniguntapalem, bombs were hurled, as a result the second auto turned turtle, and all the accused indiscriminately hacked the deceased with haunting sickles, battle axes, etc.; that, on hearing the sounds of bomb hurling, the witnesses went back to second auto in which the three deceased persons were traveling, and saw the accused hacking the deceased persons. 13. P.W. 22 is the then Inspector of Police, Bapatla circle at the relevant point of time of the incident. He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased no. 1 on 22-6-2004 between 4.00 and 6.30 p.m. Ex. P-? is the inquest report. The inquest mediators opined that the death of deceased NO.1 was resulted due to the injuries inflicted on him. P.W. 11 is one of the inquest mediators for Ex. P-1 report. 14. Similarly, P.W. 19 held inquest on the dead body of deceased NO.2 under Ex. P-35 report. P. W. 20 held inquest on the dead body of the deceased NO.3 under Ex. P.W. 11 is one of the inquest mediators for Ex. P-1 report. 14. Similarly, P.W. 19 held inquest on the dead body of deceased NO.2 under Ex. P-35 report. P. W. 20 held inquest on the dead body of the deceased NO.3 under Ex. P-12 inquest report, in the presence of P.W. 13 and others between 4.00 and 6.30 p.m. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries inflicted on them. 15. P.W. 16 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased NO.1 at 10.00 a.m. on 23-6-2004 under Ex. P-15 post mortem report and found the following injuries. 1. A cut laceration 9 x 1.5 cm x bone deep vertically praced 6 cms. Behind right ear on parie-to-occipital area of skull. 2. A cut laceration 19 cms x 2 cms bone deep transversely placed present on the right cheek to mastoid area, right cutting external ear. 3. A cut laceration 8 x 2 cms x bone deep present on the right side neck, extending from the right external ear to lower part of neck. 4. A cut laceration 5 x 2 cms x muscle deep present in front of the lower part of the right ear. 5. Cut laceration 5 x 1 .5 cms x skin deep present on the right side of the cheek transversely placed 3 cms below the injury NO.2. 6. Cut laceration 13 x 3 cms x bone deep present on the fronto parietal area of scalp extending from right parietal area to left parietal area. 7. Cut laceration 6 x 6 cms x bone deep over the left parietal area of scalp extending from midline to left side. 8. Cut laceration 7 x 2 cms x bone deep semi circular in shape obliquely placed over left parietal area 6 cms away from left external area. 9. Laceration over occipit midine 1 x Yz cm b one deep. 10.20 cms x 1 cm obliquely place linear abrasion over right shoulder posterior. 11. Linear abrasion over right shoulder 11x114. 12. Linear abrasion vertically placed 4 cms away from right shoulder. 13. Linear abrasion over right shoulder anterior aspect measuring 10 x 1/4th. 14. Cut laceration 6 x 2 x muscle deep over middle 2/3rd of right arm. 15. 10.20 cms x 1 cm obliquely place linear abrasion over right shoulder posterior. 11. Linear abrasion over right shoulder 11x114. 12. Linear abrasion vertically placed 4 cms away from right shoulder. 13. Linear abrasion over right shoulder anterior aspect measuring 10 x 1/4th. 14. Cut laceration 6 x 2 x muscle deep over middle 2/3rd of right arm. 15. Cut laceration over inner side of middle 2/3rd at right of arm measuring into 5 x 3x bone deep. 16. Cut laceration 4 x Y2 x muscle deep over the inner aspect of upper 1/3rd of right arm. 17. Cut laceration 1 x 2 cm x muscle deep over right side of the chest 4 cms away from right nipple. 18. Multiple charred abrasions present over back of the chest and abdomen here and there. 19. Cut laceration 1 x Y2 cms x muscle deep over upper side of the right chest at lateral aspect. 20. Cut laceration 8 x 2 cms x muscle deep over upper part of the buttock outer side obliquely placed. 21. Cut laceration 9 x 2 Y2 cms into muscle deep 3 cms. Below the injury No. 20 obliquely placed. 22. A oblique cut laceration 8 x 2 cms x muscle deep 3 cms below the injury No. 21. 23. A oblique cut laceration 5 x 2 cms x muscle deep over upper and lateral aspect of the thigh. 24. Cut laceration 4 x 3 cms x muscle deep over the back of the right thigh upper part. 25. A cut laceration 5 x 3 cmsmuscle deep into muscle deep right upper thigh lateral aspect. 26. A cut laceration over right upper knee 10 x 3 cm x muscle deep, charring of tissue present. 27. Cut laceration 3 x 1 cm x muscle deep below right knee anterior aspect. 28. Abrasion 3 x 2 cms. Verticality placed upper part of left shoulder. 29. Deep burnt injury present back of buttocks and back of right thigh and right leg up to ankles. Left thigh up to ankles, charring present. 9% burns. 30. Charring present over back of left fore arm. 16. Similarly, P.W. 16 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased NO.2 at 11.00 a.m. on 23-6-2004 under Ex. P-16 post mortem report, and found the following injuries. 1. Left thigh up to ankles, charring present. 9% burns. 30. Charring present over back of left fore arm. 16. Similarly, P.W. 16 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased NO.2 at 11.00 a.m. on 23-6-2004 under Ex. P-16 post mortem report, and found the following injuries. 1. Charring of scalp 7 x 6 cms size present above left temparo parietal area, above left ear, singing of hair present, charring of appear part of right ear. 2. Oblique cut laceration 10 x 2 cms x bone deep present extending from the outer angle of left eye to left ear. 3. Oblique cut laceration over left cheek 3 cms below to second injury 10 x 3 cms x bone deep. 4. Oblique cut laceration over scalp left from to parietal area 12 x 1 cm x bone deep extending from fore head to vertex. 5. Crush injury 12 x 10 cm x bone deep due to bomb blast present over left shoulder, upper and middle 2/3rd of arm bones exposed fracture multiple of left humerus, charring present. 6. Charring of left fore arm extensor aspect. 7. Burnt injury over left chest lateral aspect. 15 x 10 cms extending nipple to upper abdomen. 8. Multiple charring 1 x 1 cm size over back of chest and abdomen here and thee. 9. Burnt injury over left buttock 8 x4cms size. 10. Abrasion over right ankle lateral aspect 1 x 1 cms size. 17. P .W. 16 also conducted inquest on the dead body of deceased No.3 between 12.00 noon and 1.00 p.m. on 23-6-2006, under Ex. P-17 post mortem certificate, and found the following injuries. 1. A cut laceration 24 x 4 cms x bone deep obliquely placed behind neck right side, extending from 1 cm back of the right ear to the middle of the back of the neck, cutting of major blood vessels present. 2. Oblique cut laceration 11 x 4 cms bone deep 2 cms below the injury NO.1. 3. Oblique cut laceration 2 cms above the injury No.1, 6 cms x 1 cm into bone deep. 4. A cut laceration injury No.3, 15 x 4 cms x bone deep extending from right ear to midline of the occipital, obliquely placed. 5. A oblique cut laceration 30 x 4 cms x bone deep extending from above the right ear to left ear; brain is exposed out. 6. 4. A cut laceration injury No.3, 15 x 4 cms x bone deep extending from right ear to midline of the occipital, obliquely placed. 