Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 191 (AP)

Muddana Goud v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2013-03-14

K.C.BHANU, M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

body2013
JUDGMENT K.C. BHANU, J :- Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 9.7.2008 rendered in SC No. 346 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Crl. A No. 1012 of 2008 is preferred challenging the conviction of the appellants - A1 to A3 of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months each; and conviction of A1 to A7 of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each; and conviction of A4 to A7 of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months each, and conviction of A4 to A6 of the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months rendered in the aforesaid judgment. Whereas, Crl. A No. 475 of 2010 is preferred by the State against the acquittal of the appellants - A1 to A10 of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and the acquittal of appellants - A8 to A10 of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 506 and 302 read with 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case in brief may be stated as follows: On 16.2.2006, at 4:00 p.m. the deceased - Sanjeevaiah along with PWs. 1 to 3 was proceeding towards Yemmiganur on motorcycle. When they crossed Banavasi Farm, which is half kilometer away from Bodeband Village, a jeep came from their behind and hit the motorcycle, as a result, the deceased and PW1 fell on the road and PW1 received injury on his left hand and left leg knee. Then, all the accused armed with sticks, got down from the jeep and dragged the deceased to the margin of the road and A1 to A3 hacked him on his neck, face and left ear. When PWs. 1 to 3 tried to intervene, A4 to A6 threatened PW1, and A7 to A10 threatened PWs. 2 and 3 that if they come forward, they would also be killed. When PWs. 1 to 3 tried to intervene, A4 to A6 threatened PW1, and A7 to A10 threatened PWs. 2 and 3 that if they come forward, they would also be killed. Thereafter, all the accused fled away in the jeep. At about 5:00 p.m., when PWs. 5 to 7 were at Dovabolla Bus Stop, they saw A1 to A3, A5 and others coming in the jeep from Yemmiganur side by raising cries that they killed the deceased and A7 was driving the jeep. Meanwhile, PWs. 1 to 3 shifted the deceased in the auto of PW4 to the Government Hospital. PW 12-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Yemmiganur, admitted the patient who was battling for life and started treatment at 5.45 p.m., but within ten minutes i.e., at 5.55 p.m., the deceased - Sanjeevaiah died. After his death, PW 12 intimated the same to the police, Yemmiganur. On 16.2.2006, on receiving Ex.P1 - report from PW1, PW 14 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Yemmiganur Rural Police Station registered as case in Cr. No. 21 of 2006 and - issued First Information Report (F.I.R.) which is marked as Ex.P11 and referred PW1 to Government Hospital for treatment. On 17.2.2006, he got the scene of offence and the dead body photographed through PW13-photographer. PW15 - Inspector of Police investigated into the matter and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW9 - the Panchayat Secretary at the relevant point of time of the incident and the same is marked as Ex.P2. He prepared an observation report and seized case properties viz., MO1 motorcycle, MO7 - a pair of chappals and MO8 - spectacles and other material objects under Ex.P3 - panchanama. Ex.P13 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 17.2.2006, on requisition, PW12 - Doctor, held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage. Ex.P10 is the post-mortem report. He examined PW1 and issued Ex.P9 - Wound Certificate on the same day. After completion of investigation, PW 16 filed the charge-sheet. 4. On 17.2.2006, on requisition, PW12 - Doctor, held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage. Ex.P10 is the post-mortem report. He examined PW1 and issued Ex.P9 - Wound Certificate on the same day. After completion of investigation, PW 16 filed the charge-sheet. 4. The learned Sessions Judge framed the following charges against the accused: "FIRSTLY: That you A1 to A10 on 16.2.2006 at 5 p.m. near Park opposite to M.B. Petrol Bunk, at Yemmiganur Village, were members of an unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the common object of such assembly to wit to attack and kill Boya Gundralla Sanjeevaiah and to attack Boya Gaddam Peddaiah, committed the offence of rioting and at that time were armed with deadly weapons, the weapons of offence likely to cause death, to wit attacked and killed Boya Gundralla Sanjeevaiah and attempted to kill Boya Gaddam Peddaiah and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and within my cognizance. SECONDLY: That you A1 to A10 on the same day, time and at a distance of half kilometer to Bodabanda Village, after passing