JUDGMENT R. G. KETKAR, J. - These appeals are directed against Judgment and order dated September 12, 2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.42 of 2000. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted Accused No.1.Balu J. Nalawade, Accused No.4-Anil J. Nalawade, Accused No.6-Jayaram Narayan Nalawade and Accused No.7-Subhash Bhagwant Nalawade for the offence punishable us.148 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and they were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. They were also convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 read with Section 149, IPC and were sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.3,000- each, in default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. They were further convicted for the offence punishable u/s.326 read with Section 149 IPC and were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000- each, in default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. They were also convicted for the offence punishable us.324 read with Section 149, IPC and were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000- each. in default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Criminal Appeal No.1 1032002 is preferred by the original Accused No.7Subhash, Criminal Appeal No.1365/2002 is preferred by original Accused No.1-Balu, Accused No.4-Anil and Accused No.6 Jayaram. Criminal Appeal No.208/2003 is preferred by the State Government against the order of acquittal against the original Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 8 to 17 and 19 to 22. Initially the State had also preferred this appeal against the Accused No.18-Deepak Digambar Kakade. After admission of the appeal action u/s.390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) was ordered, Accused No.18 did not furnish bail and was reported to be absconding. Non bailable warrant was issued against the Accused No.18 and was sent for execution to Police Inspector, Velha Police Station, Pune. The API of Velha Police Station reported that the said accused was not traceable at his native place. In view of this, Mrs. V. R. Bhosale, learned APP filed an application for deleting the name of Respondent No.14 (Accused No.18) from this appeal and sought liberty to file separate appeal against the said Accused. The API of Velha Police Station reported that the said accused was not traceable at his native place. In view of this, Mrs. V. R. Bhosale, learned APP filed an application for deleting the name of Respondent No.14 (Accused No.18) from this appeal and sought liberty to file separate appeal against the said Accused. By our separate order dated March 5, 2010 we have allowed the application and permitted deletion of Respondent No.14 (Accused No.18) with a liberty to the State to file separate appeal against him. Since all these appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated September 12, 2002 they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the incident in question occurred on October 12, 1999 on the way to Osade village at about 9 to 9.30 a.m. Dilip Yashwant Gavade, since deceased was in a service of one Lala Jori. He used to drive jeep for transport of passengers from Pune to Panshet. On October 12, 1999 the jeep was proceeding towards Panshet. PW2- Narayan Kumbhar and one Baban ladhav, since deceased, boarded the jeep at village Donje for going to Panshet. PW3-Kundlik Shahade and PW 4-Suresh Dalvi joined them at Vardale Phata. On the way PW5-Narayan Jori of village Malkhed also boarded the jeep for proceeding to the field. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that the Dilip, instead of taking the vehicle to Panshet, took the turn at Osade Phata for proceeding towards the Osade village. The jeep travelled some distance and when it reached at the ascent, whistle was blown and immediately 1520 armed men intercepted the jeep. They encircled the jeep and started assaulting the occupants of the jeep. Accused No.1-Balu broke front glass of the jeep by giving blow with sword. He assaulted Dilip on his head. Accused No.4-Anil and Accused No.6-layaram assaulted him with sattur. Accused No.13Santosh Nalawade hit on his back with sword, while Accused No.20-Santosh Pasalkar gave blow with axe from blunt side to Dilip. Dilip was pulled out of the jeep and was dragged at some distance by Accused No.6-layaram. Accused No.18-Deepak Kakade gave blow with sword on the chest of Baban. Accused No.6-Jayaram bet him with chain of motorcycle. PW2-Narayan Kumbhar was assaulted by Accused No.5-Sunil, Accused No.2-Shripati and Accused No.3-Nandlal. Dilip was pulled out of the jeep and was dragged at some distance by Accused No.6-layaram. Accused No.18-Deepak Kakade gave blow with sword on the chest of Baban. Accused No.6-Jayaram bet him with chain of motorcycle. PW2-Narayan Kumbhar was assaulted by Accused No.5-Sunil, Accused No.2-Shripati and Accused No.3-Nandlal. PW5 Narayan Jori was assaulted by Accused No.7 Subhash, Accused No.6-Jayaram, Accused No.10-Dnyanoba Jawalkar and Accused No.20Santosh Pasalkar with weapons like sattur, iron rods etc. PW3-Kundlik Shahade received injuries at the hands of Accused NO.9-Baban and Accused No.3-Nandlal with sword-stick and iron rod. PW4-Suresh Dalvi was injured at the hands of Accused No.15-Raghunath with sickle. PW5-Narayan Jori became unconscious on the spot while PW2-Narayan Kumbhar, PW3-Kundlik Shahade and PW4-Suresh Dalvi succeeded in running away. Dilip and Baban died on the spot. After the attack, the assailants fled. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that PW 1-Sudhakar Gavade of village Sonapur and who is uncle of Dilip received information from his niece Kunda that there was quarrel near hillock at Osade Village. Dilip was seriously injured. He rushed to the spot with his relatives. He saw dead body of Dilip and Baban lying on the spot. He saw that Dilip was having injury to his head and incised wounds all over the body. Baban Jadhav was also having injuries on his person. At around same time, the police sub-Inspector Jayawant Dhamal of Villa Police Station received information about the incident. He also rushed towards the spot. When PW 1Sudhakar Gavade reached the spot, he noted that many persons had gathered on the spot and he came to know from them that PW5Narayan Jori was taken to Sasoon General Hospital, Pune for treatment. From the discussion of the people he gathered information and he lodged complaint before the police on the spot, which is at Exh.I84. The case was registered under CR No. 191999 at Velha Police Station. 6. PSI Jayawant Dhamal conducted inquest panchanama at Exh.233 of the dead body of Baban Jadhav. Inquest panchanama at Exh.234 of the dead body of Dilip was also prepared. Dead bodies were sent for post mortem examination at Rural Hospital, Velha. PW 15-Captain Pankaj Chawala conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Dilip on October 13, 1999 in the morning. PSI Jayawant Dhamal conducted inquest panchanama at Exh.233 of the dead body of Baban Jadhav. Inquest panchanama at Exh.234 of the dead body of Dilip was also prepared. Dead bodies were sent for post mortem examination at Rural Hospital, Velha. PW 15-Captain Pankaj Chawala conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Dilip on October 13, 1999 in the morning. He prepared post mortem notes at Exh.250 and opined that the cause of death was due to devitalizing injury to the brain due to fracture of the skull. He also conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Baban. He opined that the case of death of Baban was due to perforating injury to the heart left ventricle. He prepared post-mortem notes at Exh.251. PSI Dhamal also conducted panchanama of the spot at Exh.220 when he visited the spot. Iron rods, pipes, rude torch (tembha), some foot wears, napkin, cap and other articles scattered at the spot were seized. Samples of the blood stained earth were taken. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that all the injured persons separately reached at Sasoon General Hospital at Pune. PW2Narayan Kumbhar was examined by PW14-Dr. P. Satish Bhat who issued medical certificate at Exh.248. PW5-Narayan Jori was examined by PWI3-Dr. Nitin Patil who issued medical certificate at Exh.244. PW2-Narayan Kumbhar and PW5-Narayan Jori were admitted in the hospital. PW3-Kundlik and PW4-Suresh were examined by PW 10-Dr. Prakashchand Raidasi who issued medical certificates at Exh.225 and 226 respectively. 8. During the course of investigation, PSI Dhamal arrested the accused under various panchanamas at Exh.237 to Exh.242-A. He also seized the clothes of the deceased, as also the injured PW2-Narayan Kumbhar and PW5-Narayan Jon under separate panchanamas. Weapons used by the accused as also their clothes were seized under various panchanamas as per section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. All muddemal articles were sent for chemical analysis. Chemical Analysis reports were received. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.7, Pune. Accused Rajendra Nivangune and Bhanekar were absconding. In due course case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge at Exh.43 was framed against the Accused on July 28, 2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.7, Pune. Accused Rajendra Nivangune and Bhanekar were absconding. In due course case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge at Exh.43 was framed against the Accused on July 28, 2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to the accused in vernacular by the learned Sessions Judge in the open Court. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It is the defence of the accused that deceased and the injured witnesses were employees of the said Lala Jori who deals in the business of illicit liquor. At the time of incident they were proceeding by ajeep for sale of liquor, and some unknown assailants assaulted these persons and the accused are falsely implicated at the behest of said Lala Jori as they opposed his illegal activities. In support of its case, the prosecution in all examined 15 witnesses who can be broadly classified in the following categories INJURED EYE WITNESSES i) PW2-Narayan Shankar Kumbhar, who was examined at Exh.186. ii) PW3- Kundlik Aburao Shahade, who was examined at Exh.188. iii) PW4-Suresh Laxman Dalvi, who was examined at Exh.191. iv) PW5-Narayan Bhikoba Jori, who was examined at Exh.200. PANCH WITNESSES i) PW6-Dnyanoba Sopan Jori, who was examined at Exh.203. He is the witness to following panchanamas Panchanama of Seizure of clothes of deceased Baban Jadhav drawn on October 15, 1999 at Exh.204. Panchanama of Seizure of clothes of PW2-Narayan Kumbhar dated October 16, 1999 at Exh.205. Panchanama of Seizure of clothes of PW5-Narayan Jori dated October 16, 1999 at Exh.206. Recovery Panchanama of weapons used by Accused No.7 Suhhash, as also clothes of Accused No.7, drawn on November 3, 1999 at Exh.207-B. ii) PW7- Vitthal Haribhau Dalvi was examined at Exh.208. Panchanama of Seizure of clothes of PW2-Narayan Kumbhar dated October 16, 1999 at Exh.205. Panchanama of Seizure of clothes of PW5-Narayan Jori dated October 16, 1999 at Exh.206. Recovery Panchanama of weapons used by Accused No.7 Suhhash, as also clothes of Accused No.7, drawn on November 