5. A oblique cut laceration 30 x 4 cms x bone deep extending from above the right ear to left ear; brain is exposed out. 6. A oblique cut laceration over right parieto temporal region 10 cm x 3 cm x bone deep, extending from right ear to right parietal bone. 7. A oblique cut laceration over and above the injury No. 6, 19x4cmsxbone deep extending from eye-brow (right) to upper part of right ear. 8. A oblique cut laceration 12 x 2 cms x muscle deep right side back of neck. 9. A oblique cut laceration over left shoulder 11 x 3 cms x muscle deep. 10. A cut laceration below the injury No.9, 6 x 2 cms x muscle deep. 11. A oblique cut laceration over left side of the neck below the left ear, 3 cms x 2 1 cm. 12. A oblique cut laceration below the injury No. 11, 3 x 1 x 1 cms. 13. A cut laceration obliquely placed over inter scapular area 10 x 3 cms x muscle deep. 14. oblique cut laceration over right fore arm at lower 1/3rd lateral side 6 x 2 cms x bone deep, fracture radius present. 15. Cutting of spinal cord, at the level of C2-C-3. 16. Loss of left lower lateral incisor tooth present. 17. Loss of left upper lateral incisor. 18. Fracture mandible right side. 19. Charring of right shoulder interiorly up to upper2/3rd of arm. 20. Burnt injury over right buttock. 21. Burnt injury over lower 2/3rd of the right thigh up to the knee. 22. A cut laceration over right shoulder 3 x 3 cms x muscle deep, charring present. 23. A oblique cut laceration anterior or right should lateral to injury No. 22. 24. A oblique cut laceration over right chest below the clavicle 3 x 2 cms x muscle deep. 25. A oblique cut laceration over 1/3rd medial aspect of right thigh 6 x 2 cms x muscle deep. 26. A oblique cut laceration over the anterior aspect of right knee 5 x 4 cms x bone deep. 27. A burnt injury over posterior aspect of thighs and legs extending to anterior aspect, bilateral, about 30% burns. 18. 25. A oblique cut laceration over 1/3rd medial aspect of right thigh 6 x 2 cms x muscle deep. 26. A oblique cut laceration over the anterior aspect of right knee 5 x 4 cms x bone deep. 27. A burnt injury over posterior aspect of thighs and legs extending to anterior aspect, bilateral, about 30% burns. 18. P.W. 16 categorically stated that the injuries caused on each of the deceased persons were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, or the death of the each of the deceased. He also stated that the injuries found on the 3 dead bodies could be caused with weapons like hunting sickles, battle axe and spear, which were shown and marked as M.Os. 12 t021. He further stated that burn and char injuries found on the dead bodies could be caused by explosion of bombs. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to discredit his testimony. Therefore, the medical evidence leaves no room to doubt that the death of each of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 19. P.W. 22 deposed that, after receipt of message from the Sub-Inspector of Police about the registration of crime, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and observed the same in the presence of P.W. 11 and others, and that, the scene of offence is situated on Abbinenivariguntapalem-Ravipadu road at a distance of 15 yards to the Velanginimatha RCM church. He collected remnants of exploded bombs and other incriminating material such as blood stained earth swabs, etc. He also prepared Ex. P-43 rough sketch of scene of occurrence. 20. P.W. 18, who is the photographer of Clues Team, had taken photographs. The photographs along with negatives are marked as Exs. P-19 to P-33. 21. P.W. 11, who is the mediator for the observation of scene of occurrence, has categorically deposed that he was present at the time of observing the scene of occurrence. Except suggesting that the scene of occurrence was not observed in his presence and he was not present at the time of inquest, nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. Even the accused are not seriously disputing about the taking place of the incident near Velanginimatha RCM church, Abbinenivariguntapalem village. Therefore, the scene of occurrence is established beyond reasonable doubt. 22.lnviewofthe relationship of P.Ws. Even the accused are not seriously disputing about the taking place of the incident near Velanginimatha RCM church, Abbinenivariguntapalem village. Therefore, the scene of occurrence is established beyond reasonable doubt. 22.lnviewofthe relationship of P.Ws. 1 to 6 with the deceased persons and in view of the serious factions between the accused group and the deceased group, it becomes the duty of the Court to scrutinize the evidence of P.Ws.1 t06with great care and caution. One cannot ignore the fact that relations present at the time of the incident, are the natural witnesses, and in case their presence at the time of the incident is established and found to be probable, reliance can be placed upon their evidence to base a conviction, as new and unconnected persons often are cool or hesitant to appear as witnesses in criminal cases of this nature, particularly in faction cases. Therefore, the caution to be exercised in appreciating their evidence is that it should be scrutinized with great care and circumspection, in the light of the material on record, including the corroborative circumstances, and if this evaluated evidence points to the guilt of the accused, conviction of the accused can be based upon their evidence. 23. In evaluating and appreciating the evidence of eye-witnesses, two important considerations are, firstly, in the circumstances of the case, presence of these witnesses is to be established or the explanation for their presence is found to be probable; secondly, there is anything inherently improbable in their evidence so as to disbelieve their presence at the time of the incident. 24. Coming to the evidence, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 is almost on similar lines. The evidence of P. Ws. 1,3 and 6 would go to show that, on the date of the incident, they along the deceased Nos. 2 and 3 went to Lalapet police station at 9.30 p.m. in view of the direction in the conditional bail, and after putting their signatures in the police station, they came near vegetable market in Guntur; that, at that place, P.Ws. 1,3 and 6 would go to show that, on the date of the incident, they along the deceased Nos. 2 and 3 went to Lalapet police station at 9.30 p.m. in view of the direction in the conditional bail, and after putting their signatures in the police station, they came near vegetable market in Guntur; that, at that place, P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and the deceased No.1, met them and all of them boarded a bus to go to Vengipuram to see the ailing mother-in-law of P.W. 1; that, they alighted from the bus at Prathipadu and called two passenger autos to go to Vengipuram; that, in the first auto, P.Ws.1 to 6 boarded and in the second auto, the deceased Nos. 1 to 3 and two other passengers boarded; that, the autos were going one after another; that, at the scene of occurrence, they heard sounds of bomb explosion and therefore they stopped their auto, saw behind and noticed all the accused armed with deadly weapons and attacking the deceased with the respective weapons; that, when these witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 6 ran towards the place of attack, the accused absconded from that place in jeep and car. 25. P.W. 19 the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedanandipadu police station, deposed that, on 22-6-2004 at about 11.45 a.m. he received a telephonic information with regard to taking place of murders near the village Abbineniguntavaripalem nearchurch' that, on that, he rushed to the scene of occurrence and found an auto turned turtle and the dead bodies lying near the auto; that, he received a report from P. W. 1 , went to police station