JUDGMENT K.L. MANJUNATH, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.6.1996 passed in S.C. No. 32/1988 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan, acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302, 448, 427 and 114 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. In an earlier round when this appeal came up before this Court for hearing, this Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and convicted the respondents/accused of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life by judgment dated 17.10.2001. 3. The respondents/accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by this Court in this very appeal preferred Criminal Appeal No. 274/2002 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents by its order dated 22.3.2012 set aside the judgment and order of this Court passed in this very appeal and remanded the matter to this Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity to the respondent/accused to defend themselves effectively in the case. 4. After the remand, the respondents/accused have engaged the services of Sri. Anoop George Choudary and Smt. June George Choudary, learned Senior counsels, to defend them. We have heard Sri. P.M. Nawaz, learned SPP for the State and the aforesaid learned senior counsels for the respondents/accused. 5. The brief facts of the case are:- The respondents/accused were tried on the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302, 448, 427 and 114 read with Section 149 of IPC. 6. It is alleged that on 4.7.1987 at about 7 a.m. near the Hittalu of one Kalegowda-PW17 situated by the side of the road leading from Doddahalli Koppalu to Doddahalli Shandy Maidan all these respondents/accused had formed into an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons like sickles, choppers, stones etc., with the common object of committing murder of one Rajegowda and causing injuries to PWs. 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and to trespass into the house of PW9 and cause damage to his house and in furtherance of the common object of the said assembly, they did commit murder of the deceased Rajegowda by assaulting him with the weapons with which they were armed, caused injuries to the aforesaid witnesses by assaulting them and after committing the said acts, they trespassed into the house of PW.9, assaulted him and also caused damage to the house of PW.9 to the tune of Rs. 50/- and thereby committed the aforementioned offences. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that all these accused belong to Janathadal (S) Party. Likewise, the deceased Rajegowda and the prosecution witnesses except official witnesses examined in the case belong to ‘Congress party’. There were differences between them in connection with the election held to Mandala Panchayat, on account of which, the relationship between two groups had become deeply strained. In that connection, it is the case of the prosecution, the accused were nursing grudge against the deceased and his henchmen. 8. Such being the position, it is the case of the prosecution on 4.7.1987 at about 7.00 a.m. the deceased Rajegowda was returning to Doddahalli Koppalu via Hitthalu of PW.17 - Kale Gowda situated by the side of the road leading from Doddahalli Koppalu to Doddahalli Shandy Maidan. At that time, all these accused persons had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons like choppers, sickles and stones etc., at the said place and in furtherance of the common object of their unlawful assembly they attacked the deceased at the said place, assaulted him with choppers, clubs and stones and committed his murder. This was witnessed by PW.2 -Bhadrakalamma, who by that time was returning to Doddahalli Koppalu after attending to second call of nature. On seeing the assault made on the deceased, PW.2 raised cries. Hearing the same, PWs. 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and other villagers came to the spot. After they arrived at the spot, according to the prosecution, except for PW.9 others were assaulted by the accused with chopper, clubs, and stones and caused injuries to them. On seeing the assault made on the deceased, PW.2 raised cries. Hearing the same, PWs. 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and other villagers came to the spot. After they arrived at the spot, according to the prosecution, except for PW.9 others were assaulted by the accused with chopper, clubs, and stones and caused injuries to them. Thereafter, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused went near the house of PW.9 at Doddahalli Koppalu village and there they trespassed into his house, assaulted PW.9 and caused damage to his house to the tune of Rs. 50/- and took to their heels. 9. Thereafter, it is the case of the prosecution, PW.1 proceeded to Holenarasipura Police station at about 11.00 a.m. and filed first information report as per Ex.P.1, on the basis of which, the said police registered case against the accused in Crime No. 198/1987 for the various offences including the offence under Section302 read with Section 149 of IPC and issued FIR to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. 10. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by PW.20 - CPI, who in turn took steps to forward the injured in the case to the hospital at Holenarasipura for treatment alongwith a requisition. In pursuance of the same, PW.18 - Medical Officer treated the injured witnesses namely PWs. 