Banavasi Farm, did an act to wit, dashed the motorcycle on which the deceased Boya Gundralla Sanjeevaiah and Boya Gaddam Peddaiah were travelling, from behind with the jeep bearing No. AP21V-5019, with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances viz., by such dashing, that if by that act you had caused the death of Boya Gundralla Sanjeevaiah and Boya Gaddam Peddaiah, you would have been guilty of murder and that you caused hurt to the said Boya Gundralla Sanjeevaiah and Boya Gaddam Peddaiah by the said act, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and within my cognizance. THIRDLY: That you A4 to A6 on the same day, time and place as mentioned in Charge No.2 supra, committed criminal intimidation by threatening Boya Gaddam Peddaiah with injury to his person, at the point of sickles, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and within my cognizance. THIRDLY: That you A4 to A6 on the same day, time and place as mentioned in Charge No.2 supra, committed criminal intimidation by threatening Boya Gaddam Peddaiah with injury to his person, at the point of sickles, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and within my cognizance. FOURTHLY: That you A4 to A10, on the same day, time and place as mentioned in Charge No.2 supra, committed criminal intimidation by threatening Boya Bandakanti Sreenivasulu and Boya Gaddam Chinna Thayanna with injury to their person, at the point of sickles, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and within my cognizance. FIFTHLY: That you A1 to A3 on the same day, time and place as mentioned in Charge No.2 supra, did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Boya Gundralla Sanjeevaiah, by you A1 hacking with hunting sickle on the left side of the head above the ear, you A2 and A3 hacking with hunting sickles on throat, face, chest and shoulders, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and within my cognizance. SIXTHLY: That you A4 to A10, on the same day, time and place as mentioned in charge No.2 supra, were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of you A1 to A10, when A1 to A3, committed the murder of Boya Gundralla Sanjeevaiah, an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, you are thereby under Section 149 IPC guilty of committing the said offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and within my cognizance." 5. When the above charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 16 and got marked Exs. P1 to P23 besides case properties MOs. 1 to 26. 7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs. D1 to D9 were marked. Exs. X1 to X6 were marked by third parties. They denied the same and reported no oral evidence. 8. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs. D1 to D9 were marked. Exs. X1 to X6 were marked by third parties. They denied the same and reported no oral evidence. 8. The trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, found the appellants – A1 to A7 guilty of the charges levelled against them and convicted and sentenced them as stated supra and found the appellants - A8 to A10 not guilty of the charges levelled against them and acquitted them as indicated above. Being aggrieved by that judgment, A1 to A7 filed Crl. A No. 1012 of 2008 and the State filed Crl. A No. 475 of 2010. 9. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the charges levelled against all the accused i.e. A1 to A10 beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the judgment under challenge is correct? 10. The learned Counsel for the appellants in Crl. A No. 1012 of 2008 and for respondents in Crl. A No. 475 of 2010 contended that though the prosecution examined PWs. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellants in Crl. A No. 1012 of 2008 and for respondents in Crl. A No. 475 of 2010 contended that though the prosecution examined PWs. 2 and 3 as eye-witnesses to the incident, the trial Court disbelieved their evidence to the extent of their witnessing the incident in causing injuries to the deceased by the accused, and that the trial Court solely relied upon the evidence of PW 1 and came to the wrong conclusion, that PW 1 is a partisan witness who belongs to one group of faction namely the group led by the deceased, and therefore his evidence has to be viewed with suspicion, that the evidence of PW1 is disbelieved by the trial Court with regard to the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation of PW 1 and also threatening of PW2 by A4 to A10, his evidence cannot be relied upon for other charges, that similarly, the act of attempt to murder against PW1 was disbelieved by the trial Court; that, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that PW 1 is a wholly reliable witness as some part of his evidence was disbelieved by the trial Court, and so, it requires corroboration; that admittedly, there are two factions in the village of Potekal and the medical evidence does not fit into the overt acts attributed