and registered a case at 2.00 p.m. and issued express F.I.Rs, to all concerned. Ex. P-34 is the original F.I.R. submitted to the Court. It is not in dispute that Ex. P-34 was received by the Magistrate at 11.15 p.m. at his residence on 22-6-2004. It is also not in dispute that the distance between the scene of occurrence and Pedanandipadu police station is about 9 k.m. Similarly, the distance between the Pedanandipadu police station and the Court at Bapatla is about 30 k.ms. 26. EX.P-1 is the earliest document. A perusal of Ex. It is also not in dispute that the distance between the scene of occurrence and Pedanandipadu police station is about 9 k.m. Similarly, the distance between the Pedanandipadu police station and the Court at Bapatla is about 30 k.ms. 26. EX.P-1 is the earliest document. A perusal of Ex. P-1 would go to show that on 22-6-2004 at about 9.30 a.m. the first informant, P.W. 3, the deceased No.3, P.W. 6 and the deceased NO.2 went to Lalapet Police Station to put their signatures, and thereafter, in order to go to their relative's house at Vengipuram, those five persons along with P. Ws. 2, 4, 5 and the deceased No.1, came in R.T.C. bus from Guntur to Prathipadu, where they started in two autos; that, in the first auto, P.Ws. 1 to 6 boarded and in the second auto, the deceased Nos. 1 to 3 and two strangers boarded; that, when the auto was taking turn at the corner of rice mill in Abbineniguntapalem, they heard bomb sounds from behind and immediately they got down and ran back; that, by then, it was about 11.30 a.m. that, by the time they reached the second auto, it was turned turtle in front of the church on the road. The contents of Ex. P-1 would also go to show that, then, A-1 to A-1 0 armed with battle axes, spears and hunting sickles, were hacking the three deceased persons indiscriminately. It is also stated that by the side of the road, (1) Somarouthu Kalyani; (2) Somarouthu Malleswari; (3) Somarouthu Anjani Devi and (4) Kota Bujji, were standing in the field site; that, on raising cries of these witnesses, all the accused persons went away towards Guntur in a jeep and a car. 27. There cannot be any dispute that, First Information Report in a murder case is a valuable piece of evidence, inasmuch as it is the earliest version that can be compared with, what is later told during trial. The object of First Information report from the point of view of the first informant is to set the criminal law into motion, and from the point of view of the investigating authorities, it is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity. There cannot be any dispute that, First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence. The object of First Information report from the point of view of the first informant is to set the criminal law into motion, and from the point of view of the investigating authorities, it is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity. There cannot be any dispute that, First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used-to corroborate the evidence of the informant when he deposed in the Court, under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; or for impeaching the credit of the witness, under Section 155 of the Act; or to contradict the witness, under Section 145 of the Act. 28. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that, if really these witnesses were present, as stated by them, there was no need for P. W. 1 to get the report scribed by an unknown person, because, admittedly, P.W. 2can read and write telugu, and P.W. 5, who failed Intermediate, can write telugu and can read English, and therefore, P .W.1 would have got the report scribed through one of these witnesses and presented the same to P.W. 19-5ub-lnspectorof Police, who rushed to the scene of offence within one hour after the alleged incident. No doubt, P. Ws. 2 and 5 can write a report, but, at the same time, they are closely related to the deceased persons and so, it is not expected, at that disturbed point of time, from either of them to write the report or to the narration of P.W. 1, by anyone of them. Therefore, scribing the report through somebody cannot be said to be unnatural or improbable. So, the contention of the learned senior counsel on this aspect cannot be accepted. 29. No doubt, there was a delay of 9 hours in sending the report to the Court after registration of the case. P.W. 19 is the Sub-Inspector of Police of Peddanandipadu police station at the relevant point of time. In view of the fact that, it is a grave crime, it is not expected from him, who is the Sub-Inspector, to send the FIR to the Court forthwith. As the Inspector of Police, Ponnur circle, was on leave on that day, P. W. 19 informed about the incident to the Circle Inspector of Police, Bapatla, who was in-charge then. In view of the fact that, it is a grave crime, it is not expected from him, who is the Sub-Inspector, to send the FIR to the Court forthwith. As the Inspector of Police, Ponnur circle, was on leave on that day, P. W. 19 informed about the incident to the Circle Inspector of Police, Bapatla, who was in-charge then. He also informed about the incident to the Clues Team, Guntur to come over to the scene of occurrence. After registration of the case, he returned back to the scene of occurrence and was busy with holding inquest on the dead body of deceased No.2 from4.00t06.30p.m. and after arrival of the in-charge Circle Inspector of Police, he assisted him. 30. Further, P. W. 19 is the best person to speak about the delay, if any, in sending the report to the Court. No question was put to him as to why he had taken 9 hours' time to send the original First Information report 'to the Court. It is only suggested to him that he received a different report, but he had suppressed the same and got prepared Ex. P-1 through interested party at 8.30 p.m. but the same is denied. There is no material to indicate that Ex. P-1 was fabricated or brought into existence after due deliberations at 8.30 p.m. On this aspect, it is suggested to P.W. 1 that police received another report early and came to the scene of offence and that he gave Ex. P-1 atabout5.000r6.00p.m. but the same is denied. If really, the prosecution had taken 12 hours' time to fabricate the report like Ex. P-1 , in view of the long time gap, there was every scope or possibility for P.W. 1 to implicate some more persons of opposite party as accused, besides the present accused, because it is a case of faction between the two groups. So many injuries were found on the dead bodies of the three deceased. Only names of 10 persons were shown in the First Information Report. In the absence of any circumstance to indicate that the First Information Report was brought into existence after 8.00 p.m. on the date of the I incident, it cannot be said that the FIR was ante-timed so as to suit the case of the prosecution. 31. Only names of 10 persons were shown in the First Information Report. In the absence of any circumstance to indicate that the First Information Report was brought into existence after 8.00 p.m. on the date of the I incident, it cannot be said that the FIR was ante-timed so as to suit the case of the prosecution. 