JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. These appeals arises out of a common judgment and order dated 27.08.2007 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nuapada thereby convicting the appellants involving in all the three appeals under Sections 302/149 of I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and also directing to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only) in default to undergo imprisonment for one month each in connection with Sessions Case No. 62/01 of 1997-2000. For the commonness in all the three appeals and for being arising out of common judgment and order of sentence all the three appeals are heard and decided together. 2. Briefly state the case of the prosecution is that the deceased-Byasadev Pradhan and injured-informant were supporters of one political party i.e. “the Janata Dal” and the accused persons at the time of occurrence were the supporters of another political party i.e. the “Bharatiya Janata Party”. At the relevant point of time there was political dispute between two groups. Komna Block i.e. the place of occurrence was facing election for the post of Chairman of Komna Block Panchayat Samiti. On 24.1.1997 in between 10.00 to 10.30 P.M. the deceased, the injured P.W. 20 and others while returning after making election campaigning for the Chairman candidate of Komna Block Panchayat Samiti, took tea in a Dhaba near Komna where some of the accused persons belonging to rival political party abused them in filthy language and also chased them. The informant P.W.20 and others proceeded to Komna P.S. and lodged a First Information Report (F.I.R.) vide Komna P.S. Case No. 1/1997. After lodging the F.I.R. while they were returning in the jeep on the way near Panchayat Chhak, they were threatened by the accused persons. The informant and others parked their vehicles in front of the firm house of the deceased-Byasadev Pradhan, which is situated in the main road of the village-Komna. It is the specific complaint of the informant that at this point of time all the accused persons being armed with lathis and bicycle chains came there and assaulted P.W.20 and the deceased, for which both of them sustained injuries on different parts of their body. P.W. 20 was shifted to Komna Hospital for treatment where he lodged the F.I.R. involving the present case being scribed by P.W.19. P.W. 20 was shifted to Komna Hospital for treatment where he lodged the F.I.R. involving the present case being scribed by P.W.19. Deceased-Byasadev Pradhan who also received injuries in the very same incident was shifted to Nuapada Hospital and subsequently to the V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla. While getting treatment as an indoor patient through Neuro Surgery Department, Byasadev Pradhan expired on 28.01.1997 i.e. after four days of the incident. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that upon receipt of the F.I.R. the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Komna P.S. registered the case and took up the investigation, subsequently, his successor T.J. Reddy, B.S. Bahidar also took part in the investigation and on completion of Investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted by the then Officers in-charge of Komna P.S. During investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, V.S.S. Medical College Out Post conducted inquest over the dead body and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. 4. Defence plea is of complete denial. 5. Taking into consideration the prosecution case and the denial by the accused persons, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the accused persons by forming an unlawful assemble being armed with deadly weapons assaulted the deceased and the informant P.W.20 on 24/25.01.1997 late night, as a result of which Byasadev Pradhan died for the said assault and other injured-informant sustained serious bodily injuries? (ii) Whether the deceased Byasadev Pradhan died homicidal death after receiving injury on 24/25.01.1997? 6. To prove the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence vide Ext.1 to 35/1 whereas, the defence also examined 6 witnesses and relied on documents vide Ext. ‘A’ to Ext. ‘P’. Prosecution also proved material objects as M.O. ‘I’ to M.O. ‘V’. Upon appreciation of evidence and consideration of the prosecution case as well as the defence case, the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nuapada while acquitting some of the accused persons for absence of material against them convicted the appellants involved in all the three appeals under Sections-302/149 of I.P.C. thereby sentencing all the convicts to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) each in default to undergo imprisonment for one month. 7. P.W. 20 is the informant/injured. P.Ws.6, 10, 11, 16 & 19 are the witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws.1, 2 & 15 are the seizure witnesses. 