3, 1999 at Exh.207-B. ii) PW7- Vitthal Haribhau Dalvi was examined at Exh.208. He is witness to following panchanamas Panchanama of recovery of clothes of deceased Dilip dated October 13, 1999 at Exh.207, Panchanama of recovery of axe and stick at the instance of Accused No.2-Shripati dated October 19, 1999 at Exh.210-B. Panchanama of recovery of clothes of Accused No.5-Sunil dated October 25, 1999 at Exh.211, Panchanama of recovery of clothes of Accused No.20-Santosh Pasalkar dated October 25, 1999 at Exh.212, Panchanama of recovery of sickle and torch (tembha) at the instance of Accused No.6-Jayaram Nalawade dated October 26, 1999 at Exh.203-B. Recovery panchanama of axe at the instance of Accused No.20-Santosh Pasalkar dated October 26, 1999 at Exh.214-B. Panchanama of recovery of two satturs, two swords and sword-stick at the instance of Accused No.12-Sandeep dated November 1, 1999 at Exh.215-B. iii) PW8-Prakash Dagadu Gore who was examined at Exh.219. He is witness to the following panchanamas- Spot panchanama dated October 12, 1999 at Exh.220. Panchanama of recovery of axe at the instance of Accused No.8-Datta and the clothes on his person dated October 19, 1999 at Exh.221-B. iv) PW9-Ananta Shankar Shede. He was examined at Exh.222. He is witness to recovery panchanama of Sattur at the instance of Accused No.4-Anil dated April 17, 2000 at Exh.223-A. v) PW11-Dilip Tatyaba Pawar, who was examined at Exh.227. He is witness to recovery panchanama of Iron Rod and clothes of Accused no.10-Dnyanoba Jawalkar dated November 4, 1999 at Exh.228-B. MEDICAL EVIDENCE i) PW 10-Dr. Prakashchand Rupchand Raidasi was examined at Exh.224. At the relevant time he was attached to Sasoon General Hospital as a Casualty Medical Officer. He examined PW3-Kundlik and issued medical certificate at Exh.225. He also examined PW4-Suresh and issued injury certificate at Exh.226. ii) PW13-Dr. Nitin Gambhirrao Patil was examined at Exh.243. At the relevant time he was attached to Sasoon General Hospital as a Resident Doctor. He examined PW5-Narayan Jori and issued injury certificate at Exh.244. He produced original case papers which are collectively exhibited as Exh.246. iii) PW 14-Dr. P. Satish Bhat was examined at Exh.247. ii) PW13-Dr. Nitin Gambhirrao Patil was examined at Exh.243. At the relevant time he was attached to Sasoon General Hospital as a Resident Doctor. He examined PW5-Narayan Jori and issued injury certificate at Exh.244. He produced original case papers which are collectively exhibited as Exh.246. iii) PW 14-Dr. P. Satish Bhat was examined at Exh.247. At the relevant time he was attached to Sasoon General Hospital as a Resident Doctor. He examined PW2 Narayan Kumbhar and issued injury certificate at Exh.248. He also produced the original case papers at Exh.248-A. He also examined PW5-Narayan Jon and produced case papers at Exh.246. v) PW 15-Captain Pankaj AjitChawala was examined at Exh.249. At the relevant time he was working as a Medical Officer at Rural Hospital at Velha. He conducted post-mortem examination of dead body of Dilip Yashwant Gavade and produced on record the post mortem notes at Exh.250. He also performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Baban Jadhav and produced post mortem notes at Exh.251. 9. In addition, the prosecution examised PW1-complainant Sudrakar Rimbhau Gavade at Exh. i83 who lodge,, complaint dated October 12, 1999 at Exh.184. Prosecution also examined PW12-Jayawam. Kondiba Dhamal, Investigating Officer 3t Exh.232. He carried out Inquest Panchanama of deceased Baban Jadhav at Exh.233 as also the Inquest Panchanama of Dilip at Exh.234. He recorded panchanama of scene of offence at Exh.220 as also various panchanamas of seizure, recovery of clothes, recovery of weapons and arrest. He sent weapons and clothes seized for chemical analysis and the reports of Chemical Analysis are at Exh.268 and 269. The defence has examined Shrishail Somanna Hiroli at Exh.260. He was examined to substantiate alibi of Accused No.15-Rambhau Nalawade. 10. On the basis of material on record. learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune passed the impugned order on September 12, 2002 convicting the Accused Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7 and acquitting rest of the accused, as more particularly set out in the earlier part of the judgment. It is against this judgment and order, the Accused No.1-Balu, Accused No.4-Anil and Accused No.6-Jayaram have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1365/2002, Accused No.7-Subhash has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1 103/2002 whereas State of Maharashtra has preferred Appeal against the order of acquittal in respect of accused Nos.2. 3, 5, 8 to 17 and 19 to 22. 11. We have heard Mr. Daulat G.Khamkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants in Cr. 3, 5, 8 to 17 and 19 to 22. 11. We have heard Mr. Daulat G.Khamkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants in Cr. Appeal No.1365/2002, Mr. Prakash Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, in Criminal Appeal No.1103/2002 and Mrs. V. R. Bhosale, learned APP appearing for the State in both these appeals. So far as Appeal No.208/2003 which is filed by the State against the order of acquittal, we have heard Smt. V. R. Bhosale, learned APP for the Appellant State and Ms. P. P. Kahade, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 18. We have heard all the learned Counsel at length and we have been taken through all the material record. 12. The prosecution has examined PW 1-Sudhakar, complainant, who lodged the complaint on October 12, 1999 at Exh.184. He deposed that his niece Kunda came to Sonapur from village Osade and informed him that there was quarrel near hiliock at Osade village and Dilip was seriously injured. He rushed to the spot with his relatives and on reaching the spot he found that a jeep bearing Registration No.5369 was standing near the field of one Jagtap. Dilip was lying near the jeep facing earth and having injury to his head and the incised wounds all over the body. At some distance Baban Jadhav was lying dead, having injuries on his person. Many persons had gathered on the spot and he came to know from them that PW5-Narayan Jori was taken to Sasoon General Hospital at Pune for treatment. With the discussion he had with the persons gathered at the spot, he came to know that Accused No.4Anil, Accused No.5-Sunil, Accused No.1-Balu, Accused No.6-Jayaram, Accused No.7 Subhash, Accused No.8-Datta, Accused No.19 Sambhaji and 1012 persons assaulted Dilip, Baban and Narayan Jori on account of previous disputes. Police reached on the spot and he lodged complaint before the police on the spot. Iron rods and other articles were lying at the spot. The dead bodies were sent for postmortem examination after the Inquest Panchanamas. In the cross-examination PW 1complainant Sudhakar deposed that Osade Village is at the distance of 1 to 1 and ¼th Kilometer. He deposed that Kunda came alone and he did not ask her as to how she came to know about the incident. 7 to 8 persons accompanied him. Some persons who gathered at the spot were known to him. In the cross-examination PW 1complainant Sudhakar deposed that Osade Village is at the distance of 1 to 1 and ¼th Kilometer. He deposed that Kunda came alone and he did not ask her as to how she came to know about the incident. 7 to 8 persons accompanied him. Some persons who gathered at the spot were known to him. He however could not tell there names and he also could not tell whether they were from surrounding villages. Police reached after half an hour after his reaching the spot. He did not know whether the police interrogated the persons who were present there. After inspecting the dead bodies, Inquest panchanamas of the dead bodies were drawn. The said fact was not recorded in the complaint at Exh.184. He further deposed that Kunda did not accompany him to the spot. The fact that Iron Rods and weapons were lying on the spot was not mentioned in the complaint and one required 15 to 20 minutes by walk to reach the spot from Sonapur of which he is the resident. 13. The prosecution also examined PW2-Narayan Kumbhar, PW3-Kundlik Shahade, PW4-Suresh Dalvi and PW5-Narayan Jori who are the injured eye-witnesses. PW2 Narayan Kumbhar deposed that at about 8 a.m on October 12, 1999 he was in the square of the village waiting for a vehicle for going to Panshet for work. Ajeep came there. Dilip was driving the vehicle. He knew him as also the Baban Jadhav who came there. Jeep proceeded towards Panshet and he and Baban Jadhav boarded the jeep. At Vardale Phata PW 4-Suresh Dalvi and PW3-Kundlik Shahade who also were known to him boarded the jeep. After sometime PW5-Narayan Jori boarded the jeep. Dilip informed them that he was taking the jeep to Osade to meet his relatives. He was sitting behind the driver. Baban sat next to driver. PW 4-Suresh was near PW5-Narayan Jon. PW3-Kundlik was at rear seat. At osade phata Dilip took turn and proceeded towards the Osade village. They crossed Katkari vasti and immediately thereafter they heard a sound of whistle. 1015 boys rushed towards the vehicle. They were armed with swords, satturs, sword-sticks, rude torch (mashal), Iron rods, sticks and axes. Jeep was stopped and went towards the drain to the side of the road in reverse. The boys were from Nigade village. They crossed Katkari vasti and immediately thereafter they heard a sound of whistle. 1015 boys rushed towards the vehicle. They were armed with swords, satturs, sword-sticks, rude torch (mashal), Iron rods, sticks and axes. Jeep was stopped and went towards the drain to the side of the road in reverse. The boys were from Nigade village. Accused No.1-Balu gave blow with sword on front glass of the jeep and the glass was broken. Accused No.1-Balu gave blow with sword on the head of Dilip. Accused No.4-Anil gave blow with sattur on the head of Dilip. Accused No.6-Jayaram gave blow with sattur on his neck. Accused No.13-Santosh Nalawade gave sword blow on his back. Accused No.20-Santosh Pasalkar gave blows with blunt side of the axe on his person. Accused No.6-Jayaram came and pulled Dilip out of the jeep and started assaulting him. He dragged him towards the road. At that time Accused No.18 Deepak Kakade gave blow with sword-stick on the chest of Baban Jadhav. Accused No.17 Jaya Rajaram Nalawade bet him with chain of motorcycle. Accused No.15-Raghunath Nalawade gave blow with cycle on the back of PW4-Suresh. Accused No.7-Subhash assaulted PW5-Narayan Jori with axe. Accused No.6-Jayaram Nalawade gave blow with sattur on his head. Accused No.10-Dnyanoba Jawalkar bet him with Iron Rod. Accused No.20-Santosh Pasalkar assaulted PW5-Narayan Jori with axe. Accused No.5-Sunil assaulted him on his head with sattur. He saved blow by raising his hand and received blow of sattur on his left elbo. Accused No.2-Shripati gave axe blow on his back. Accused No.9-Baban gave blow with sword-stick on the hand of PW3-Kundlik. Accused No.3-Nandlal bet him with Iron Road. After attack the assailants ran away. He received injuries on back, head, hand and legs. He went to Osade Phata. From there he came to Pune and went to Sasoon General Hospital. He was admitted there for six days. On the next date his statement was recorded in the hospital. His clothes were stained with blood. His parents came to the hospital and he handed over clothes to them in the hospital. In the Court he pointed out one accused but he did not tell his name. He told that his name is Bapu Shendkar. He identified Accused No.6-Jayaram, Accused No.5-Sunil, Accused No.20-Santosh Pasalkar, Accused No.1-Balu, Accused No.2-Shripati, Accused No.9-Baban, Accused No.10 Dnyanoba Jawalkar, Accused No.8-Datta, Accused No.I8-Deepak, Accused No.3-Nandlal and Accused No.7-Subhash. 