to the accused and the ocular testimony is highly improbable as the evidence would go to show that the deceased was dragged to some extent on the road but there were no abrasions or contusions on the back of the body of the deceased; that the case against A4 to A7 is standing on the same footing as that of A8 to A10 who were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with 149 IPC; that the prosecution has not come to the Court with clean hands; and that the incident had not taken place at the time and date as mentioned and testified by the witnesses, but the incident took place about 2.00 or 2.30 p.m., and the said incident has not been witnessed by anybody, and due to political factions in the village, the accused who are in the inimical terms with the deceased, were falsely implicated in the case taking advantage of the death of the deceased; that Ex.X4 would clearly go to show that a correction was made on it with regard to the time when the deceased was brought to the Government Hospital, Yemmiganur; that in view of these circumstances, it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of PW1 alone so as to convict A1 to A7; and therefore, she prays to acquit the accused. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that PWs. 2 and 3 are also eye-witnesses to the incident and the reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting their evidence are not justifiable and proper; and that the presence of PWs. 2 and 3 has been clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. which was given two hours after the incident and there was no scope or possibility for PW 1 to speak about the presence of these two witnesses; that the Doctor's evidence would clearly go show that the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Yemmiganur by PW 1 which suggests that he was present at the time of the incident; that unless PW1 was present, he could not be in a position to narrate as to how the incident took place and the discrepancies with regard to disbelieving the part of evidence of PW1 cannot be a ground to discredit the entire testimony; that the medical evidence would clearly go to show that there are injuries on the body of PW 1 said to have been caused as narrated by PWs. 1 to 3 and some of the witnesses saw the accused running away from the scene of offence, and therefore, the order of conviction needs no interference by this Court. 12. With regard to Crl. A No. 475 of 2010, she stated that A8 to A10 were also travelling along with the other accused and all the accused were armed with sickles and deadly weapons, and that mere presence by itself is an offence to bring them under the purview of Section 302 read with 149 IPC; that unless A8 to A10 had shared their common object with A1 to A7 with an intention to eliminate the deceased, they would not have travelled in the same jeep and that A7 was the driver of the jeep and he should be having knowledge that the other accused are likely to cause the death of the deceased, and therefore, they are also liable for punishment and can be convicted as in the case of A4 to A7. Hence, she prays to allow the Crl. A No. 475 of 2010. 13. It is not in dispute that the place of the incident is half kilometer away from Bodeband Village, Yemmiganur Mandal after crossing Banavasi Farm. Hence, she prays to allow the Crl. A No. 475 of 2010. 13. It is not in dispute that the place of the incident is half kilometer away from Bodeband Village, Yemmiganur Mandal after crossing Banavasi Farm. The incident took place on 16.2.2006 at about 5:00 p.m. The police seized the blood-stained earth and control earth i.e. MOs. 9 and 10 respectively and• also a pair of cheppals and spectacles from the scene of occurrence of offence. When those material objects have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, it was found that they contained human blood. PW9 - the Panchayat Secretary at the relevant point of time of the incident was present at the time of preparing Ex.P3 - panchanama. From these documents and the evidence of PW9 and PW16 Investigating Officer, it is clear that the incident occurred at the place indicated above. Even the accused are not seriously disputing about the place of occurrence. 14. PW 15 - Inspector of Police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 17.2.2006 at about 7:00 a.m. and recorded statements of PWs. 1 to 3 and 8. Ex.P2 is the inquest report. As seen from Ex.P2, the injuries sustained by the deceased have been clearly mentioned. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of incised injuries found on the dead body of the deceased. 15. PW12 - Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at about 10.15 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. on 17.2.2006, found the following injuries: "1. An incised injury of 6 x 3 x 2 cms seen vertically at left shoulder joint. 2 An incised in jury of 8 x 2 cms. bone deep seen at horizontally left temporal region. 