JUDGMENT B.R. Gavai, J. The appellants have preferred these appeals against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions Case No.109/2003, thereby convicting the appellants/accused for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 325, 324 and 452 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life, five years, two years, one year and one year respectively for the aforesaid offences. 2. The prosecution case, as could be briefly summarised, is as under: One Dadaji Masaji was having a contract for collecting tendu leaves in village Nimdar Dongari. On account of the said contract of tendu leaves, there was a dispute between the family of Dadaji Masaji on one hand and the other villagers on the other hand. On account of dispute, a meeting was convened by the Police Officers and Forest Officers and the contract was given to Bandu Kashinath Dhanorkar (accused no.2) by withdrawing the same from Dadaji Masaji. It is the prosecution case that since then the relations between two groups became more strained. 3. On 3/7/2003 at about 7.30 a.m., nephew of complainant – PW 1 Sagarbai, namely, Parshuram Dadaji Nibdar had gone to an open area near School to answer the nature's call. Within a short time, niece of the complainant, by name Rukmini, rushed to the complainant and told her that the villagers were assaulting Parshuram. Thereafter family members of the deceased went to the spot, which was near the house of one Diwakar Zade. It was noticed that P.W.11 Moreshwar, husband of the complainant and deceased Parshuram were being assaulted by sticks by various villagers. Parshuram and Moreshwar entered the house of Diwakar Zade. However, villagers threatened Diwakar Zade and insisted for opening the door of the house. By opening the door, again Parshuram and Moreshwar were assaulted by the villagers. Parshuram managed to run away and came in his house. The villagers followed him. Parshuram then entered the house of his Uncle Abaji (P.W. 9). The villagers followed him there and mercilessly beat him in the house and courtyard with sticks. After finding him dead, he was taken on sticks to a place near School. The villagers had also assaulted P.W.11 Moreshwar, who became unconscious due to injuries. P.W. 6 Sangeeta, who tried to save her husband Parshuram, was also assaulted by the villagers. The villagers followed him there and mercilessly beat him in the house and courtyard with sticks. After finding him dead, he was taken on sticks to a place near School. The villagers had also assaulted P.W.11 Moreshwar, who became unconscious due to injuries. P.W. 6 Sangeeta, who tried to save her husband Parshuram, was also assaulted by the villagers. P.W.8 Parvatabai, grandmother of deceased Parshuram, who tried to save her son and grandson, was also assaulted. In the same incident, P.W. 7 Antakala, cousin of deceased Parshuram, P.W. 9 Abaji, P.W. 10 Babaji and P.W.15 Sukhdeo were also assaulted and they received injuries. P.W.10 Babaji informed about the incident by going to Police Station, Chamorshi. The Police arrived at the spot. Police took all the injured persons as well as dead body of Parshuram to the Hospital. 4. On the basis of the report given by P.W.1 Sagarbai, first information report (Exh. 258) came to be registered. In the first information report, P.W. 1 Sagarbai named the following 29 persons : Pramilabai Gongle, Bhauji Gongle, Chandu Marpalliwar, Sanju Marpalliwar, Bandu Dhanorkar, Dilip Wasekar, Devidas Wasekar, Nandu Dhondare, Manoj Ogilwar, Sudhakar Marathe, Bhaskar Marathe, Kashinath Wasekar, Nanaji Mandhre, Diwakar Mandhre, Sudhakar Mandhre, Yadav Shinde, Nago Shinde, Shankar Badgewar, Istaribai Kardewar, Kamlabai Marpaliwar, Ganpati Gademudhe, Nirmala Gademudhe, Sindhubai Gedekar, Hiraman Gedekar, Nilabai Dhondare, Garubai Marathe, Mayabai Mandhre, Prabhakar Mandhre and Shakuntala Diwakar Mandhre. 5. During investigation, various panchanamas were executed by the Investigating Officer. According to prosecution, on the memorandum of accused persons, sticks allegedly used in the crime were also recovered from them. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. Since case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges. The accused pleaded not guilty and their defence was of total denial. The trial was conducted against 51 persons. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge convicted accused nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 25, 26 and 28 as aforesaid and acquitted rest of the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred these three appeals. 6. Shri Loney, learned Counsel appearing for appellants/accused nos. 3, 7, 9 and 12, submitted that prosecution case rests only on the evidence of interested witnesses. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred these three appeals. 6. Shri Loney, learned Counsel appearing for appellants/accused nos. 3, 7, 9 and 12, submitted that prosecution case rests only on the evidence of interested witnesses. It was contended that there is no corroboration to the testimonies of the interested witnesses by independent witnesses. It was also contended that though independent witnesses were available and though they were named in the chargesheet, the prosecution with malafide intention has not examined them. It was further submitted that from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is clear that no specific role is attributed to a particular accused and in the absence of any particular role being attributed to the individual accused, conviction would not be sustainable. It was also contended that nature of injuries sustained by deceased Parshuram also falsifies the prosecution version that deceased Parshuram was assaulted by number of persons. 7. Shri Chavan, learned Counsel for appellants/ accused nos. 5 and 26, Shri Abhay Sambre, learned Counsel for appellant/accused no.28, Shri Daga, learned Counsel for appellants/accused nos.1, 2 and 11 and Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel for appellants/accused nos. 13, 17 and 25 also made similar submissions. Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel further submitted that insofar as accused no.25 is concerned, his name is not mentioned in the first information report and, therefore, his false implication is evident. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellants/accused relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Pandurang Chandrakant Matre vs. State of Maharashtra {2009) 10 SCC 773}, Deo Narayan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh {2010) 12 SCC 298} and Ram Sundar Yadev vs. State of Bihar {1998) 7 SCC 365}. 9. On the other hand, Shri Nayak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, submitted that merely because the witnesses are interested witnesses cannot be a ground for discarding their testimonies. It was contended that in a situation like this where entire village is against the family of the deceased, it is impossible to have an independent witness. It was submitted that either the witnesses would be belonging to rival group or the witnesses would be under the threat of majority of villagers and, therefore, they would not come forward to give their evidence. It was submitted that either the witnesses would be belonging to rival group or the witnesses would be under the threat of majority of villagers and, therefore, they would not come forward to give their evidence. It was contended that in this situation, if the contention made by the learned Counsel for the appellants is accepted, conviction of any accused would not be possible in the case of this nature. It was further submitted that the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses is consistent and the prosecution has fully established that the accused along with other villagers had common object of causing murder of Parshuram and grievous injuries to other persons and as such, no interference is warranted with the judgment and order of conviction as passed by the learned trial Judge. In support of his arguments, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Haryana ( 2011 (7) SCC 421 ), Ram Avatar Rai and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1985 SC 880 ), Binay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1997 SC 322 ), Sikandar Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (2010 All MR (Cri) 2663 (SC), Harisingh M. Vasava vs. State of Gujarat ( 2002 (3) SCC 475 ). 10. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State, we have scrutinized entire evidence as placed on record. 11. For considering the rival submissions, it will be necessary to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the leading case of Masalti and others vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1965 SC 202 ) wherein Their Lordships had an occasion to consider a similar case arising out of dispute in two groups. The ground raised with respect to interested witnesses was also sought to be raised before the Apex Court in the said case. While considering the submissions in that regard, the Apex Court observed in para (14) of the judgment, which reads thus: “(14) Mr. The ground raised with respect to interested witnesses was also sought to be raised before the Apex Court in the said case. While considering the submissions in that regard, the Apex Court observed in para (14) of the judgment, which reads thus: “(14) Mr. Sawhney has then argued that where witnesses giving evidence in a murder trial like the present are shown to belong to the faction of victims, their evidence should not be accepted, because they are prone to involve falsely members of the rival faction out of enmity and partisan feeling. There is no doubt that when a criminal Court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses, who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not evidence strikes the Court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, criminal Courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.” (emphasis supplied) In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has clearly rejected the contention that the evidence given by the witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. The Apex Court has held that mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. However, it has been held that the Court has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence. 12. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Ram Swarup (1988 Supp SCC 262) had an occasion to consider a similar question. However, it has been held that the Court has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence. 12. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Ram Swarup (1988 Supp SCC 262) had an occasion to consider a similar question. The Apex Court in para (10) of its judgment has observed thus: “10 … There is no rule of law to the effect that the evidence of partisan witnesses cannot be accepted. The fact that the witnesses are associated with the faction opposed to that of the accused by itself does not render their evidence false. Partisanship by itself is no ground for discarding sworn testimony. Interested evidence is not necessarily false evidence. In a small village like the one under consideration where people are divided on caste basis, the prosecution may not be able to get any neutral witness. Even if there is any such neutral witness, he will be reluctant to come forward to give testimony to support one or the other side. Therefore, merely because the eye witnesses are associated with one faction or the other, their evidence should not be discarded. It should, no doubt, be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution.” (emphasis supplied) It can thus be seen that from the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, it is clear that merely because the evidence is of the interested witnesses should not be a ground to discard the evidence of such witnesses. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants in that regard deserves to be rejected. The facts in the present case are almost identical to the facts in the case of Masaltias well as Ram Swarup (cited supra). In the present case also, there is a vertical division between the group of Dadaji to which deceased Parshuram and injured persons belonged on one hand and rest of the villagers on the other hand. In this factual situation, it will be impossible to get neutral witnesses. Insofar as non-examination of Diwakar Zade is concerned, from the evidence, which has come on record, it is revealed that under the threat of villagers, the said person had run away, thereby giving chance to the accused persons to assault deceased Parshuram and P.W.11 Moreshwar. In this factual situation, it will be impossible to get neutral witnesses. Insofar as non-examination of Diwakar Zade is concerned, from the evidence, which has come on record, it is revealed that under the threat of villagers, the said person had run away, thereby giving chance to the accused persons to assault deceased Parshuram and P.W.11 Moreshwar. In that view of the matter, non-examination of the said person cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. 13. The contention which is raised herein by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has not examined independent witnesses, though named, has also been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Masalti (cited supra). It will be appropriate to refer to para (12) of the said judgment, which reads thus: “12. In the present case, however, we are satisfied that there is no substance in the contention which Mr. Sawhney seeks to raise before us. It is not unknown that where serious offences like the present are committed and a large number of accused persons are tried, attempts are made either to terrorise or win over prosecution witnesses, and if the prosecutor honestly and bonafide believes that some of his witnesses have been won over, it would be unreasonable to insist that he must tender such witnesses before the Court. It is undoubtedly the duty of the prosecution to lay before the Court all material evidence available to it which is necessary for unfolding its case; but it would be unsound to lay down as a general rule that every witness must be examined even though his evidence may not be very material or even if it is known that he has been won over or terrorised. In such a case, it is always open to the defence to examine such witnesses as their witnesses and the Court can also call such witnesses in the box in the interest of justice under S. 540 Cr.P.C. As we have already seen, the defence did not examine these witnesses and the Court, after due deliberation, refused to exercise its power under S. 540 Cr.P.C. That is one aspect of the matter, which we have to take into account.” (emphasis supplied) It can thus clearly be seen that the Apex Court has held that if the prosecution honestly and bonafide believes that attempts are made either to terrorise or win over the prosecution witnesses and if some of the prosecution witnesses have been won over, it would be unreasonable to insist upon the prosecution to tender evidence of such witnesses. In the present case also, it can be seen that the accused have not examined any different witness. If according to the accused, withholding of any witness has prejudiced their case, they could have very well examined such witness as a defence witness. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants in this regard is without merit. 14. Insofar as the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants regarding not attributing specific role to individual accused is concerned, again the Apex Court has considered the said issue in the case of Masalti (cited supra) and observed in para (17) of the judgment, which reads thus : “17. …. What has to be proved against a person, who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly is that he was one of the persons constituting the assembly and he entertained along with the other members of the assembly the common object as defined by Section 141 IPC. Section 142 provides that whoever, being aware of the facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly. In other words, an assembly of five or more persons actuated by, and entertaining one or more of the common objects specified by the five clauses of Section 141, is an unlawful assembly. In other words, an assembly of five or more persons actuated by, and entertaining one or more of the common objects specified by the five clauses of Section 141, is an unlawful assembly. The crucial question to determine in such a case is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects as specified by Section 141. While determining this question, it becomes relevant to consider whether the assembly consisted of some persons who were merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly.” (emphasis supplied) It would thus be seen that it is a settled position of law that what is required to be proved against a person, who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly, is that he was one of the persons constituting the assembly and he entertained along with the other members of the assembly the common object as defined under Section 141 of Indian Penal Code. It has been held by the Apex Court that the crucial question to be determined in such a case is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether such persons entertained one or more of the common objects as specified by Section 141 of Indian Penal Code. 15. In the background of this legal position, we have to examine the present case. 16. In the present case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses : (a) Eye witnesses and injured : i) Sagarbai Moreshwar Nibdar, P.W.1 at Exh.257, ii) Sangita Parshuram Nibdar, P.W.6 at Exh. 283, iii) Antakala Abaji Nibdar, P.W.7 at Exh. 284, iv) Parvatibai Masaji Nibdar, P.W.8 at Exh. 285; v) Abaji Masaji Nibdar, P.W.9 at Exh. 288, vi) Sukhdeo Daedaji Nibdar, P.W.15 at Exh. 358, vii) Babaji Masaji Nibdar, P.W.10 at Exh. 289, viii) Moreshwar Masaji Nibdar, P.W. 11 at Exh. 290. (b) Medical witnesses : i) Dr. Tejram Bapuram Sahare, P.W.14, at Exh. 353, who did autopsy on the corpus of Parshuram, ii) Dr. Devraj Madguji Holi, P.W.16, at Exh. 359, who had examined three