14. In the Court he pointed out one accused but he did not tell his name. He told that his name is Bapu Shendkar. He identified Accused No.6-Jayaram, Accused No.5-Sunil, Accused No.20-Santosh Pasalkar, Accused No.1-Balu, Accused No.2-Shripati, Accused No.9-Baban, Accused No.10 Dnyanoba Jawalkar, Accused No.8-Datta, Accused No.I8-Deepak, Accused No.3-Nandlal and Accused No.7-Subhash. 14. In the cross-examination he deposed that he does the labour work whichever he gets from Khadakwasala to Panshet. He had no work at Osade village on that day. Deceased Dilip was working as a driver on the jeep of Lala Jori. Afterwards he came to know that the jeep was of Lala Jori. He had no work on that day at Osade. He asked Dilip that he wanted to go to Osade and how much time would be required. Incident in question occurred in his life for the first time and he was frightened on seeing the boys running towards the jeep. He did not run away after the glass was broken. He admitted that Accused No.1-Balu, Accused No.4-Anil, Accused No.5-Sunil and Accused No.6-Jayaram are not from his village. He was not in touch with them prior to the incident. The incident of assault lasted 5 to 7 minutes and there was commotion. He deposed that it was not true that the people gathered on the spot at the time of incident. He was in the jeep throughout the incident. He went to Panshet by walk, which took 5 to 10 minutes. Within 2 to 3 minutes jeep came there. In the jeep there were 5 to 6 persons. He had no talks with the occupants of the jeep. Thereafter he said that they enquired with him. Panshet was nearer than Pune from that place. He did not know whether Police Chowki and the Government Dispensary are situate in Panshet. He had visited Panshet 2 to 3 occasions. He did not know whether hospitals are situate at Pune road. Jeep left him at Sasoon Hospital. He did not ask the occupants in the jeep to inform the police. He was examined by the Doctor in the hospital who made enquiry about the injuries. Police were also present and they made enquiry. He was then taken to the Ward. Doctor in the Ward also made enquiry with him. Before the police he stated that Accused No.6-Jayaram assaulted him after pulling. He was examined by the Doctor in the hospital who made enquiry about the injuries. Police were also present and they made enquiry. He was then taken to the Ward. Doctor in the Ward also made enquiry with him. Before the police he stated that Accused No.6-Jayaram assaulted him after pulling. He however could not tell why the said fact of beating is not reflected in the police statement. He had stated before the police that his clothes were handed over to his parents when they came to the hospital. He however could not explain why the said fact is not reflected in the police statement. His statement was recorded in the morning of October 13, 1999 i.e. next date of incident. He reiterated that he informed the police about the incident before he was given treatment. 15. PW2-Narayan Kumbhar was examined by PWI4-Dr. P. Satish Bhat, Resident Doctor attached to Sasoon General Hospital, Pune at the relevant time. On examining him, he found injuries in the nature of incise wound, CLW, punctured wound, abrasions. He issued injury certificate Exh.248 and also produced case papers at Exh.248-A. History of the assault was given by the patient himself viz.PW2Narayan Kumbhar. History noted by him was that of assault by sharp weapons like swords etc. by group of unknown persons. 16. PW3-Kundlik Shahade deposed that on October 12, 1999 at 8.30 a.m he alongwith PW4-Suresh were waiting for vehicle at Vardale Phata for going to Panshet. A jeep came from Pune side and stopped near them. Dilip told them that they would go to Osade village. They boarded the jeep. PW 4-Suresh sat next to the driver and he sat on the back seat. Baban Jadhav and PW2-Narayan Kumbhar were in the jeep. PW5-Narayan Jori stopped the jeep near the hospital. He sat between the driver and PW4-Suresh. Dilip took turn at Osade Phata for proceeding towards Osade village. When they travelled some distance, he heard sound of whistle. Suddenly 10 to 15 persons armed with weapons like swords, sticks, sattur etc. encircled the vehicle and started assaulting them. Accused No.1-Balu gave blow of sword on the front glass of the jeep and also gave blow with sword on the head of Dilip. Accused No.4 Anil gave blow with sattur to Dilip. Accused No.6-Jayaram gave blow with sattur on his neck. Accused No. 13-Santosh Nalawade gave sword blow on his back. encircled the vehicle and started assaulting them. Accused No.1-Balu gave blow of sword on the front glass of the jeep and also gave blow with sword on the head of Dilip. Accused No.4 Anil gave blow with sattur to Dilip. Accused No.6-Jayaram gave blow with sattur on his neck. Accused No. 13-Santosh Nalawade gave sword blow on his back. Accused No.20 Santosh Pasalkar assaulted Dilip with blunt side of the axe. Accused No.18 Deepak Kakade gave blow with swordstick on the chest of Baban. Accused No. 17-Jaya Nalawade gave blow with motorcycle chain to Baban. He tried to ran away. Accused No.3 Nandlal assaulted him on right arm with Iron rod. Accused No.9 Baban Nalawade gave blow of swordstick on his both hands. He ran away and stood near a bandh concealing himself. From there he witnessed the incident. Accused No.7-Subhash assaulted PW5-Narayan Jori with an axe. Accused No.10-Dnyanoba assaulted PW5-Narayan Jori with Iron rod. Accused No.6-Jayaram gave sattur blow on the head of PW5-Narayan Jori. Accused No.11-Rajendra gave blow with see the on the hand of PW5-Narayan Jori. Accused No.20-Santosh Pasalkar gave axe blow on the legs of PW5-Narayan Jori. Accused No.2-Shripati gave axe blow on the back of PW2-Narayan Kumbhar. Accused No.3-Nandlal assaulted him on his legs with Iron rod. PW3 deposed that he went to Osade Phata and from there he came to Pune by S.T. Bus. He alighted near Dandekar Bridge and from there he went to Sasoon General Hospital. He was examined and treated there. Thereafter he went back to village Vardale. On his return home he came to know that Dilip and Baban died in the incident. On the next day, police came to him and his statement was recorded. He identified Accused No.6-Jayaram, Accused No.4-Anil. Accused No.17 -Jaya, Accused No.1-lBalu, Accused No.5-Sunil, Accused No.18-Deepak, Accused No.7-Subhash, Accused No.13-Santosh Nalawade, Accused No.20-Santosh Pasalkar, Accused No.19-Sambhaji Pasalkar, Accused No.16-Vitthal Kadam, Accused No.14-Ulhas Nalawade, Accused No.12-Sandeep, Accused No.11-Rajendra, Accused No.8-Dattatreya Nalawade, Accused No.10-Dnyanoba Jawalkar, Accused No.3Nandlal and Accused No.2-Shripati. 17. In the cross-examination he deposed that he has agricultural land situate at Vardale. He had no work at Osade. He has no concern with Accused No.1-Balu. Accused No.5-Sunil, Accused No.4-Anil, Accused No.6Jayaram. He was going to Panshet for purchasing vegetables. It was not correct that the vegetables are available at Vardale. Persons from Vardale go to Pune or Panshet for purchasing vegetables. He had no work at Osade. He has no concern with Accused No.1-Balu. Accused No.5-Sunil, Accused No.4-Anil, Accused No.6Jayaram. He was going to Panshet for purchasing vegetables. It was not correct that the vegetables are available at Vardale. Persons from Vardale go to Pune or Panshet for purchasing vegetables. He stated that the attack was sudden and he faced the said assault for the first time in his life. On seeing the assailants he felt that it was serious matter. He felt that he should run away to save himself. He ran towards the Osade Phata and that it was correct to say that the help could have been available at Osade village. There is Police Chowki at Panshet. He however did not know whether there was Government Hospital at Panshet. He reached near Dandekar Bridge within 45 minutes. There were some hospital on the way. He admitted that he was not seriously injured and it was for the first time he went to Sasoon Hospital. Doctor enquired with him about the injuries and he told him how injuries were caused. He was at the hospital for an hour. He returned to village Vardale by S.T. Bus. He did not give information in the police station about the incident. He informed his parents and others about the incident. He however did not ask them to inform the police. On the next day in the afternoon police came to him and prior to that he did not inform the police about the incident. He denied that he is employee of Lala Jori who is in the business of liquor. He did not know whether the accused opposed the liquor business. He did not know whether the villagers of Nigade stopped Lala Jori' s business and whether he was annoyed with them. He denied that on the date of incident they were carrying illicit liquor in the jeep and that they were assaulted by unknown persons. He admitted that he was prosecuted on the charge of committing murder of his wife. After the assault he did not go to nearby houses. While he was proceeding to Sasoon General Hospital in the bus, he did not tell the conductor or the passengers in the bus about the incident. He denied that he was prosecuted for the sale of illicit liquor and that the chapter cases were filed against him. After the assault he did not go to nearby houses. While he was proceeding to Sasoon General Hospital in the bus, he did not tell the conductor or the passengers in the bus about the incident. He denied that he was prosecuted for the sale of illicit liquor and that the chapter cases were filed against him. He was not on visiting terms with Accused No.9Baban and Accused No.11-Rajendra and he had no transactions with them. He was knowing Accused No.16 Vitthal Kadam, Accused No.8 Dattatraya, Accused No. 14-Ulhas and Accused No.12 Sandeep since prior to the incident. He was knowing all the accused. He further deposed that he gave history to the Doctor in Sasoon General Hospital. He could not tell whether the police recorded what was stated by him in the hospital. Even after knowing about deaths of Dilip & Baban, he did not feel that he should inform the police about the incident. The defence has brought on record contradictions and omissions in his evidence. PW10 - Dr. Prakashchand Rupchand Raidasi at the relevant time working as Casuality Medical Officer attached to Sasoon General Hospital, examined PW3-Kundlik Shahade and found incised wounds and abrasions. He issued injury certificate at Exh.225. 