3. An incised injury of 6 x 1 cms. bone deep obliquely situated above to the left eye. 4. An incised injury of 6x 1 cms. bone deep situated vertically at left fore-head. 5. An incised injury of 10 x 3 x 2 cms. situated at left part of the neck. 6. An incised injury of 6 x 2 cms. bone deep obliquely situated at left parietal bone. 7. An incised injury of 8 x 2 cms. skin deep horizontally situated at right chest. 8. Contusion of 6 x 6 cms. seen at medial aspect of the right knee joint. 9. Abrasions of 4 x 2 cms. 6. An incised injury of 6 x 2 cms. bone deep obliquely situated at left parietal bone. 7. An incised injury of 8 x 2 cms. skin deep horizontally situated at right chest. 8. Contusion of 6 x 6 cms. seen at medial aspect of the right knee joint. 9. Abrasions of 4 x 2 cms. epithelial deep seen at later to the right knee joint. 10. Abrasions of 6 x 2 cms. epithelial deep seen at posterior to the right elbow joint. 11. Abrasions of 3 x 1 cms. epithelial deep seen at front part of the right shoulder joint." The doctor opined that the cause of the death was due to shock and haemorphage because of the hacking injuries found on the body. He also found that injuries 1 to 7 in Ex.P10 would have been caused with a sharp-edged weapons like hunting sickles similar to MOs. 13 to 22, whereas injuries 8 to 11 have been caused by falling on the ground in a motorcycle accident. Even after lengthy cross-examination nothing has been elicited so as to doubt the testimony of PW 12 and the recitals in Ex.P10. So, the homicidal nature of the death of the deceased has been established. No suggestion was given to this witness that his opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased is not correct. Therefore homicidal nature of the death of the deceased is established beyond all reasonable doubt. 16. Now it is to be seen whether the accused are assailants of the deceased or not? 17. PWs. 1 to 3 were examined by the police to speak about the actual incident narrating the specific overt acts attributing with regard to each of the accused PWs. 5 to 7 were examined by the police to speak about the accused running away from the scene of offence. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PWs. 2 to 7 and placed reliance on the evidence of PW1 alone. 18. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 solely on the ground that they might have arrived to the scene of occurrence after the assault on the deceased. But there is no basis for arriving at such a conclusion that PWs. 2 and 3 have come to the scene of occurrence while the accused were running away from the place of the incident. 2 and 3 solely on the ground that they might have arrived to the scene of occurrence after the assault on the deceased. But there is no basis for arriving at such a conclusion that PWs. 2 and 3 have come to the scene of occurrence while the accused were running away from the place of the incident. The other reason given by the trial Court is that PW2 stated in his evidence that while himself and PW3 tried to rescue the deceased, A7 to A10 threatened them saying that they would be killed when PW1 interfered, A4 to A6 threatened him which is totally contradictory to the evidence of PW3 who stated that while himself and PW2 tried to interfere, A7 to A10 threatened them and when PW1 intervened, A4 to A6 threatened him throwing sickles, whereas the version of PW 1 was that he was the person threatened by A4 to A6 in the first instance and thereafter PWs. 2 and 3 reached and at that juncture they were threatened. Therefore, PWs. 2 and 3 ought not have seen the incident of threatening PW1 by A4 to A6. Credibility of testimony of a witness depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of totality of the evidence, not isolated scrutiny. In other words evidence should be considered on the basis of total effect of the entire statement of a witness. The incident took place in the month of February, 2006, whereas nearly 1½ years thereafter the witnesses were deposing in the Court. Some minor contradictions or deviations are bound to occur even in a case of truthful witnesses when they were made to depose about the actual incident after lapse of a long time. So, on those minor discrepancies or contradictions, it cannot be presumed that PWs. 2 and 3 came to the scene of offence - after the attack was made on the deceased. The main substratum of the prosecution case has to be looked into for the purpose of verifying whether PWs. 2 and 3 were in fact present at the time when the actual attack was made. For that purpose, the earliest report given by PW 1 and other facts and circumstances have to be looked into. 19. The main substratum of the prosecution case has to be looked into for the purpose of verifying whether PWs. 2 and 3 were in fact present at the time when the actual attack was made. For that purpose, the earliest report given by PW 1 and other facts and circumstances have to be looked into. 19. No doubt, First Information Report in a criminal