31. Inquests were conducted on the dead bodies of the 3 deceased persons by 3 police officials, between 4.00 and 6.30 p.m. at the scene of occurrence itself, in the presence of P.Ws. 11, 13 and 17, who are inquest mediators. When P.W. 11 specifically stated that inquest was conducted on the dead body of the deceased No.1 from 4.00 to 6.00 p.m. at the scene of occurrence under Ex. P-1 inquest report, there is no denial by the accused with regard to the conducting of the inquest on the dead body of the deceased No. 1 at the scene of occurrence. Except suggesting that inquest on the dead body of the deceased NO.1 was not conducted in his presence and obliging police he attested Exs. Po.1, nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination. Similarly, P.W. 13 is one of the inquest mediators, who was present when police held inquest on the dead body of the deceased No.3, under Ex. P-12 inquest report. Nothing has been elicited to discredit hi~ testimony except suggesting that he was not present at the time of the inquest. Similarly, P.W. 1? is one of the inquest mediators, who was present when police held inquest on the dead body of the deceased No.2. Nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. 32. These inquest reports Ex. P-7, P-12 and 35 were scribed at the place of occurrence. These documents contain the particulars of the persons who attacked the deceased. No doubt, the purpose of holding inquest is to ascertain the cause of the death of the deceased, but the other aspects as to who are the 8.ssailants of the deceased or in what manner the deceased were attacked or with which weapons or motive for the offence, are foreign to the ambit and scope of Section 174 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. When the names of the assailants were mentioned in the inquest reports, question of fabrication of Ex. P-1 or the contention that Ex. P-1 was brought into existence after due deliberations, may not be correct. When the names of the assailants were mentioned in the inquest reports, question of fabrication of Ex. P-1 or the contention that Ex. P-1 was brought into existence after due deliberations, may not be correct. These circumstances do indicate that the First Information Report was brought into existence much earlier to the holding of the inquests i.e. before 4.00 p.m. Therefore, there is no scope or possibility for the police to fabricate or bring into existence the First Information Report after due deliberations. 33. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that Ex. P-1 was given at the time and date as mentioned it and in view of the ghastly incident, the delay, if any, in sending the same First Information Report to the Court, may not by itself is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, EX.P-1 can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. The earliest version of the incident as narrated in Ex. P-1, is almost in consonance with the evidence of P. W. 1 and therefore their recitals in Ex. P-1 can be used to corroborate the evidence of P.W. 1 on material particulars. 34. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants seriously disputed about presence of these witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 6 at the time of the incident. The contention of the learned senior counsel is that, as the bail conditions had already been relaxed on 18-6-2004, there was no need for P. Ws. 1, 3, 6 and the deceased Nos. 2 and 3 to go to the Lalapet police station on the date of the incident. The explanation given by P.W. 1 therefore is that they were not aware of the relaxation of the conditions and therefore, they went to the police station to comply with the conditional orders of the Court. No doubt, the conditions imposed while granting bail were relaxed by this Court on 18-6-2004. That may not be known to the prosecution witnesses and the deceased, as on the date of the incident, which was on 22-6-2004. The learned senior counsel contended that the concerned register in Lalapet police station, in which P.Ws. 1,3,6 and the deceased Nos. No doubt, the conditions imposed while granting bail were relaxed by this Court on 18-6-2004. That may not be known to the prosecution witnesses and the deceased, as on the date of the incident, which was on 22-6-2004. The learned senior counsel contended that the concerned register in Lalapet police station, in which P.Ws. 1,3,6 and the deceased Nos. 2 and 3 signed, is the best piece of evidence, but that register, which would reveal about presence of those witnesses and the deceased, at the police station at 9.30 a.m. was not produced by the prosecution. No doubt, the prosecution ought to have produced the register containing signatures of the aforesaid persons. But, at the same time, non-production of that register, cannot be said to be a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, if their evidence is otherwise consistent and reliable regarding attack on the deceased persons at the scene of occurrence. 35. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel that, the earliest version would disclose that these witnesses were living at Vengipuram as on the date of the incident and therefore the present version that they were going to Vengipuram is highly doubtful and cannot be believed. No doubt, the version disclosed in earliest investigation that P.Ws.1 t06and the three deceased persons were staying at Vengipuram, is not established. As a matter of fact, these witnesses did not say that they were residing at Vengipuram as on the date of the incident. As stated in Ex. P-1 , the purpose for which the witnesses and the three deceased persons, were going to Vengipuram was to go to their relative's house. Now, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 is that they were going to Vengipuram to see the mother-in-law of P.W. 1, who was said to be ailing. But, the said fact has not been mentioned in Ex. P-1. 36. There cannot be any dispute that, First Information Report is not an encyclopedia to contain all the minute details. Ex. P-1 report would clearly disclose that all the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 6 and the three deceased were going to Vengipuram to go to their relative's house, and the only thing which was not mentioned in Ex. P-1 is that they were going to the village to see the ailing mother-in-law of P.W. 1. Ex. P-1 report would clearly disclose that all the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 6 and the three deceased were going to Vengipuram to go to their relative's house, and the only thing which was not mentioned in Ex. P-1 is that they were going to the village to see the ailing mother-in-law of P.W. 1. Therefore, that minor discrepancy would not in any manner affect the main fabric of the prosecution case. 3? It is vehemently contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 6 were going in one auto in front of the auto in which the three deceased persons were coming, and the accused were admittedly having equal grudge against P. Ws. 1 to 6 also, and in such a case, the accused would not have hesitated the hurl bombs on the first auto also in which the witnesses were traveling, or at any rate, when these witnesses allegedly ran towards the second auto on hearing the sounds of explosion, the accused would have hurled bombs to scare away the witnesses or to cause injures to these witnesses. Conduct and intention of the accused persons in not hurling on the first auto only, may not be know to anybody because the motive or intention of hurling on bombs and attacking the deceased persons, is locked up in the minds of the accused persons only. Therefore, for what reason the accused did not hurl bombs or for what reason the accused did not attack P. Ws. 1 to 6, who were unarmed, is not within the