18. PW4-Suresh Dalvi deposed that he knew deceased Dilip and Baban as also witnesses PW2-Narayan Kumbhar, PW5Narayan Jori and PW3-Kundlik Shahade. On October 12, 1999 at 8.30 a.m he was at Vardale Phata. PW3-Kundlik Shahade was also there. He wanted to go to Panshet. When a jeep came he stopped it by waving hand. Deceased Dilip was driving the jeep. PW2-Narayan Kumbhar and Baban Jadhav were in the jeep. He sat on the front seat. PW3-Kundlik Shahade sat on the back seat. After some distance, jeep was stopped by one old man PW5-Narayan Jon near Dr. Thakar's hospital. He sat between him and the driver. When the Jeep went towards Osade Phata Dilip told them that he was taking jeep to Osade village to meet his relatives. He took turn and proceeded towards Osade village. When the jeep crossed Katkari vasti and reached near ascent he heard sound of whistle. 15 to 20 persons armed with satturs, axes, swords, sticks Iron Rods, burning torches came in front of the jeep. They encircled the jeep. Accused No.1-Balu was among them. He gave sword blow on the front glass of the jeep. When the jeep crossed Katkari vasti and reached near ascent he heard sound of whistle. 15 to 20 persons armed with satturs, axes, swords, sticks Iron Rods, burning torches came in front of the jeep. They encircled the jeep. Accused No.1-Balu was among them. He gave sword blow on the front glass of the jeep. He gave blow with sword on the head of Dilip. Accused No.4-Ani! gave sattur blow on the head of Dilip. Accused No.6-Jayaram assaulted on his neck with sattur. Accused No. 13-Santosh Nalawade gave blow with sword on the back of Dilip. Accused No.6-Jayaram took Dilip out of the jeep and dragged him behind the jeep. Accused No. 18-Deepak Kakade gave blow with swordstick on the chest of Baban. Accused No.17 Jaya assaulted him with motor-cycle chain. Accused No.2-Shripati gave axe blow on the back of PW2-Narayan Kumbhar. He started running. While he was getting down from the jeep, absconding accused Raju Nivangune gave blow with sword on his right arm. Accused No.15-Raghunath assaulted with sickle on his back. At that time Accused No.7-Subhash gave blow with blunt side of axe to PW5-Narayan Jori on leg. Accused No.10-Dnyanoba assaulted PW5-Narayan Jori on his legs with Iron Rod. He ran towards the right side to hide himself in the bushes. After the attack, assailants went away towards Osade village. After five minutes he went towards Osade Phata. He came to Pune by S.T. Bus and went to Sasoon General Hospital. Police made enquiry with him. He told them about the incident. He was examined and treated and after sometime he returned to his village. He came to know that Dilip and Baban died in the incident. On the next day, police came and recorded his statement. He identified accused in the Court. 19. In the cross-examination he deposed that he owns agricultural land at Vardale. He had not earlier decided to go to Panshet and he was to go to Panshet by a vehicle whichever would be available. He wanted to return immediately after purchasing the vegetables. Dilip and he did not fix the fare. He did not ask Dilip why he wanted to go to Osade and to meet whom. He did not ask Dilip to drop him at Osade Phata instead of taking to Osade Village. On seeing the assailants, he was frightened. He had not witnessed such incident in his life. Dilip and he did not fix the fare. He did not ask Dilip why he wanted to go to Osade and to meet whom. He did not ask Dilip to drop him at Osade Phata instead of taking to Osade Village. On seeing the assailants, he was frightened. He had not witnessed such incident in his life. He sensed danger and felt that he should save himself. He was not having any weapon to defend. Running away was the only way to save the life. He could not get help at Osade Phata. Though there are two small hotels on Osade Phata, he did not go to hotels asking for help. The bus came within 10 minutes. He did not ask anybody in the bus to help him. Police did not reduce in writing the information given by him. Doctor also made enquiry. He left Sasoon Hospital at about 12 noon. He returned Vardale by S.T. Bus. He did not go to police station to give information. Thought he had talks with the villagers about the incident, he did not ask anybody to inform the police. During the stay in the Sasoon General Hospital at Pune, he did not enquire whether any other injured was there. Through-out the incident no efforts were made to get help from others and they did not go to Osade village for help. He deposed that it was not true that he worked for Lala Jori in his business of illicit liquor and that it was not true that the villagers of Nigade opposed the business of Lala Jori and so he was annoyed. Though he stated to the police that PW5-Narayan Jori was assaulted on legs, he could not explain why this fact was not mentioned in his statement. He denied that Lala Jori deals in business of illicit liquor and that deceased Dilip used to carry illicit liquor in the jeep and that he was working with Dilip. In the hospital he told the police abut the entire incident. He did not ask the police to record his statement. His statement was recorded by the police at about 11.00 a.m on the next day at his residence. 20. PW 10-Dr. Prakashchand Rupchand Raidasi deposed that at 1.15 p.m on October 12, 1999 PW 4-Suresh came to the Sasoon Hospital on his own. He found abrasions and contusion injuries. He did not ask the police to record his statement. His statement was recorded by the police at about 11.00 a.m on the next day at his residence. 20. PW 10-Dr. Prakashchand Rupchand Raidasi deposed that at 1.15 p.m on October 12, 1999 PW 4-Suresh came to the Sasoon Hospital on his own. He found abrasions and contusion injuries. He issued injury certificate at Exh.226. 21. Prosecution also examined PW5Narayan Jori at Exh.200. At about 7.30 a.m on October 12, 1999 he was proceeding towards his field by walk. When he was at Thakar Hospital, a jeep came. He stopped jeep by showing hands. He asked the driver to leave him at Osade Phata. Driver told him that he wanted to go to Osade Village. They crossed Katkari vasti. When the jeep reached near ascent, he heard sound of whistle. 25 to 30 persons came running towards the jeep. They were armed with satturs, axes, swords, burning torches. Accused No.1-Balu gave blow with sword on the front glass of the jeep and the glass was broken. Accused No.4-Anil gave sattur blow to Dilip Gawade. One of them pulled him out of jeep. He was assaulted. Accused No.6-Jayaram gave blow with sattur on his head. Accused No.7-Subhash gave axe blow on his legs. Accused No.10-Dnyanoba gave blow with Iron Rod on his legs. He fell down and he did not know then what happened. He fell from the jeep and became unconscious. On the next day he regained consciousness. He was admitted in the hospital for six days. He received injuries on hands, legs and head. On the next day the police came to the hospital and his statement was recorded. He deposed that he could identify the assailants. 22. In the cross-examination, he deposed that Dilip used to carry passengers by a jeep. What fare was to be given to Dilip was not decided. He had witnessed such incident for the first time and was frightened seeing the assailants. He felt that some serious incident was going to take place and further felt that he should save himself. There were only two ways open, one to counter attack and other to run away. It was not possible to counter attack. He deposed that it was not correct to say that he ran away to save himself and it was PW4-Suresh who ran away. There were only two ways open, one to counter attack and other to run away. It was not possible to counter attack. He deposed that it was not correct to say that he ran away to save himself and it was PW4-Suresh who ran away. He was in the jeep when he received the first blow. Dilip Gavade was assaulted firstly and then he was assaulted. After receiving blow on the head he became unconscious. He came to know from others about what happened after he felt unconscious. He further deposed that he did not state before the police on October 13, 1999 that the Accused No.4-Anil gave sattur blow to Dilip and Dilip was pulled out of the jeep. He could not explain as to why the said fact was not mentioned in his statement. He further admitted that Doctor asked him how he was injured. He narrated the incident to Doctor. He denied that he was in the service of Lala Jori in the business of illicit liquor. He admitted that liquor business of Lala Jori was stopped by the villagers of Nigade and Lala Jori was angry with the villagers of village Nigade. 23. PW3-Dr. Nitin Gambhirrao Patil at the relevant time attached to Sasoon General Hospital as Resident Doctor was examined at Exh.243. He examined PW5-Narayan Jori and also gave treatment. On examination he found the following injuries 1. CL W, on Rt. Leg middle 1/3 rd over shin transverse in direction, 4 x cms., associated with tenderness crebitus, abnormal ½ mobility of bone. 2. CLW verticle over shin middle 3rd of tibia above injury No.1 size 1x ½th cms. 3. abrasion over medial malleolus 2 x 1 cms. 4. abrasion over left rib cage lower margin alterally. 5. CLW 4 in No. over scalp. 6. CLW over Rt. elbow posteriorly over olecrenon on radial side 2 x ½2 cms., associated with fracture lateral condyle of Rt. humeros. He issued injury certificate at Exh.244. He produced the original case papers at Exh.246. PW13-Dr. Nitin deposed that the injury Nos. 1 and 6 were compound fractures, Injury No.1, 2, 5 and 6 may be caused by weapons like sattur, axe and sickle, and injury Nos.3 & 4 can be caused by Iron Rods. Injury No.5 (CLW on scalp) was on vital part. Without timely aid the patient would have succumbed to injuries. PW13-Dr. Nitin deposed that the injury Nos. 1 and 6 were compound fractures, Injury No.1, 2, 5 and 6 may be caused by weapons like sattur, axe and sickle, and injury Nos.3 & 4 can be caused by Iron Rods. Injury No.5 (CLW on scalp) was on vital part. Without timely aid the patient would have succumbed to injuries. Before he examined the patient, he was examined by another medical officer. At that time he had given history. Before him, the history of assault at Velha was given. 24. PW14-Dr. P. Satish Bhat deposed that he examined PW5-Narayan Jori and the notes about the examination were made in the case papers at Exh.246. The history of assault at Velha was given to him. 25. The prosecution has examined panch-witness viz. PW6-Dnyanoba Sopan Jori at Exh.203. He is witness to the panchnamas of seizure of clothes of deceased Baban, seizure of clothes of PW2-Narayan Kumbhar, seizure of clothes of PW5-Narayan Jori, as also recovery panchanama of weapons used by Accused No.7-Subhash. PW7- Vitthal Haribhau Dalvi was examined at Exh.208. He is witness to panchanama of recovery of clothes of deceased Dilip, panchanama of recovery of axe at the instance of Accused No.2-Shripati, panchanama of recovery of clothes of Accused No.5-Sunil, Accused No.20-Santosh Pasalkar, as also panchanama of recovery of sickle and torch (tembha) at the instance of Accused No.6Jayaram, recovery panchanama of axe at the instance of Accused No.20-Santosh Pasalkar, as also panchanama of recovery of two satturs, two swords and sword-stick at the instance of Accused No. 12-Sandeep. 26. In addition, the projection has examined PWS-Prakash at Exh.219, who is witness to spot panchanama, as also panchanama of recovery of axe at the instance of Accused No.8-Datta and his clothes. PW9Ananta Shede was examined at Exh.222. He is witness to recovery panchanama of sattur at the instance of Accused No.4-Ani. Finally PW11-Dilip Pawar was examined at Exh.227. He is witness to recovery panchanama of Iron Rod and clothes of Accused No.10-Dnyanoba Jawalkar. 