case is a valuable piece of evidence which can be used to corroborate the evidence of the maker under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or for contradictory in the maker as provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or for impeaching the credit of witnesses under Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The incident took place on 16.2.2006 at 5:00 p.m.; The First Infom1ation Report was lodged at 7:00 p.m. In the first instance, PW1 took the deceased in an Auto and reached the Government Hospital, Yemmiganur at about 5.50 p.m. After preparing a Ex.P1 - report, he went to the police station at about 7:00 p.m. A perusal of Ex.P1 would go to show that himself, the deceased, PWs. 2 and 3 were proceeding from Yemmiganur to Kotekal Village and the deceased - Sanjeevaiah and PW1 were sitting on one motorcycle whereas PWs. 2 and 3 were coming on another moped; that after crossing Banavasi Farm, which is half kilometer away from Bodeband Village, all the accused armed with sickles got down from the jeep and dragged the deceased to the margin of the road and then A1 to A3 hacked him on his neck, face and left ear; that some of the accused threatened PWs. 1 to 3. It is also stated that PWs. 2 and 3 were coming behind them and when they reached the place of incident they were also threatened. Once the recitals in First Information Report were found to be true, they can be used to corroborate with the evidence of PW1. The evidence of PW1 is more or less in support with the recitals as stated in Ex.P1. But, in his evidence, he specifically stated that A1 to A3 hacked Sanjeevaiah on his neck and left ear whereas A4 to A6 threatened that he would be killed; and when PWs. The evidence of PW1 is more or less in support with the recitals as stated in Ex.P1. But, in his evidence, he specifically stated that A1 to A3 hacked Sanjeevaiah on his neck and left ear whereas A4 to A6 threatened that he would be killed; and when PWs. 2 and 3 came to the rescue of Sanjeevaiah, A7 to A10 threatened that they would be killed if they come forward. Therefore, all the three witnesses stood there without moving towards the place where the deceased was attacked. The evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 is consistent with regard to A1 to A3 causing injuries to the deceased. There were no discrepancies in this regard in the evidence. 20. It is not in dispute that there were serious disputes in the village among two groups for the last 30 years, and as on the date of the incident, the deceased Sanjeevaiah was the leader of the people belonging to Boya Caste whereas A1 was the leader of the people belonging to Lingayat Caste, and the deceased and his group were in Congress Party while all the accused were in Telugu Desam Party. It is also not in dispute that the junior paternal uncle of A1 was murdered in the year 1992. In that case, admittedly, PW1 and the deceased were shown as accused and they were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool. On appeal, their conviction and sentence were set aside by this Court. Therefore, in view of this long standing rivalry between the two groups, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 has to be appreciated in a right perspective in arriving at a correct conclusion. No doubt, in the cross-examination of PWs. 1 to 3, some discrepancies are elicited but that cannot be a ground to disbelieve this evidence when those discrepancies are trivial in nature. 21. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants/accused that in view of the fact that a part of the testimony of PW1 has been disbelieved, the entire evidence has to be disbelieved on that ground. We are unable to accept the contention that the latin maxim, falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus (false in one thing and false in every thing) has no application to the Indian Law. We are unable to accept the contention that the latin maxim, falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus (false in one thing and false in every thing) has no application to the Indian Law. The Court has to apprise the evidence to see to what extent it is worthy of acceptance and merely because the Court considers it unsafe to rely on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessary follow as a matter of law that it should be discarded in all other respects. The Court can sift the evidence and separate the truth from the falsehood Court can disengage the truth from the falsehood. If the evidence of witness is found to be acceptable, then his evidence can be acted upon. In evaluating the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two important considerations are that; (1) in the facts and circumstances of the case whether the presence of PWs. 1 to 3 is probable and (2) whether there is anything inherently improbable in their evidence so as to discard the said evidence. 