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 15 and issued wound certificates in respect of them as per Exs.P.12, P. 14, P.9, P. 13, P. 11, P. 15, P.7, P.10 and P.8 respectively. Thereafter, PW.20 proceeded to the scene of the occurrence and there he held inquest over the body of the deceased Rajegowda and drew up inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.2 in the presence of panch PW.3. After completion of Ex. P. 2, he also issued a requisition to Medical Officer-PW.14 working at Primary Health Unit at Doddahalli to come to the spot and conduct post mortem examination over the body of the deceased Rajegowda. In pursuance of the same, PW.14 came to the spot, conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and issued post mortem report as per Ex.P.5. PW.20, thereafter also drew up spot panchanama as per Ex.P.3 in the presence of PW.7 and at that time he seized MOs. 1 to 6. In pursuance of the same, PW.14 came to the spot, conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and issued post mortem report as per Ex.P.5. PW.20, thereafter also drew up spot panchanama as per Ex.P.3 in the presence of PW.7 and at that time he seized MOs. 1 to 6. After completing Ex.P.3, he also drew up another panchanama near the house of PW.9 as per Ex.P.17 in the presence of panch PW.8 and seized MO. 10 thereunder. He also recorded statement of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and that of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet. 11. PW.20 after taking over the investigation also made efforts to trace the accused, who were at large and deputed his staff to apprehend them. Accordingly, on 6.7.1987 he arrested accused Nos. 19, 20 and 27 and on completion of their arrest formalities, got them remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, he handed over further investigation of the case to PW.21 - CPI. 12. PW.21- CPI on taking over the investigation recorded the statement of PW.15 and arrested Accused Nos. 2, 14, 16 and 22 on 8.7.1987, Accused Nos. 6, 8, 9, 20 and 21 on 9.7.1987, Accused Nos. 1, 4, 11, 12, 13 and 14 on 10.7.1987, Accused No. 7 on 14.7.1987 and accused Nos. 5, 25 and 26 on 15.7.1987. After completion of their arrest formalities, got them remanded to judicial custody. PW.21 during the course of investigation forwarded all the seized articles in the case for subjecting to chemical examination to FSL office. He also made efforts to trace other accused, who were still at large till 8.9.1987. On 8.9.1987 Accused Nos. 10, 15, 18, 25 and 26 surrendered before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, who in turn remanded them to judicial custody. Later on 14.9.1987, PW.21 arrested accused Nos. 3, 15, 18 and 24 and on completion of their arrest formalities also got them remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, on his transfer he handed over further investigation of the case to his successor in the office. Later on 14.9.1987, PW.21 arrested accused Nos. 3, 15, 18 and 24 and on completion of their arrest formalities also got them remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, on his transfer he handed over further investigation of the case to his successor in the office. The said Investigating Officer on securing the relevant documents from the concerned authorities, on completion of the investigation, submitted final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, who in turn committed the case of the accused to the Court of Sessions, which on receipt of the records secured the presence of the accused, framed charges against them as aforesaid, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty but claimed to be tried. 13. The prosecution in support of its case in all examined PWs. 1 to 21 and got marked Exs.P. 1 to P. 17 and MOs. 1 to 10. The accused during the course of examination of the prosecution witnesses got marked Exs.D.1 to D.5. 14. The accused in their 313 statement denied all the incriminating circumstances that were put to them found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, in support of their case, they examined DW.1-Dr. V.P. Reddy and got marked Ex.D.6. Total denial of the prosecution case is defence of the accused. 15. The learned trial Judge on considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused and accordingly, by his judgment and order dated 7.6.1996 acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges levelled against them. 16. The State being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal is in appeal before this Court. 17. Sri. P.M. Nawaz, learned Addl. S.P.P. assailing the impugned judgment and order contended that the trial Court has committed a serious error in not appreciating the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses and also that of PW.2, who has seen the actual assault made on the deceased in right perspective and thereby has come to an erroneous conclusion in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused. Elaborating his submission he contended that the evidence of injured eye-witnesses coupled with that of the evidence of PW.2 clinchingly establishes that the accused are responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased Rajegowda, causing hurt to the injured witnesses and damages to the house of PW.9. Elaborating his submission he contended that the evidence of injured eye-witnesses coupled with that of the evidence of PW.2 clinchingly establishes that the accused are responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased Rajegowda, causing hurt to the injured witnesses and damages to the house of PW.9. He further contended that the evidence of the injured eyewitnesses and that of PW.2 is also corroborated with the medical evidence on record. The same has also not been appreciated