Judgment :- A.P. LAVANDE, J. Confirmation Case No.4/2008 along with connected four appeals are being disposed of by common Judgment since they arose out of the Judgment and order dated 15/24th September, 2008 passed by the Special Court at Bhandara in Special Criminal Case No.01/2007 filed by Central Bureau of Investigation against eleven accused. 2. All the eleven accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 354, 449, 201, 148 read with Section 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. By the impugned Judgment accused Nos.1 to 3; 6 to 9 and 11 have been convicted and sentenced for different offences and accused Nos.4, 5 and 10 have been acquitted of all the offences for which they have been charged. The details of conviction and sentences imposed on accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 are as under: Accused Sections Sentence nos. 1 to 3, 6 to 9 302 r/w 149 Imprisonment for life and and 11. for murder payment of fine of Rs.2000/- of Surekha each i/d to undergo S.I. for six months each. 2,3,6 and 9 302 r/w 149 Sentenced to death i.e. for murder hang by neck till death and of Sudhir payment of fine of Rs.2000/- each i/d to undergo S.I. for six months each. 1 and 11 302 r/w 149 Imprisonment for life and for murder payment of fine of Rs.2000/- of Sudhir each i/d to undergo S.I. for six months each. 2,3 & 6 to 9 302 r/w 149 Sentenced to death i.e. for murder hang by neck till death and of Roshan payment of fine of Rs.2000/- each i/d to undergo S.I. for six months each. 1 and 11 302 r/w 149 Imprisonment for life and for murder payment of fine of Rs.2000/- of Roshan each i/d to undergo S.I. for six months each. 2,3 & 6 to 9 302 r/w 149 Sentenced to death i.e. for murder hang by neck till death and of Priyanka payment of fine of Rs.2000/- each i/d to undergo S.I. for six months each. 1 and 11 302 r/w 149 Imprisonment for life and for murder payment of fine of Rs.2000/- of Priyankaeach i/d to undergo S.I. for six months each. 1 and 11 302 r/w 149 Imprisonment for life and for murder payment of fine of Rs.2000/- of Priyankaeach i/d to undergo S.I. for six months each. 1 to 3 and 148 r/w 149 R.I. for three years and to 6 to 9 & 11 pay fine of Rs.1000/- each i/d to S.I. for three months each. 3. Confirmation Case No.4/2008 arises out of death sentence imposed on accused Nos.2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9; Criminal Appeal No.763/2008 has been filed by original accused Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9 challenging the conviction and sentences imposed on them; Criminal Appeal No.748/08 has been preferred by the original accused Nos.3,6,7 and 11 challenging the conviction and sentences imposed on them; Criminal Appeal No.170/09 has been preferred by Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, aggrieved by inadequacy of sentences imposed on accused Nos.1 and 11 and Criminal Appeal No.171/09 has been preferred by Central Bureau of Investigation challenging acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi), 3(2) (v) and 3(2) (vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. For the sake of convenience, the accused shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the trial court. 4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as follows: Informant Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange (P.W.17) was residing at outskirts of Khairlanji village called as 'Toli' with his wife Surekha and sons Sudhir and Roshan and daughter Priyanka. They belong to Mahar caste (scheduled caste). Sidharth Gajbhiye (P.W.11) Police Patil of nearby village Dhusala is their family friend. 5. On 13.9.2006 Siddharth Gajbhiye came to the house of Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange in the morning. Accused No.2 Sakru met Siddharth Gajbhiye and demanded back wages on account of which there was a dispute between them. Sidharth slapped Sakru. On the very day in the evening when Sidharth was proceedings towards Kandri he was assaulted by some villagers. On hearing the news of assault Surekha Bhotmange and Priyanka rushed there and brought Sidharth to their house. After two days Sidharth lodged report at Andhalgaon Police Station pursuant to which Crime No.52/06 was registered. Surekha Bhotmange gave statement identifying the persons/ accused who assaulted Siddharth pursuant to which attackers were arrested. On 29.9.2006 all the accused in Crime No.52/06 were released on bail. 6. After two days Sidharth lodged report at Andhalgaon Police Station pursuant to which Crime No.52/06 was registered. Surekha Bhotmange gave statement identifying the persons/ accused who assaulted Siddharth pursuant to which attackers were arrested. On 29.9.2006 all the accused in Crime No.52/06 were released on bail. 6. On 29.9.2006 at about 6 to 6.30 p.m. a group of about 40 persons surrounded the house of Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange and some of them shouted that they have been falsely implicated by Surekha. They also gave abuses of their caste. On seeing that Bhaiyalal ran away from the house. Surekha came out of her house and set fire to her cattle shed probably to ward off the attackers. Then Surekha tried to run away but she was chased and caught by the accused. She was assaulted by giving blows of sticks, bicycle chains and also by giving kicks and fist blows. Thereafter, Sudhir tried to run away but he was also chased by the accused and he was assaulted by giving blows of sticks, bicycle chains and by giving kicks and fist blows. His body was dragged near the body of Surekha who was already dead. All the accused then searched for other members of the family of Bhaiyalal. They traced Roshan in nearby cattle shed. Roshan freed himself and ran away towards the hand pump. All the accused chased him and caught him near hand pump where he was assaulted by giving blows of sticks, bicycle chains and by giving kicks and fist blows. Thereafter, accused caught Priyanka near the hand pump and all the accused beat her by giving blows in the same manner. On account of assault, Roshan and Priyanka died. Thereafter, all the accused brought four dead bodies at one place and threatened others not to tell about the incident to any one and further threatened that in case the incident is disclosed they would also meet with the same fate. Thereafter, accused brought one bullock cart and took four dead bodies towards the village Kandri and then dropped them in a canal. 6A. Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange after running away from his house went to the house of Siddharth Gajbhiye at Dhusala and told him about the incident. Siddharth made a phone call to Andhalgaon Police Station. Thereafter, Bhaiyalal, accompanied by son of Siddharth, went to Andhalgaon Police Station but did not lodge report since he was frightened. 6A. Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange after running away from his house went to the house of Siddharth Gajbhiye at Dhusala and told him about the incident. Siddharth made a phone call to Andhalgaon Police Station. Thereafter, Bhaiyalal, accompanied by son of Siddharth, went to Andhalgaon Police Station but did not lodge report since he was frightened. On the next day morning Bhaiyyalal went to search his family members but he could not trace them out. Then he went to Andhalgaon Police station and lodged report. By this time, the police had received information that the dead body of a girl with a tatoo mark 'Priyanka' on the hand was found in a canal which was fished out. Police called Bhaiyalal at Mohadi hospital where the dead body was taken. Bhaiyalal identified the dead body of Priyanka. On the same day at about 8.00 p.m. crime was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 7. On 1.10.2006 the Sub Divisional Police Officer Mr. Susatkar arrested about eighteen persons on suspicion. On the same day three more dead bodies i.e. of Surekha, Sudhir and Roshan Bhotmange were also found. Police prepared inquest panchanamas of these dead bodies and the dead bodies were sent for post mortem. Since the investigation was not being carried out on proper lines, the State Government handed over the investigation of the crime to the State C.I.D.. However, not much progress was made in the investigation. 8. By notification dated 20.11.2006 the State of Maharashtra requested the Union of India to investigate the crime through Central Bureau of Investigation. Central Bureau of Investigation started investigation by registering the crime at Special Crime Branch of C.B.I. Chennai vide No.11-S-2006. Thereafter, investigation was taken up by SDPO of CBI Shri N.K.Sharma which was followed by Dy. S.P. CBI Shri Nandkumar. In the course of investigation, CBI recorded statements of several witnesses. CBI sought discharge of thirty six accused who were suspected to be involved in the crime which was granted by the learned Magistrate. Statements of several witnesses were also got recorded by the Magistrate in terms of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. S.P. CBI Shri Nandkumar. In the course of investigation, CBI recorded statements of several witnesses. CBI sought discharge of thirty six accused who were suspected to be involved in the crime which was granted by the learned Magistrate. Statements of several witnesses were also got recorded by the Magistrate in terms of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After completion of the investigation, CBI submitted charge sheet against eleven accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and offences under The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mohadi committed case to the court of Sessions. Thereafter, the case was transferred to Special Court for trial. The Special Court framed charge against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 148, 149, 354, 201 read with Section 149 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) and Section 3 (2)(v) and 3(2)(vi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of total denial and of false implication. 9. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined thirty six witnesses and produced several documents to bring home the charge to the accused. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. The learned trial Judge upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution convicted and sentenced the accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 for different offences as stated above. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused Nos.4,5 and 10 of all the offences for which they were charged. The learned trial Judge awarded the death sentence to accused Nos.2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. 10. We heard at length Mr. Sudeep Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7, Mr. N.S.Khandewale, learned counsel for the accused Nos.3, 6, 7 and 11 and Mr. Ejaz Khan, learned Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the CBI. With the assistance of learned counsel for the accused and learned Special P.P. we perused the record. 11. Mr. Sudeep Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7, Mr. N.S.Khandewale, learned counsel for the accused Nos.3, 6, 7 and 11 and Mr. Ejaz Khan, learned Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the CBI. With the assistance of learned counsel for the accused and learned Special P.P. we perused the record. 11. Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 submitted that the conviction of accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 and sentences imposed on them are liable to be set aside, inter alia, on the following grounds. i) The evidence of the eye witnesses i.e. Mukesh Aasaram Pusam (P.W.2); Suresh Shalikram Khandate (P.W.3), Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange (P.W.17), Dinesh Dhande (P.W.19) and Premlal Walke (P.W.22) does not inspire confidence and as such is liable to be rejected. ii) There has been inordinate and unexplained delay in recording the statements of the witnesses more particularly of the eye witnesses which is fatal to the prosecution case. iii) The evidence of the so called eye witnesses is full of contradictions and omissions seriously affecting their credibility. iv) Extra judicial confessions alleged to have been made by the accused Nos.2 and 8 to P.W.10 Anil Lede and P.W.16 Sunil Lede do not inspire confidence. v) The prosecution evidence is tainted and is of only interested witnesses and, therefore, is liable to be rejected. vi) The medical evidence is at variance with ocular testimony and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution. vii) The death sentence awarded to accused Nos.2,6 and 7 is not warranted inasmuch as the case can not be termed as rarest of rare case warranting imposition of death sentence. In support of his submissions, Mr. Jaiswal relied upon the following authorities. i) State of M.P. vs. Kriparam (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 675. ii) State of Punjab vs.Hardam Singh & others. (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 679. iii) Rangrao Mithuji Kalokar & ors. vs. State of Maharashtra. 2006 ALL MR(CRI) NOC 90. iv) State of Maharashtra vs. Ahmed Gulam Nabi Shaikh & ors. 1996 (4) CRIMES 352 . v) Kikar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1993 SC 2426 . vi) State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Punati Ramulu and others, AIR 1993 SC 2644 vii) Mohinder Singh & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra. 2006 ALL MR(CRI) NOC 90. iv) State of Maharashtra vs. Ahmed Gulam Nabi Shaikh & ors. 1996 (4) CRIMES 352 . v) Kikar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1993 SC 2426 . vi) State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Punati Ramulu and others, AIR 1993 SC 2644 vii) Mohinder Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab and others, 2003 ALL MR(CRI) 2330 viii) State of U.P. vs. Mundrika & others. I(2001) CCR 80 SC ix) Sirima Narashimha Rao & others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2010 (1) BCR 802. x) Shankar Lal vs. State of Haryana AIR 1998 CRLJ 4592 xi) Tarseem Kumar vs. The Delhi Administration AIR 1994 SC 2585 xii) Dilavar Hussain and others. vs. State of Gujrat and another, 1991 (1) SCC 253 xiii) Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala AIR 1993 SC 1892 xiv) Omwati vs. Mahendra Singh & others, (1) 1998 CCR 130 SWC xv) Tahsildar Singh and another vs. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012 . 12. Mr. Khandewale, learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.2,6,7 and 11 assailed conviction and sentences imposed on these accused, inter alia, on the following grounds. i) There is unexplained and inordinate delay of 24 to 26 hours in lodging F.I.R. by Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange (P.W.17) which creates serious doubt about prosecution case. ii) F.I.R. (Exh. 133) is full of discrepancies and the written F.I.R. (Exh. 134) does not correspondence with the oral report lodged by P.W.17 Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange and the same has been fabricated by the investigation officer Siddeshwar Bharne (P.W.23). iii) The evidence of eye witnesses is full of material contradictions and omissions and tenor of their evidence discloses that they were not the real eye witnesses to the incident. iv) There has been inordinate delay in recording the statements of the witnesses, more particularly the eye witnesses which throws serious doubt on the prosecution case. v) The extra judicial confessions alleged to have been made by accused Nos.2 and 8 to P.W.10 Anil Lede, P.W.15 Gopichan Mohature and P.W.16 Sunil Lede do not inspire confidence since both these witnesses were induced to be the witnesses to the alleged extra judicial confessions. vi) The medical evidence tendered by the prosecution thorough P.W.14 Dr. v) The extra judicial confessions alleged to have been made by accused Nos.2 and 8 to P.W.10 Anil Lede, P.W.15 Gopichan Mohature and P.W.16 Sunil Lede do not inspire confidence since both these witnesses were induced to be the witnesses to the alleged extra judicial confessions. vi) The medical evidence tendered by the prosecution thorough P.W.14 Dr. Avinash Shende is at variance with ocular testimony inasmuch as he has clearly admitted that incise wounds found on the deceased could be caused only by sharp edged weapon which is contrary to the prosecution case. vii) The medical evidence clearly belies evidence of the eye witnesses. viii) The prosecution has chosen not to show weapons i.e. sticks and bicycle chains seized during the investigation to Dr. Avinash Shende (P.W.14) in order to establish that these weapons could have caused injuries found on the deceased. ix) The entire investigation carried out by the CBI is tainted and with a view to falsely implicate eleven accused in the crime. x) The death sentence awarded to accused Nos.3,6 and 7 is not warranted since the case can not be termed as rarest of rare. In support of his submissions, Mr. Khandewale, placed reliance on the following judgments. i) Motilal and another vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 454. ii) State of Punjab vs. Avtar Singh (2009) 10 SCC 800 iii) State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 14 SCALE 118 . iv) Sau. Panchafula Ramchandra Khadse & another vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 ALL MR (Cri.) 375 v) Ramesh Baburao Devaskar & ors. vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 ALL MR (CRI) 293 (SC). vi) Shankarlal vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2004 SC 3559 . vii) State of Rajasthan vs. Sheo Singh & others. AIR 2003 SC 1783 viii) Ashraf Hussain Shaj vs. State of Maharashtra 1996 CRLJ 3147 . ix) Pannayar vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( (2009)9 SCC 152 ). x) Pratap Singh and another vs. State of M.P. 2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 624. xi) State of Rajasthan vs. Bhanwar Singh & others, 2004 (5) SCALE 711 . xii) Badam Singh vs. State of M.P. (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 792. xiii) State Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 172. xiv) Ashish Batham vs. State of M.P. AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3206. xi) State of Rajasthan vs. Bhanwar Singh & others, 2004 (5) SCALE 711 . xii) Badam Singh vs. State of M.P. (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 792. xiii) State Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 172. xiv) Ashish Batham vs. State of M.P. AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3206. xv) Shrishti Narain Jha vs. Bindeshwar Jha and others, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 457. xvi) State of Maharashtra vs. Pralhad Champatrao Deshbhratar and others, 2005(1) MHLJ 784 xvii) State of M.P. vs. Bacchudas @ Balram & others, (2007)9 Supreme Court Cases 135. xviii) Lakhwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2577. xix) Brijpal Singh vs. State of M.P. 2003 AIR SCW 2480. xx) State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Swarnalatha and others, IV(2009) CCR 286 (SC). xxi) Dhanapal vs. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras IV(2009) CCR 243 (SC) xxii) Jai Singh & others. vs. The State of Karnataka 2007 (5) SCAL 658. xxiii) Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel vs. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel and other, (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 583. xxiv) Babu and others v. State of U.P. AIR 1983 Supreme Court 308. xxv) Sunil Chokhoba Shambarkar & another vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 360 xxvi) State of Rajashthan vs. Netrapal & others, (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 45. xxvii) Haru Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal IV(2009)CCR 7 (SC). xxviii) Sushil Kumar vs. State of Punjab IV(2009) CCR 193 (SC). xxix) Lehna vs. Stateof Haryana (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 76. xxx) Jagjit Singh alias Jagga vs. State of Punjab (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 689. xxxi) Dhananjay Shanker Shetty vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2787. xxxii) Ramdas And others vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 170. 13. Mr. Khan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the CBI while supporting the impugned Judgment and order submitted that accused Nos.1 and 11 ought to have been awarded death sentence and the reasons given by the learned trial court for awarding life imprisonment are patently unsustainable in law. 13. Mr. Khan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the CBI while supporting the impugned Judgment and order submitted that accused Nos.1 and 11 ought to have been awarded death sentence and the reasons given by the learned trial court for awarding life imprisonment are patently unsustainable in law. He further submitted that the acquittal of the accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 9 and 11 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x), 3(1) (xi) and 3(2)(v) and (vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is patently unsustainable in law inasmuch as the prosecution has clearly established the ingredients of the said offences against the accused. Therefore, the acquittal of the said accused for the offences punishable under the said provisions is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the investigation of the crime has been carried out by CBI by following scientific methods and only after verifying the complicity of the accused, CBI filed the charge sheet against the accused. He further submitted that the evidence of the eye witnesses P.W.2 Mukesh Pusam, P.W.3 Suresh Khandate, P.W.19 Dinesh Dhande and P.W.22 Premlal Walke inspire confidence and is in consonance with their statements before the CBI and the Magistrate and, therefore, there is absolutely no reason to discard their evidence. He further submitted that the delay in lodging report by P.W. 17 Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange is not fatal inasmuch as he was frightened after seeing the mob near his house which made him to run away from the spot. He further submitted that the evidence of the hostile witness P.W.20 Mahadeo Zanzad to some extent corroborates the version of the other eye witnesses and, therefore, to that extent his evidence has to be considered, more particularly having regard to the fact that the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India. He further submitted that extra judicial confessions made by the accused Nos.2 and 8 to P.W.10 Anil Lede, P.W.15 Gopichand Mohature and P.W.16 Sunil Lede inspire confidence and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve their extra judicial confessions. He further submitted that the contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the eye witnesses are on minor aspects which do not discredit their entire testimony. He further submitted that the contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the eye witnesses are on minor aspects which do not discredit their entire testimony. He, therefore, submitted that the Judgment and Order passed by the learned trial court be modified by convicting accused Nos.1,2,3,4,6 to 9 and 11 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) and (vi) of the S.C. S.T. Act and the accused Nos.1 and 11 be awarded death sentence. In support of his submission, Mr. Khan relied upon the following judgments; i) Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtra and others. AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1973 ii) Swaran Singh and others vs. State 2008 CRI.L.J. 4369. iii) Bachcha vs. State of U.P. 2008 CRI.L.J. 483. iv) Vidyadharan vs. State of Kerala 2004 CRI.L.J. 605. v) Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1692. vi) Mohd. Azad @ Samin v. State of West Bengal. AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1307. vii) Gura Singh vs. State of Rajashthan (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 205. viii) Kailash vs. State of M.P. (2006)11 Supreme Court Cases 420. ix) Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 315. x) State of U.P. vs. Premi & others. (2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases 12. xi) State of Rajasthan vs. Laxman Singh and others. (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 65. 13A. In rejoinder, Mr. Jaiswal and Mr. Khandewale submitted that the offences under The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not made out against the accused. Learned counsel further submitted that accused Nos.1 and 11 do not deserve death sentence. Learned counsel further submitted that not only accused Nos.1 and 11 do not deserve death sentence but other accused who have been sentenced to death also do not deserve death sentence since the case can not be termed as rarest of rare case. 14. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused and learned Spl. P.P.. 15. Before we analysis the evidence of the eye witnesses we would like to deal with the medical evidence tendered by the prosecution to prove that all the four deceased viz. Priyanka Bhaiyalal Bhotmange, Roshan Bhaiyalal Bhotmange, Sudhir Bhaiyalal Bhotmange and Surekha Bhaiyalal Bhotmange died homicidal death. The prosecution has examined Dr. P.P.. 15. Before we analysis the evidence of the eye witnesses we would like to deal with the medical evidence tendered by the prosecution to prove that all the four deceased viz. Priyanka Bhaiyalal Bhotmange, Roshan Bhaiyalal Bhotmange, Sudhir Bhaiyalal Bhotmange and Surekha Bhaiyalal Bhotmange died homicidal death. The prosecution has examined Dr. Avinash John Shende (P.W.14)-Medical Officer who at the relevant time was posted at Sihora Rural Hospital and was deputed at Mohadi Rural Hospital for the period April to November, 2006. He deposed that he had conducted about 20 to 25 post mortems. On 30.9.2006 dead body of Priyanka Bhaiyalal Bhotmange was referred to him for post mortem. He conducted the post mortem on the same day. He found the following external injuries. i) Incised would over the scalp at the left tempero occipital region with fracture of tempero occipital bone 5 (length) x 2 (breadth) x 1 (depth) cm. In size. ii) Incised wound over the right parietal bone 3 x 1 x 0.5 c.m. iii) Marks of strips of chain over the middle half of the right thigh extending from the lateral surface to the frontal aspect horizontally 15 x 1 cm.. iv) Marks of signs of chain over the right middle half of the right thigh above the injury No.3 parallel to the injury No.3 having size 10 x 1 cm.. v) Marks of strips of chain over the left thigh lower 1/3 frontal aspect 3 x 1 cm. In size. vi) Contusion over mandible middle part 3 x 1 cm. In size. vii) Contusion over the left hand 4 x 4 cm. In size. viii) Contusion all over the left forearm with collies fracture left side. ix) Marks and strips of chain extending from the above of the mid clavicular line to the lower end of stern - um on chest about 15 x 1 cm.. x) Contusion over the chest, left side at the level 10th to 12th rib about 3 x 2 cm. In size. xi) Contusions over the back of chest right having size 7 x 5 cm. At the level of scapula. 15A. All those injuries were ante mortem. Injury Nos.1 and 2 were on vital parts of that dead-body. These injuries No.1 and 2 were sufficient in ordinary course nature to cause death. Injuries Nos.3,4, 5 and 9 could have been caused by giving blows of cycle chain. At the level of scapula. 15A. All those injuries were ante mortem. Injury Nos.1 and 2 were on vital parts of that dead-body. These injuries No.1 and 2 were sufficient in ordinary course nature to cause death. Injuries Nos.3,4, 5 and 9 could have been caused by giving blows of cycle chain. Rest of the injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object. 15B. On internal examination of dead body, he found the following injuries. i) There was haemorrhage on left tempero occipital region which was beneath the external injury No.1. ii) There was haemorrhage at right parital region which was beneath external injury no.2. iii) Fracture of tempero occipital bone. iv) Fracture of frontal bone. 15C. Internal injuries Nos.3 and 4 were also corresponding to external injuries No.1 and 2. Probable cause of death was due to intracranial haemorrhage due to head injury. He had issued post mortem Exh. 120. He confirmed its contents as correct and identified his signature on the same. 15D. He further deposed that on 1.10.2006 the dead body of Roshan Bhaiyalal Bhotmange was referred to him for post mortem which was conducted by him on the same day. On external examination he found the following injuries. i) Contusion over the middle half of the right leg 3 x 2 cm in size caused by hard and rough object. ii) Contusion over the right medial surface of the ankle 2 x 2 cm in size. iii) Contusion over the right side of the middle chest 5 x 3 cm in size. iv) Contusion over the right side abdomen at midelavicular line 3 x 2 cm. In size. v) Lacerated wound over the floor of the right eye 2x2x1 cm deep with fracture floor of the right eye. vi) Contusion over the right eye. vii) Mouth is damaged teeth in tact with fracture midline of the mandible at chin. viii) Lacerated wound over the frontal bone right side 2 x 0.5 x 3 cm. Insize having fracture at the frontal bone. ix) Lacerated wound on the back of head 6 x 1 x 1 cm extending from the right siide to left side of occipital bone. x) Lacerated wound over and above, the right ear on the temporal bone 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm. 15E. All these injuries were ante mortem. Insize having fracture at the frontal bone. ix) Lacerated wound on the back of head 6 x 1 x 1 cm extending from the right siide to left side of occipital bone. x) Lacerated wound over and above, the right ear on the temporal bone 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm. 15E. All these injuries were ante mortem. Out of these injuries, injuries Nos.8,9 and 10 were on the vital parts of body and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. All the injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On internal examination of dead body of Roshan Bhotmange he found the following injury. i) Haemorrhage under the scalp at right frontal bone beneath external injury No.8. 15F. The probable cause of death of Roshan Bhotmange was due to intracranial haemorrhage due to head injury. Accordingly, he issued post mortem report Exh. 121. He identified his signature on the same and confirmed its contents as true. 16. On 1.10.2006 dead body of Sudhir Bhaiyalal Bhotmange was brought to him for post mortem. He conducted post mortem and on external examination he found the following injuries. i) Abrasion over the right knee, a) 5 x 2 cm. In size; b) 2 x 2 cm in size over patella. ii) Contusion over the shin of right tibia 8 x w cm in size lateral surface. iii) Contusion over the chest 10 x 5 cm over left side from the medial sternal end to midclavicular line. iv) Contusion over the left medial half forearm with swelling with crepitus with fracture middle half of ulna. v) Contusion over the right lower chest 3 x 2 cm. vi) Abrasion over the left knee 4 x 1 cm. In size over patella. vii) Abrasion over the ankle lateral surface a) 3 x 2 cm. b) 2 x 1 cm right side. viii) Contusion over the left eye which was swollen. ix) Lacerated wound over the left parietal bone 4 x 1 x 0.5 cm in size. x) Lacerated wound over the lateral surface of left eye 3 x 0.5 x 1 cm. in size. xi) Lacerated wound over the right frontal region 3 x 1 x 1 cm. in size. xii) Lacerated wound over the right parietal bone 1x 1x 1 cm. in size. x) Lacerated wound over the lateral surface of left eye 3 x 0.5 x 1 cm. in size. xi) Lacerated wound over the right frontal region 3 x 1 x 1 cm. in size. xii) Lacerated wound over the right parietal bone 1x 1x 1 cm. in size. xiii) Lacerated wound over and above te right ear at the region of right temporal 1 x 1 x 1 cm. in size. xiv) Lacerated wound over the back of head at the occipital region 4 x 2 x 1 cm. in size. xv) Fracture of vault of scull extending from the lateral canthus of left eye to the midparietal suture about 15 cm size. All these injuries were ante mortem. Injuries Nos.9 and 11 to 15 were on the vital parts of body and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object. On internal examination of dead body of Sudhir Bhotmange, he found haemorrhage under scalp present at left front to parietal region which corresponds to external injury No.15. The probable cause of death of Sudhir was due to intracranial haemorrhage due to head injury. Accordingly, he issued post mortem note Exh. 122. He confirmed its contents as true and identified his signature on the same. 16A. On 1.10.2006 dead body of Surekha Bhaiyalal Bhotmange was brought to him for post mortem and he conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Surekha Bhaiyalal Bhotmange and on external examination he found the following injuries; i) Incised wound over the scalp extending from left parietal bone to the frontal bone right side with expose of the scull parts 8 x 7 m 0.5 cm. In size. ii) Incised wound left temporal side obliquely for 4" x 0.5 in size. iii) Incised wound right lateral side, shin of tibia upper 1/3, 5 x 3 x 3.5 cm in size. iv) Incised wound over the face below right eye 2 cm below 1 x 1 x 0.5 cm in size. v) Incised wound over the right temporal 3 x 2 x 1 cm in size. vi) Contusion over the middle half of the lower leg left side with fracture tibia fibula. vii) Contusion over the left knee joint 5 x 2 cm. in size with fracture left knee joint. v) Incised wound over the right temporal 3 x 2 x 1 cm in size. vi) Contusion over the middle half of the lower leg left side with fracture tibia fibula. vii) Contusion over the left knee joint 5 x 2 cm. in size with fracture left knee joint. viii) Incised wound over the base of the right knee with fracture base of phalanx 1 x 1 x 1 cm. ix) Contusion over the right wrist having fracture coll'es right. x) Contusion over the right lower 1/3 of thigh frontal aspect 5 x 3. xi) Marks of strips of chain over the right lateral surface of thigh to frontal thigh 15 x 1 cm. with contusion of the part. xii) Marks of strips of chain over the left side of the chest above the left breast 10 x 1 cm. xiii) Contusion over the right middle half of lower leg 3 x 2 cm in size. xiv) Contusion over the left thigh middle half of the frontal aspect 3 x 2 cm in size. xv) Abrasion over the lower 1/3 of the left leg 2 x 1 cm. in size. xvi) Abrasion over the lower 1/3 of right leg 3 x 2 cm in size. 16B. All these injuries were ante mortem. Injuries Nos.1 to 5 were on the vital parts of the body and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injuries 1 to 10 and 13 to 16 could have been caused by hard and blunt object. Injury Nos.11 and 12 could have been caused by giving blows of metal chain. 