accused, Dilip, Nandkishor and Manoj, iii) Dr. Milind Dharmarao Ramteke, P.W.17, at Exh. 365, who had examined the injured eye witness Sangita, Moreshwar, Abaji, Sukhdeo and Prabhatai. (c) Panch witnesses : i) The witness nos. 353, who did autopsy on the corpus of Parshuram, ii) Dr. Devraj Madguji Holi, P.W.16, at Exh. 359, who had examined three accused, Dilip, Nandkishor and Manoj, iii) Dr. Milind Dharmarao Ramteke, P.W.17, at Exh. 365, who had examined the injured eye witness Sangita, Moreshwar, Abaji, Sukhdeo and Prabhatai. (c) Panch witnesses : i) The witness nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 by name Suresh, Arvind, Bandu and Krupashankar at Exhs. 259, 274, 275 and 281 respectively. They were examined on the point of seizure of blood stained clothes from the accused, but none supported the prosecution. ii) Pitambar Nanaji Pradhan, P.W.12, at Exh. 296, the inquest panch, spot panch and panch on the point of attachment of blood stained clothes from the spot and pair of Chappal of deceased. (d) Investigating Officer : i) Ashvathi Gopalkrishna Dorje, P.W.13, at Exh. 302, who was the S.D.P.O. and she is the Investigating Officer to some extent as well as she is examined to prove the discovery/recovery of the sticks at the hands of number of accused. ii) Prakash Devchandra Patil, the I.O. who did partial investigation. He is examined at Exh. 384. 17. Since panch witnesses have turned hostile and the learned trial Judge has disbelieved discovery of weapons allegedly used in the crime on the memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the accused and which finding, in our considered opinion, does not warrant interference, it will not be necessary to refer to the evidence of panch witnesses. The learned Judge has also disbelieved the evidence of P.W.13 Ashvthi Dorje, Investigating Officer regarding recovery of sticks on memorandums by the accused persons on the ground that all the memorandums as well as recovery panchanamas were identical and only the change in them was regarding names of the accused. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. It is thus clear that the material evidence in the present case would be that of the eye witnesses and the medical evidence. We will first deal with the medical evidence. 18. The evidence of PW 14 Dr. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. It is thus clear that the material evidence in the present case would be that of the eye witnesses and the medical evidence. We will first deal with the medical evidence. 18. The evidence of PW 14 Dr. Tejram Sahare shows that deceased Parshuram had sustained the following external and internal injuries : External injuries “i) fracture of lower end of left humerus bone, ii) fracture of left lower end of forearm, iii) swelling and fracture of metacarpul bones of left palm, iv) multiple abrasion over anterior side of left leg, v) lacerated punched deep seated wound over lateral side of right leg, bleeding through wound present, vi) collis fracture of right wrists, vii) lacerated punched deep seated wound on lateral side of right eye bleeding through wound present, viii) lacerated wound 4 x ½ c.m. over occipital area over scalp reading through wound present; ix) multiple bruses and contusion of various sizes all over body. All these injuries were ante mortem and themselves sufficient to cause the death. Internal injuries i) during the internal examination, I found lacerated wound 4 x ½ over posterior frontaneal area over scalp redish in colour bleeding through wound present surrounding hairs matted with clotted blood, ii) fracture of occipital bones coinciding the above injury, iii) intra cranial haemorrhage coinciding the above wound in the form of brownish dark blood. 19. Insofar as injuries sustained by injured witnesses are concerned, it will be relevant to refer to the evidence of P.W.17 Dr. Milind Ramteke, who has done medical examination of the said injured witnesses. The said witnesses have sustained the injuries as under : P.W. 6 Sangeeta : i) lacerated wound on partial scalp, ii) there was contusion 3 x 1 x 1 cm P.W.11 Moreshwar : i) contusion coupled with lacerated wound, ii) fracture of middle of right leg – contusion present, iii) fracture of middle left leg coupled with contusion, iv) fracture of right arm of forearm – contusion present. P.W. 9 Abaji : Fracture on thumb of right hand and contusion over chest, neck and knee. P.W. 15 Sukhdeo : i) Lacerated wound and scalp on left side of midline extending from forehead, size 6 c.m. In length, ii) contusion over right and left auxiliary region backside of neck 2 x 2 c.m. Caused by hard and blunt object. P.W. 9 Abaji : Fracture on thumb of right hand and contusion over chest, neck and knee. P.W. 15 Sukhdeo : i) Lacerated wound and scalp on left side of midline extending from forehead, size 6 c.m. In length, ii) contusion over right and left auxiliary region backside of neck 2 x 2 c.m. Caused by hard and blunt object. P.W. 8 Parvatabai : i) Contusion to the left eye, eyelid swollen, eye closed, ii) lips bleeding, iii) contusion over left shoulder It can thus clearly be seen that all the injuries which were sustained by deceased Parshuram as well as by the injured witnesses were such as could be caused by hard and blunt object. It is the prosecution case that the accused were armed with sticks and that was the weapon used in the assault. It can thus be seen from the medical evidence that death of Parshuram was due to injuries sustained by him, which could be possible by assault with sticks. Similarly, the injuries sustained by injured persons were also possible with use of sticks. 