knowledge of the prosecution witnesses. That circumstance cannot be taken to infer that the witnesses were not present at the scene of occurrence. May be, after attacking the three deceased persons and causing their instantaneous death, the accused might have left the place in a jeep and a car, after causing the deaths of the three deceased persons, to avoid their identification by the villagers of the persons present there immediately after occurrence, or with a fear that they would be caught red-handed. Therefore, non-hurling of the bombs on the first auto, in which P.Ws. 1 to 6 were traveling, cannot be said to be an adverse circumstance to infer that the witnesses were not proceeding in the first auto towards Vengipuram. Therefore, non-hurling of the bombs on the first auto, in which P.Ws. 1 to 6 were traveling, cannot be said to be an adverse circumstance to infer that the witnesses were not proceeding in the first auto towards Vengipuram. Had these witnesses not been proceeding in another auto in front of the auto in which the three deceased persons were traveling, they would not have been in a position to describe the manner in which the incident had taken place, in the earliest opportunity. 38. No doubt, Exs. 0-1 to 0-10 contradictions were elicited from the earlier statements of these witnesses recorded by police. Except Exs. 0-2 and 0-7, the other contradictions are trivial in nature and would not go to the root of the case. As per Ex. 0-2, P.W. 3 stated that, the auto in which P.W. 3 was traveling, was proceeding at a distance of 6 furlongs ahead of the second auto........ .As per Ex. 0-7, P.W. 6 stated that they went to Guntur from Vengipuram and attended there in compliance of the condition. But, Ex. 0-2 contradiction cannot be given undue importance because all other witnesses have categorically stated that the distance between the two autos was 40 to 50 yards. In Ex. P-1 also, it is clear that when the first auto, in which P.Ws. 1 to 6 were traveling, took a turn at the corner of road near rice mill in Abbineniguntapalem village, they heard bomb sound from behind; that, immediately they got stopped their auto, got down and ran back towards the second auto in which the three deceased persons were coming, which was found turned turtle in front of the church gate. That statement is completely in corroboration with the evidence of P.W. 1. Therefore, both the autos were proceeding in close proximity of distance at the time of the incident. The question is whether the two autos were proceeding one after another at a distance of 40 to 50 yards at the time of the incident. 39. P.W. 7 is one of the auto drivers, who admittedly sustained injuries. He stated that, five persons boarded his auto at Prathipadu to go to Vengipuram. According to him, another auto was going in front of his auto in the same direction, keeping some distance. 39. P.W. 7 is one of the auto drivers, who admittedly sustained injuries. He stated that, five persons boarded his auto at Prathipadu to go to Vengipuram. According to him, another auto was going in front of his auto in the same direction, keeping some distance. Though he was declared hostile by the prosecution, that does not mean that his evidence would be wiped out from the record. He is totally an independent witness. Such part of his evidence, which inspires confidence, can be taken into consideration to corroborate the other evidence on record. So, his evidence with regard to the fact that the two autos were going in the same direction at the place of occurrence, can be taken into consideration, which would suggest that the first auto being the one in which P.Ws. 1 to 6 were proceeding. 40. Similarly, P.W. 8, who is working as Assistant Engineer, boarded the second auto, in which the three deceased persons were traveling, at Prathipadu to go to Vengipuram. He stated that, when he got down the bus at Prathipadu on 22-6-2004, two autos came near the bus and there was no vacancy in the first auto as already passengers boarded in it and therefore he boarded "the second auto along with 3 other persons. No doubt, he was also declared hostile by the prosecution. This aspect of the case had been stated by him when Ex. P-41 his statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur at 4.05 p.m. on 22-6-2004. In view of the fact that P.W. 8 survived, contents of Ex. P-41 can b~ used to corroborate his evidence. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 would clearly. disclose that the two autos were proceeding towards Vengipuram at the time of the incident and that, some unknown persons hurled on the auto in which P.W. 8 was traveling and P.W. 7 was driving the said auto. 41. No doubt, there is slight discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8, because P.W. 7 stated that he did not stop the auto near market stage, whereas P.W. 8 stated that three persons got down near market stage and purchased clothes. 41. No doubt, there is slight discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8, because P.W. 7 stated that he did not stop the auto near market stage, whereas P.W. 8 stated that three persons got down near market stage and purchased clothes. The said discrepancy need not be given much importance, in view of the fact that P. W. 8 had not stated in the statement recorded by the Magistrate that his auto was stopped at market stage where three person got down and purchased clothes. Presence of P.Ws. 7and 8 at the time of the incident, is established beyond reasonable doubt. Further more, they were the injured witnesses. When P.W. 21 examined them on 22-6-2004 at about 1.45 p.m. injuries sustained by them would have been caused by bomb blasts. Even the accused persons are not disputing about the presence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 at the time of the incident. 42. The evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 8, coupled with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 and the contents in Ex. P-1 and P-41, would clearly disclose that the two autos were proceeding in the same direction. Further, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6 would disclose that they were the persons traveling in the first auto, and P. Ws. 7,8 and the deceased Nos. 1 to 3, were coming in the second auto. Therefore, presence of P. Ws. 1 to 6 appears to be quote natural and convincing. Though they are not supposed to leave Guntur, which is in violation of the conditions imposed by this Court, that may not be factor to infer that they were not going to Vengipuram village, and that the said aspect cannot be taken as a circumstance against the prosecution witnesses to discredit their testimony. It is quote probable that, when the mother-in-lawofP.W.1 was ailing, they have to necessarily move in-group to see the ailing person, in view of the factions in the village. 43. P.Ws. 1 t06havecategoricallydepicted the manner of attack, the place of attack and the time of attack. In view of the fact that the incident had taken place at about 11.45 a.m. in a broad daylight, they could be in a position to explain as to how the incident had taken place. 