27. The prosecution has examined PWl5-Captain Pankaj Ajit Chawla at Exh.249. He conducted the post-mortem examination of dead body of Dilip and produced on record post mortem notes at Exh.250. He also performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Baban Jadhav and produced the post mortem notes at Exh.251. 28. The prosecution his also examined PW12-Jaywant Kondiba Dhamal, Investigating Officer at Exh.232. He conducted the post-mortem examination of dead body of Dilip and produced on record post mortem notes at Exh.250. He also performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Baban Jadhav and produced the post mortem notes at Exh.251. 28. The prosecution his also examined PW12-Jaywant Kondiba Dhamal, Investigating Officer at Exh.232. He deposed that he was attached to Velha Police Station from July, 1999 to March, 2000. At about 10.00 a.m on October 12, 1999 he received wireless message from the control room of two murders committed at Osade. He immediately went to the place of incident with the police staff. The place of incident was on the road near Osade. The jeep was seen on the road on ascent facing the south. Two dead bodies were lying on the spot. Some persons had gathered on the spot. PW1-Sudhakar, uncle of deceased Dilip was present. He gave complaint about the incident which is at Exh.184. On the spot. Inquest Panchanamas of the dead bodies were drawn. Inquest Panchanama in respect of deceased Baban is at Exh.233 and that of Dilip is at Exh.234. He came to know that some injured were admitted at Sasoon General Hospital. He went there and recorded the statement of PW5Narayan lori, PW2-Narayan Kumbhar in the morning of October 13, 1999. He also recorded statement of other injured witnesses like PW3-Kundlik Shahade and PW4-Suresh. He arrested the accused and the arrest panchanamas at Exh.237 to 242-A were drawn. He also prepared seizure panchanamas. 29. In the cross-examination, he deposed that the entry about the message received was taken in the station diary by P.S.O. He did not record his statement. The extract of station diary was not sent in the Court with the charge-sheet. He did not enquire as to who gave information to control room. The register about information received is maintained at the control room, in which, the details as to the name of the informant, address and the gist of information etc are recorded. The time of information received as well as the time of information given to the concerned Police Station are also noted in it. Statement of the person who received the information at the control room was not recorded. The extract of register was not produced by him. The time of information received as well as the time of information given to the concerned Police Station are also noted in it. Statement of the person who received the information at the control room was not recorded. The extract of register was not produced by him. He stated that it was not true that the entry in the control room register was not favourable to the prosecution. 30. He further deposed that the police constable Mr. Bhagat of Panshet visited the spot before him and he did not record his statement. Though he made enquiry with Jagtap, whose land was adjoining the spot, his statement was nor recorded. Vitthal and Baban Lohakare whose houses are near the spot were interrogated, but their statements were not recorded. He deposed that it was not correct that he did not record their statement as they were damaging the prosecution. The jeep was owned by Lala Jori and his statement was recorded. The defence has brought on record omissions and contradictions in his deposition. When he reached the spot, constable Mr. Bhagat was present there. He enquired with the persons gathered there. No eye-witnesses were present. He was at the spot for 5 to 6 hours. On that day, he did not visit Sasoon General Hospital. He admitted that he did not contact any witnesses on that day. In the evening of 12th he received information that some injured were in the Sasoon General Hospital. He did not depute any police officer for recording statement of injured persons on that day. He however sent one constable to the Hospital. Constable Mr. More was sent, but there is no documentary evidence to show that constable Mr. More was sent to the Hospital and the said fact was not mentioned in the case diary. Statements of the injured witnesses were recorded in the morning of 13th between 7.15 a.m and 9.00 a.m. 31. The defence has examined Shrishail Somanna Hiroli at Exh.260. He was examined in support of alibi of Accused No.15Raghunath Rambhau Nalawade of village Nigade. He deposed that Accused No.15Raghunath was working with him from 1996 to October, 1999. He produced the attendance register for the period from August 5, 1999 to January 13, 2000. In the cross-examination he admitted that he was not having licence under the Factories Act. He was examined in support of alibi of Accused No.15Raghunath Rambhau Nalawade of village Nigade. He deposed that Accused No.15Raghunath was working with him from 1996 to October, 1999. He produced the attendance register for the period from August 5, 1999 to January 13, 2000. In the cross-examination he admitted that he was not having licence under the Factories Act. He did not have any documentary evidence to show that the wages were paid to the accused and there is no entry to show the period of service. He further admitted that he was not having any other documentary evidence to show that Accused No. 15-Raghunath was in his service. 32. Mr. Khamkar, learned Counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1368 of 2002 and Mr. Prakash Naik, learned Counsel for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1103 of 2002 raised following contentions. (1) In the present case the FIR at Exh.I84 was lodged by PW1-Sudhakar Gavade. He is not eye-witness to the incident. He received information from his niece Kunda and pursuant thereto he came to the spot. Kunda's statement was not recorded. It is therefore submitted that the FIR at Exh.I84 is based on hearsay. (2) Though the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses to substantiate its case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly believed PW3-Kundlik and fully believed PWS-Narayan Jori. The trial Court disbelieved rest of the witnesses including injured eyewitnesses PW2-Narayan Kumbhar and PW4-Suresh Dalvi. It was submitted that out of 22 Accused, Accused Nos.1, 4, 6 & 7 were convicted and rest of the Accused were acquitted. This fact assumes importance as all the accused were charged under Section 149, IPC alongwith other sections of IPC. It was further submitted that where the Criminal Court has to deal with the evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving large number of, offenders and large number of victims, it is usual to adopt test that the conviction can be sustained only if it is supported by two or three more witnesses who gave consistent account of the incident, in the sense, test may be described as a mechanical, it cannot be treated as irrational or unreasonable. It is no doubt true that the quality of evidence matters and not the number of witnesses who gave evidence. But some times, it is useful to adopt a mechanical test. It is no doubt true that the quality of evidence matters and not the number of witnesses who gave evidence. But some times, it is useful to adopt a mechanical test. (3) The prosecution relies upon the testimony of injured eye-witnesses viz. PW2-Narayan Kumbhar, PW3-Kundlik, PW4-Suresh and PW5-Narayan Jori. Their conduct after the alleged incident is wholly unnatural. In that all these witnesses deposed that when they went to Sasoon General Hospital at Pune for treatment, the Doctors who treated them made enquiries about the incident and they narrated the incident. So also the police made enquiries with them about the incident and they narrated the incident. Despite this, the police did not record the statement of any of these witnesses on the day of incident itself i.e. October 12, 1999 and their statements were recorded on the next day i.e. October 13, 1999. It was therefore submitted that these witnesses got enough opportunity to concoct the story and falsely implicate the accused. (4) The presence of the Accused at the time of incident is not established. The identification took place in the Court itself and that too improperly. (5) The prosecution witnesses have deliberately withheld vital information including the motive. (6) Though in the FIR seven persons were named as Accused, out of that three persons were acquitted and four persons were convicted. The FIR cannot be the basis for conviction. (7) In the present case the Investigating Agency has not produced wireless message as also the entry in the station diary. It was obviously because it was not favourable to the prosecution. In view of this the FIR at Exh.184 lost its authenticity. (8) Suggestions made in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses cannot be used to fill in the gaps in the evidence of prosecution. Such suggestions are inadmissible in evidence. Burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. (9) At any rate, the impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained as the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate one of the requisites of Section 149, IPC viz.Unlawful Assembly as defined u/s.141, IPC i.e. Assembly office or more persons is not established. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted Accused Nos., 4, 6 and 7 i.e. to say only four persons and rest of the Accused were acquitted. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted Accused Nos., 4, 6 and 7 i.e. to say only four persons and rest of the Accused were acquitted. Therefore, the assembly of four persons cannot be considered as unlawful assembly and consequently, the conviction us.149, IPC cannot be sustained. In support of these submissions, learned counsel for the Appellants relied upon several decisions to which reference will be made at appropriate place. 