16C. On internal examination he found the following injuries; i) Haemorrhage at left temporal occipital bone which corresponds to external injury no.1. ii) Haemorrhage at right temporal bone, which corresponds to external injury No.5. iii) Fracture at left tempero occipital bone, which corresponds to injury no.1. iv) Fracture on right frontal bone, which also corresponds to injury no.1. v) Fracture at right temporal bone which corresponds to injury no.5. Probable cause of death of Surekha Bhotmange was due to intracranial haemorrhage due to head injuries. Accordingly, he issued poste mortem note Exh. 123. He confirmed its contents as true and he identified his signature on the same. 16D. v) Fracture at right temporal bone which corresponds to injury no.5. Probable cause of death of Surekha Bhotmange was due to intracranial haemorrhage due to head injuries. Accordingly, he issued poste mortem note Exh. 123. He confirmed its contents as true and he identified his signature on the same. 16D. The witness further deposed that in all four dead bodies, he found semi digested food at small intestines and, therefore, he opined that all these four persons had died after about 5 to 6 hours of their last meals. In cross examination he admitted that incised wounds can only be caused by sharp edged weapon. He also admitted that external injuries 1 to 5 and 8 as mentioned in column No.17 of the post mortem report of Surekha Bhotmange were caused only by sharp edged weapons. He admitted that external injuries No.1 and 2 as mentioned in column No.17 of the post mortem note of Priyanka Bhotmange were caused only by sharp edged weapons. He admitted that injury Nos.1 and 2 mentioned in column No.19 of post mortem note of Priyanka Bhotmange could have been caused by sharp and hard weapon. He also admitted that internal injuries as mention in column No.19 of the post mortem note of Surekha Bhotmange could have been caused by sharp and hard weapon. However, he denied the suggestion that if a person floats in canal water for kilometers, then he can sustain contused wound due to dash of the body against the canal. He admitted that there could be contusions and abrasions if one falls on hard rough and blunt surface. He further deposed that the chain marks are also known as ligature marks but he did not find ligature marks on any of the four bodies of which he had performed post mortem. The witness volunteered that he found ligature marks on the dead bodies of Surekha and Priyanka Bhotmange. He admitted that he had not mentioned in post mortem reports of Roshan and Sudhir Bhotmange that haemorrhage which caused their death was intracranial haemorrhage. He had not mentioned word "intracranial" because he forgot to write the same. He admitted that he knew the importance of writing correct dates. The witness admitted that the date mention at page No.7 of post mortem report of Priyanka Bhotmange at its bottom is 30.9.2009 and there is over writing on that date. He had not mentioned word "intracranial" because he forgot to write the same. He admitted that he knew the importance of writing correct dates. The witness admitted that the date mention at page No.7 of post mortem report of Priyanka Bhotmange at its bottom is 30.9.2009 and there is over writing on that date. He denied that initially the date 1.10.2006 was written and thereafter it was changed to 30.9.2006. The witness was shown the death certificate which was issued by him. The witness stated that the date mentioned in it at bottom was 30.9.2006 and not 30.8.2006. This certificate was marked as Exh. 124. He admitted that there was over writing at the place of date of page No.7 of both the post mortem notes of Roshan and Sudhir Bhotmange. He denied that it was earlier written as 5.10.2006. He denied that thereafter the same was changed to 1.10.2006. He admitted that provisional certificate of death is given on the basis of the notes of injuries in order to enable the investigating agency to set the line of their investigation. He admitted that he had prepared final report of post mortem after the dead bodies were handed over. He denied that on 1.10.2006 he had conducted one post mortem and then scribed final report and then conducted another post mortem. Witness volunteered that he had conducted three post mortems one after the other and thereafter scribed final post mortem reports. He admitted that at page No.8 of the post mortem of Priyanka he had corrected the earlier date of 1.10.2006 to 30.9.2006. He further stated that it was not necessary that in every homicidal death viscera should be preserved. He denied the suggestion that police had taken post mortem notes from him on 5.10.2006. He deposed that peeling of skin on the dead bodies of Roshan, Sudhir and Surekha Bhotmange was sign of decomposition. 16E. The witness further admitted that his services were terminated with effect from 9.11.2006 and the same was terminated since his work was not found satisfactory and that he was again given fresh appointment by Government. He admitted that as he had conducted those post mortems he was terminated alleging that his work was not satisfactory. Witness stated that decomposition starts after 24 hours. In further cross examination he admitted that Priyanka had died about 16 to 18 hours before conducting post mortem. He admitted that as he had conducted those post mortems he was terminated alleging that his work was not satisfactory. Witness stated that decomposition starts after 24 hours. In further cross examination he admitted that Priyanka had died about 16 to 18 hours before conducting post mortem. Other three persons died about 30 to 34 hours before conduction of their post mortem. He admitted that he has not noted the age of injuries on the post mortem notes. He had mentioned the time of death approximately. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted post mortem of those bodies. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted any post mortem before conducting the post mortem on the four dead bodies. 17. The evidence of the above witness, which has not been shaken on material aspects in the cross examination, clearly proves that all the four deceased viz. Priyanka Bhotmange, Roshan Bhotmange, Sudhir Bhotmange and Surekha Bhotmange died homicidal death. Same also stand corroborated by inquest panchanamas Exhs. 91, 86,88 and 87 of Priyanka Bhotmange, Roshan Bhotmange, Sudhir Bhotmange and Surekha Bhotmange respectively which have not been seriously disputed. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove that Priyanka Bhotmange, Roshan Bhotmange, Sudhir Bhotmange and Surekha Bhotmange died homicidal death. 18. The learned counsel for the accused and learned Special P.P. for CBI have cited several authorities in support of various propositions regarding delay in lodging FIR, delay in recording statement of a witness, variance between medical and ocular evidence, etc.. which we have referred hereinabove. We do not propose to deal with the authorities individually but we propose to mention the propositions for which the authorities have been cited. 19. The following propositions emerge from the authorities cited by Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the accused Nos.1,2,6 and 7. i) Unexplained delay in lodging First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case. ii) In case of material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses the accused are entitled to acquittal. iii) Accused can not be convicted, if the prosecution evidence is tainted. iv) Unexplained delay in recording statements of material witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case. v) If there is variance between ocular testimony and medical evidence the prosecution case becomes doubtful. vi) The evidence of a witness full of material contradictions does not deserve any credence. 20. iii) Accused can not be convicted, if the prosecution evidence is tainted. iv) Unexplained delay in recording statements of material witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case. v) If there is variance between ocular testimony and medical evidence the prosecution case becomes doubtful. vi) The evidence of a witness full of material contradictions does not deserve any credence. 20. The following propositions emerge from the authorities cited by Mr. N.S.Khandewale, learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.2,6,7 and 11. i) Unexplained delay in lodging First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case; ii) When investigation is slipshod, benefit must go to the accused; iii) Unexplained delay in recording statement of eye witnesses creates doubt upon the prosecution case; iv) Testimony of an interested witness needs careful and close scrutiny; v) The evidence of a witness full of material contradictions on vital aspects has to be rejected; vi) No interference in appeal against acquittal if two views are possible; vii) Proof of motive though not necessary if there is direct evidence, the absence of motive is relevant in deciding complicity of the accused in the commission of crime. viii) Failure to prove motive assumes importance if there are other circumstances creating doubt about prosecution case. ix) Death sentence is to be imposed in rarest of rare case. 21. The following propositions emerge from the authorities relied upon by Mr. Khan, learned Spl. P.P.. i) Normal discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses are not fatal to the prosecution case; ii) The medical evidence need not always be treated as sacrosanct; iii) Maxim "Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in India; iv) If there is cogent and strong evidence, mere wrong recording of time of lodging of First Information Report is not fatal to the prosecution case; v) Failure to name one or more accused in FIR is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of eye witness if it is trustworthy; vi) Relationship is not a factor which would affect the credibility of a witness; vii) Mere presence in an unlawful assembly can not render a person liable for the offence unless he shares common object; viii) Statement of a witness recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration to corroborate the evidence of a witness in committing court. ix) The evidence of a hostile witness need not be rejected in toto; x) The conviction can be based on extra judicial confession, if it is made voluntarily, without coercion, influence or pressure; xi) Evidentiary value of extra judicial confession must be judged having regard to the circumstances in which it was made and the credibility of the witness who testifies thereto; xii) Confession can be made even to a private person or a Magistrate. 22. We now proceed to analyse the prosecution evidence. We shall first deal with the evidence of the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove complicity of the accused in the crime. The prosecution examined five witnesses claiming to be eye witnesses viz. Mukesh Pusam (P.W.2), Suresh Khandate (P.W.3), Dinesh Dhande (P.W.19), Mahadeo Zhanzad (P.W.20) and Premlal Walke (P.W.22). We shall separately deal with the evidence of Bhaiyalal Bhotmange (P.W.17) who lodged first information report. According to the prosecution itself, Bhaiyalal Bhotmange is not an eye witness to the actual incident of assault on the deceased and it is the case of Bhaiyalal Bhotmange himself that after seeing the crowd near his house he ran away from the spot. 23. Mukesh Pusam (P.W.2) deposed that on 29.9.2006 at 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. he was present in front side courtyard of his house. He heard shouts of accused No.8 Jagdish and saw that 10-12 persons were standing in front of the house of Surekha. Out of them he identified accused No.1 Gopal, accused no.2 Sakru, accused no.3 Shatrughna, accused No.6 Vishwanath, accused No.7 Ramu, accused No.8 Jagdish and accused No.9 Prabhakar. Accused No.8 Jagdish gave abuses and said to Surekha Bhotmange to come out of her house. Surekha then came out of her house and set fire to her cattle shed to ward off the accused. Then she ran away towards triangular open space at back side of her house. Some accused put off fire, while some chased her. Accused No.8 Jagdish caught Surekha, pulled her hair and dragged her to a nearby drain and dipped her in it 23 times. By then other aforesaid accused reached there. All those seven accused then beat Surekha by fists, kicks and with chains and killed her. They then brought the dead body to Dhusala road situated nearby. Then those persons shouted to kill other members of Surekha's family. By then other aforesaid accused reached there. All those seven accused then beat Surekha by fists, kicks and with chains and killed her. They then brought the dead body to Dhusala road situated nearby. Then those persons shouted to kill other members of Surekha's family. Sudhir Bhotmange then came out of his house in underwear and ran towards Dhusala road. Then those accused chased him and thereafter dragged him near dead body of Surekha. After that those accused found Roshan Bhotmange at cattle shed of Ramdas Khandate. Roshan told them that he did not cause harm to anyone and so he should not be beaten. Roshan, then ran towards bore - well. Those accused chased him and caught him near bore - well and beat him by bicycle chains and sticks and killed him. Thereafter, those accused searched for Priyanka. This witness then heard shouts of Priyanka in agony of being killed. Thereafter, accused No.3 Shatrughna and accused No.7 Ramu dragged dead body of Roshan while accused No.2 Sakru and accused no.8 Jagdish dragged dead body of Priyanka near other two dead bodies. Thereafter, accused No.7 Ramu and accused No.9 Prabhakar shouted that if anyone would tell anything against them then they would meet the same fate as those four persons. Thereafter, this witness came to his house on being frightened. After some time he saw that accused No.8 Jagdish was riding a bullock-cart in which those dead bodies were kept. He also saw accused No.2 Sakru, accused No.3 Shatrughna, accused No.7 Ramu and accused No.9 Prabhakar followed that bullocks cart which was taken towards village Kandri. 23A. In cross-examination he admitted that he did not see Sudhir, Roshan and Priyanka being beaten and killed. In cross-examination it was suggested to him that on seeing some persons in front of the house Surekha set fire to her cattle shed and before that these persons were arguing with Surekha. It was also suggested by the defence to the accused that when he heard shouts of Surekha he was standing in front of his house as mentioned in the statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate which suggestion was admitted by the witness. The witness also admitted that there was little rain and no electric light at that time. The witness also admitted that he had contested the election and lost by two votes and at that time accused had helped the opponent. The witness also admitted that there was little rain and no electric light at that time. The witness also admitted that he had contested the election and lost by two votes and at that time accused had helped the opponent. The witness deposed that he first heard shouts of Jagdish and then he looked in that direction and saw 10-12 persons were standing in front of the house of Surekha. In cross-examination the omission vis-a-vis his statement to CBI, CID and learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class to the extent of presence of 10 to 12 persons was brought on record. Another omission which was proved by the defence is that Surekha ran towards the compound which was in opposite side and on the basis of this defence contended that it was not possible for the witness to notice Surekha. It has also been brought on record in the cross-examination that the witness stated to the learned Magistrate that at that time there was little rain and no electric light. It was also brought on record that the witness had not stated as to which of the accused has assaulted by which weapon viz. stick, cycle chain or by kicks and fists blows. Another omission vis-a-vis the statement made to the police which has been proved is that he did not state that Sudhir came out of the house in underwear and ran towards the road towards his field. However, said fact finds place in the statement made by the witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. Another omission brought on record vis-a-vis the statement made to CBI is that he had not stated that accused were searching for Priyanka but this version is found in the statement made to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Mr. Pradip Ladekar (P.W.35) in which the witness stated that accused were asking where was her daughter. Having regard to the fact that Priyanka was admittedly the daughter of Surekha the version of the witness that the accused were asking for Priyanka needs to be accepted. Another contradiction in the nature of omission which has been brought on record is that he had not stated that accused No.7 Ramu Dhande had also threatened other persons of the locality after the incident. Another contradiction in the nature of omission which has been brought on record is that he had not stated that accused No.7 Ramu Dhande had also threatened other persons of the locality after the incident. Close scrutiny of the evidence of the above witness though discloses that there are certain contradictions and omissions vis-a-vis his earlier statements, in our considered opinion, same can not be said to be such as to discredit his version that he was present near his house which is admittedly situated very close to the house of Bhaiyalal Bhotmange (P.W.17). 24. No doubt if the evidence of a witness discloses material contradictions and omissions vis-a-vis earlier statement, the testimony of such witness does not inspire confidence. In the present case, admittedly after the dead bodies of four persons were found and investigation was taken up by the local police, indiscriminate arrests were made and in all 46 persons were arrested. According to the State itself, the prosecution did not proceed in the right direction and, therefore, investigation was handed over to State CID. Even the State CID did not carry out the investigation in proper direction and, therefore, ultimately the State Government handed over the investigation to CBI which after carrying out investigation sought discharge of 35 persons who were in custody which was granted by the learned Magistrate. The people in Khairlanji which is a small village in Bhandara District were frightened and probably on account of indiscriminate arrests of several persons from the village people were not ready to come out with the truth. In this factual background mere delay in recording the statements of the witnesses or disclosure of certain facts at a late stage would not be fatal to the prosecution case. The delay was inevitable because the investigation of the crime was handed over to CBI on 20.11.2006 and it was only thereafter the CBI could investigate the crime. Delay in recording the statements of the witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case if it is deliberate with a view to falsely implicate the persons in commission of the crime. In the present case, upon close scrutiny of the entire evidence of Mukesh we find it difficult to accept the defence version that he was not present on the spot on the date of the incident as deposed by him or that he was not an eye witness to the incident. In the present case, upon close scrutiny of the entire evidence of Mukesh we find it difficult to accept the defence version that he was not present on the spot on the date of the incident as deposed by him or that he was not an eye witness to the incident. No doubt there are some embellishments in the evidence of this witness. However, they would not destroy his entire evidence. It is difficult to accept the defence version that his presence on the spot is doubtful in view of the statement made by Mr. Vinayak Susatkar (P.W.25) the first investigation officer who deposed that his investigation reveals that Mukesh Pusam left the house on 29th September, 2006. The statement of Mr. Vinayak Susatkar whose investigation was found to be tainted by the State itself is not sufficient to discredit the testimony of Mukesh Pusam. Moreover, we are also unable to accept the defence version that it was not possible for him to see the incident since there was little rain and darkness. The incident had occurred at about 6 to 6.30 p.m. on 29.9.2006 and it is difficult to hold that only because the witness stated that it was dark he was not in a position to identify the accused from a close distance. 