43. P.Ws. 1 t06havecategoricallydepicted the manner of attack, the place of attack and the time of attack. In view of the fact that the incident had taken place at about 11.45 a.m. in a broad daylight, they could be in a position to explain as to how the incident had taken place. All these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination and they withstood the test of cross-examination with regard to the manner of attack, and except eliciting minor discrepancies and inaccuracies, which are bound to occur in human testimony, there was no substantial deviations in their evidence. Therefore, there is nothing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and no material is elicited in the cross-examination, which renders their evidence wholly untrustworthy. 44. It is one of the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that, A-4, A-5 and A-7 were nothing to do with the factions in the village and they belong to a diffident village. Maybe, they were residing in different villages, ButA-5is closely related to A-4, who admittedly belongs to opposite faction of the prosecution witnesses. A-7 is no other than brother-in-law of A-1. In view of their relationship, their presence is probable at the scene of occurrence and it cannot be said that they were not present at the time of the accident for the reason that they were residing in different villages. In these circumstances, false implication of these accused can be ruled out. 45. The other contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants is that, there are two versions regarding stay of P.Ws.1 t06 and the deceased 1 to 3 at Guntur. According to the learned counsel, in the beginning, the case of the material witnesses was that they were staying at Vengipuram and went to Guntur and were returning back, which is evident from Ex. 0-7contradiction marked from the earlier version of P.W. 6, but, now the version of the prosecution witnesses is that they were staying at Guntur as they had no knowledge about the relaxation of the conditions. But, in either way, it is hardly relevant for the purpose of prosecution case whether the witnesses and the deceased were staying at Gunturor whether they were coming from Vengipuram. From the evidence of P. Ws. But, in either way, it is hardly relevant for the purpose of prosecution case whether the witnesses and the deceased were staying at Gunturor whether they were coming from Vengipuram. From the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6, it is clear that they were going to Vengipuram to see the ailing relative of P.W. 1. 46. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 is contrary to each other, as to the manner in which the accused left the scene of occurrence. According to the, all the witnesses admitted that they did not see either the car or jeep on their way before the attack in between Guntur and Prathipadu, and therefore, it is highly improbable to believe their evidence that the accused fled away in car and jeep from the scene of offence. No doubt, the witnesses might not have observed the car or jeep while going, because number of vehicles would come on the road as it is day time at about 11.45 a.m. Therefore, on that ground, the presence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 cannot be doubted or it cannot be said that P.Ws. 1 to 6 are not eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 47. It is vehemently contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that, except the interested testimony of P. Ws. 1 to 6, there is no other independent witness, neither cited nor examined near the scene of occurrence. No doubt, the scene of occurrence is surrounded by church, big school, rice mill, coffee hotel, etc. But, no independent witnesses or persons present at the neigh bouring fields, were examined by the investigating agency. School is located at a distance of 100 yards from the scene of occurrence. Similarly, P.W. 22did not enquire about the other auto in which P.Ws. 1 to 6 were traveling. It is not suggested to P. W. 22, who is the first investigating officer, as to whether any independent witnesses were present and witnessed the incident. It is not even suggested to him that the has acted deliberately in not examining independent witnesses. Similarly, P.W. 22did not enquire about the other auto in which P.Ws. 1 to 6 were traveling. It is not suggested to P. W. 22, who is the first investigating officer, as to whether any independent witnesses were present and witnessed the incident. It is not even suggested to him that the has acted deliberately in not examining independent witnesses. Similarly, P.W. 23-the regular investigating officer, who took up investigation on 23-6-2004, was not asked as to why he had not examined any independent witnesses including the driver of the first auto, because he is the best person to speak about the presence of witnesses in and around the scene of occurrence. 48. P.W. 5 stated that one Laxman Rao, who is resident of Vengipuram, is the driver of the first auto. But, he stated that, he did not inform about the said fact to police. Therefore, police may not be in a position to know driver of the first auto and so non-examination of the driver of the first auto in which P.Ws. 1 to 6 were traveling, cannot be said to be a circumstance against the case of the prosecution. Even as regards the non-examination of any independent witnesses, it is not the case of the accused that there is a deliberate attempt on the part of the prosecution in not examining the independent witnesses. At the same time, in view of the fact that it is a fight between two acute rival faction groups, normally no independent witnesses would come forward to depose against anyone group. Therefore, non-examination of independent witnesses is not a ground to discredit the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 6. 49. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that, apart from the accused, four ladies were also present at the scene of occurrence, holding buckets, and according to the evidence, the ladies were instigating the accused to kill the three deceased, and informed the accused that the prosecution witnesses were proceeding to war is them and wanted them to go away. No doubt, in Ex. P-1, it is stated that four ladies stood in the field at the time of the incident. It is not known whether they are related to the accused or not. No doubt, in Ex. P-1, it is stated that four ladies stood in the field at the time of the incident. It is not known whether they are related to the accused or not. The evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses that the ladies were instigating the accused to kill the deceased persons, is clearly an improvement. Therefore, such improvements cannot be given undue importance. 50. The evidence of P.W. 23 would go to show that, he arrested A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5, A-6, A-9 and A-1 0 and in pursuance of their confession, the accused took the police and mediators to water tank of Peda Gottipadu village and showed the weapons, which are M.Os. 12 to 21. Ex. P-44 is the confessional statement, which is relevant portion in the Ex. 8-8 mediator report for arrest. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contendec;l that, Ex. P-44 is a joint confessional statement by the accused and so it is not admissible under law, and that, the recovery was made from open and it is not a recovery within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is not in dispute that, interrogation was made from each of the accused person separately. It is not a joint confession. Therefore, they can be said to be individual confessions. Though the confession is not admissible under law, if it come within the purview of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, then recovery in pursuance of the confessional statement is admissible. 