22. Within two hours after the incident, the First Information Report was given by PW 1. All the material particulars with regard to the incident in question have been clearly stated and the same is completely in corroboration with the evidence of PW 1. Further, if really PW 1 was not present at the time of the incident, he would not have sustained injuries on his body. When the jeep dashed against the motorcycle, the deceased and PW1 fell down from the motorcycle and received those injuries. 23. PW 12, Doctor, who examined PW1 at about 8 p.m., found abrasions of 2 x ½ x 1/8 cms at left arm and 3 x 1 x 1/8 cms on left knee joint. The infliction of those injuries can be possible by falling from a vehicle and those injuries might have been caused about 3 to 4 hours before his examination. Ex.P9 is the Wound Certificate. The Doctor PW 12 has categorically stated that while he was present in Community Health Centre, Yemmiganur on 16.2.2006, at about 5 p.m., the deceased was brought to the hospital at about 5.45 p.m. by PW1 and in the colum of relevant register, it is alleged to have been injured due to attack by a group of known persons with a hit and sharp edged weapon. Therefore, if really, PW 1 was not present, he could not have taken the deceased to the hospital within 45 minutes after the incident. The distance between the place of incident and the hospital at Yemmiganur is about 15 kilometers. So, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and also Ex.P8, which is the Medico Legal Case Intimation to the police, would clearly go to show that PW1 was present at the time of occurrence. Therefore, presence of PW 1 at the relevant point of time of the incident has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. The totality of the evidence of a witness has to be taken into consideration for fixing the probative value. The evidence of a witness will have to be assessed by its intrinsic worth. The probative value of a piece of evidence means the weight to be given to it. The evidence should be free from infirmity and doubts. Such is the case, he could be in a position to witness the incident as the incident took place in the evening when there would be sufficient light. 24. The deceased sustained as many as seven incised injuries. If really, PW1 wanted to implicate all the remaining accused also, he would have stated in the complaint as well as in the Court that A4 to A7 also caused injuries to the deceased. But he did not state any specific overt acts against anyone of the other accused except A1 to A3. Thus, in our considered opinion, PW1 was telling facts which are within his exclusive knowledge. If really he wanted to complicate the other accused, he would have stated specific overt acts with regard to causing injuries to the deceased by the other accused. He categorically stated that at about 4:00 p.m. the deceased and himself started on motorcycle driven by the deceased whereas PWs. 2 and 3 were coming on moped belonging to PW2 and they were proceeding towards Kotekal Village from Yemmiganur. The presence of PWs. 2 and 3 is spoken to by PW1 in his evidence. When there was clinching evidence on record with regard to the presence of PWs. 2 and 3, the trial Court simply presumed that they might have come to the scene of occurrence after the incident. That finding appears to be incorrect. The presence of PWs. 2 and 3 is spoken to by PW1 in his evidence. When there was clinching evidence on record with regard to the presence of PWs. 2 and 3, the trial Court simply presumed that they might have come to the scene of occurrence after the incident. That finding appears to be incorrect. No doubt, they also belong to a group of the deceased-Sanjeevaiah, but at the same time, their evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. On this aspect, the learned Counsel for the appellants/accused placed reliance on the decision reported in Golla Peramasani Sivaiah and others v. State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., 2007 (1) ALD (Crl.) 255 (AP) = 2007 (2) ALT (Crt.) 1 (DB)(AP), wherein it was held as follows: "27. The law is well settled that the evidence of partisan witnesses cannot be brushed aside on the ground that it is not corroborated by independent witnesses and that the conviction can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of partisan witnesses depending upon the circumstances of each case, provided that their evidence is reliable and trustworthy. It is also well settled that the evidence of partisan witnesses has to be scrutinized carefully with more than ordinary care and caution with reference to the probabilities, medical evidence and other circumstances of each case." 25. Even from the law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case, it is necessary to scrutinize the evidence of partisan witnesses carefully who are close and belong to one faction in the village. The evidence of PW2 would go to show that the moment he reached the scene of occurrence, a jeep came and hit the motorcycle, as a result, the deceased and PW 1 fell down and all the accused persons armed with sickles came out of the jeep and dragged Sanjeevaiah to the margin of the road. Among the accused, A1 to A3 hacked Sanjeevaiah on his neck; face and left ear. When PWs. 2 and 3 tried to intervene, they were threatened by A7 to A10 with dire consequences. While PW1 tried to interfere to save the deceased, he was threatened by A4 to A6 showing the sickles. 