25. Another eye witness on which prosecution relied upon is Suresh Khandate (P.W.3). Suresh who is also residing in the close vicinity of Bhaiyalal Bhotmange deposed that he on hearing shouts came out of the house and saw accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 in front of the house of Bhaiyalal Bhotmange and some of them were armed with sticks and some were armed with chains. They shouted that Mahar caste people should be ousted from the village and then Surekha came out of her house and set fire to her cattle shed. Thereafter, accused Jagdish caught hair of Surekha and dipped her in the drain. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 to 9 and accused No.11 beat her to death. Then Sudhir came out of his house in underwear and those accused chased him and caught him and beat him to death by giving him blows with cycle chains and sticks. Thereafter, accused shouted to search for other members. After that those accused found Roshan behind the cattle shed of Ramdas Khandate behind the house of Bhayyalal. Then Sudhir came out of his house in underwear and those accused chased him and caught him and beat him to death by giving him blows with cycle chains and sticks. Thereafter, accused shouted to search for other members. After that those accused found Roshan behind the cattle shed of Ramdas Khandate behind the house of Bhayyalal. Roshan said that he should not be killed as he did not cause harm to any one but the accused did not pay heed. Those accused started beating him. So he ran away towards hand pump (bore-well). Then those accused caught him near hand pump and beat him to death. Then he heard shout of Priyanka in agony and thereafter accused No.7 Ramu and accused No.3 Shatrughna dragged dead body of Roshan while accused no.2 Sakru and accused No.8 Jagdish dragged dead body of Priyanka where dead bodies of Surekha and Sudhir were dumped. After some time a bullock cart was brought there and then the accused kept those dead bodies on that bullock cart. Accused No.8 Jagdish was riding that bullock cart while accused no.2 Sakru, accused no.3 Shatrughna and accused No.9 Prabhakar followed the bullock cart which proceeded towards Kandri. 25A. In cross-examination he stated that his house was in front to the house of Bhayyalal and Siddharth used to visit the house of Bhayyalal since he used to treat Surekha as his sister. He admitted that he had good relation with Bhotmange family members and he used to visit their house. He denied that the house of Mukesh was at the distance of about 30 ft. from his house and stated that it was about 10 ft. away. He also admitted that deceased Roshan and Sudhir were friends of his sons Mangesh and Kamal He admitted that he suffered from chickenguniya from 20.9.2006 and he was having severe pain in joints and he stated that he could not walk and he was taking treatment from the Doctor. He admitted that he did not go in the village between the period 20.9.2006 to 5.12.2006. He also stated that during the said period of about two months police neither asked him anything nor he told them anything. He admitted that after 4-5 days of the incident 2-3 police outposts were made but he did not know whether any police officer from CID used to come to the outpost. He also stated that during the said period of about two months police neither asked him anything nor he told them anything. He admitted that after 4-5 days of the incident 2-3 police outposts were made but he did not know whether any police officer from CID used to come to the outpost. He admitted that he did not tell anything about incident to the leaders, journalists or the social workers and the reason was that he was suffering from illness and as such he did not call those persons. However, in cross examination he admitted that he had stated to CBI about the place where Roshan was hiding and the cowshed in the field was not visible to him from the place near his house. He stated that he could not see Roshan at the house of Bhotmange. He further stated that he had stated to CBI that Roshan was found at cowshed which was at the place owned by Ramdas. His statement to CBI was correctly recorded. Similar statement was made to CBI that Roshan ran away from there and these persons chased him and apprehended him near the hand pump and that he was beaten to death and the same was correctly recorded. He further stated that he did not state so to the learned Magistrate since he did not ask him. He was confronted with the statements made to Magistrate and CBI wherein he had not stated that Jagdish shouted that other members of the house should be searched and killed. The witness could not give any reason for the omission. He also admitted that he had not told the Magistrate that the accused found Roshan at the back side of the shed of the house of Bhotmange. Similarly, he was confronted with the statement made to Magistrate wherein he had not stated that Jagdish and Vishwanath Dhande told that Mahar caste people should be ousted from the village and omission was duly proved. 25B. In further cross examination of the witness the following omissions vis-a-vis his statement to the Magistrate were brought on record. i) That he did not tell that all the accused ran after Surekha; ii) The bullocks of bullock-cart were red in colour. 25C. The witness further stated that his statement before the CBI that dead bodies were kept in bullock cart and were taken away towards Kandri village was correctly recorded. i) That he did not tell that all the accused ran after Surekha; ii) The bullocks of bullock-cart were red in colour. 25C. The witness further stated that his statement before the CBI that dead bodies were kept in bullock cart and were taken away towards Kandri village was correctly recorded. He further deposed that at the time of incident he was not able to run, to jump and to climb. He denied the suggestion that he could not see the object at long distance because of pain in the eyes. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen any of the accused beating Bhotmange family members or that none of the accused took away the dead bodies of the family members of Bhotmange in the bullock cart. He denied the suggestion that since Mukesh Pusam who was also belonging to the same caste has lost his election by two votes he had grudge against all the accused. He denied the suggestion that Bhaiyyalal had enticed him by offering money and, therefore, he falsely deposed against the accused. Similarly, he also denied the suggestion that CBI had offered money and a job in the village and, therefore, he deposed against the accused. He denied that he was facing prosecution for drinking liquor. The witness was shown one certified copy of the statement (Exh. 275) bearing his signature. He was shown another application (Exh. 276) made by him to the Collector for his rehabilitation. The witness admitted that he had applied to the Collector for rehabilitation. The witness stated that he had brought the copy of the application having his signature. He produced the same at Exh. 278. The witness stated that he deposed in the court on 2.7.2007 and Exh. 278 was prepared on 16.4.2007. He further deposed that the Social Welfare Officer had shown to him some agricultural land which would be immersed in Gose Khurd Dam Water and, therefore, they did not like the land. He was asked by the Social Welfare Officer to seek payment of Rs.10 lacks in stead of agricultural land and then he got prepared Exh. 277. He further stated that he and Mukesh (P.W.2) had applied at the same time. He denied the suggestion that the CBI proposed for his rehabilitation as he was witness in the case. He denied the suggestion that he was induced by CBI by promising his rehabilitation. 277. He further stated that he and Mukesh (P.W.2) had applied at the same time. He denied the suggestion that the CBI proposed for his rehabilitation as he was witness in the case. He denied the suggestion that he was induced by CBI by promising his rehabilitation. He admitted that he was residing at Khairlanji. The witness admitted that he was given police protection after he complained to the Police about threats. In re-examination on behalf of the CBI he stated that he had given application for rehabilitation as he faced threats from the relatives of the accused and for no other reason and he had expressed threats to his life. 25D. No doubt in the testimony of this witness there are certain contradictions and omissions vis-a-vis earlier statement but the core of his testimony has not been shaken in the cross examination and having regard to the fact that his house was very close to the house of Bhaiyyalal it was quite natural for this witness to witness the incident of assault on deceased. Insofar as the submission made by the learned counsel for the accused that this witness as well as Mukesh who had also filed similar applications for rehabilitation were induced to depose by promising to provide plots is concerned, we find merit in the submission of Mr. Ejaz Khan that CBI had no role to play in the rehabilitation of the two witnesses or in the attempt of the two witnesses to get rehabilitated on the ground that they faced threats from the villagers. It was for the State Government who had to take appropriate decision on the applications made by the two witnesses for rehabilitation as the same was part of the witness protection programme. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the mere fact that two witnesses had asked for rehabilitation on the ground that they were facing threats from the villagers and could not carry out any work in the village would not be a ground to disbelieve their version on oath. Suresh Khandate (P.W.3) though was suffering from Chicken Guniya, it is difficult to hold that he was not in a position to come out of his house and see the incident. Suresh Khandate (P.W.3) though was suffering from Chicken Guniya, it is difficult to hold that he was not in a position to come out of his house and see the incident. Testing their evidence on the touch stone of probabilities, we are of the considered opinion that, the evidence of both the witnesses i..e Mukesh Pusam (P.W.2) and Suresh Khandate (P.W.3) inspires confidence and their evidence clearly establishes the role of accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 in the commission of the crime. 26. The next eye witness examined by the prosecution is Dinesh Dhande (P.W.19). He deposed that he knew Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange and his family members. The house of Bhaiyyalal is at Toli area of Khairlanji. Bhaiyyalal was residing along with his wife Surekha, sons Sudhir, Roshan and daughter Priyanka. On 29.9.2006 in the evening he returned to his house and thereafter he went to the shop to purchase pan masala. On the way back he heard shouts from Toli area so he went to that area. He stood near an electric pole behind the house of Natthuji Khandate. He saw Surekha Bhotmange coming out from the back side of her house. Vishwanath Dhande and Shatrughana Dhande followed Surekha. Vishwanath Dhande was possessing one stick and Shatrughana Dhande was possessing a chain. By that time Jagdish Mandlekar came to that place from the side of house of Suresh Khandate. He was also holding one stick. Jagdish obstructed Surekha Bhotmange near a drain. Jagdish then started beating Surekha Bhotmange by using stick. Then Vishvanath and Shatrughana Dhande came there from the back side portion of the house of Bhaiyyalal and started beating Surekha. Then Ramu Dhande and Shishupal Dhande came there from the same way Jagdish came there. Ramu was holding one stick and Shishupal was holding one chain. Both of them started beating Surekha. Then Prabhakar Mandalekar, Gopal Binjewar and Sakru Binjewar came there from the back side portion of the house of Bhaiyyalal. Prabhakar Mandlekar and Gopal Binjewar were having nothing in their hands. There was a wooden stick in the hand of Sakru Binjewar. Then Prabhakar Mandlekar, Gopal Binjewar and Sakru Binjewar started beating Surekha. Then all those persons killed Surekha by beating her. He did not go to see whether she was alive or dead. Prabhakar Mandlekar and Gopal Binjewar were having nothing in their hands. There was a wooden stick in the hand of Sakru Binjewar. Then Prabhakar Mandlekar, Gopal Binjewar and Sakru Binjewar started beating Surekha. Then all those persons killed Surekha by beating her. He did not go to see whether she was alive or dead. Beating took place near a drain and beside a cow dung pit situated at the back side portion of the house of Bhaiyyalal towards left side. The distance between that drain and cow dung pit is 3-4 feet. Witness was shown the map (Exh. 54). Witness pointed out the place where Dhusala road and Kandri road meets. The witness pointed out the place where he stood and also the place of beating of Surekha. Thereafter he saw Sudhir Bhotmange running towards Dhusala in an underwear. Jagdish Mandalekar, Vishwanath Dhande, Shishupal Dhande, Shatrughana Dhande, Ramu Dhande, Prabhakar Mandlekar, Gopal Binjewar and Sakru Binjewar caught Sudhir Bhotmange in front of the house of Krishnaji Titirmare and beat him. Sudhir was dragged to the place where Surekha was kept. Roshan, second son of Bhaiyyalal was hiding himself in a cattle shed situated at the back side of their house. All those persons caught Roshan who had escaped and ran towards the hand pump (bore well). All these persons caught him near the hand pump and beat him on account of which Roshan fell down. Witness claimed that he did no go to see whether he was alive or dead. Priyanka, daughter of Bhaiyyalal was hiding in a cattle shed situated beside the hand pump. All the above referred persons brought her out of that cattle shed and assaulted her by giving blows of sticks, chains and by giving fist and kick blows. Priyanka was wearing a school uniform. The witness claimed that he saw all those persons dragging Roshan and Priyanka to the place where Sudhir and Surekha were kept. Sudhir and Roshan were beaten by sticks, chains, fists and kicks. 26A. When the incident was going on, 30 to 40 persons surrounded the house of Bhaiyyalal. Some persons out of those persons who were beating, intermittently were telling that if some one would tell their names then he will be also beaten like them. Thereafter, he went to his house as he was frightened. Witness further deposed that Bhaiyyalal belongs to Mahar caste. Some persons out of those persons who were beating, intermittently were telling that if some one would tell their names then he will be also beaten like them. Thereafter, he went to his house as he was frightened. Witness further deposed that Bhaiyyalal belongs to Mahar caste. Witness claimed that at the time of incident other persons were beating and shouting "Maharana Mara" (beat Mahar caste people). The witness identified the persons present in the court as assailants and stated that he knew them as they were his covillagers. 26B. In cross-examination on behalf of the accused Nos.3 to 7 and 11, the witness stated that his house is situated about 500 to 600 meters away from the house of Bhaiyyalal and his field is besides Dhusala Road at the distance of about 1 k.m.. He used to go to field in the morning and return in the evening some times early and some times late. He further stated that he did not know Rajendra Gajbhiye but he knew Sidhharth Gajbhiye who was frequently visiting the house of Bhaiyyalal. Sidhharth Gajbhiye is the Police Patil of village Dhusala. He stated that he did not know whether Khairlanji people were afraid of Sidhharth Gajbhiye because he was a goonda. The witness claimed that he has not seen the incident of beating Sidhharth. He claimed that he had good relations with the family of Bhaiyyalal but he was not on visiting terms with them., Witness further admitted that in the said crime about 40 to 50 persons were arrested including his father. He did not remember whether his statement was recorded by police after arrest of his father but he admitted that CBI recorded his statement on 9.12.2006 when his father was in jail. He further stated that when his statement was recorded by the Magistrate his father was in jail. Witness admitted that he was taken to jail four times for identification of attackers. The witness candidly admitted that since his father was in jail he did not identify any of the accused. He admitted that his statement was recorded by the Magistrate and that his father was released after CBI filed the charge sheet. Witness denied that CBI assured him that his father would be released after 90 days and further assured that if he gave statement before the CBI, then CBI would discharge his father. He admitted that his statement was recorded by the Magistrate and that his father was released after CBI filed the charge sheet. Witness denied that CBI assured him that his father would be released after 90 days and further assured that if he gave statement before the CBI, then CBI would discharge his father. He admitted that he had stated the police that he had returned from the field at about 6.30 p.m. on the date of incident. Witness was confronted with the police statement when it was so recorded to which the witness stated that it was not correctly recorded. He had not told the police on 29.10.2006 as to which of the accused was holding that weapon. He could not give any reason why this was not found in his police statement. 