in its right perspective, which has resulted in the trial Judge coming to an erroneous conclusion in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge. He also further contended that the first information has been lodged by PW. 1 without any delay in the case. That first information contains the name of all the accused as culprits in the case. This also has not been properly appreciated by the trial Judge and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is perverse, hence it be set aside and the accused be punished in accordance with law. 18. Per contra, Sri. Anoop George Chaudhary, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents/accused supporting the impugned judgment and order of acquittal firstly contended that PW.2 cannot be turned as eyewitness to the occurrence, as no where in her evidence she has stated as to who actually committed the murder of the deceased Rajegowda and as she does not spell out all the accused as culprits in the murder of the deceased. Apart from this, her name is not spelled out by the injured eyewitnesses having been present at the spot of the occurrence. Further her evidence is also in direct conflict with the medical evidence on record. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on her testimony. 19. Insofar as the testimony of the injured eyewitnesses, he firstly contended none of the injured have implicated their respective assailants. Even if their evidence is accepted as to who are their assailants, that evidence does not corroborate with the testimony of Medical Officer - PW. 18 in respect of the injuries that they have sustained. 20. Nextly, he further contended that the weapons with which the injured have been assaulted as claimed could not have caused the injuries on their person in view of the medical evidence on record. 18 in respect of the injuries that they have sustained. 20. Nextly, he further contended that the weapons with which the injured have been assaulted as claimed could not have caused the injuries on their person in view of the medical evidence on record. Therefore, it being in direct conflict with the ocular testimony of these witnesses, no reliance can be placed on their testimony. Apart from this, he further contended that the evidence of PW.18 reveals that accused No. 2 had also sustained injuries on his person and he had been examined on the date of the occurrence, i.e., on 4.7.1987 at about 11.20 a.m. much prior to examination of the injured eye-witnesses in the case at Holenarsipura hospital. None of these prosecution witnesses whisper about the injuries sustained by Accused No. 2 in the case. The Investigating Officer and these witnesses have suppressed as to how and in what manner accused No. 2 has sustained injuries. In view of the same, it goes to show the genesis of the prosecution case has been suppressed and in turn, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of these injured eyewitnesses. He further contended that the evidence of PW.14 - Medical officer, who has conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased reveals that the death has occurred about 18 hours prior to conducting of the post mortem examination. Admittedly, the post mortem examination has been conducted on 4.7.1987 in between 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. If that is taken into consideration, the death of the deceased must have resulted somewhere either in the early hours of 4.8.1987 or at late hours of 3.8.1987, i.e., in between 11 p.m. to 00.00 hours. Therefore, claim of these witnesses that they have seen the occurrence as claimed by them cannot be believed and hence no reliance can be placed on their testimony. 21. He further contended that accused No. 19 had set up the plea of alibi. In support of the same, he has examined DW. 1 - a private doctor, who is running a nursing home under the name and style of Vinayaka Nursing Home at Mysore. His evidence discloses that A. 19 had been admitted in the hospital on 3.7.1987 and had been discharged at about 9. a.m. on the morning of4.7.1987. This evidence of DW. 1 - a private doctor, who is running a nursing home under the name and style of Vinayaka Nursing Home at Mysore. His evidence discloses that A. 19 had been admitted in the hospital on 3.7.1987 and had been discharged at about 9. a.m. on the morning of4.7.1987. This evidence of DW. 1 has not been shaken in the cross-examination and the trial Court believing his testimony has accepted the plea of alibi of A. 19. There is nothing brought on record to discard the testimony of DW.1. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record of all these witnesses in its right perspective has come to the right conclusion in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused, which finding does not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference in this appeal and hence the appeal be dismissed. 22. In the wake of the submissions made, the evidence and documents placed on record, the point that arises for our consideration is:- “Whether the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court acquitting the respondent/accused calls for any interference?” Re-point No. 1: It is the case of the prosecution that on 4.7.1987 at about 7.00 a.m. near the Hittalu of one Kalegowda -PW.17 situated by the side of the road leading from Doddahalli Koppalu to Doddahalli Shandy Maidhan, all these accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like sickles, choppers and stones etc., with the common object of committing the murder of the deceased Rajegowda and causing injuries to PWs. 