26. Similarly, the evidence of PW3 is to the same effect as testified by PW2. When PWs. 2 and 3 tried to intervene, they were threatened by A7 to A10 with dire consequences. While PW1 tried to interfere to save the deceased, he was threatened by A4 to A6 showing the sickles. 26. Similarly, the evidence of PW3 is to the same effect as testified by PW2. Both the witnesses have stated that on 16.2.2006, they went to Yemmiganur on their own work and after the work, they returned to Kotekal, by which time, they saw the deceased going and some of them at a distance. Except giving suggestion that he was not going to Kotekal at any point of time of the incident, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of PWs. 2 and 3. No doubt, PW2 made an admission that after taking the deceased to the hospital, himself, PWs. 1 and 3 were in the hospital till they were examined on the next day. Based on the admission, the learned Counsel for the appellants /accused contended that giving a report by PW1 is highly doubtful and that since PW1 was present in the hospital itself, Ex.P1 - report cannot be given by him. A small inadvertent admission of one of the witnesses cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of PW1. When PW1 has categorically stated that after admitting the deceased in the hospital, he went to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 at about 7:00 p.m. Similarly, PW14 - Sub-Inspector of Police has categorically stated that on 16.2.2006, at about 7:00 p.m., PW1 came to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 - report, and then he registered a case against the accused. Though it is suggested to him that after due deliberations and consultations with the local MLA and his son-in-law - Basi Reddy and also after consulting his superior officers, PW 1 was planted as an eye-witness, the same was denied. If PW1 was planted as a witness, the doctor who examined the deceased would not have stated that the deceased was brought by PW1. Therefore, the contention that PW 1 was planted as an eye-witness cannot be accepted because the documentary evidence would clearly indicate that he had taken the deceased to the hospital within 45 minutes after occurrence of the incident and he is an injured witness. 27. Therefore, the contention that PW 1 was planted as an eye-witness cannot be accepted because the documentary evidence would clearly indicate that he had taken the deceased to the hospital within 45 minutes after occurrence of the incident and he is an injured witness. 27. In view of the fact that there are serious discrepancies with regard to some of the accused threatening either PW1 or PW2 or PW3, at best, the trial Court ought to have discarded the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 with regard to the other accused viz., A4 to A10. On that aground the entire evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 cannot be disbelieved. From the above omissions elicited in the evidence of witnesses, it can be said that they are innocuous which are inconsequential. Such of those omissions amount to contradictions that militate against the meat or core of the prosecution case are alone material. An omission would not discredit the evidence of a witness. If it is a material omission with regard to actual incident, it merits consideration. So from the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, it is clear that it is A1 to A3 who caused severe injuries to the body of the deceased which resulted in his death. 28. Insofar as A1 to A10 are concerned, the offence levelled against them is one punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. There cannot be any dispute that in order to convict the accused under vicarious liability, it must be shown that those persons shared the common object with other accused an intention to eliminate the deceased. In view of the fact that the object for which they were travelling in the jeep is locked up in the minds of the accused, it is difficult for the prosecution to establish that with what object the other accused were travelling in the jeep. If an offence has been committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or must be such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed, each member is equally guilty though he may not be directly responsible for the death of the deceased and in case where Section 149 IPC is applicable, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove individual overt acts of each of the accused. Therefore, it is a matter of inference from the