33. On the other hand Smt. V.R. Bhosale, learned APP raised following contentions :- (1) The evidence of injured witnesses stands on higher footing and their evidence is reliable and inspires confidence. (2) Section 141, IPC provides that the assembly of five or more persons is designated as unlawful assembly, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is covered by either of first to fifth categories. In the instant case, the common object falls in third category viz. to commit any mischief or criminal tress-pass, or other offence; (3) Section 149, IPC provides that every member of unlawful assembly is guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of common object. It is clear from the evidence that the prosecution has established its case falling under Section 149, IPC and the Accused need not commit any overt act and his presence in achieving common object is sufficient. (4) In the present case, there are about 22 accused who were armed with various weapons such as satturs, swords, sword-sticks etc. Even if the prosecution witnesses were not in a position to give consistent detailed account because of injuries on them and making improvements, this cannot be a ground to acquit the accused. (5) Consideration of trustworthiness of the witnesses having regard to their conduct in relation to the nature of offence depends upon the manner in which the occurrence took place. Merely because their statements were recorded on the next day of incident, that by itself, would not lead to a conclusion that they were wholly untrustworthy. Minor contradictions or inconsistencies cannot be the ground for disbelieving the injured eye-witnesses. (6) In the present case, the prosecution has established the presence of the appellants as also their sharing of the common object. (7) FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial. (6) In the present case, the prosecution has established the presence of the appellants as also their sharing of the common object. (7) FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial. It is the earliest information regarding the circumstances under which the crime was committed, including the names of actual culprits, parts played by them and the weapons used. (8) The common object must be inferred upon taking into consideration the entire situation. In the present case, the prosecution has established the motive and number of injuries on the deceased. Irresistible conclusion is that all the accused persons formed a common object in committing the murder of Dilip and Baban, since deceased. (9) Evidence of identification in Court unaffected for want of evidence of earlier identification in test-identification parade. (10) Even if the statements of the witnesses were recorded on the next date of incident, minor discrepancies in their evidence is inconsequential and insignificant. In support of these submissions, she relied upon several decisions to which reference will be made at an appropriate place. 34. Appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.208/2003 preferred by the State against the order of acquittal against the original Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 8 to 17, 19 to 22, Smt. V.R. Bhosale, learned APP submitted that the prosecution has established the case against these accused as well. The prosecution witnesses have established their presence as also their sharing of common object. She raised the following contentions in support of this appeal :- (1) The prosecution has established membership of unlawful assembly in respect of these accused. It is not incumbent on the prosecution to establish any specific overt act to any of these accused for fastening of liability with the aid of Section 149, IPC. Common object of the unlawful assembly of these accused in the present case, is evident from the fact that some of them were armed with deadly weapons and none of them were curious onlookers or spectators to the incident in question. Common object of the unlawful assembly of these accused in the present case, is evident from the fact that some of them were armed with deadly weapons and none of them were curious onlookers or spectators to the incident in question. (2) Though it is true that the order of acquittal should not ordinarily be interfered with as presumption of innocence of accused gets further strengthened by acquittal, but by that itself would not mean that the Appellate Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings of the trial Court despite existence of compelling reasons. In support of these submissions, she relied upon several decisions to which reference will be made at an appropriate place. 35. Per contra, Ms. P. P. Kakade, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 17 supported the impugned decision and has raised the following contentions (1) The mere fact that on appreciation of evidence the Appellate Court is inclined to reach to the conclusion which is at variance with one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below, will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with the appeal against the order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegally or the conclusion recorded by the Court below as such, which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judicially, and consequently liable to be characterized as perverse. (2) Where two views are reasonably possible, on appraisal of evidence adduced in the case and the view taken by the Court below is plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with the order of acquittal, even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below was erroneous. (3) The evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of omissions and contradictions and the occurrence of the alleged incident did not take place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. In such circumstances, the order of acquittal cannot be reversed by the Appellate Court. (3) The evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of omissions and contradictions and the occurrence of the alleged incident did not take place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. In such circumstances, the order of acquittal cannot be reversed by the Appellate Court. (4) The injured eye-witnesses have not given any explanation as to not lodging the FIR after the incident in question. In support of these submissions she relied upon several decisions to which reference will be made at an appropriate place. 36. In the light of the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have considered the material on record. On behalf of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1365/2002 and Criminal Appeal No.1103/2002 it was submitted that in the present case FIR at Exh.184 was lodged by PW1-Sudhakar. Perusal of his testimony indicates that he was not the eye-witness to the incident. He received information from his niece Kunda and pursuent thereto he came to the spot. However, Kunda's statement was not recorded by the police. It is not known whether Kunda had witnessed the alleged incident. If she had really witnessed the incident, there is no explanation for her not lodging the FIR. The FIR at Exh.184 is based on hearsay information. It was further submitted that it has come in the evidence of PW 12-Jayant Kondiba Dhamal, the Investigating Officer that on October 12, 1999 he received wireless message from the control room that two murders were committed at Osade. Though the entry about the message received was taken in the station diary by P.S.O., he did not record his statement. Neither the wireless message nor the entry in the station diary was produced on record. It was submitted that obviously because it was not favourable to the prosecution, it was not produced. In view of this, the FIR at Exh.184 lost its authenticity. Though in the FIR seven persons were named as Accused, out of these, three persons were acquitted and four persons were convicted. The FIR cannot be a basis for conviction. In support of these submissions, reliance was placed upon the following judgments :- (i) Superintendent of Police, CBI Vs.Tapan Kumar Singh, 2003 Cri.L.J. 2322 (S.C.) [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1173 (S.C.)], (ii) G.B. Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 Sc 135 , (iii) Dev Pujan Thakur Vs. State of Bihar, 2005 Cri.L.J. 1263. (Patna High Court). In support of these submissions, reliance was placed upon the following judgments :- (i) Superintendent of Police, CBI Vs.Tapan Kumar Singh, 2003 Cri.L.J. 2322 (S.C.) [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1173 (S.C.)], (ii) G.B. Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 Sc 135 , (iii) Dev Pujan Thakur Vs. State of Bihar, 2005 Cri.L.J. 1263. (Patna High Court). 37. On the other hand, Smt. V. R. Bhosale, learned APP submitted that the FIR in the criminal case and particularly in a murder case is vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial. It is the earliest information regarding the circumstances under which the crime was committed including the names of actual culprits, part played by them, the weapons used by them as also the names of eye-witnesses. In the instant case, the FIR was lodged at the earliest available opportunity. Ordinarily when the FIR is lodged within a short time after occurrence, would lead to conclusion that the statements made therein are correct. In support of these submissions, she relied upon following judgments of the Apex Court: (i) Mahmood Vs. State of V.P., (2007)14 SCC 16 , (ii) Shivappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (2008)11 SCC 337 : [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1329 (S.C.)]. 38. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. lays down that every information with regard to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to the Officer Incharge of the concerned police station, the same shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and to be read over to the informant and every such information whether given in writing or reduced to writing, shall be signed by the person giving it. Section 154 by itself does not require that the informant has to be necessarily an eyewitness to the commission of a cognizeble offence. It is, however, true that the prosecution has not given any explanation for not recording the statement of Kunda, niece of PW 1 Sudhakar Gavade as also why she did not lodge the FIR in respect of the incident in question. PW 1- Sudhakar Gavade came to the spot after the incident was over. From the perusal of his testimony, it is abundantly clear that he gathered the information from the persons who were present at the spot. PW 1- Sudhakar Gavade came to the spot after the incident was over. From the perusal of his testimony, it is abundantly clear that he gathered the information from the persons who were present at the spot. The prosecution has also not made clear as to whether these persons had witnessed the incident in question. None of these persons were examined by the police. It is in this context we will have to appreciate the evidence on record while considering the fact that the FIR exhibit 184 disclosed the names of some of the accused namely Accused No.4-Anil, Accused No.5-Sunil, Accused No.1-Balu, Accused No.6-Jayaram, Accused No.7Subhash, Accused No.8-Datta, Accused No.15Sambhaji Pasalkar and 10 to 12 other persons. 39. On behalf of the appellants, it was submitted that the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses to substantiate its case. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge partly believed PW3 Kundlik and fully believed PW5 Narayan Jori. He disbelieved injured eye-witness PW2Narayan Kumbhar and PW4-Suresh Dalvi. It was also submitted that out of total 22 accused, accused nos. 1 , 4, 6 and 7 were convicted and rest of the accused were acquitted. This aspect assumes importance as all the accused were charged under Section 149, IPC along with other sections of IPC. It was further submitted that where a criminal court has to deal with the evidence pertaining to the commission of offence involving large number of offenders and large number of victims, it has 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 incident. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Masalti and others Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202 (paragraph 16 thereof). 