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and to tress pass into the house of PW.9, damage to his house and in furtherance of common object of the said assembly, they did commit the murder of the deceased Rajegowda by assaulting him with weapons with which they were armed, caused injuries to the aforesaid witnesses and after committing the said acts, they tress passed into the house of PW.9, assaulted him and also caused damage to his house to the tune of Rs. 50/-. 23. In order to establish that the deceased Rajegowda died on homicidal death, the prosecution among other evidence on record has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW. 14 - Medical Officer, who has conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased Rajegowda. 50/-. 23. In order to establish that the deceased Rajegowda died on homicidal death, the prosecution among other evidence on record has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW. 14 - Medical Officer, who has conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased Rajegowda. His evidence discloses that on 4.7.1987 he conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased Rajegowda in between 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. at the spot itself and at that time, he noticed the following injuries: (1) Bruising over the front of the neck from the lower margin of the monolisle to the upper margins of the clavicles. Bruising was not well demarcated. No impressions over it. (2) Bruising present over the lower part of the back of the thorasic cage at the level of 9, 10, 11, and 12th ribs at (R) side measuring 4” in diameter. (3) Bruising present over the tips of the vertesral of corical and thorasic regions and also scagrular regions. (4) Bruising was also present over the tongue and floor of the mouth. (5) Frothy blood was coming from the nose and mouth. (6) Rigor Mortis was present all over the body. (7) Eyes on open, pupils were dilated and corjuctival were congested. (8) Anterior lateral groups of muscles of the neck were congested. (9) But rigor mortis was not fully developed all over the body. 24. He has further found bruising in sternal region, measuring 4” in diameter. In his cross-examination PW. 14 has clarified that blunt force may be using force with the back of the forearm, knee, stones and any blunt substances. If force is used with the knee or back of the forearm, there will be heavy pleasure on the part of the body upon which the force is used. There need not be any rupture of tissues. The hyoid bones will not be delicate till a person is about 35 to 40 years. He has further stated injury Nos. 2 to 7 that were found on the body of the deceased were not fatal in nature. But he has stated that it is a fact that when asphyxia is caused due to the use of blunt force, the tongue will be protruded, but need not necessarily get struck in between the teeth and the tongue will become bluish. 2 to 7 that were found on the body of the deceased were not fatal in nature. But he has stated that it is a fact that when asphyxia is caused due to the use of blunt force, the tongue will be protruded, but need not necessarily get struck in between the teeth and the tongue will become bluish. He has denied the suggestions of the prosecution that if the person falls with his back facing the ground on a hard surface, He also denied the suggestions made by the defence that use of force by knee and back of the forearm cannot be called as blunt force. According to him, if force is used with the knee or back of the forearm, there will be heavy pressure on the part of the body upon which the force is used, but there need not be rapture of tissues. Therefore, in view of the evidence of the Medical Officer - PW.14 and the post mortem report Ex.P.5 and the opinion furnished as per Ex. P.6, it would clearly disclose that the death of the deceased Rajegowda is caused on account of violence and in that view of the matter, it can safely be concluded that the deceased Rajegowda has met with a homicidal death on 4.7.1987. 25. It is also the case of the prosecution that at the time of occurrence the accused assaulted and caused injuries to PWs.1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15. These injured witnesses claim that they had sustained injuries on their person on account of the assault made by the accused, which is disputed by them. PW.18 is the Medical Officer, who has examined these injured witnesses on the very day. His evidence discloses that these injured witnesses had sustained injuries on their person as reflected in the wound certificates, which he has issued as per Exs. P7, P9, P10, P11, P12, P13, P14, P15 and P18. A perusal of the evidence of PW.18 coupled with the wound certificates, which he has issued in respect of the injured witnesses, would go to show that the injured witnesses had sustained injuries on their person. 26. But the question to be considered is; whether the accused are responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased Rajegowda and causing injuries to the injured witnesses. 26. But the question to be considered is; whether the accused are responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased Rajegowda and causing injuries to the injured witnesses. Apart from the same, they also had tress passed into the house of PW.9 and had caused damage to his house. In order to establish the same, the prosecution has placed reliance on the direct testimony of PW.2 - Bhadrakalamma coupled with the evidence of injured witnesses adverted to above. 