7. P.W. 20 is the informant/injured. P.Ws.6, 10, 11, 16 & 19 are the witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws.1, 2 & 15 are the seizure witnesses. P.W. 3 is the witness to seizure of bed head ticket and X-ray plate of one Manoj Kumar Mishra (P.W.20). P.W.8 is the Medical Officer involving the deceased. P.W. 14 is the technician of the X-ray plates. P.W. 19 is scribe of F.I.R./witness to the occurrence. P.W.21 is the Doctor at C.H.C., Komna examined injured Manoj Kumar Mishra. P.W.22 is the Doctor treating the injured at District Head Quarter Hospital, Nuapada. P.W.23 is the Doctor conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased at Burla. P.W. 24 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Medical Out Post V.S.S. Medical College & Hospital, Burla. P.W. 25 is the Officer-in-charge, Komna Police Station. P.W.26 & 27 are also the Investigating Officers to the case subsequently, joined the investigation. 8. To substantiate his argument for acquittal of the accused persons in all the three appeals in adopting a common set of argument Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate advanced his arguments under the following headings:- (i) The real F.I.R. is suppressed. (ii) Time of occurrence is doubtful. (iii) Genesis of the case is doubtful. (iv) Questioned the position of P.W. 20 who lodged the F.I.R. (v) There exists the previous hostility. (vi) Place of occurrence also doubtful. (vii) Blood stained clothes have not been seized, there is even no proper identification of the dead body of the deceased. (viii) Evidence of the eye witnesses not only disturbing but also inconsistent. In substantiating his allegation that the real F.I.R. is suppressed Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate submitted that as per the prosecution case F.I.R. (Ext.12) was scribed at Komna Hospital by the P.W. 19 as per the dictation of the injured informant P.W.20, at about 3.00 to 4.00 A.M of 24/25.01.1997 after P.W. 20 regained his sense which is also the version of P.W. 20 particularly in paragraph No.2 of his chief. Sri D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate relying upon the evidence of P.W.21, the Assistant Surgeon, Komna C.H.C examined P.W.20 on Police requisition dated 25.1.1997 at about 12.45 A.M. further submitted that the evidence of the P.W. 21 also indicates that the incident had taken place two hours prior to 12.45 A.M. and this supports his contention that the real F.I.R. is suppressed and the trial had taken place on a wrong/fabricated F.I.R. 9. In substantiating his case on the allegation of timing of the occurrence, Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate submitted that even though P.Ws. 11, 13, 16 & 19 have stated that the occurrence has taken place at midnight but P.W. 12 has stated that the occurrence had taken place in between 11.00 to 12.00 P.M. Similarly, in the examination in chief P.W. 17 stated that the occurrence has taken place at 12.00 A.M. but in his cross examination he has stated that the occurrence has taken place at 2. A.M. Again P.Ws.18 & 20 even though stated that the occurrence has taken place from 12.00 to 12.30 P.M. but later on both of them differed in their versions. Relying on the evidence of P.W. 26-the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Komna Police Station, Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate submitted that this witness in his cross examination by the defence has specifically submitted that he himself had taken the requisition to the hospital and having seen the injured Manoj Kumar Mishra, he had given the said requisition to the Doctor and as Manoj Kumar Mishra was known to him, he felt that it was not necessary to identify him to the Doctor and again said that he gave the requisition to the Doctor and by the time the Doctor had already started treatment of injured Manoj Kumar Mishra. This witness has a clear statement that in his requisition vide Ext.14/2 though a mention has been made regarding time of occurrence in 2nd line of sentence that at 12.30 A.M. after the word ‘about’ but he had written it 2.00 A.M. and it has been 12.30 A.M. by over writing. The above evidence coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.7 & 26 could make a crystal clear case that timing of the occurrence has been deliberately changed with an ulterior motive to foist a case against the appellants in order to feed fat his earlier grudge. The above evidence coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.7 & 26 could make a crystal clear case that timing of the occurrence has been deliberately changed with an ulterior motive to foist a case against the appellants in order to feed fat his earlier grudge. It has a clear indication that P.W. 26 being related to P.W.19 is the brain behind the entire episode and has deliberately tried to manipulate the case record to shoot the prosecution story. 