26C. The witness admitted that beyond the house of Bhaiyyalal there were heaps of cow dung and in that area grass grows in winter season but he denied that the grass and plants grow up to height of 3 to 4 feet. Witness admitted that the Police had provided security guard to him for 24 hours. The witness further admitted that amongst 40 encircling the house of Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange there were some ladies but he could not identify them as they were standing far away. The witness categorically denied the suggestion that he could not identify them because of darkness and stated that it was not so dark. The witness admitted that during those days there used to be load shedding for about 8 to 10 hours. 26D. He further deposed that Surekha and Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange used to prepare bidis also and bidi contractor and his men used to come to the house of Surekha Bhotmange even at odd hours. He claimed ignorance as to whether there used to be quarrels between Surekha Bhotmange and bidi contractor regarding money matters. Witness admitted that he was active in politics in the village and that Mukesh Pusam and Suresh Khandate were in his group in election. He denied that Bhaiyyalal was also in his panel. He admitted that all the accused used to remain in opposite panel in election. Witness admitted that he was called to Andhalgaon Police Station and threatened several times and was threatened that if he did not give statement he would also be arrested. 26E. He denied that Bhaiyyalal was also in his panel. He admitted that all the accused used to remain in opposite panel in election. Witness admitted that he was called to Andhalgaon Police Station and threatened several times and was threatened that if he did not give statement he would also be arrested. 26E. In the cross examination on behalf of the accused Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9 he deposed that the distance between the place where he stood to see the incident and the house of Bhaiyyalal was about 100 to 150 meters. However, he denied the suggestion that from point W-1 in sketch (Exh. 54) he could not see as to what happened on the road situated in front of the house of Bhaiyyalal. He admitted that there were houses and some trees besides the road. However, he denied the suggestion that if some one stood on that road he could not have seen him. The witness volunteered that persons were visible but their faces could not be identified. He further stated that he did not tell the police that from his terrace he had seen that some thing was going on around the house of Bhaiyyalal or that he saw some ladies and gents attacking the house of Surekha Bhotmange. The witness was confronted with the police statement and the witness stated that same was not correctly recorded. The witness further stated that he could not identify 40 to 50 persons who had gathered on the spot. Witness admitted that on the day of the incident there were showers of rain and the same went up to 7.30 to 8.00 p.m. but he denied the suggestion that there was heavy rain with the passage of time. He stated that he did not remember whether there was load shedding in the village from 5.30 onwards and that it went up to late night. He further stated about 50 persons who were present there were not the attackers and he could not identify them. He denied the suggestion that he returned to the village from the field at 6 to 6.30 p.m. The witness volunteers that he returned back at about 5.00 p.m. He denied the suggestion that at 6.30 p.m. he went to the beetle kiosk for taking kharra and saw those persons returning from Kandri. He denied the suggestion that he returned to the village from the field at 6 to 6.30 p.m. The witness volunteers that he returned back at about 5.00 p.m. He denied the suggestion that at 6.30 p.m. he went to the beetle kiosk for taking kharra and saw those persons returning from Kandri. To a pointed question that he did not see the incident, witness stated that since there was darkness he could not see the incident clearly. Witness volunteered that the Police had threatened him to give statement in their favour but CBI did not tell him to do so. Witness denied the suggestion that CBI induced him by offering to give him job and money if he were to depose in their favour. The witness admitted that Sidhharth used to visit the house of Bhaiyyalal in his presence as well as in his absence. He denied the suggestion that Surekha used to file complaints against the villagers after quarrels. He also denied the suggestion that Surekha used to threaten that people would be falsely implicated under the Atrocities Act. The witness denied the suggestion that he had named the accused at the instance of the CBI. 26F. The witness further stated that he was taken for identification of offenders about four times but he did not identify them. He admitted that he had not disclosed the incident to police officers and Ministers who visited the village but the same was on account of fear. He further deposed that since the police had arrested about 50 persons he did not tell the incident to them. 26G. A close scrutiny of the evidence of the above witness discloses that although there are certain contradictions in his testimony vis-a-vis his earlier statements, the core of his testimony has not been shaken in the cross examination. It is difficult to accept that merely because accused were in the opposite camp in election the witness would falsely implicate them. It is pertinent to note that the witness has not implicated all of the accused named in the charge sheet. The attack on the testimony of this witness on the ground that he could not have seen the incident on account of darkness is concerned, we find it difficult to accept that merely because the witness stated that there was a little darkness, he could not see the incident of assault on the deceased. The attack on the testimony of this witness on the ground that he could not have seen the incident on account of darkness is concerned, we find it difficult to accept that merely because the witness stated that there was a little darkness, he could not see the incident of assault on the deceased. Moreover, the accused were from his village which is a small one. The witness knew all the accused and it is the case of the witness himself that they were in opposite camp and as such we find it extremely difficult to accept the defence that because of darkness witness was not in a position to identify the accused assaulting the deceased as deposed by him. It is also pertinent to note that the witness claimed that he was frightened and he did not disclose the entire incident to the police because he was threatened by police that if he did not support the police he would be implicated in the case. We have already noted that initially the investigation was not carried out in a proper direction and indiscriminate arrests were made by the local police and, therefore, we find it difficult to reject the version of the witness that on account of fear he did not disclose the actual incident to the police. It was quite natural for the witness to disclose the actual incident to CBI after the investigation was handed over to CBI by the State Government. Therefore, in our considered opinion, mere delay in disclosing the incident to CBI by itself is not fatal to the prosecution case having regard to the circumstances mentioned hereinabove. Moreover, the evidence of this witness also stands substantially corroborated by his statement made to the Magistrate which lends assurance to the testimony of the witness. Therefore, we have no hesitation to accept his testimony which clearly proved the complicity of accused in the commission of the crime. 27. The next witness examined by the prosecution is Mahadeo Zanzad (P.W.20) who deposed that his house is situated at the distance of 100 to 150 feet from the house of Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange. He claimed that he was residing at Khairlanji since his birth. He further deposed that on the day of the incident he returned from his field and went to beetle kiosk to take kharra at about 6.30 p.m.. He claimed that he was residing at Khairlanji since his birth. He further deposed that on the day of the incident he returned from his field and went to beetle kiosk to take kharra at about 6.30 p.m.. Thereafter, he heard noise coming from the side of the house of Bhaiyyalal. He went towards the house of Bhaiyyalal and stood at the back side of the house of Nathuji Khandate and he saw about 20 to 30 persons standing around the house of Bhaiyyalal and thereafter Surekha Bhotmange came out from the back side portion of her house. Thereafter, Prabhakar Mandalekar, Jagtdish Mandalekar, Sakru Binjewar, Vishwanath Dhande, Shatrughana Dhande, Ramuji Dhande and Purushottam Titirmare surrounded Surekha Bhotmange. Surekha was then shouting that she should not be beaten. Some male persons were telling to beat her while some other were telling to let her go. Thereafter, he could not see what happened due to darkness. Then he heard shouts that Sudhir was running towards the field and he be caught. He also saw 2-3 persons running towards Sudhir but he could not identify those 2-3 persons. He heard the shouts of Sudhir as "Maru Naka, Maru Naka (not to beat him)". Some persons were telling to beat him but some persons were telling not to beat him. After some times some persons ran towards the hand pump. Then he became frightened and went to his house. 27A. He further deposed that he had undergone eye operation. He further deposed that he knew Sidhharth Gajbhiye, Police Patil of Village Dhushala and he used to come to the house of Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange but he did not know anything about beating of Sidhharth Gajbhiye as at that time he was residing with his sister at Nagpur. He further deposed that the police recorded his statement after days of the incident and CBI also recorded his statement but he did not remember the date. His statement was also recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mohadi but he did not remember the date. The witness admitted that after his statement was recorded by the Magistrate it was read over to him and he also read the same and found to be correct. The CBI also recorded his statement but it was not read over to him. The witness admitted that after his statement was recorded by the Magistrate it was read over to him and he also read the same and found to be correct. The CBI also recorded his statement but it was not read over to him. He deposed that he did not know what Prabhakar Mandalekar, Jagdish Mandalekar, Sakru Binjewar, Vishwanath Dhande, Shatrughana Dhande, Ramuji Dhande and Purshottam Titirmare were doing while standing surrounding Surekha Bhotmange. The witness stated that he did not remember whether he told the Magistrate as to what those persons were doing surrounding Surekha. He went to the extent of saying that even if his statement to Magistrate was shown to him, he was not able to recollect about it but he could not give any reason for the same. He further deposed that he did not know what those persons were having in their hands when they surrounded Surekha as he could not see due to darkness. At this stage, the permission was sought by the Special Public Prosecutor to cross examine the witness which was granted by the learned trial Judge. In cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution nothing tangible has been brought on record in support of the prosecution since the witness denied that he had made statement to CBI as reflected in the statement. The witness was confronted with the statement to the Magistrate in which he has stated that he saw Surekha coming out of her house. He admitted the fact that Jagdish Mandalekar, Vishwanath Dhande, Shatrughana Dhande, Ramu Dhande, Sakru Binjewar, Prabhakar Mandalekar, Gopal Binjewar and Purshottam Titirmare beat Surekha and some of the persons were holding sticks in their hands while had no weapon and Surekha was shouting while those persons were shouting "beat, beat" was correct. However, he stated that he did not see such incident but he had made false statement before the Magistrate. The witness admitted that Vishwanath Dhande, Shatrughna Dhande and Ramu Dhande were related to each other and they belonged to Kunbi caste and he also belonged to Kunbi caste. He further stated that Prabhakar Mandlekar and Jagdish Mandlekar belonged to Kalar caste. 28. The witness admitted that Vishwanath Dhande, Shatrughna Dhande and Ramu Dhande were related to each other and they belonged to Kunbi caste and he also belonged to Kunbi caste. He further stated that Prabhakar Mandlekar and Jagdish Mandlekar belonged to Kalar caste. 28. We do not deem it necessary to refer in detail the cross examination on behalf of the Public Prosecutor as well as on behalf of the accused because we find it extremely difficult to place reliance upon any of the statements made by him either in examination in chief or in the cross examination since the witness had the audacity to admit that he had made false statement to the Magistrate. Admittedly, the witness was prosecuted for giving false evidence before the learned trial Judge and it has been submitted by both the sides that he was convicted for giving false evidence. This being the position, we find it extremely difficult to place reliance upon any of the statements made by him either in the chief or in the cross examination on behalf of the Special Public Prosecutor or by advocate on behalf of the accused. 29. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Khan that part of his testimony that some of the accused surrounded Surekha and that witness heard shouts of Sudhir can be relied upon as corroborative piece of evidence for other witnesses. The witness who has the audacity to accept that he has made a false statement to the Magistrate and who has been convicted for giving false evidence deserves no credence. In our considered opinion though the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India, the same can not be invoked while appreciating the evidence of this witness who has been convicted for giving false evidence. The testimony of such witness deserves to be rejected outright. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that his evidence except to the extent that he has deposed about the castes of some of the accused which has not even been disputed by the accused, has to be rejected. 30. The next witness examined and relied upon by the prosecution is Premlal Walke (P.W.22). He deposed that he was residing in the village Khairlanji since last 10 to 12 years. His house is situated at the western side of the house of Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange. 30. The next witness examined and relied upon by the prosecution is Premlal Walke (P.W.22). He deposed that he was residing in the village Khairlanji since last 10 to 12 years. His house is situated at the western side of the house of Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange. On 29.9.2006 at about 6.30 p.m. he heard shouts as "Mara Mara" from the side of the house of Bhaiyyalal. At that time he was busy in preparing for Puja of Durga Devi. They were shouts of Vishvanath Dhande and Shatrughana Dhande. He claimed that he was frightened and he did not come out of the house. After some time he heard words "where are boys". After some time there was peace and he came out of the house and came up to gate. He saw one bullock cart passing through the road which is situated in front of the house of Bhaiyyalal. The bullock cart was proceedings towards Kandri from the side of Dhusala road. There were some dead bodies in the bullock cart and Jagdish Mandlekar was riding that bullock cart. Vishvanath Dhande, Shatrughana Dhande, Ramu Dhande, Sakru Binjewar and some other persons were following that bullock cart and they were having sticks in their hands. The bullocks of the cart were reddish in colour. After some time police vehicle came but since he was frightened he did not say anything to the police. One policeman asked him as where the family members of Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange but he feigned ignorance. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mohadi. In cross examination the witness stated that there are about 15 houses in Toli. He was on visiting terms with Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange but there were no quarrels between Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange and villagers at any time. He admitted that Surekha and her children used to keep fast and used to come to his house for prasad of Durga Mata. He denied the suggestion that they had come to his house on the day of incident for prasad. He further admitted that there were about six families of Gond caste and about 3-4 families of caste of Kunbi in their locality. Mukesh Pusam was residing in their locality and he was his brother-in-law. He denied the suggestion that they had come to his house on the day of incident for prasad. He further admitted that there were about six families of Gond caste and about 3-4 families of caste of Kunbi in their locality. Mukesh Pusam was residing in their locality and he was his brother-in-law. Mukesh was residing in front of his house and Suresh Khandate was also residing in front of his house but he is not his relative but belongs to his caste. Witness stated that police did not record statement of his wife in his presence. Witness claimed that on the day of incident he went to his employer Bhagwan Dhenge in the morning and returned at about 6.00 p.m.. The witness was confronted with the police statement in which it was stated that on the night of the incident he had returned home at 8.00 p.m.. The witness stated that it was not correctly recorded. The witness claimed that police did not record the statement as per his say. He stated that he had given statement to the Judicial Magistrate. The witness initially stated that he came alone in the court but thereafter corrected saying that he had come with Malewar Police Constable who was his security guard. The witness stated that on the night of the incident he did not tell police anything when he came to the village and he did not tell the police anything before 3.10.2006 although they used to come to inquire about incident. CID police had recorded his statement a month after his statement was recorded by police but he did not tell them correct facts as he was under fear since police arrested many persons. He denied the suggestion that he was taken to Mohadi by police for recording his statement. He denied the suggestion that he deposed against the accused at the instance of CBI although he did not know anything about the incident. In cross examination on behalf of the accused Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9 the witness denied the suggestion that he could not see properly during the night hours or he could not identify any person from the distance of 15 to 20 feet even if he remains in darkness. The witness admitted that he had given statement to CBI after two and half months of the incident. The witness admitted that he had given statement to CBI after two and half months of the incident. The witness denied the suggestion that he had participated in the village election or that he had given vote to the candidates to the group of Mukesh. The witness admitted that he was religious minded and used to worship regularly. The witness admitted that he could not read and write but he could put his signature. The witness stated that after the incident many Leaders and Ministers came to the village for about two months and during that period police arrested many villagers. He further deposed that he know Mr. Gajbhiye as Police Patil of Dhusala but he did not know his name. He admitted that Gajbhiye used to come to the house of Bhaiyyalal but he did not know whether Gajbhiye used to help Bhaiyyalal and his family members. He denied the suggestion that due to political rivalry with the accused he is deposing falsely against them. 30A. A close scrutiny of the evidence of the above witness discloses that core of his testimony has not been shaken in the cross examination and there is absolutely no reason forthcoming in the cross examination of the witness as to why he should falsely implicate accused he has named. He specifically named the accused who were found in and near the bullock cart in which dead bodies were carried out. The evidence of this witness inspires confidence and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve his version that the accused named by him had carried the dead bodies in the bullock cart on the day of the incident. 31. At this stage we would like to deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused that there is variance between the evidence of eye witnesses and medical evidence tendered through Dr. Avinash John Shende (P.W.14) who deposed that the incised injuries on the deceased could not have been caused by hard and blunt object. Mr. Khan is justified in placing reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Kailash vs. State of M.P., ((2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 420) in which the Apex Court has held that the wounds produced by a blunt instrument may simulate appearances of an incised wound. Mr. Khan is justified in placing reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Kailash vs. State of M.P., ((2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 420) in which the Apex Court has held that the wounds produced by a blunt instrument may simulate appearances of an incised wound. In holding so the Apex Court placed reliance upon the Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Glaister and Rentoul's in which it has been stated as under:- "Under certain circumstances, and in certain situations on the body, wounds produced by a blunt instrument may simulate the appearances of an incised wound. These wounds are usually found over bone which is thinly covered with tissue, in the regions of the head, forehead, eyebrow, cheek, and lower jaw, among others. When such a wound exposes hair bulbs at its edges, it is possible by examining these carefully to decide whether they have been cut or crushed and thus establish whether the wound was caused by a sharp or blunt instrument. As a rule, especially in the living subject, a wound produced by a blunt instrument will disclose some degree of bruising and swelling of the edges and the deeper tissues will be less cleanly severed than when divided by a sharp cutting instrument." 31A. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajashthan vs. Laxman Singh ( 2002 (10) SCC 65 . Therefore, we find it extremely difficult to accept the submission made by both the learned counsel for the accused that since medical evidence runs counter to the evidence of the eye witnesses the entire prosecution case deserves to be rejected and, therefore, the complicity of the accused has not been established. The medical evidence tendered by Dr. Avinash (P.W.14) who conducted post mortem on the four dead bodies can not outweigh the cogent evidence of the above referred eye witnesses which clearly proves the complicity of the accused in the crime. 32. We shall now deal with the evidence of Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange (P.W.17), the husband of Surekha and father of Sudhir, Roshan and Priyanka, who lodged report on 30.9.2006 at Andhalgaon Police Station. He deposed that he belongs to Mahar caste. He married Surekha in the year 1982 and Sudhir, Roshan and Priyanka were his children. Sudhir was physically handicapped and all the accused were the residents of Khairlanji village. He deposed that he belongs to Mahar caste. He married Surekha in the year 1982 and Sudhir, Roshan and Priyanka were his children. Sudhir was physically handicapped and all the accused were the residents of Khairlanji village. He further deposed that all the accused killed Sudhir, Roshan and Priyanka. On 29.9.2006 in the evening he was present at his house. Incident took place at about 6 to 6.30 p.m.. At that time all his family members were present in the house. He further claimed that villagers attacked their house in the evening shouting that "Mahar Dhed people falsely implicated us in police case". He saw sticks and chains in their hands. He was frightened on seeing them. On seeking them he ran away towards Dhusala. He further claimed that out of the villagers he knew 12 to 13 persons and they were Gopal Binjewar, Sakru Binjewar, Jagdish Mandle, Prabha Mandle, Nanya Manya Mandle, Hahipal Dhande, Ramu Dhande, Shatrughna Dhande, Purushottam Titirmare, Premlal Khurpe and others. He ran towards Dhusala as he was frightened after looking to the fury of the mob. He met Police Patil Sidhharth and told him about the incident. Siddharth made phone call to the Andhalgaon Police Station on his mobile phone. At about 9 to 10 p.m. he went to Andhalgaon Police Station to lodge report. At that time he was in a frightened condition and as such he could not lodge report. On that night he resided with Siddharth at Dhusala. 32A. He further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 30.9.2006 he went to his house at about 4 to 5 a.m. and found that his house was in ransacked condition and he could not find his family members there. Thereafter, he went to Yadnyapal Khobragade at village Deulgaon and asked him whether his family members had come to him but he replied in negative. Thereafter, he along with Yadnyapal went to Andhalgaon Police Station and lodged written complaint. At that time he was also in frightened condition. He was shown the report (Exh. 133). He confirmed its contents as correct. He further deposed that on 30.9.2006 dead body of Priyanka was found which was shown to him at Mohadi Government Hospital. He went to Mohadi Hospital at the instance of police and saw the dead body of Priyanka which was in a naked condition with many injuries of sticks and chains. 33. 133). He confirmed its contents as correct. He further deposed that on 30.9.2006 dead body of Priyanka was found which was shown to him at Mohadi Government Hospital. He went to Mohadi Hospital at the instance of police and saw the dead body of Priyanka which was in a naked condition with many injuries of sticks and chains. 33. Perusal of the report (Exh. 133) which the witness claimed to have lodged on 30.9.2006 in the morning discloses that in the report he named seven persons including accused Nos.5,6,8 and 9 and three others viz. Kanhaiyya Mandale, Nanya Mandale and Kiran Khurape who were not charge sheeted by CBI. Perusal of the Exh. 134 which is a printed FIR discloses that in the said report specific names of 12 persons viz. Dilip Dhenge, Jagdish Mandlekar, Prabha alias Prabhakar Mandlekar, Gopal Binjewar, Sakru Binjewar, Nanya Mandlekar, Prakash Kadav, Pankaj Atilkar, Mahipal Dhandge, Shatrunghna Dhande, Prem Khurpe and Dharmpal Dhande are found. There is absolutely no explanation either from the witness or from the Police Inspector S.S.Bharne (P.W. 23) as to how in the printed FIR some more names were added. 34. The evidence of this witness who happens to be unfortunate husband and father of the deceased has been assailed on the ground of delay inasmuch as printed FIR (Exh. 134) discloses that it was recorded on 30.9.2006 at 20.40 hours. No doubt FIR is an important document in a criminal trial to test the veracity of the prosecution case but in the present case it is the case of the State itself that investigation was not carried out properly by Andhalgaon Police Station and also by CID and, therefore, investigation was handed over to CBI. Moreover, Bhaiyyalal does not claim to be an eye witness to the assault on his family members. He claims that after seeing the crowd he ran away and went to Siddharth Gajbhiye and spent night with him and lodged report on the next day morning and this being the position, mere fact that the names of all the accused do not find place in the FIR. (Exh. 133) by itself would not be fatal to the prosecution case. No doubt there are certain contradictions and omissions in the testimony of this witness vis-a-vis earlier statements. (Exh. 133) by itself would not be fatal to the prosecution case. No doubt there are certain contradictions and omissions in the testimony of this witness vis-a-vis earlier statements. The same are not sufficient to discredit the evidence of the eye witnesses to which we have made reference hereinabvoe more particularly having regard to the fact that Bhaiyyalal himself does not claim that he was an eye witness to the incident of assault on his family members. The evidence of this witness read with report Exh. 133 clearly establishes that he identified the accused Nos.5, 6, 8 and 9 as the persons present near his house on 29.9.2006 in the evening. Mere fact that the names of other accused are not found in the report by itself would not be sufficient to discredit the prosecution case about complicity of the other accused inasmuch as the version of the witness that he was in frightened condition even when he went to lodge report can not be lightly brushed aside. However, his version that the assailants who had gathered on the spot were shouting that "Mahar, Dhede people falsely implicated us in police case" can not be accepted in view of the omissions vis-a-vis his report and statements recorded during investigation. Therefore, the fact that the names of all the accused have not been mentioned in the report and that the report (Exh. 134) was lodged at 8.40 p.m. on 30.9.2006 would not be sufficient to discredit the entire prosecution case about complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime. The evidence of this witness also clearly establishes that he identified the dead body of Priyanka on 30.6.2006 and those of Surekha, Sudhir and Roshan on 1.7.2006. 35. The prosecution has also relied upon the extra judicial confessions made by the accused Nos.2 and 8 to Anil Lede (P.W.10), Gopichand Mohature (P.W.15), Sunil Lede (P.W.16). Anil and Sunil are brothers and Sunil was arrested by Police and he was discharged by CBI. P.W.10 Anil deposed that on 29.9.2006 at about 9 p.m. while he was going to his house accused no.2 Sakru met him on the way. Accused no.2 Sakru asked him to provide "kharra" but he did not possess it and as such he informed him that he did not possess the same. P.W.10 Anil deposed that on 29.9.2006 at about 9 p.m. while he was going to his house accused no.2 Sakru met him on the way. Accused no.2 Sakru asked him to provide "kharra" but he did not possess it and as such he informed him that he did not possess the same. Thereafter, he asked Sakru (A2) as to where he went to which Sakru told that four members of Bhotmange family were murdered. Anil asked him who murdered them to which Sakru replied that he along with accused 2,3,7,8,9 and 11 had committed those murders. It is extremely difficult to place reliance upon the evidence of this witness in respect of extra judicial confession alleged to have been made to him by Sakru (A-2). There is absolutely nothing on record to suggest that Anil was close friend of Sakru so as to place complete confidence in Anil justifying such disclosure. There is absolutely no reason for Sakru to make such confession to Anil. Ordinarily, extra judicial confession is made to a person of confidence or to a person from whom the accused wants some help to get out of the trouble. This is not a factual situation in the present case. Moreover, disclosure about extra judicial confession has been made about one and half month after the incident. The circumstances in which the witness claims that Sakru made confession to him raise serious doubt about the authenticity of the extra judicial confession made to the witness. No doubt suggestion was given to the witness that when Sakru met him he was in a drunken condition which has been accepted by the witness. Therefore, in any case extra judicial confession upon which reliance has been placed by the prosecution can not be said to be voluntary to inspire confidence. Moreover, in cross-examination Anil has admitted that at the time when Sakru met him he was murmuring like a drunken man. Considering all these factors, we find it extremely difficult to place reliance upon the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by Sakru (A-2) to Anil Lede. In any case, Mr. Moreover, in cross-examination Anil has admitted that at the time when Sakru met him he was murmuring like a drunken man. Considering all these factors, we find it extremely difficult to place reliance upon the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by Sakru (A-2) to Anil Lede. In any case, Mr. Jaiswal is justified in placing reliance upon the Judgment in the case of C.K.Raveendran vs.State of Kerala (2000) 1 SCC 225 in which the Apex Court refused to place reliance upon the extra judicial confession made by an accused after consuming liquor in arrack shop on the ground that same could not be said to be voluntarily and truthful. 36. The prosecution has also relied upon the extra judicial confession made by Jagdish (A-8). P.W.16 Sunil deposed that on 30.9.2006 at 6.00 to 6.30 a.m. he opened his tea stall. Then accused No.8 Jagdish came there. Gopichand (P.W.15) also came there. Accused Jagdish demanded tea on credit but Sunil refused to give tea on credit in the morning hour. Jagdish told him that he had Rs.150 in his shirt pocket which was burnt. On questioning why the shirt was burnt, Jagdish told him that he had killed four members of the family of Bhayyalal and as such his clothes were stained with blood and, therefore, he burnt those clothes with that cash. Gopichand (P.W.15) who was present at the stall at the relevant time has also claimed that he had heard such conversation between Sunil and Jagdish. In cross-examination, Sunil admitted that when he refused to give tea to Jagdish, he became angry and he left his shop murmuring. Admittedly, Gopichand (P.W.15) and Sunil (P.W.16) were arrested by police in connection with the same crime and they claimed that they had told the police about the extra judicial confession made by Jagdish but no attention was paid to the same. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence of Sunil and Gopichand, we find it extremely difficult to place reliance on the evidence of Sunil as well as Gopichand that Jagdish had made extra judicial confession as deposed by them. It is well settled that extra judicial confession should be voluntary and truthful. In the present case, we find it extremely difficult to accept the version of the two witnesses about extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by accused No.8. It is well settled that extra judicial confession should be voluntary and truthful. In the present case, we find it extremely difficult to accept the version of the two witnesses about extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by accused No.8. It is highly improbable that Jagdish, upon being asked by Sunil as to why Jagdish had burnt the shirt in which he had Rs.150/-, would disclose him the reason for burning shirt. It is not the case of the prosecution that Sunil was a close friend of Jagdish or that he had confidence on him so as to disclose to him that he had committed murder of four family members of Bhayyalal Bhotmange. We, therefore, find it extremely difficult to place reliance upon the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by Jagdish (A-8) to Sunil (P.W.16) in presence of Gopichand (P.W.15). 