27. PW.2 in her evidence has claimed that on the date of occurrence she was returning to the house at Doddahalli Koppalu via Hittalu of PW. 17 after attending to her second call of nature. It further discloses that when she came near Hittalu of PW. 17, she saw the accused assaulting the deceased with clubs, stones and choppers and also falling him into a manure pit and strangulating him. Seeing the same, she raised cries. On hearing the said cries, PWs. 1, 5 , 10 accompanied by the villagers came to the spot. Thereafter, the accused assaulted the injured witnesses also. This PW.2 is none other than the aunt of the deceased. PW. 1 is the elder brother of the deceased and admittedly, he has lodged first information before the police on the very day at about 11.00 a.m. In Ex.P.1 - first information he has not mentioned the name of PW.2 having present at the scene of the occurrence. Apart from the same, PW.2 though claims that the accused assaulted the deceased with choppers, sickles and stones, we do not find that many injuries on the deceased, which could be attributed to each of the accused as in the post mortem report, there are only four external injuries, which are bruises. According to the prosecution, all these accused numbering to 27 have assaulted the deceased. If that is the case, there could not have been only four injuries on the body of the deceased as noticed by PW.14 - Medical Officer, who has conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased. Further the evidence of PW.2 does not inspire confidence for the reasons if she had been really presented the scene of the occurrence, PW.1, who is none other than her nephew, would not have failed to mention her name in the FIR. Further the evidence of PW.2 does not inspire confidence for the reasons if she had been really presented the scene of the occurrence, PW.1, who is none other than her nephew, would not have failed to mention her name in the FIR. The evidence of PW.2 though reveals that all the accused assaulted the deceased and fell him into a manure pit and strangulated him, her evidence does not disclose who among the accused applied either on the neck, which has resulted in the death of the accused. It is also her case that all the witnesses came to the spot after the deceased was assaulted and murdered by the accused. Since her evidence does not corroborated with the medical evidence on record, more particularly with that of PW. 14-Medical Officer, who has conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and as her name has not been spelled out in the first information by PW. 1, who is none other than her nephew, her testimony does not inspire confidence to place any reliance. Apart from this, her testimony also cannot be believed because PW. 14 - Medical Officer claims that rigor mortis were present over the body. He has conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased on 4.07.1987 in between 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. The occurrence according to the prosecution took place on 4.7.1987 at about 7.00 a.m. or 7.30 a.m. PW.14 - Medical Officer has stated that the death has occurred about 18 hours prior to conducting post mortem examination. If this evidence of PW.14 is taken into consideration, then the death must have occurred much prior to 7.30 a.m. on 4.7.1987 or not at 7.00 p.m. or 7.30 a.m. as projected by the prosecution. In our view, having regard to the evidence of PW.14 the deceased must have been done to death somewhere in the early hours of 4.7.1987, i.e., in the mid night and at any rate, not at 7.00 a.m. or 7.30 p.m. on 4.7.1987, which is another point going against the prosecution to disbelieve the testimony of PW.2 that she saw the accused committing the murder of the deceased. 28. Nextly, coming to the testimony of the injured witnesses, it is settled position an injured would not exculpate his assailants and the very fact that he having sustained injuries would also go to show that he was present at the spot. 28. Nextly, coming to the testimony of the injured witnesses, it is settled position an injured would not exculpate his assailants and the very fact that he having sustained injuries would also go to show that he was present at the spot. In this case, all these injured witnesses are henchmen of the deceased Rajegowda belonging to ‘Congress Party’. Therefore, they are all interested and partisan witnesses. Merely because, they are interested and partisan witnesses, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. On the other hand, it will have to be subjected to close scrutiny before placing any reliance on their testimony. Bearing this in mind, we would proceed to examine the testimony of these witnesses to find out whether it inspires confidence to place reliance on them. 29. PW. 1 claims that he was assaulted by A.6 and A.9 with club, chopper on the right cheek and right arm. He has been treated by PW. 18 - Medical Officer, who has issued wound certificate in respect of him as per Ex.P.12. 30. The evidence of PW.18 and Ex.P.12 does not disclose that he had sustained any injuries that could be caused with the chopper. A perusal of Ex.P. 12 reflects that he has sustained only abrasion on the right wrist on the lateral side of the wrist, abrasion on the right ear scapular side ¼? × ¼? and pain and tenderness over the left knee joint. These could not have been the injuries if according to PW.1 he had been assaulted by A. 6 and A. 9 with choppers as claimed by him. Therefore, it goes to show that his testimony does not corroborate with the medical evidence on record. 