20. Having considered the medical evidence, we propose to consider the evidence of eye witnesses. Insofar as evidence of P.W.1 Sagarbai is concerned, she states in her evidence regarding dispute between villagers and her brother-in-law Dadaji with respect to contract for collection of tendu leaves. She narrates that on the day of incident, Parshuram had gone to attend the nature's call in the morning towards School. Rukmani came and told that the villagers were beating Parshuram. She then rushed to the spot of occurrence. She noticed Parshuram and her husband near the house of Diwakar Zade. There were various villagers. Amongst them were Manoj Ogilwar, Sanjay Madpalliwar, Bhauji Gongle, Sdhakar Marathe, Devidas Wasekar, Dilip Wasekar, Chandu Madpalliwar, Bhayyaji Wasekar, Yadav Marathe, Premila Gongale, Mayabai Mandhre and Kamlabai Madpalliwar. They were beating Parshuram with sticks. She further states that when her husband Moreshwar ran to his rescue, the accused also started beating her husband. Thereafter her husband took shelter in the house of Diwakar Zade. Parshuram came home in an injured condition. Thereafter all the accused surrounded the house of Diwakar Zade. They threatened Diwakar Zade. Thereafter Diwakar Zade opened the door and ran away. The accused then entered the house. She also rushed to his rescue. She requested the accused to spare her husband. Parshuram came home in an injured condition. Thereafter all the accused surrounded the house of Diwakar Zade. They threatened Diwakar Zade. Thereafter Diwakar Zade opened the door and ran away. The accused then entered the house. She also rushed to his rescue. She requested the accused to spare her husband. The accused took out her husband and started beating him in the courtyard. Her husband sustained bleeding injuries. Then the accused left her husband assuming that he was dead. Thereafter they came towards the house of Parshuram. They entered the house and started beating him. Parshuram then entered the house of Abaji. The accused followed him. They were beating Parshuram with sticks. Parshuram succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter they carried victim Parshuram on the sticks and reached him in the same condition near the School. 21. P.W.1 Sagarbai is the person on whose information, first information report was registered. In the first information report, she has implicated about 28 persons whereas in her evidence, she has implicated 12 persons. However, it is to be noted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 Sagarbai with the evidence of P.W.11 Moreshwar, her husband. P.W.11 Moreshwar is an injured witness, who has received grievous injuries. Since he is an injured witness, his presence would stand established and as such, between P.W.1 Sagarbai and P.W.11 Moreshwar, credence has to be given to his evidence. Apart from that, from the narration of P.W.1 Sagarbai, there appears to be a reasonable doubt as to whether she had really witnessed the incident or not. In her evidence, she has stated that she had attempted to save her husband when he was in the house of Diwakar Zade. However, it is to be noted that she had not sustained a single injury and in the same incident, all other relatives, who have been examined as witnesses, have received at least some injuries. In that view of the matter, her presence at the time of incident becomes doubtful. In our considered view, it will not be safe to rely on her evidence. 22. That leads us to the evidence of P.W.6 Sangeeta, who is wife of deceased Parshuram. She states in her evidence that when her husband Parshuram had gone to answer nature's call, on hearing shouts, she came out of house and found that her husband was coming home and was bleeding. 22. That leads us to the evidence of P.W.6 Sangeeta, who is wife of deceased Parshuram. She states in her evidence that when her husband Parshuram had gone to answer nature's call, on hearing shouts, she came out of house and found that her husband was coming home and was bleeding. She then carried him to home. Dilip Wasekar struck her a blow of stick. Manoj Dogilwar, Nandu Dhodare, Bandu Dhanorkar, Bhaskar Marathe, Dilip Wasekar, Premila Gongle, Bhauji, Sanjay Madpalliwar and Devidas Wasekar marched towards their house holding the sticks. She confined her husband inside her house, but the assailants broke the door of her house. Then her husband Parshuram went out of house and rushed towards the house of his Uncle Abaji. The assailants followed him and started beating him with sticks. When she ran to rescue her husband, she was also beaten. Thereafter the assailants again came to her house to ascertain whether her husband was alive. They again beat him with sticks. He was then carried on sticks towards the School. This witness, who is wife of the deceased, has received grievous injuries including the one on scalp. We do not find any reason to doubt veracity of her version and as such, her evidence can be safely relied. 23. The next witness is P.W.7 Antakala, who is daughter of Abaji, i.e. cousin of deceased Parshuram. In her evidence she has given a totally different version regarding her neighbour preparing a bullock-cart to take Parshuram and Sangeeta to Hospital, but the accused persons obstructed the said cart. Her version is not corroborated by any other witness. As such, we are of the considered view that it will not be safe to rely upon the evidence of this witness as her version is totally different from that of other eye witnesses. 24. The next witness is P.W.8 Parvatabai. She is grandmother of deceased Parshuram. She states that when she was lying in the house of Abaji, she came to know that some villagers were beating Parshuram and she rushed and requested them not to beat Parshuram. She further states that she put herself on his person. She implicates accused Bhauji Bongle and his wife Premila. She frankly states that she does not know the names of other accused. The evidence of this witness appears to be very natural. She further states that she put herself on his person. She implicates accused Bhauji Bongle and his wife Premila. She frankly states that she does not know the names of other accused. The evidence of this witness appears to be very natural. She has implicated only two accused and not implicated other accused. This witness is also an injured witness. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. 