37. We shall deal with the aspect of motive for the commission of the crime. According to the accused, there was absolutely no motive to commit ghastly crime for which they have been convicted by the learned trial court. According to the prosecution itself, motive was to take revenge. The evidence regarding motive comes from Suresh (P.W.3), Siddharth (P.W.18), Rashtrapal (P.W.5). According to Suresh (P.W.3) on 3.9.2006 at 6.00 a.m. Siddharth (P.W.18) came to the house of Bhayyalal at Khairlanji. Sakru (A-2) came there and demanded wages. There was altercation between both of them and Siddharth slept Sakru (A-2). Siddharth (P.W.18) deposed that on 3.9.2006 he came to the house of Bhayyalal and met Priyanka and then proceeded towards Kandri on his motor cycle. After proceeding for about half k.m. some persons accosted him and beat him. Thereafter, Priyanka and Surekha came there and brought him to their house. Siddharth lodged report after two days which was registered as Crime No.52/06. Mr. Bharne, PSI (P.W.23) confirmed filing of the report by Siddharth and stated that he recorded statements of Priyanka and Surekha Bhotmange who claimed that they had seen the incident. P.W.2 Mukesh and P.W.3 Suresh also deposed that at the time of the incident accused shouted that Surekha got them entangled in police case. Mr. Bharne, PSI (P.W.23) confirmed filing of the report by Siddharth and stated that he recorded statements of Priyanka and Surekha Bhotmange who claimed that they had seen the incident. P.W.2 Mukesh and P.W.3 Suresh also deposed that at the time of the incident accused shouted that Surekha got them entangled in police case. The above evidence clearly suggests that accused suspected that they were implicated in the crime of assault on Siddharth by Priyanka and Surekha Bhotmange by claiming to be eye witnesses to the incident of assault and that was the motive for commission of the crime. No doubt as held by the Apex Court the motive is double edged weapon and proof of motive by itself can not be the ground to hold the accused guilty. But, the evidence of the above referred witnesses to which we have made reference clearly proves complicity of the appellants in the commission of the crime. Proof of motive lends assurance to the prosecution case. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime. 38. The prosecution also examined Yadnapal Khobragade (P.W.4) brother of deceased Surekha. His evidence discloses that in the morning hours on 30.9.2006 Bhaiyyalal came to his house at Deulgaon and asked whether his sister had came there. He told him that Surekha did not come there and asked him as to what happened whereupon he told him that some villagers of Khairlanji village attacked their house and beat Surekha, Roshan, Sudhir and Priyanka by giving blows of bicycle chains and sticks and since he was frightened he ran away from the spot. He further deposed that thereafter he and Bhaiyyalal went to Dhusala at the house of Siddharth Gajbhiye. Siddharth Gajbhiye asked Bhaiyyalal to lodge report to Police. Thereafter he and Bhaiyyalal went to Andhalgaon Police Station to lodge report. They reached the Andhalgaon Police Station at 11.00 a.m.. P.S.O. Mr. Bharne was not available. They told the Head Constable that they wanted to lodge compliant. Head Constable made phone call to P.S.O., Bharne who gave message that they should be kept waiting there and that he would return after some time. They reached the Andhalgaon Police Station at 11.00 a.m.. P.S.O. Mr. Bharne was not available. They told the Head Constable that they wanted to lodge compliant. Head Constable made phone call to P.S.O., Bharne who gave message that they should be kept waiting there and that he would return after some time. After some time Shri Bharne came to the Police Station and told them that one body of a girl was found having name 'Priyanka' engraved on her hand as 'Priyanka' and they should come there for identification and thereafter they went to Mohadi Government Hospital along with Mr. Bharne and found that it was the dead body of Priyanka and there were no clothes on the person of the dead body and there were various marks of injuries on her person. Thereafter, on 1.10.2006 at about 8.30 a.m. Rashtrapal Narnavare made phone call to them and told that three dead bodies were found and he was asked to come to Andhalgaon. He went to Andhalgaon where he did not find any dead body so he went to Mohadi Government Hospital where he saw the dead bodies of Surekha, Roshan and Sudhir in a tractor. After looking at the dead bodies he felt giddiness. The witness has been cross-examined on behalf of the accused but nothing tangible to shake his testimony has been brought on record. The evidence of this witness substantially corroborated the evidence of Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange (P.W.17). 39. The prosecution also examined Rashtrapal Narnavare (P.W.5) the nephew of Surekha, who deposed that Surekha was real youngest sister of his mother and she got married with Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange about 20 to 21 years back and they used to reside at Khairlanji along with their children Sudhir, Roshan and Priyanka. He further deposed that on 29.9.2006 at about 5.30 p.m. he received phone call from Surekha Bhotmange and she asked him to come to Khairlanji. She informed him that 12 persons who were arrested in the case of Siddharth Gajbhiye were released on bail and they returned to village. She further told that these persons with sticks boarded a tractor to go to Kandri to beat Siddharth Gajbhiye and Rajan Gajbhiye. She told him that because of this she and her family members are in danger of life and, therefore, he should come to Khairlanji. She further told that these persons with sticks boarded a tractor to go to Kandri to beat Siddharth Gajbhiye and Rajan Gajbhiye. She told him that because of this she and her family members are in danger of life and, therefore, he should come to Khairlanji. He told her that it was evening and he was unable to come there and that she should come to their village to which she stated that she could not come there. He told her to complain to Andhalgaon Police Station but she told him that she could not go to Andhalgaon Police Station as about 2-3 days prior Dy. Sarpanch and PSO Bharne threatened her by coming to her house that since she was giving statements against the villagers if anything could happen then they will not be responsible as supporters of MLA and MP are behind them. He further deposed that on 30.9.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. Yagyapal Khobragade (P.W.4) made a phone call to him and told him that he was waiting in Andhalgaon Police Station and he should come there. He further told that Bhaiyyalal was with him and that Surekha, Sudhir, Roshan and Priyanka were missing since previous night. He told him that he should lodge complaint to Andhalgaon Police Station. He further deposed that he went to Andhalgaon Police Station. After some time P.S.O. Bharne came and told that dead body of the girl was found in a canal at Wadegaon village limit. Thereafter he came along with Bhaiyyalal and Yadnapal and identified the dead body. He stated that again on the next day he went to Andhalgaon Police Station where he was informed that three dead bodies were found in the limits of Wadegaon. Thereafter he went to the spot and identified the three dead bodies as those of Surekha, Sudhir and Roshan. Though the witness was cross examined vis-a-vis earlier statement we do not deem it necessary to discuss the evidence of this witness being of formal nature and the same proves that Surekha had given a phone call to him at about 5.30 p.m. On 29.9.2006 apprehending danger to life and that he had gone to the Police Station on 30.9.2006 and he had identified the dead bodies of Priyanaka, Surekha, Sudhir and Roshan. 40. The prosecution also examined the Investigating Officers viz. 40. The prosecution also examined the Investigating Officers viz. Milind Bansod (P.W.13), Vinayak Susatkar (P.W.25), Avinash Rajurkar (P.W. 26), Sanjay Nimje (P.W.28), Vitthal Dhage (P.W.29), Nareshkumar Sharma (P.W.30), Binayakumar Thakur (P.W.31), Pradip Mane (P.W.32), Maroti Patil (P.W.33), Nandkumar Kutti (P.W.34) who deposed about investigation carried by each one of them and through the evidence of these witnesses contradictions and omissions in the complaint vis-a-vis the statements recorded by the respective witnesses have been proved by the accused. The prosecution also examined Shri Pradip Ladekar (P.W.35), the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mohadi, who had recorded the statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of the witnesses at the instance of CBI. His evidence proves that he recorded the statements of Mahadeo Zanzad (P.W.20), Premlal Walke (P.W.22), Anil Lede (P.W.10), Suresh Khandate (P.W.3) and Mukesh Pusam (P.W.2). 41. Insofar as the submission advanced on behalf of the accused that there has been considerable delay in recording the statements of the witnesses and more particularly of the eye witnesses is concerned it is to be noted that unfortunately the crime was not investigated by local police as well as by State CID and as such State Government handed over the investigation to the CBI only on 20.11.2006 although the crime was committed on 29.9.2006. The delay is, therefore, inevitable. Moreover, having regard to the situation prevailing in the village Khairlanji soon after incident it can be safely inferred that in view of the indiscriminate arrests made by the local police the witnesses were not ready to come forward to give statements which was quite natural because of the fear that they might be arrested in connection with the crime. Therefore, considering the situation existing in the village Khairlanji after the incident till the CBI took over the investigation we are of the considered opinion that the delay by itself would not be a factor to discredit the version of the eye witnesses. Therefore, considering the situation existing in the village Khairlanji after the incident till the CBI took over the investigation we are of the considered opinion that the delay by itself would not be a factor to discredit the version of the eye witnesses. We have tested the evidence of the eye witnesses on the touch stone of probabilities having regard to the situation prevailing in the village soon after the incident upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence we find that the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge who have been convicted by the learned trial Judge for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and 201 of the Indian Penal Code does not deserve any interference. At this stage, we would like to quote what the Apex Court observed in the case of Krishna Mochi and others vs. State of Bihar (2002 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 1220. The Supreme Court observed thus; "Thus, in a criminal trial a Prosecutor is faced with so many odds. The Court while appreciating the evidence should of lose sight of these realities of life and cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by sitting in an ivory tower. I find that in recent times the tendency to acquit an accused easily is galloping fast. It is very easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points raised in case by a short judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with Court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. In case discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, the Court should tread upon it, but if the same are boulders, the Court should not make an attempt to jump over the same. These days when crime is looming large and humanity is suffering and the society is so much affected thereby, duties and responsibilities of the courts have become much more. Now the maxim " Let hundred guilty persons be acquitted, but not a single innocent be convicted" is, in practice, changing the world over and courts have been compelled to accept that "society suffers by wrong convictions and it equally suffers by wrong acquittals". Now the maxim " Let hundred guilty persons be acquitted, but not a single innocent be convicted" is, in practice, changing the world over and courts have been compelled to accept that "society suffers by wrong convictions and it equally suffers by wrong acquittals". I find that this Court in recent times has conscientiously taken notice of these facts from time to time. In the case Inder Singh vs. State (Delhi Adm.) Krishna Iyer, J. laid down that: (SCC P. 162, para 2) "Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes." "In the case of State of U.P. vs. Anil Singh it was held that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform. In the case of State of W.B. vs. Orilal Jaiswal it was held that justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law. In the case of Mohan Singh vs. State of M.P. It was held that the courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the court, within permissible limit to find out the truth, it means on one hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get scot free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved,it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused." We would like to quote what the Apex Court has observed in the case of State of Panjab vs. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh and Karam Singh ( AIR 1973 S.C. 2407 ). If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved,it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused." We would like to quote what the Apex Court has observed in the case of State of Panjab vs. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh and Karam Singh ( AIR 1973 S.C. 2407 ). The Apex observed in para 23 as under:- "A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures." We have reappreciated the evidence bearing in mind the above observations of the Apex Court and have come to the conclusion that the conviction of the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 6 to 9 and 11 for the offences for which they have been convicted does not warrant interference by this court. 42. In our opinion, the prosecution has been able to establish that accused 1 to 3, 6 to 9 assaulted Surekha, Priyanka, Roshan and Sudhir with sticks, cycle chains, fists and kicks blows and caused their injuries which resulted in their death. All the accused shared common object to commit murders of Surekha, Priyanka, Roshan and Sudhir. The prosecution has also been able to establish that the accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 to 9 were involved in disposal of the dead bodies by carrying them in bullock carts towards Kandri. 43. All the accused shared common object to commit murders of Surekha, Priyanka, Roshan and Sudhir. The prosecution has also been able to establish that the accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 to 9 were involved in disposal of the dead bodies by carrying them in bullock carts towards Kandri. 43. We shall now deal with Criminal Appeal No.171/2009 preferred by Central Bureau of Investigation challenging acquittal of respondents/accused for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x), 3 (1)(xi), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(vi) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("The Act" in short). Before considering the rival submissions we deem it appropriate to quote the above referred provisions. They read thus; "3(1)(x)Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; 3(1)(xi)-Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty; 3(2)(v)-Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; 3(2)(vi) - Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe knowingly or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed under this Chapter, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence; 43A. The learned trial Judge held that the assault on four deceased was not on the ground that they belonged to Scheduled Caste but the motive for the commission of the offence was because the accused felt that Surekha and Priyanka falsely implicated them in the offence of assault on Siddharth Gajbhiye. The learned trial Judge held that the assault on four deceased was not on the ground that they belonged to Scheduled Caste but the motive for the commission of the offence was because the accused felt that Surekha and Priyanka falsely implicated them in the offence of assault on Siddharth Gajbhiye. The learned trial Court also placed reliance upon the Judgment of this Court in which it has been held that the First Information Report should disclose ingredients of offence under the Act failing which crime cannot be registered or investigated. No doubt the earlier view taken by this Court has been reversed by the Full Bench of this court placing reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra). However, the question which arises for consideration is whether even if the prosecution evidence to which we have made reference hereinabove is accepted the offences under Section 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v) of the Act are made out against the accused. 43B. In order to attract Section 3(1)(x) of the Act it is necessary that the accused should insult or intimidate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any public place with intention to humiliate him/her. In the present case, the whole object of the accused was to take revenge against Surekha and Priyanka because the accused believed that they were falsely implicated in the assault of Siddharth Gajbhiye by them and in the process they committed not only murders of Surekha and Priyanka but of Sudhir and Roshan. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that accused intended to insult Surekha or other deceased who admittedly were belonging to Scheduled Caste. 43C. In our opinion, there was no intention on the part of the accused to insult the deceased. In order to attract Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, it is necessary that the accused not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe must use force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty. In order to attract Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, it is necessary that the accused not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe must use force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty. In the present case as stated above, the whole object was to take revenge against Surekha and Priyanka because the accused believed that they were falsely implicated and as such it is difficult to accept the prosecution version that offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is made out against the accused. Moreover, the prosecution has not challenged the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 43D. In order to attract Section 3(2)(v) of the Act a person not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should commit offence under Indian Penal Code punishable imprisonment for a terms of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member. In the present case, it is the case of the prosecution itself that the accused with a view to take revenge against Surekha and Priyanka assaulted them and family members of Surekha causing their death. Merely because the deceased belong to Scheduled Caste it can not be said that ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act are made out. The prosecution evidence does not establish that the accused committed murder of Surekha and other deceased because they belonged to Scheduled Caste and, therefore, in our considered opinion, ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act are not made out against the accused. 43E. In order to attract Section 3(2)(vi) of the Act it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that a person not being a member of Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe knowingly or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed under this chapter should cause disappearance of the evidence of the commission of that offence with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false. We have already held that the offences under Section 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the Act are not made out against the accused and, therefore, necessary sequitur is that the offence under Section 3(2)(vi) of the Act is not made out against the accused. 43F. At this stage we would like to deal with the authorities relied upon by Mr. Khan in support of his submission that the offences under the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes Act are made out against the accused. In the case of Ashabai Machindra Adhagale (supra) the Apex Court held that merely because in the FIR caste of the accused is not mentioned the proceedings could be quashed and whether the accused belongs to Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe can be gone into in the course of investigation. In the case of Swaran Singh and others vs. State (2008 CRI.L.J. 4369) the Apex Court held that calling the member of Scheduled Caste as 'Chamar' with intent to insult or humiliate would amount an offence and whether there was intent to insult or humiliate by using word 'Chamar' would depend on the context in which it was used. In Bachcha vs. State of U.P. (2008 CRI.L.J. 483) Allahabad High Court has held that Section 3(2)(v) of the Act can be pressed into service only for enabling the Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for life and fine when person has been found guilty of committing an offence under IPC which is punishable with imprisonment of term of ten years or more and the provision does not prescribe a substantive sentence. In Vidyadharan vs. State of Kerala (2004 CRI.L.J. 605) it has been held that mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient to prove the offence under Section 354 of IPC and intention is not the sole criteria. It has been further held that the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is an aggravated form of offence under Section 354 IPC. In our considered opinion, the authorities relied upon by Mr. Khan do not advance the case of the prosecution. It has been further held that the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is an aggravated form of offence under Section 354 IPC. In our considered opinion, the authorities relied upon by Mr. Khan do not advance the case of the prosecution. On the contrary, the fact that the CBI has not challenged the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC makes it difficult to uphold the challenge of CBI to the acquittal of the accused the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act inasmuch as the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) is an aggravated form of offence under Section 354 of IPC as held in Vidyadharan's case (supra). 43G. We, therefore, find no substance in the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the acquittal of the respondents/ accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(vi) of the Act. 44. We shall now deal with Criminal Appeal No.170/2009 filed by the CBI challenging imposition of sentence of life imprisonment on accused nos.1 and 11 on the ground of inadequacy. We shall also deal with the aspect whether death sentence awarded to accused nos.2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 deserves to be confirmed. The learned Judge in paragraph Nos.191 to 217 of the Judgment has dealt with the aspect of sentences to be imposed on the accused and has made reference to several authorities relied upon by the rival parties. The learned trial Judge has not awarded death sentence to accused Nos.1 and 11 on the ground that they were aged 23 and 20 years respectively and as such they were immature. The learned trial Judge has further held that they could have been emotionally carried away by presence of their fathers' actions and also could have been guided by their fathers. The learned trial court further held that accused no.1 Gopal might have been emotionally charged as his father was beaten by Siddharth Gajbhiye. The learned trial Judge has further held that both these accused were absent for disposal of the dead bodies and they did not see naked body of Priyanka with serious injuries. 45. According to the learned trial Judge the aggravating circumstances against the accused Nos.2,3, 6,7,8 and 9 are as follows: 1) All the convicts came together at the house of Surekha Bhotmange to commit crime. 45. According to the learned trial Judge the aggravating circumstances against the accused Nos.2,3, 6,7,8 and 9 are as follows: 1) All the convicts came together at the house of Surekha Bhotmange to commit crime. 2) The accused came with sticks and iron chains to commit rioting. 3) All the convicts formed an unlawful assembly with common object to commit rioting and murders of Surekha Bhotmange and her family members. Then they acted in unison in prosecution of common object of their unlawful assembly. 4) Convicts were furious and were shouting to search and kill other members of family of Surekha Bhotmange after killing Surekha Bhotmange. 5) Victims were unarmed and two of the victims were ladies. 6) Killings made one after the other by chasing and surrounding each of the victims. 7) Victims and specially Sudhir, Roshan and Priyanka did not cause any provocation at the time of incident. 8) No justification for killing Sudhir Bhotmange and Roshan Bhotmange who never caused any harm to convicts. 9) All the victims were severely beaten to death with many injuries on their persons. Thereby process of death of each of the victims, was slow and painful. 10) There was depravity in the acts of convicts which includes- a) killing of unarmed Surekha by all the male convicts with brutality. b) convicts shouted to search for others. c) Roshan pleaded his innocence, but he was not spared. He was chased and killed. d) Two victims were searched and killed. e) Accused were threatening others, so that none should come to rescue of victims and thereby enjoyed killings. f) Accused no.2 Sakru and accused No.8 Jagdish made extra judicial confession without any hesitation showing no remorse for committing such heinous crime. 11) Convicts acted in revolting manner by killing the victims in presence of mob, without fear of anyone and acted as if they did heroism. 12) Accused Nos.2,3,6 to 9 removed clothes of Priyanka before disposing her severely injured dead body and thereby wanted to get satisfaction to their sexual eyes at such extreme circumstances. 45A. The learned trial court further held that victims were unarmed. Two of them were women and one of them was physically handicapped. One of the victim was aged 19 years and they were brutally assaulted with sticks, cycle chains and with kicks and fist blows. 45A. The learned trial court further held that victims were unarmed. Two of them were women and one of them was physically handicapped. One of the victim was aged 19 years and they were brutally assaulted with sticks, cycle chains and with kicks and fist blows. According to the learned trial Judge the mitigating circumstances are as under: a) There was no prior conspiracy to kill all the four victims; b) There was no caste hatred for these killings; c) First Victim Surekha Bhotmange set fire to her own cattle shed, which might have provoked the accused to commit the crime; d) Accused extinguished the fire; e) Accused claimed that they were falsely implicated in crime of beating of Siddharth Gajbhiye by Surekha and Priyanka; f) They are ordinary villagers with no criminal past; and g) Their families depend on their earnings. 46. In the case of Bachansingh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 Supreme Court 898) the Apex Court has observed ; i) The extreme penalty of death may not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability; ii) Before opting for the death penalty, the circumstances of the offender also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the crime; iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception; iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised. 47. In Machhi Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 the Apex Court has held that for deciding whether the crime is rarest of rare, following factors be considered which are; i) manner of commission of murder; ii) motive for commission of murder, iii) anti social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime and iv) magnitude of the crime and personality of the victim of murder. 48. The learned trial Judge in the Judgment has mentioned the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to which we have already made reference. Insofar as aggravating circumstance No.10(f) is concerned, we have already disbelieved the extra judicial confessions made by accused Nos.2 and 8 and, therefore, the said circumstance can not be used against the accused as aggravating circumstance. 49. 48. The learned trial Judge in the Judgment has mentioned the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to which we have already made reference. Insofar as aggravating circumstance No.10(f) is concerned, we have already disbelieved the extra judicial confessions made by accused Nos.2 and 8 and, therefore, the said circumstance can not be used against the accused as aggravating circumstance. 49. After considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and having regard to the observations made in Bachansingh case (supra) and the factors which are to be considered while considering the sentence as laid down in Machhisingh's case we are of the considered opinion that case for awarding death sentence to accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 to 9 is not made out and, therefore, the accused Nos.2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 do not deserve death sentence. The incident had not occurred on account of caste hatred but the incident occurred since the accused felt that they were falsely implicated in the crime of beating Siddharth Gajbhiye by Surekha and Priyanka. Moreover, there is no evidence brought on record that the accused have a criminal record. Considering the nature of the crime and the circumstances leading to the commission of the crime and the past record of the accused, we are of the considered opinion that accused Nos.2, 3, 6 to 9 do not deserve death sentence. However, having regard to the manner in which the four murders were committed we are of the considered opinion that all the convicted accused deserve sentence of imprisonment exceeding 14 years. This Court in the case of Dipak Vasant Kale vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 ALL MR(Cri) 686 set aside death sentence and imposed sentence of life imprisonment placing reliance upon various Judgments of the Apex Court with a further direction that the accused should not be released unless he completes actual term of imprisonment of twenty years. In the said Judgment reliance was placed upon various Judgments of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Anup Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 686 set aside the death sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court to the appellants and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life with a condition that they shall not be released before completing actual term of twenty years including the period already undergone by them. Similar order was passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shri Bhagwan vs. State of Rajasthan (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 296). In Jayawant Dattatraya Suryarao vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2002 Supreme Court 143) the Apex Court set aside the death sentence imposed on the appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with a further direction that the accused would not be entitled to premature release. The Apex Court in the case of Kamalnath vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2005 Supreme Court Cases 1121) after confirming the conviction of the appellant for various offences including the murder held that any remission of sentence or amnesty on a special occasion announced by the Central or the State Government shall not apply to the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused. In the case of Dilip Tiwari and another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010 Cri.L.J. 905) the Apex Court set aside the death sentence imposed on the appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a further direction that two main accused who had assaulted helpless ladies should not be released unless they complete 25 years of actual imprisonment. The Apex Court made reference to the earlier Judgments in the case of Haru Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal (2009 AIR SCW 6007) and in the case of Swami Shradhanand alias Murali Manohar Mishra vs. State of Karnataka (2008 AIR SCW 5110) for adopting this course. Having regard to the manner in which the convicted accused committed the murder of four persons including two persons against whom they had no grudge, we are of the considered opinion that although the accused do not deserve death sentence, the interest of justice would be served by directing that all the accused should not be released until they complete twenty five years of actual imprisonment including the period of imprisonment already undergone. 50. The learned trial Judge awarded separate sentences on accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 for committing murders of Surekha Bhotmange, Sudhir Bhotmange, Roshan Bhotmange and Priyanka Bhotmange. We do not propose to award separate sentences on the said accused for committing murders of Surekha Bhotmange, Sudhir Bhotmange, Roshan Bhotmange and Priyanka Bhotmange. 50. The learned trial Judge awarded separate sentences on accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 for committing murders of Surekha Bhotmange, Sudhir Bhotmange, Roshan Bhotmange and Priyanka Bhotmange. We do not propose to award separate sentences on the said accused for committing murders of Surekha Bhotmange, Sudhir Bhotmange, Roshan Bhotmange and Priyanka Bhotmange. In out opinion, interest of justice would be served by sentencing each of the accused to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year subject to the rider that each of the accused shall undergo actual imprisonment for the period of twenty five years. 51. In the light of the above discussion, we dispose of the Reference and the Appeals filed by the accused and CBI in terms of the following order. (i) The reference made by the learned trial Judge is rejected. Accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 are sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with further direction that each of the accused shall not be released until he completes twenty five years of actual imprisonment including the period of imprisonment already undergone. (ii) The conviction of accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 and the sentences imposed on them for the offence punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code imposed by the trial Judge are maintained. (iii) The conviction and sentences imposed on accused Nos.2,3, and 6 to 9 for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code are maintained. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently; All the accused are entitled to set of the period of imprisonment already undergone in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The order passed by the learned trial Judge insofar as the disposal of the property is concerned is maintained. Criminal Confirmation Case No.4/2008 and Criminal Appeal Nos.748/2008, 763/2008, 170/2009 and 171/2009 stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.