31. Insofar as PW.5- Annajigowda, he claims that he was assaulted with sickle on his head by A.1 and A.2. Evidence of PW.18 discloses that these witness has sustained as many as eight injuries, which are either lacerated or abrasions. Ex.P14 is the wound certificate in respect of this witness. That also discloses that the injuries, which he has sustained are either lacerated or abrasions. None of the injuries noticed on his person are inside wounds. If according to this witness, he had been assaulted by A1 and A2 with chopper/sickle as claimed by him, he should have suffered inside wounds and not lacerated wounds or abrasions. Therefore, his evidence being in direct conflict with the medical evidence on record. None of the injuries noticed on his person are inside wounds. If according to this witness, he had been assaulted by A1 and A2 with chopper/sickle as claimed by him, he should have suffered inside wounds and not lacerated wounds or abrasions. Therefore, his evidence being in direct conflict with the medical evidence on record. Apart from this, he claims that he lost his conscious and regained the same three days later. This evidence of this witness cannot also be believed because, PW.18, who has treated him on the date of occurrence, itself does not say he was unconscious. Therefore, his testimony does not inspire confidence to place reliance. 32. Nextly, insofar as PW.6 - Marigowda, he claims that he has been assaulted with club on his back and thigh by A.4. The evidence of PW.18, who treated this witness, discloses that he had sustained contusion on the right hip ¼? × ¼?, swelling and tenderness on the left ankle joint, contusion of ¼? × ¼? on the right scapula and abrasion of 1? × 1? on the right arm. The wound certificate Ex. P.9 issued in respect of him discloses the very same injuries. This evidence of this witness, in our view, is in direct conflict with the medical evidence, inasmuch as there are no injuries noticed on his person either on his back or thigh as claimed by him. Therefore, his testimony also, in our view, is untrustworthy. 33. Coming to the evidence of PW.9, he does not spell out which of the accused assaulted him with what weapon. He also stated that he lost his consciousness and regained after three days while undergoing treatment at Sanjaygandhi Hospital, which is contrary to the evidence of PW. 18, who has stated that he treated him in the hospital at Holenarasipura. PW. 18 does not also say that he was unconscious. In the light of this, as this witness does not implicate any of the accused as his assailants and in view of what we have adverted to above, it is of no avail in any manner to connect the accused with the alleged offence. 34. Coming to the evidence of PW. 10 - Govindegowda, he claims to have been assaulted by A.4 on his head with a club. He also claims that he lost his consciousness and regained the same on the next day. PW. 34. Coming to the evidence of PW. 10 - Govindegowda, he claims to have been assaulted by A.4 on his head with a club. He also claims that he lost his consciousness and regained the same on the next day. PW. 18 - Medical Officer, who has treated him, has stated that he has sustained three injuries, out of which, two are lacerated wound and other is pain and tenderness on the epigastria region. No injuries are found on the head as claimed by him. Injuries found on his right middle finger and right figure near the tip does not corroborate with the medical evidence. His claim that he had become unconscious and regained the same on the next day also cannot be believed because, PW. 18 does not say that this witness was unconscious at the time of his examination. Therefore, his evidence does not inspire confidence to place any reliance on him. 35. Insofar as PW.11 - Ningarajegowda is concerned, he also does not state as to who assaulted him specifically except making the statement that all the accused were present. PW.18 - Medical Officer, who has treated him, has stated that he had sustained lacerated wound of ½? × ½? on muscle deep on the brim of the nose and pain and tenderness on the left side of the chest. As this witness does not specifically take out which of the accused is his assailants, his testimony also does not inspire confidence to place any reliance on him. 36. Insofar as PW.12 - Doddegowda is concerned, he claims that he was assaulted by A. 18 with chopper on the right eye. The evidence of PW. 18 - Medical Officer, who has treated him, discloses that he has sustained as many as six injuries, out of which, injury Nos. 1 and 3 are lacerated and incised and injury Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are abrasions. The testimony of PW.18 does not disclose he had sustained any injury on his right eye as claimed by this witness. Therefore, the evidence of this witness being exaggerated and cannot be believed. 37. Nextly, PW.13 in his evidence also does not claim as to who assaulted him with what weapon. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are abrasions. The testimony of PW.18 does not disclose he had sustained any injury on his right eye as claimed by this witness. Therefore, the evidence of this witness being exaggerated and cannot be believed. 37. Nextly, PW.13 in his evidence also does not claim as to who assaulted him with what weapon. He claims that he took treatment for the injuries next day of the occurrence whereas, the evidence of PW.18 discloses that he was treated on the very day alongwith other injured witnesses. Apart from the same, he has also been treated as hostile to the prosecution. Therefore, in our view, his evidence is also of no avail in any manner to connect the accused with the alleged offence. 