25. The next witness is P.W.9 Abaji. He states in his evidence that he found that Parshuram was returning home in an injured condition. He also found Sanjay Madpalliwar, Manoj Ogilwar, Nandkishor Dhodare, Bandu Dhanorkar, Bhauji Gongle, Premila Gongle, Bhaskar Marathe, Mayabai Mandhare and Bhayyaji Wasekar forcibly entering the house of Parshuram. Parshuram came to his house for shelter. The assailants then dragged Parshuram out of his house. They started beating him with sticks. He ran to his rescue and lied on his person. They also beat him. It can be seen that this witness had also received injuries on his hand, chest, neck and knee. We find that the version given by this witness is consistent with the evidence of other injured witnesses and his evidence can be safely relied. 26. The next witness is P.W.10 Babaji. From the evidence of this witness, it does not appear that he had witnessed the incident, since according to the version given by him, thinking that the accused persons would beat him, he went to Police Station. We, therefore, find that the evidence of this witness would not be of much assistance to the prosecution. 27. The another injured eye witness is P.W.15 Sukhdeo, who is brother of deceased Parshuram. He states that on the day of incident when he was proceeding to the field by taking bullock-cart, he heard hue and cry. After turning, he noticed that his brother was being assaulted. He states that Pramila Gongale, Dilip Wasekar, Manoj Ogilwar, Sanjay Madpalliwar, Chandu Madpalliwar, Bhaskar Marathe, Devidas Wasekar and Bhayyaji Wasekar were assaulting his brother. He further states that thereafter he went to rescue his brother and asked the assailants as to why they were beating his brother. However, he too was assaulted on his head by Dilip Wasekar. He became unconscious and regained consciousness in the Hospital. He further states that thereafter he went to rescue his brother and asked the assailants as to why they were beating his brother. However, he too was assaulted on his head by Dilip Wasekar. He became unconscious and regained consciousness in the Hospital. This witness has also received grievous injuries on his forehead and back side of the neck in the incident and we, therefore, find that his evidence is trustworthy and reliable. 28. That leads us to the evidence of P.W.11 Moreshwar, who has received serious and grievous injuries in the incident. He states that on the day of incident, he had also gone to answer the nature's call. When he was returning from field, near the house of Diwakar Zade, he found that Chandu Madpalliwar, Sanjay Madpalliwar, Manoj Ogilwar and Bhayyaji Wasekar were beating Parshuram with sticks. Parshuram sustained bleeding head injuries. He rushed inside the house of Diwakar Zade. He reached there. Parshuram started weeping. Then Dilip Wasekar, Bandu Dhanorkar, Bhauji Gongle, Premila Gongle, Sudhakar Marathe, Bhaskar Marathe and Yadav Shinde came there. He requested them not to beat Parshuram. Then they told him that he would also not be spared and started beating him. He entered the house of Diwakar Zade. His wife and children came there. The assailants were saying Diwakar Zade to send Parshuram out of the house or else his house would be put on fire. Diwakar Zade then went out of the house. Then the assailants started beating him with sticks. Parshuram succeeded in going out of house. He then became unconscious and was lying there. From the nature of injuries sustained by this witness, it can clearly be seen that this witness is a natural one and his evidence is reliable and trustworthy. 29. From the evidence of P.W.6 Sangeeta, P.W.8 Parvatabai, P.W.9 Abaji, P.W.11 Moreshwar and P.W.15 Sukhdeo, which we find to be trustworthy and reliable, though they are interested witnesses, it can be seen that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt as under: On the day of incident, an assembly of five or more persons was formed of which the accused persons were members and the common intention of the said unlawful assembly was to commit murder of Parshuram and to cause either death or inflict grievous injuries to other members of the family of Dadaji. In the incident, the said unlawful assembly assaulted deceased Parshuram near the house of Diwakar Zade. In the said incident, deceased Parshuram attempted to take shelter in the house of Diwakar Zade. Diwakar Zade was threatened by the members of the unlawful assembly that if the door of his house is not opened, he would suffer dire consequences. As such, he opened the door and ran away. The members of the unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object went inside the house and started again assaulting deceased Parshuram. P.W.11 Moreshwar went inside the house of Diwakar Zade to save Parshuram. He was also assaulted. Parshuram managed to run away and went to his house. The members of the unlawful assembly broke the door of his house. He was again assaulted in his house. Thereafter he went to the house of P.W.9 Abaji. The members of the unlawful assembly also broke the door of the house of P.W.9 Abaji. In P.W.9 Abaji's house, he was again assaulted though P.W.9 Abaji and P.W.11 Moreshwar tried to save him. Thereafter Parshuram died and after his death, his body was taken by the members of the unlawful assembly on the sticks near the School. In the very same incident, the members of the unlawful assembly have also assaulted the injured witnesses, namely, P.W.6 Sangeeta, P.W.8 Parvatabai, P.W.9 Abaji, P.W.11 Moreshwar and P.W.15 Sukhdeo. We have no hesitation to hold that the evidence of these witnesses proves the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the accused whose conviction is being upheld by us, were members of the unlawful assembly with the common object of causing murder of deceased Parshuram, attempting to commit murder of injured eye witnesses and causing grievous and serious injuries to injured persons, have caused murder of Parshuram, attempted to cause murder of injured eye witnesses and also caused grievous and serious injuries to other injured witnesses. The prosecution has also proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the same incident, the accused had forcibly entered the house of Diwakar Zade, deceased Parshuram and P.W.9 Abaji with preparation for causing hurt to deceased Parshuram, P.W.11 Moreshwar and other injured eye witnesses and as such, committed house trespass after preparation for hurt and assault. 