proved circumstances. The expression "knew to be likely to be committed" in Section 149 IPC founded upon facts known to the members of the assembly an offence of particular kind would be committed. Common object of an assembly has to be derived by reasoning or implication from various factors like weapons with which the members were armed, their movements, acts of violence, or the result thereof, conduct and behaviour, animosity or grouse if any. Some of the circumstances to draw an inference that the accused shared the common object with the other accused are : whether which of the accused proceeded to the scene of occurrence, whether they were armed with any weapons; whether they had any common object so as to cause the death of the deceased and whether they have participated in commission of the offence in the absence of any intervening circumstances where the common object can be culled out from such circumstances. 29. PWs. 1 to 3 did not state to police that on 8.6.2005, A2, A4 to A6, A8 to A10 came in the jeep along with A3 and A7 and they were assaulted in the village Kotekal. PWs. 1 and 3 did not state to police that PW2 went to Yemmiganur on a moped separately after seeing the incident. PWs. 2 and 3 did not state to police that A4 to A6 threatened PW1 when he tried to intervene when the assault was going on; that PW1 was found with injuries on left hand and left leg; that PW 1 reported the matter to police. Exs.D1 to D6 are minor contradictions. PWs. 4, 6 and 7 did not state to police that A1 to A3, A5 and A7 and some others were present in the jeep. 30. Except their presence at the scene of occurrence, there is no other evidence to show that they participated in commission of the offence in view of the fact that the incident occurred in an isolated place. If really A4 to A10 shared the common object with A1 to A3 so as to eliminate the deceased, definitely they would have caused injuries to the deceased and they might have assisted in some way to A1 to A3 to eliminate the deceased. They have not stated or uttered anything either at the time prior to or after the incident. They have not stated or uttered anything either at the time prior to or after the incident. They did not cause any injuries to PWs. 1 to 3 except threatening them. They did not cause any injuries to the deceased. They even did not threaten the deceased. In the absence of any intervening circumstances, if really they had shared the common object, they would have caused some injuries to the deceased, but that was not done so. They might be travelling in the jeep of A1 to A3 without having any knowledge that A1 to A3 would attack the deceased in case the deceased happened to come in their direction or in the opposite direction. Therefore, the presence of A4 to A10 in the jeep of A1 to A3 was coincidence and the mere presence of A4 to A10 itself is not a ground to infer that they shared the common object with A1 to A3 to cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, the conviction of A4 to A10 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC has to be set aside. 31. But the evidence on record would clearly go to show that A1 to A3 armed with deadly weapons caused severe injuries to the deceased and because of such injuries, the deceased died within half an hour after the incident. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court in convicting A1 to A3 of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC are correct and the same need not be interfered with. 32. Insofar as Crl. A No. 475 of 2010 is concerned, since the case of A8 to A10 stands on the same footing as that of A4 to A7, their case needs no interference, and accordingly, A8 to A10 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 506 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 307 IPC. 33. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed against appellants 1 to 3 A1 to A3 in Crl. A No. 1012 of 2008, vide judgment dated 9.7.2008 in SC No. 346 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, are confirmed. 34. 33. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed against appellants 1 to 3 A1 to A3 in Crl. A No. 1012 of 2008, vide judgment dated 9.7.2008 in SC No. 346 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, are confirmed. 34. The appellants 4 to 7/A4 to A7 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 IPC; appellants 1 to 7/A1 to A7 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC; and appellants 4 to 6/A4 to A6 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, and they are acquitted of the respective charges. The fine amount, if any paid by them, shall be refunded to them. Appellants 4 to 7/A4 to A7 shall be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. 35. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 1012 of 2008 is partly allowed. Criminal Appeal No. 475 of 2010 preferred by the State is dismissed confirming the findings of the trial Court in respect of A8 to A10.