10. On his allegation that the genesis of the case is doubtful Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate referring to the evidence of P.Ws.13, 16, 17 & 18 read with evidence of P.W. 26 submitted that it brings out a case that either the I.O is lying or the so-called eye witnesses cannot be treated to be witnesses to the occurrence. Coming to the allegation as to if, the P.W.20 i.e. the informant was in a position to lodge the F.I.R. (Ext.12), Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate referring to the evidence of P.Ws.21 & 26 contended that P.W.20 was not in a position to give statement before the P.W.19 to scribe the F.I.R. information to substantiate his case on previous hostility. Relying on the evidence of P.W.20, Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate submitted that such allegation is a naked truth. Similarly on the allegation that the place of occurrence is doubtful, Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate relying upon the evidence of P.W.20 read with evidence of P.Ws.11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 26 contended that his such allegation gets full support from the evidence of these witnesses. On the allegation of blood stained clothes was not being seized, Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate contended that non-seizure of blood stained clothes belonging to the P.W.20 who had also claimed to have suffered serious injuries, raises a doubt on the veracity of the presence of witnesses at the spot at the time of incident and establishes the callous attitude of the I.O. Similarly, on the allegations with regard to the dead body of the deceased was not being properly identified, Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate relying upon the evidence of P.W. 23 submitted that the persons identified the dead body i.e. the Constable-Sri B.K. Behera and other persons like Debendra Pradhan and Purandar Bhoi have not been examined by the prosecution. Since the Doctor had no personal knowledge about the deceased, the evidence of P.W.23 with regard to identification has no evidentiary value. Coming to the submissions that the evidence of eye witnesses are not reliable, Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate in this regard contended that P.W. 11 remains a cousin being the son of the uncle of the deceased, remains a highly interested witness. This apart he is also a delinquent in a proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C in which some of the accused persons were first parties. This witness has also not been named in the F.I.R. but figured as an occurrence witness. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.12 shown as F.I.R. named witness is not trustworthy for the reason that he is also facing a criminal case at the instance of the accused persons, besides that he has also admitted that he is an active member of the “Janata Dal” and all the accused persons are the active members of the “B.J.P”. Clearly establishing the political hostility between them, P.W. 13 claimed to be an eye witness on 28.01.1997 this witness gave his statement before the Police for first time. Even though he was very much staying in the village throughout the date of occurrence but he has given a peculiar explanation for his delayed examination that he did not come-out of the house till 28.1.1997, is hardly to be accepted. Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate also claimed that the evidence of P.W.13 the F.I.R. named witness also suffers for belated discloser also on the plea that he could not also come-out of his house till 28.1.1997. Sri Dhal also claimed that the evidence of P.W. 20 is also not trustworthy for the reason of his deposition that he has not seen anybody else at the time of occurrence and as such, presence of these witnesses at the occurrence place is to be wholly ruled-out. P.W.16’s evidence also suffers not only for the reason of his statement after a long gap but also he being the younger brother of the deceased. Similarly the evidence of P.W. 17 an eye witness cannot be believed not only for delay recording of his statement but for the reason that he is already a convict involving three of the accused persons as witness against him. Similarly the evidence of P.W. 17 an eye witness cannot be believed not only for delay recording of his statement but for the reason that he is already a convict involving three of the accused persons as witness against him. Similarly evidence of the P.W. 18 is also not trustworthy for the reason that not only this witness has been examined after ten days of the occurrence but he also remained as a delinquent in a proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C involving some of the accused persons as witness. It is also claimed that the judgment and order of sentence also suffers for relying on a part of the evidence and disbelieving the other part. The whole evidence of P.Ws.19 & 20 should have been discarded. 