51. As seen from Ex. P-9, the weapons were buried in the ground and A-1 picked out the weapons, and therefore, they were seized under panchanama. I n view of the fact that, all the accused concealed the weapons and in pursuance of individual confessional statements made by them, the weapons of offence were seized at the instance of A-1 , it can be said that the recovery with regard to weapons of offence, is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is clear from the evidence of P. W. 16 Doctor, that the injuries on the three deceased persons can be caused by hacking with M.Os. 12 to 21. Therefore, it is yet another circumstance against the accused, to infer that the accused are "appellants” of the deceased. 52. It is a broad day light attack on three persons. It is clear from the evidence of P. W. 16 Doctor, that the injuries on the three deceased persons can be caused by hacking with M.Os. 12 to 21. Therefore, it is yet another circumstance against the accused, to infer that the accused are "appellants” of the deceased. 52. It is a broad day light attack on three persons. Number of incised injuries was found on the dead bodies of the deceased persons. In the first instance, the accused hurled bombs and later attacked the three deceased persons with dead weapons. The trial Court has not committer illegality in accepting the evidence it tfP.Ws.1 to 6. After an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record in right perspective, the trial Court rightly found the appellants guilty of the charges framed against them. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, we have no hesitation to confirm the convictions recorded by the trial Court against the appellants/accused, and we also confirm the sentences recorded for the said sentences against all other accused, except against A-2 and A-3, for the following reasons. 53. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court for holding a detailed enquiry to ascertain the age of A-2 and A-3, the learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur conducted a detailed enquiry. During enquiry, on behalf of A-2, he himself was examined P.W. 5, his mother was examined as P.W. 1 and his father, who is A-6, was examined as P.W.4. Ex. P-5 is the original Transfer Certificate of A-2 relating to Intermediate course, and Ex. P-7 is the original SSC Certificate of A-2, which were marked during the enquiry by the learned Magistrate. 54. Similarly, on behalf of A-3, he himself was examined as P.W. 6, his mother was examined as P.W. 2 and his father, who is A-9, was examined as P.W. 3. Exs. P-1 Intermediate first year original hall ticket, Ex. P-2 original memo of marks of Intermediate, Ex. P-3 - original Study Conduct Certificate, EX.P-4 original transfer certificate of Intermediate and Ex. P-6 original SSC Certificate, were marked. Though the oral evidenceofP.Ws.1 to 6 examined during the course of enquiry, is not much important to prove the age of A-2 and A-3, the document under Exs. P-1 to P-7 would clearly reveal the ages of A-2 and A-3. 55. P-6 original SSC Certificate, were marked. Though the oral evidenceofP.Ws.1 to 6 examined during the course of enquiry, is not much important to prove the age of A-2 and A-3, the document under Exs. P-1 to P-7 would clearly reveal the ages of A-2 and A-3. 55. The enquiry was conducted as per Section 7 -A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000'), and the documents marked therein remained unchallenged. It is not the case of the prosecution that the certificates showing age of these two accused persons Le., A-2 and A-3, are fabricated or pressed into service for the purpose of this case. As seen from these certificates, these documents were issued by the competent authorities long prior to the commission of the offence. Therefore, there is no difficulty in accepting the dates of births of A-2 and A-3 as mentioned in those documents. 56. As per the documents concerning A-3, the date of birth of A-3is 12-06-1987. The date of offence is 22-06-2004. Therefore, by the date of incident, A-3 was aged 17 years and 10 days. As per Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, 'Juvenile' or 'child' means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age. So, A-3 squarely falls under the definition 'juvenile', and he is a 'juvenile' as on the date of commission of the offence. 57. Under Section 4 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the State Government has to constitute a Juvenile Justice Board for exercising the powers and discharging its duties. So, A-3 squarely falls under the definition 'juvenile', and he is a 'juvenile' as on the date of commission of the offence. 57. Under Section 4 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the State Government has to constitute a Juvenile Justice Board for exercising the powers and discharging its duties. Under Section 15 of the Act, where the Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile had committed an offence, then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Board may, if it so thinks fit, (a) allow the juvenile to go home after advice or admonition following appropriate inquiry against and counseling to the parent or the guardian and the juvenile; (b) direct the juvenile to participate in group counseling and similar activities; (c) order the juvenile to perform community service; (d) order the parent of the juvenile or the juvenile him self to pay a fine, if he is over fourteen years of age and earns money; (e) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or other fit person, on such parent, guardian or other fit person executing a bond, with or without surety, as the Board may require, for the good behaviour and well being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years; (f) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any fit institution for the good behaviour and well being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years; (g) Make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of three years: Therefore, the Board is competent to pass any order as mentioned in Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. 58. Under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 000, whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or not. Under sub-section (2) of Section 7 -A, when the Court finds a person to be juvenile, it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order. Under Section 6(2) of the Act, powers conferred on the Board by or under this Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Sessions, when the proceeding comes before them in appeal, revision or other. So, exercising that power, this Court confirms the convictions recorded by the trial Court against A-3, and we make an order directingthatA-3, who is a juvenile, be sent to Special Home for a period of 3 years, and after completion of the 3 years, it is needless to observe that, A-3 shall be released from the Special Home. 59. Coming to the case of A-2, as per the documents concerning A-2, the date of birth of A-2 is 03-04-1986. The date of offence is 22-06-2004. Therefore, by the date of incident, A-2 was aged 18 years 2 months and 19 days. SO, A-2 cannot be termed as a 'juvenile'. As per Section 2(1) of the A.P. Borstal Schools Act, 1925, 'Adolescent offender' means any person who has been convicted of any offence punishable with imprisonment or who having been ordered to give security under Section 106 or Section 