40. As against this, Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, learned APP submitted that the evidence of injured witnesses stands on a higher footing, and their evidence is reliable and inspires confidence. In the present case, there are about 22 accused who were armed with various weapons such as Satturs, Swords and sticks etc. Even if the prosecution witnesses were not in a position to give consistent detailed account because of injuries sustained by them, this by itself is not a ground to acquit the accused. In the present case, there are about 22 accused who were armed with various weapons such as Satturs, Swords and sticks etc. Even if the prosecution witnesses were not in a position to give consistent detailed account because of injuries sustained by them, this by itself is not a ground to acquit the accused. In support of this submission, she relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Navganbhai Somabhai and others Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1994 SC 1187 (paragraph no.6 thereof). 41. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution relied upon the testimony of injured eye witnesses namely PW2 Narayan, PW3 Kundlik, PW4 Suresh Dalvi and PW 5 Narayan Jori. Their conduct after the alleged incident is wholly unnatural. All these witnesses deposed that after the incident they went to Sasoon Hospital at Pune for treatment. The Doctor who treated them made inquiry about the incident and they narrated the incident. So also the police who were present made inquiry about the incident and they narrated the incident. Despite this, the police did not record the statements of any of these witnesses on the day of alleged incident i.e. October 12, 1999 and their statements were recorded on the next i.e. October 13, 1999. It was, therefore, submitted that these witnesses got opportunity to concoct the story falsely implicating the accused. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for appellants relied upon the following judgments of Apex Court 1. Jagir Singh Vs. The State (Delhi), 1975 SCC (Cri.) 129. 2. Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 135 . 3. Maruti Rama Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003)10 SCC 670 . 42. On the other hand, Mrs. V. R. Bhosale, learned APP for respondent State, submitted that the trustworthiness of the witnesses having regard to their conduct in relation to the nature of offence depends upon the manner in which occurrence took place. Merely because the statements were recorded on the next day of incident that by itself would not lead to conclusion that they were wholly untrustworthy. The minor contradictions or inconsistencies in their evidence cannot be a ground for disbelieving the injured witnesses. In support of this submission, she relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shivappa and others Vs. The minor contradictions or inconsistencies in their evidence cannot be a ground for disbelieving the injured witnesses. In support of this submission, she relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shivappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2008)11 SCC 337 [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1329 (S.C.)]. 43. In order to appreciate these submissions, let us consider the evidence of injured eye-witnesses. PW2 Narayan Kumbhar deposed that after the incident he went to Osade phata and then he came to Pune and went to Sasoon Hospital. He was admitted there for six days. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he went to Sasoon Hospital by a jeep. He, however, did not ask the occupants of the jeep to inform the police about the incident. The Doctor who examined him in the hospital made inquiry about the injuries. The police were also present and they also made inquiry. He reiterated that he informed the police about the incident before he was given treatment. PW14 Dr. Satish Bhat, resident Doctor attached to the Sasoon General Hospital deposed that the history of the of the assault was given by the patient PW2 Narayan Kumbhar and the history narrated by him was that assault by a sharp weapon like sword etc. by a group of unknown persons. 44. PW3 Kundlik Shahade deposed that after the incident he went to Osade phata and from there he came to Pune by S.T. bus and went to Sasoon General Hospital. He was examined there by the Doctor who gave treatment to him. Thereafter, he went back to village Vardale by S.T. Bus. He did not give information to the police about the incident. He did not ask the parents to inform the police though he gave information to them. While he was proceeding to Sasoon Hospital, he did not tell the Conductor of bus or passengers in the bus about the incident. He also deposed that he gave history to the Doctor in Sasoon General Hospital. but, he could not tell whether the police recorded what was stated by him in the hospital. Even after knowing about the death of Dilip and Baban, he did not feel it necessary to inform the police about the incident. 45. PW 4 Suresh deposed that after the incident, he went towards Osade phata and went to Pune by S.T. bus. He went to Sasoon General Hospital. Even after knowing about the death of Dilip and Baban, he did not feel it necessary to inform the police about the incident. 45. PW 4 Suresh deposed that after the incident, he went towards Osade phata and went to Pune by S.T. bus. He went to Sasoon General Hospital. The police made inquiry and he told about the incident. He was examined and after sometime he returned to his village. He came to know that Dilip and Baban died in the incident. In the cross-examination, he deposed that there are two small hotels at Osade phata, he, however did not go to the said hotels asking for help. Even in the bus he did not ask anybody to help him. The police did not reduce in writing the information given by him. The Doctor also made inquiry. After the treatment he returned to Vardale by S.T. bus. He did not go to police station to give information. Though he deposed about the incident to the villagers, he did not ask anybody to inform the police. He did not ask the police to record the statement and his statement was recorded by the police on the next day of incident at about 11.00 am. at his residence. 46. PW5 Narayan Jori deposed that after the assault on him he became unconscious. On the next day, he regained consciousness. That day the police came to the hospital and his statement was recorded. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he came to know from others about what happened after he felt unconscious. He further admitted that the Doctor asked him about his injuries. He narrated the incident to the Doctor. The Doctor issued injury certificate exhibit 244 and the original case papers were produced at exhibit 246. He was also examined by another medical officer before whom he gave history. The history of assault at Velha was given. PW14 Dr. Satish Bhat deposed that he examined PW5 Narayan Jori and the notes about the examination were made. 47. The learned Add1. Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PW2 Narayan Kumbhar and PW4 Suresh. He partly believed PW3 Kundlik and fully believed PW5 Narayan Jori. All these witnesses were consistent in deposing that the incident in question was serious incident and such incident took place in their lives for the first time. 47. The learned Add1. Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PW2 Narayan Kumbhar and PW4 Suresh. He partly believed PW3 Kundlik and fully believed PW5 Narayan Jori. All these witnesses were consistent in deposing that the incident in question was serious incident and such incident took place in their lives for the first time. All these witnesses unequivocally deposed that they went to Sasoon hospital either by a jeep or bus. They, however, did not disclose about such a serious incident to the occupants of the jeep, the Conductor of the bus and the passengers in the bus, as the case may be. Even when they went to hospital, they were treated by the Doctors and some of them gave history of assault by unknown persons. The inquiry was also made by the police. What is significant to note is that they did not disclose the names of the assailants to the Doctors or the police who were present. The police also did not record their statements on October 12, 1999. Even after their return to the village on the vary day except PW5 Narayan Jori, when they came to know about the death of Dilip and Baban, they did not feel it necessary to immediately inform the police. Considering the seriousness of the incident, we are surprised by the conduct of these injured eye-witnesses. 48. In so far as PW5 Narayan Jori is concerned, he deposed that he fell unconscious after the assault on October 12, 1999. Mrs. Bhosale, learned APP, submitted that in the examination-in-chief, PW5 Narayan Jori deposed about this aspect and there was no cross-examination. It is important to note that PW13 Dr. Nitin Pati! as also PW14 Dr. Satish Bhat treated PW5 Narayan Jori in the hospital and the case papers exhibit 246 are produced on record. Perusal of these case papers indicates that it was not recorded that PW5 Narayan Jori was unconscious at the time of treatment on October 12, 1999. In the instant case, the incident in question took place on October 12, 1999 and the statements of the injured witnesses were recorded on October 13, 1999. The delay of few hours, simplicitor in recording the statements of the injured eyewitnesses may not, by itself, amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. In the instant case, the incident in question took place on October 12, 1999 and the statements of the injured witnesses were recorded on October 13, 1999. The delay of few hours, simplicitor in recording the statements of the injured eyewitnesses may not, by itself, amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. But it may assume that such a character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigating officer was deliberately marking time with a view to deciding about the shape to be given to the case and the eye-witnesses to be introduced. Considering the evidence of the injured witnesses as also the evidence of the Doctors who treated them, in totality, are satisfied that the delay in recording the statements of these injured eye-witnesses casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the prosecution story. Normally, in a case where commission of the crime alleged to have been seen by the witnesses who are easily available, a prudent investigating officer would give to the examination of such witnesses, precedence over the evidence of other witnesses. Perusal of evidence of PW 12 Jaywant Kondiba Dhamal indicates that when he reached the spot, Constable Bhagat was present there. He inquired from the people gathered. However, no eyewitnesses were present. He was present on the spot for 5 to 6 hours. On that day, he did not contact any witnesses. He also did not visit Sasoon General Hospital. In the evening of October 12,1999, he received information that some injured were in the Sasoon hospital, still he did not go there for recording statements of the injured witnesses that day. He, however, sent Constable More to the hospital. Even no attempt was made by Constable More to record the statements of injured witnesses, if at all in fact he had gone to the hospital. In our opinion, the evidence of injured witness is not at all trustworthy. It cannot be relied upon for the purpose of convicting the accused. In our judgment, the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 49. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that in the FIR seven persons were named as accused and out of them three persons were acquitted and four persons were convicted. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the accused nos. 49. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that in the FIR seven persons were named as accused and out of them three persons were acquitted and four persons were convicted. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the accused nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7 on the basis that their names were mentioned in the FIR. The FIR cannot be a basis for conviction. It was also submitted that the presence of the accused at the time of incident is not established and the identification took place in the Court itself which is improper. In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon the following Apex Court judgments 1. Lakhwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2003 SC 2577 [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1421 (S.C.)]. 2. Roshan and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1976 SCC (Cri) 523. 50. On the other hand, Mrs. Bhosale, learned APP, submitted that the conduct of these injured eye-witnesses has to be considered in the backdrop of the nature of offence and the manner in which the occurrence took place. Minor contradictions or inconsistency cannot be a ground for disbelieving the injured eye witnesses. She further submitted that in the present case, the prosecution has established presence of the appellants as also their sharing of a common object. In support of this submission, she relied upon following judgments of the Apex Court 1. Shivappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2008)11 SCC 337 [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1329 (S.C.)]. 2. Akbar Shaikh Vs. State of West Bangal, (2009)7 SCC 415 . 51. Smt. V. R. Bhosale, learned APP further submitted that the evidence of identification in Court is not affected for want of evidence of earlier identification in test identification parade. In support of this she relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of George Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 1376 and in particular paragraph No.25 thereof. We have already indicated that the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses is not at all trustworthy and it cannot be relied upon for the purpose of convicting the accused. 52. It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the prosecution witnesses have deliberately withheld vital information including the motive. The Investigating Agency has not produced wireless message as also the entry in the station diary. 52. It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the prosecution witnesses have deliberately withheld vital information including the motive. The Investigating Agency has not produced wireless message as also the entry in the station diary. This was not produced as obviously it was not favourable to the prosecution. It was also submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate its case us.149, IPC viz.unlawful assembly as defined us.141, IPC as also the common object. At any rate it was submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained as the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that one of the requisites of Section 149, IPC is assembly of five or more persons. In the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted Accused Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7 i.e. only four persons and rest of the accused were acquitted. Therefore, assembly of four persons cannot be considered as unlawful assembly and consequently, the conviction us.149, IPC cannot be sustained. In support of this judgment. learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Nagamalleswara Rao Vs. State of A.P., 1991 Cri.L.J. 1365 (S.C.). 53. On the other hand Smt. V. R. Bhosale, learned APP submitted that in the present case common object falls in 3rd category viz to commit any mischief or criminal trespass or other offence. It is clear from the evidence that the prosecution has established its case falling us.149, IPC. In support of this submission. she relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court (1) Akbar Shaikh Vs. State of West Bengal, (2009)7 SCC 415 , (2) Mahmood Vs. State of U.P., (2007)14 SCC 16 , (3) Shivappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (2008)11 SCC 337 [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1329 (S.C.)]. 54. In order to appreciate this submission, it is necessary to consider the case of the prosecution. Perusal of the testimony of the injured eye-witnesses would indicate that PW2-Narayan Kumbhar deposed that on October 12, 1999 at about 8.00 a.m he was in the square of the village waiting for vehicle for going to Panshet. PW3-Kundlik deposed that he alongwith PW4-Suresh were waiting for vehicle at Vardale phata on October 12, 1999 at about 8.30 a.m for going to Panshet. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he had no work at Osade. PW3-Kundlik deposed that he alongwith PW4-Suresh were waiting for vehicle at Vardale phata on October 12, 1999 at about 8.30 a.m for going to Panshet. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he had no work at Osade. PW4-Suresh reiterated that he and PW3-Kundlik intended to go to Panshet. When the jeep went towards the Osade phata, Dilip told them that he was taking jeep to Osade village to meet his relatives. PW5-Narayan Jori deposed that on October 12, 1999 while he was at Thakar's hospital the jeep came. He stopped the jeep by showing hand and asked the driver to leave him at Osade phata. The driver (Dilip. since deceased) told him that he wanted to go to Osade village. It is interesting to note that PW5-Narayan Jori did not get down at Osade phata, but proceeded towards the Osade village. 55. The prosecution came with the case that the deceased Dilip was working as a driver with one Lala Jori and was incharge of a Jeep bearing No.5369. He used to ply the said vehicle between Pune and Panshet. The prosecution came with the case that on the day of incident viz. October 12, 1999 Dilip was proceeding from Pune to Panshet and suddenly he decided to go to Osade Village for meeting his relatives. Thus, it was not usual route of Dilip as he used to ply the vehicle between Pune and Panshet. It is further case of the prosecution that the Jeep travelled some distance and after crossing Katkari vasti, somebody blew whistle and the persons intercepted the vehicle. This fact assumes importance as it presupposes that the assailants were well aware in advance that the Jeep was to come to Osade by taking turn at Osade Phata instead of straightway proceeding towards Panshet. From the evidence on record, it is abundantly clear that Dilip suddenly took decision to visit Osade village by taking turn at Osade Phata and it was not decided in advance that he would be taking turn at Osade phata so that the assailants were aware of his movements. On the basis of the evidence on record, the prosecution has failed to establish one of the important ingredients of Section 149, IPC viz. common object. It cannot be said that the accused knew in advance that Dilip instead of proceedings towards Panshet was to come to Osade village. On the basis of the evidence on record, the prosecution has failed to establish one of the important ingredients of Section 149, IPC viz. common object. It cannot be said that the accused knew in advance that Dilip instead of proceedings towards Panshet was to come to Osade village. It is in view of this matter we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case us.149, IPC. 56. On behalf of the appellants it was submitted that the suggestions made in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses cannot be used to fill in the gaps in the evidence of the prosecution. Such suggestions are inadmissible in evidence. Burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. In support of this submission, reliance was placed upon the following judgments (1) Koli Trikam Jivraj Vs. State, AIR 1969 Gujrat 69. (2) Jagannath Rana & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa, Crimes 1-1994(1) 116 (Orissa High Court). 57. After considering the material on record as also the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and the State, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appellants cannot be convicted as the evidence of injured eye-witnesses is also not trustworthy and the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of this evidence. 58. Appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2003 preferred by the State against the order of acquittal against the original Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 8 to 17, 19 to 22, SmLV.R.Bhosale, learned APP submitted that the prosecution has established the case against these accused as well. For the forgoing discussion, we are unable to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the State. 59. In the result, the judgment and order dated September 12, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.422000 is hereby quashed and set aside. Criminal Appeal No.1103 of 2002 preferred by original Accused No.7-Subhash and the Criminal Appeal No.1365 of 2002 preferred by original Accused Nos.1-Balu, 4Anil, 6-Jayaram and 7-Subhash are allowed. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless they are required in any other case. Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2003 preferred by the State Government against the order of acquittal against the original Accused Nos. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless they are required in any other case. Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2003 preferred by the State Government against the order of acquittal against the original Accused Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8 to 17 and 19 to 22 is dismissed. 60. Before parting with the judgment, we note that in the broad day-light two murders were committed. The investigating machinery did not investigate the case with promptitude. As noted earlier, the statements of the injured eye witnesses were not recorded on the day of incident and were recorded on the next day, which, as observed earlier, has created cloud of suspicion. The investigating agencies did not record statement of Kunda and the statement of police constable Bhagat. The prosecution did not make clear whether Kunda had actually witnessed the incident and if so, why she did not lodge the FIR. The investigating officer did not record statements of the persons who were on the spot as also of the persons who were residing in the locality. Because of the cumulative effect of these inactions, the prosecution could not bring on record the legal evidence to sustain the convictions and we are left with no alternative but to acquit the accused by giving them benefit of doubt. We regret for not doing justice to the victims. Ordered accordingly.