38. Insofar as PW.15, he claims that he was kicked and assaulted with clubs and stones. He does not mention which of the accused assaulted him. According to this witness, he has sustained three injuries, out of which, two are abrasions and other is pain and tenderness in the left infra auxiliary region. As he has not spelled out the name of the accused as his assailants, which would not be the conduct of the injured witnesses. Having regard to the circumstances and the other evidence on record, his evidence also cannot be believed. 39. Apart from what has been discussed to above, all these injured witnesses claim that they had been to Holenarasipura General Hospital on the date of occurrence and had taken treatment at the hands of PW. 18 - Medical Officer. The evidence on record reveals that at a distance of about 1 km from the spot of the occurrence, there is a Primary Health Unit at Doddahalli itself. PW.14 is the Medical Officer. who was working at the said hospital and he has conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased at the spot on that very day. If according to these injured witnesses they had sustained injuries as claimed by them, it is quite natural that they should have rushed to the hospital, which is at a distance of 1 km rather than going to Holenarasipura General Hospital at about 11.00 a.m., which is at a distance of more than 22 km from their place, i.e., Doddahalli Koppalu. This conduct of these witnesses in not taking treatment to the injuries, which they had sustained, at the hands of PW.14 would also go a long way to place reliance on their testimony. Apart from this, none of these witnesses, who claim to have sustained injuries at the hands of the accused, does mention the name of PW.2 having been present at the spot of the occurrence, because it is the case of the prosecution that on hearing the cries of PW.2, the villagers including these injured witnesses came to the spot and the accused assaulted these persons. Having regard to the discussions, which we have adverted to above, as the evidence of these witnesses is in direct conflict with the medical evidence on record, we are of the view they being interested and partisan witnesses, does not inspire confidence to place any reliance on them. Apart from this, the evidence of PW. 14 - Medical Officer, who has conducted autopsy as already pointed while discussing the evidence of PW.2, goes to show that the death of the deceased might have occurred 18 hours prior to conducting of post mortem examination by PW. 14. As already pointed out, the autopsy has been conducted by PW. 14 - Medical Officer on the date of the occurrence in between 4.00 p.m. to 6.00p.m. at the spot. If that time is taken into consideration and if according to PW.14, the death has occurred 18 hours prior to conducting autopsy, death dates back sometime in the mid night of 4.7.1987. It is also probabalised because the name of PW.2 does not find a place in the first information filed by PW. 1, she does not mention that all these injured came to the spot and the injured does not claim that they saw PW.2 at the spot. Yet another point is, as already pointed out, some of the witnesses claim that they had gone unconscious, which is contrary to the evidence of PW.18 - Medical Officer, who has treated them. If according to them, they had gone unconscious, they could not have gone on their own to Holenarasipura General Hospital, which is at a distance of 22 kms for taking treatment. Having assessed the evidence of these witnesses from all angles, we are of the clear view, their evidence do not inspire any confidence to place reliance on them. 40. If according to them, they had gone unconscious, they could not have gone on their own to Holenarasipura General Hospital, which is at a distance of 22 kms for taking treatment. Having assessed the evidence of these witnesses from all angles, we are of the clear view, their evidence do not inspire any confidence to place reliance on them. 40. Further, it is the case of A. 19 that he was not present in the village at the time and on the date of occurrence. According to him, he was taking treatment under DW. 1 in the nursing home at Mysore and he had been discharged from the nursing home on the date of the occurrence at about 9.00 a.m. much after the occurrence. DW.1 has been examined to establish the same. DW.1 in his evidence has stated that A. 19 had been admitted in his nursing home for treatment and had been discharged on 4.7.1987 at about 9.00 a.m. In the cross-examination of DW.1, nothing has been elicited to discard his testimony in respect of he having treated A. 19 in his nursing home at Mysore and having discharged him on the morning of 4.7.1987 at about 9.00 a.m. , which is also supported from his certificate Ex.D.6. Having regard to the evidence of DW.1, it goes to show that A. 19, who was not in the village, has been falsely implicated in the case on account of political rivalry. 41. The other evidence is only in respect of Investigating Officers and formal witnesses, i.e., panchas to the mahazars drawn up in the case. Since we have held that the direct evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrustworthy, the evidence of this ancillary witnesses does not in any way further the case of the prosecution pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The learned trial Judge on an appreciation of the evidence on record in depth has come to the conclusion in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused, which finding in our view, being based on the facts and law, does not suffer from any infirmity, calling for interference in this appeal. 42. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in this appeal and hence it is dismissed.