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has failed to do so and who at the time of such conviction or failure to give security is not less than 16 and not more than 21 years of age. Admittedly, A-2 is an adolescent within the meaning of the Act. 60. On this aspect, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that an adolescent offender must be less than 18 years of age and therefore, the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000would prevail and the detention in Borstal School shall not be given to A-2 under the A.P. Borstal Schools Act, 1925. No doubt, Section 1 (4) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, provides, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Act shall apply to all cases involving detention, prosecution, penalty or sentence of imprisonment of juveniles in conflict with law under such other law. Therefore, the fact remains that the said provision prevails over any other law, when there is conflict with law. Therefore, the fact remains that the said provision prevails over any other law, when there is conflict with law. There may be conflict with regard to a person less than 18 years of age, whether to be sent to Borstal School or not, because the 'adolescent offender' two comes within the age group of 16 to 21 years, has to be sent to Borstal School, provided the requirements under Section 8 of the A.P. Borstal Schools Act, 1925 have been fulfilled. But, considering the facts of the present case, A-2 ceased to be a juvenile as on the date of commission of the offence because he had completed 18 years of age as on the date of commission of the offence. But, in view of the fact that A-2 would squarely fall within the definition of 'adolescent offender' as defined under the A.P. Borstal . Schools Act, 1925, punishment under the said Act can be extended to A-2, provided the State Government is of the opinion that it might be advantageous to detain the convicted person in Borstal school and direct the offender to be transferred from prison to Borstal school. 61. No doubt, by virtue of Section 8 of the A. P. Borstal Schools Act, 1925, this Court can also send him to a Borstal school, but, in order to exercise the power, this Court has to necessarily call for report or representation. In the absence of such report or representation, the Court cannot act in sending the adolescent offender to Borstal school under Section 8 of the Act. 62. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Superintendent, Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad and others v. C. Narsimhulu' wherein it is held thus: ".... the before, in case of a convict who has been sentenced to life imprisonment and whose case has not been considered by the Court in terms of Section 8, he deserves a consideration in terms of Section 10-A by the State Government. . ..." Similarly, in a decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vallabhapuram Ravf, it is held thus: ".... . ..." Similarly, in a decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vallabhapuram Ravf, it is held thus: ".... The object of the legislation is to reform offenders who have committed acts visiting them with the penalty of undergoing prison life when they were between 16 and 21 years of age and that is sought to be achieved by taking them away from the company of adult prisoners whose continued association in a prison would have serious adverse influence on their character. If every person who is transferred Under Section 10-A to a Borstal School is to remain there until he serves out the entire period of imprisonment for life, the Borstal School would soon become a prison consisting 1. 1999 (1) ALT 107 (DB). of 'lifers' and its other inmates who are detained Under Section 8 would be keeping company with adult offenders, thus defeating the very object of establishing a Borstal School..." 63. In view of the settled legal position, we direct the State Government to exercise its powers under Section 10-AoftheA.P. Borstal Schools Act, 1925, to consider the case of A-2 for detaining in Borstal School, if it might be advantageous to the adolescent offender. 64. Before concluding, we are hastened to mention that, in spite of beneficial piece of legislation laying down the principles of administration of justice to juvenile or child, the same is not being properly bringing to the notice of the Courts by the learned counsel appearing for the accused. Had these aspects been brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge, A-3, who is a juvenile, would not have been mixed with hardened criminals in the jail. Similarly, A-2 also would not have been mixed with the hardened criminals in the jail. Instead, he would have been sent to a Borstal school, as the Borstal School Act was enacted to provide for detention of adolescent offenders in special institutions in which they will be given industrial training and other instruction, and subjected to such disciplinary and moral influences as will conduce to their reformation. The main object of the A. P. Borstal Schools Act, 1925, is to give the special and industrial training of the inmate and conditional release of such of them as appeared to deserve the privilege to enable them to enter the service of the societies or individuals. 65. The main object of the A. P. Borstal Schools Act, 1925, is to give the special and industrial training of the inmate and conditional release of such of them as appeared to deserve the privilege to enable them to enter the service of the societies or individuals. 65. It is generally recognized that the period of adolescence is the most crucial in an individual's life when the mind is specially susceptible in fresh impressions and when it is peculiarly important to prevent habits of immorality and crime from being formed, and that is undesirable from all points of view to familiarize adolescents with ordinary jail life and bring them into contact with adult prisoners. 66. In case of juveniles, in conflict with law, they need care and protection by adopting child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in the best interests of children and for their rehabilitation keeping in view the developmental needs of the children. The purpose and object of enacting these two beneficial pieces of legislation in respect of adolescent offenders and juveniles would be defeated unless the counsel appearing for the accused bring it to the notice of the courts when ever the adolescent offenders or juveniles are being tried. In this case provisions are not made use of, by the accused as well as the counsel appearing for the accused. 67. In the result, the convictions recorded by the trial Court in its judgment dated 16-6-2006 in Sessions Case No. 337 of 2005 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Guntur, against all appellants, are confirmed. As regards the sentences, the sentences recorded by the trial Court against all other accused, except A-2 and A-3, are confirmed. In respect of A-2, we direct the State Government to consider his case under Section 10-A of the A.P. Borstal Schools Act, 1925, for detention in Borstal school, and as regards A-3, he shall be detailed in Special Home constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, for a period of three years and it is need res to observe that, A-3 shall be released from the Special Home. 68. Criminal Appeal No. 999 of 2006 is, accordingly, dismissed and Criminal Appeal NO.1 026 of 2006 is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.