30. That leads us to the next question as to whether all the appellants named by the aforesaid eye witnesses would face conviction? 30. That leads us to the next question as to whether all the appellants named by the aforesaid eye witnesses would face conviction? In this respect, we may gainfully refer to the observations of the Apex Court in para (16) of the judgment in the case of Masalti (cited supra), which read thus: “16. Mr. Sawhney also urged that the test applied by the High Court in convicting the appellants is mechanical. He argues that under the India Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses, which is not trustworthy, would not be enough to sustain the conviction. That, no doubt is true, but where a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses, who give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical; but it is difficult to see how it can be treated as irrational or unreasonable. Therefore, we do not think that any grievance can be made by the appellants against the adoption of this test. If at all the prosecution may be entitled to say that the seven accused persons were acquitted because their cases did not satisfy the mechanical test of four witnesses and if the said test had not been applied, they might as well have been convicted. It is, no doubt, the quality of the evidence that matters and not the number of witnesses, who give such evidence. But sometimes it is useful to adopt a test like the one which the High Court has adopted in dealing with the present case.” (emphasis supplied) In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has upheld the test laid down by the High Court that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses, who give a consistent account of the incident. The Apex Court has also held that where a criminal Court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt such test. 31. The Apex Court in the case of Binay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1997 SC 322 ) relying on the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court in the case of Masalti (cited supra) has observed in para (30) of the judgment, which read thus : “30. We have noticed that Mritunjaya (A-23) and Parmanand Sharma (A-20) and Madan Mohan Sharma son of Ambica (A-24) were identified by more than two eye witnesses as participants in the occurrence. Out of those witnesses the testimony of PW-10 and PW-32 was accepted by both Courts. As for the remaining appellants both Courts have accepted the testimony of at least three witnesses each as referring to each appellant. There is no rule of evidence that no conviction can be based unless a certain minimum number of witnesses have identified a particular accused as member of the unlawful assembly. It is axiomatic that evidence is not to be counted but only weighed and it is not the quantity of evidence, but the quality that matters. Even the testimony of one single witness, if wholly reliable, is sufficient to establish the identification of an accused as member of an unlawful assembly. All the same, when the size of the unlawful assembly is quite large (as in this case) and many persons would have witnessed the incident, it would be a prudent exercise to insist on at least two reliable witnesses to vouchsafe the identification of an accused as participant in the rioting....” (emphasis supplied) 32. In the present case, undisputedly the witnesses, whose evidence we find to be reliable, are interested witnesses inasmuch as all of them are close relatives of deceased Parshuram and are closely related to each other. However, as already stated hereinabove, all of them are injured witnesses. The evidence of these witnesses appears to be cogent, sound, trustworthy and corroborative to each other. The narration of material facts by them is similar. However, as already stated hereinabove, all of them are injured witnesses. The evidence of these witnesses appears to be cogent, sound, trustworthy and corroborative to each other. The narration of material facts by them is similar. However, as a matter of caution, it will be appropriate to adopt the test as approved by the Apex Court in the cases of Masaltiand Binay Kumar Singh (cited supra) by upholding conviction only of such of the accused persons, who are named by at least two witnesses whose evidence we find to be reliable and trustworthy. 33. By applying the aforesaid test, we propose to deal the case of each appellant/accused independently. Insofar as accused no.1 Nandkishor Laxman Dhodare is concerned, his role in the incident is established in the evidence of P.W.6 Sangeeta and P.W.9 Abaji. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of this accused argued that since prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by him, he would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Apex Court in the case of Sikandar Singh and others vs. State of Bihar {2010 ALL MR (Cri) 2663 (SC)} has held that it cannot be held as an unqualified proposition of law that whenever accused sustains injury in the same incident, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on failure of prosecution to do so, the prosecution case has to be disbelieved. In that view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused in that regard. We find that since his participation has been established by the evidence of P.W.6 Sangeeta and P.W.9 Abaji, his conviction needs to be upheld. Insofar as accused no.2 Bandu Kashinath Dhanorkar is concerned, his participation has been established by the evidence of P.W.6 Sangeeta, P.W.9 Abaji and P.W.11 Moreshwar. In that view of the matter, conviction of accused no.2 Bandu Kashinath Dhanorkar also needs to be upheld. Insofar as accused no.3 Yadav Nago Shinde is concerned, the evidence against this accused is only that of P.W.11 Moreshwar and there is no corroboration to the said evidence by any of the witnesses whose evidence is relied by us and as such, we find that this accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence of this accused will have to be set aside. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence of this accused will have to be set aside. Insofar as accused no.5 Manoj Bhagirath Ogilwar is concerned, his participation in the incident has been established by the evidence of P.W.6 Sangeeta, P.W.9 Abaji, P.W.11 Moreshwar and P.W.15 Sukhdeo. As such, we are inclined to uphold the conviction of this accused. Insofar as accused no.7 Sanjay Bapuji Ogilwar is concerned, in the evidence of eye witnesses, one Sanjay is referred as Sanjay Madpalliwar and not Sanjay Ogilwar. There is no evidence of any nature to establish that the present accused whose surname is Ogilwar is Sanjay Madpalliwar. We, therefore, find that his conviction is without there being any evidence. As such, conviction of this accused will have to be set aside. Insofar as accused no.9 Sudhakar Kawdu Marathe is concerned, he is implicated only by P.W.11 Moreshwar and there is no corroboration by any other witness, whose evidence is relied by us. As such, conviction of this accused will have to be set aside. Insofar as accused no.11 Premilabai Bhauji Gongale is concerned, her participation has been established by the evidence of P.W.6 Sangeeta, P.W.8 Paravatabai, P.W.9 Abaji, P.W.11 Moreshwar and P.W.15 Sukhdeo. We, therefore, find that conviction of this accused needs to be upheld. Insofar as accused no.12 Mayabai Nanaji Mandre is concerned, she has been implicated only in the evidence of P.W.9 Abaji and there is no corroboration from the evidence of any other witness, whose evidence is relied by us. As such, her conviction will have to be set aside. Insofar as accused no.13 Kamlabai Chandu Madpalliwar is concerned, she has not been named by any of the witnesses, whose evidence has been relied by us. As such, her conviction will have to be set aside. Insofar as accused no.17 Chandu Bapuji Madpalliwar is concerned, he has been named in the evidence of P.W.11 Moreshwar and P.W.15 Sukhdeo. As such, we are inclined to uphold his conviction. Insofar as accused no.25 Bhaiyyaji s/o Kawadu Wasekar is concerned, the conviction of this accused is sought to be attacked on the ground that his name is not found in the first information report. By now it is a settled position of law that the first information report is not an encyclopedia of entire prosecution case. His participation has been duly established in the evidence of P.W.9 Abaji, P.W.11 Moreshwar and P.W.15 Sukhdeo. By now it is a settled position of law that the first information report is not an encyclopedia of entire prosecution case. His participation has been duly established in the evidence of P.W.9 Abaji, P.W.11 Moreshwar and P.W.15 Sukhdeo. As such, his conviction will have to be upheld. Insofar as accused no.26 Bhagirath Madhukar Ogilwar is concerned, he has not been implicated by any of the witnesses whose evidence is found to be trustworthy by us. As such, his conviction will have to be set aside. Insofar as accused no.28 Vasant s/o Durgaji Waghade is concerned, he has not been implicated by any of the witnesses whose evidence is relied by us. As such, conviction of this accused will have to be set aside. 34. Before we conclude, we must place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by all the learned Counsel for the appellants, who have put in great efforts in scanning and analysing the evidence to plead the case of their respective clients. However, we will be failing in our duty if we do not make special mention of Shri Nayak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State, who not only single-handedly matched the efforts of the learned Counsel for the appellants, but also excelled in his persuasive skills while pleading the case of the prosecution. 35. In the result - (I) Criminal Appeal No. 518/2009 is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Sessions Judge against accused nos.1 Nandkishor s/o Laxman Dhodare, accused no.2 Bandu s/o Kashinath Dhanorkar, accused no.25 Bhaiyyaji s/o Kawadu Wasekar is hereby maintained. Insofar as accused no.3 Yadav s/o Nago Shinde and accused no.28 Vasant s/o Durgaji Waghade are concerned, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Sessions Judge against them is set aside and they are acquitted of the offences charged. (II) Criminal Appeal No.526/2009 is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Sessions Judge against accused nos.5 Manoj Bhagirath Ogilwar and accused no.17 Chandu Bapuji Madpalliwar is hereby maintained. (II) Criminal Appeal No.526/2009 is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Sessions Judge against accused nos.5 Manoj Bhagirath Ogilwar and accused no.17 Chandu Bapuji Madpalliwar is hereby maintained. Insofar as accused no.7 Sanjay Bapuji Ogilwar, accused no.9 Sudhakar Kawdu Marathe, accused no.12 Mayabai Nanaji Mandre, accused no.13 Kamlabai Chandu Madpalliwar and accused no.26 Bhagirath Madhukar Ogilwar are concerned, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Sessions Judge against them is set aside and they are acquitted of the offences charged. (III) Criminal Appeal No.8/2010 is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Sessions Judge against appellant/accused no.11 Premilabai Bhauji Gongale is hereby maintained. In all the three appeals, the appellants whose appeals are allowed and who are in Prison, are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The bail bonds of the appellants whose appeals are allowed and who are on bail, shall stand cancelled. The appellants whose appeals are dismissed and who are on bail, shall surrender to the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli within a period of six weeks from today for undergoing remaining sentence. Needless to state that the appellants whose appeals are dismissed, shall be entitled to set off as per rules. The fee payable to Shri Chavan, learned Counsel appointed for appellant nos.1 and 7 in Criminal Appeal No. 526/2009 is quantified as rupees five thousand.