11. To substantiate his case Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate also relied upon some decisions on belated disclosure/delayed examination, decisions on the point of inconsistency between the medical and ocular evidence vide AIR 2008 (1) (SC) 533 in a case in between Kapildeo Mandal Vs. State of Bihar. On the point of evidence of P.W. 20 is not trustworthy, Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate relied upon a decision vide AIR 1989 (SC) 1543 a case in between Chetram and others Vs. State of U.P. Sri Dhal, learned Senior Advocate while concluding his argument further contended that the trial Court has ignored the whole evidence of P.Ws.7 & 9 who have not supported the case of the prosecution and even though they have not been declared as hostile and justified his such submission by relying on a decision in the case of Kunju Mohammad and another Vs. State of Kerala as reported in 2004 SCC (Cri.) 1425. 12. In opposition Mrs. Saswata Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate while justifying the findings of the trial court contended that so far as the time, day and place of occurrence is concerned, all the eye witnesses including the injured have maintained that the occurrence had taken place on 24/25.01.1997 around midnight and in front of the firm house of the deceased. In opposition Mrs. Saswata Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate while justifying the findings of the trial court contended that so far as the time, day and place of occurrence is concerned, all the eye witnesses including the injured have maintained that the occurrence had taken place on 24/25.01.1997 around midnight and in front of the firm house of the deceased. The eye witnesses as well as the injured confirmed the time of assault not only in the midnight but also in between 12.00 A.M. to 12.30 A.M. The Doctor also states that he examined the injured at 12.45 A.M. The case diary shows though the F.I.R. is received at 4.00 A.M. but the same indicates, the time of occurrence is 12.00 A.M. F.I.R. also indicates that the time of occurrence is 12.00 A.M. and learned AGA fairly submitted that as per the own submission of the I.O., the I.O. has himself admitted that he has manipulated the time of occurrence to be 2.00 A.M. Learned AGA further contended that out of 27 prosecution witnesses there are at least 19 independent witnesses including 14 numbers of eye witnesses, who have all supported and corroborated the prosecution story. According to her, the occurrence having taken place in the midnight, it could not be possible to obtain any absolute independent witnesses and law is fairly well settled that even one solitary witness is enough to sustain a conviction. P.W. 20 is himself sufficient to support the order of conviction. 13. Learned AGA further contended that the FIR was lodged by the P.W.19 in the hospital as per the dictation of P.W. 20 only after P.W.20 regained his consciousness and it is well evident from the case diary that the investigation had started from 4.00 A.M. of 25.01.1997. There is consistent statement through several witnesses including the brother of the deceased P.W. 16 who have all stated that the injured was first taken to Komna C.M.C Hospital and then to Nuapada Hospital from where the deceased was shifted to Burla. It is fairly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that there is little deviation by P.W. 16-brother of the deceased who had stated that the deceased was taken to his house before he was shifted to Komna Hospital and contends that an order of conviction cannot suffer for such small discrepancy. It is fairly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that there is little deviation by P.W. 16-brother of the deceased who had stated that the deceased was taken to his house before he was shifted to Komna Hospital and contends that an order of conviction cannot suffer for such small discrepancy. As regards the injuries on the deceased, learned AGA submitted that though the injuries appeared as simple but since the patient was serious after examination through the P.W.25, Professor and HOD it is evident that there were extra Dural Hematoma, Sub-Dural Hematoma, Depressed Fracture over right panatela area and also a linear fracture and the cause of death is shown to be arising out of shock and hemorrhage due to injuries on two organs like skull and brain. 14. On the question of non-seizure of the blood stained wearing apparels, learned AGA contended that as per the statement of the P.W.20 the injured, blood stained wearing apparels were not even seized in spite of request made by P.W.20. She further contended that since the investigation was taken up by several Officers, there might have been some mistakes or lacunas but looking to the nature of mistake or lacunas, the conviction cannot be found to be faulted. Coming to the evidence part, learned AGA by lending a support to the evidence in favour of the prosecution contended that P.Ws.4, 5 & 6 even though stated to be the FIR named occurrence witnesses or occurrence witness but they have all been declared as hostile. P.W. 9a F.I.R. named occurrence witness has a categorical statement that finding an altercation between the parties, he reported the matter to the Police at 12.00 A.M. and remain stayed in Thana till 2.00 A.M. 15. Relying on the evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.11, 12 & 13, learned AGA contended that for the statement of P.W. 11 that the incident had taken place in front of firm house in the midnight of 24.01.1997 in between 11.00 A.M. to 12.00 P.M, all these witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. Taking que from the evidence of P.Ws.16, 17, 18 & 19 who are all the eye witnesses to the occurrence learned AGA submitted that they all supported the case of the prosecution by categorically submitting that the occurrence had not only taken place in front of the firm house but also in the midnight of 24.1.1997. Taking que from the evidence of P.Ws.16, 17, 18 & 19 who are all the eye witnesses to the occurrence learned AGA submitted that they all supported the case of the prosecution by categorically submitting that the occurrence had not only taken place in front of the firm house but also in the midnight of 24.1.1997. Similarly, relying upon the statement of the injured-informant P.W.20 for his specific denial that the assault took place after 1.00 A.M., she claims that this witness also supports the case of the prosecution fully. 16. In concluding her submission, Mrs. Patnaik, learned AGA while justifying the order of conviction submitted that even though there are small discrepancies here and there, which might have occurred for the carelessness and negligence of the Investigating officer but the same cannot find the prosecution failed in establishing his case and thus, prayed for sustaining the order of conviction. 17. Taking up the plea of doubt on the issue of time of occurrence as well as place of occurrence, this Court on perusal of the Form-I appended to the F.I.R No.02 dated 25.1.1997 available at page 81 of the brief finds at column 3(b) as against the occurrence or offence : the day of occurrence is mentioned as Saturday date of occurrence is mentioned as 25.1.1997 and the time of occurrence mentioned as morning about 12.00 A.M. Now looking to the contents in the written F.I.R., this Court finds that so far as the time of occurrence is concerned there is clear mentioning that the incident has taken place at 12 hours in the night. For the objection and counter objection by the defence as well as prosecution this Court feels to verify the truthfulness on perusal of the Original F.I.R. marked as Ext.12 and from perusal of the Original F.I.R., it clearly appears that the F.I.R. originally has a clear indication but in Oriya vernacular that the incident had taken place at about 12.00 hours in the night. But a microscopic scrutiny of the F.I.R. at the place of incident taken place, it clearly appears that there has been two inks used for putting the timing particularly in mentioning the two numbers. But a microscopic scrutiny of the F.I.R. at the place of incident taken place, it clearly appears that there has been two inks used for putting the timing particularly in mentioning the two numbers. One ink is used for mentioning 1 and the 2 is written in another ink which definitely raises a doubt in the actual mentioning of the time of occurrence in the F.I.R. the Ext.12 also indicates that the F.I.R. was received at 4.00 A.M. of 25.01.1997 revealing a cognizable case under Sections-147/148/325/323/379/149 of I.P.C. whereas the format prepared and Police manual rule on receiving F.I.R. Ext.12/3 has a clear indication regarding the time of occurrence or offence available of clause 3(b) of the format as morning about 12. A.M. On close scrutiny of records of the lower court, this Court also finds from the charge at 1st charge place indicated the time and date of occurrence as 25th day of January 1997 at 2. A.M. Now coming to Ext.14/2 the requisition of the in-charge O.I.C, Komna Police Station dated 25.01.1997 referring the case of the injured informant P.W. 20 to the medical Officer, C.H.C. Komna for the injured’s medical examination the requisition has a clear indication that the time of incident is about 12.30 A.M. of 25.1.1997. Similarly, the injury report at Ext.14 the Doctor P.W.21 while indicating the duration of all the injuries within two hours of Examination also indicated that the date or time of examination as 12.45 A.M. of 25.1.1997. Now coming to examine this aspect taking into consideration from the statement through the other witnesses particularly the eye witnesses it is seen that the prosecution claims it has 14 eye witnesses which includes 9 F.I.R. named occurrence witnesses whereas five occurrence witnesses. During trial P.Ws.4, 5 & 6 are declared hostile. Other witnesses such as P.Ws.7, 9 & 10 though not supported the case of the prosecution but they are surprisingly not declared hostile. During trial P.Ws.4, 5 & 6 are declared hostile. Other witnesses such as P.Ws.7, 9 & 10 though not supported the case of the prosecution but they are surprisingly not declared hostile. Now coming to examine the evidence of other eight eye witnesses such as P.Ws.11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20, this Court finds P.W.11 Bikram Pradhan a witnesses to the occurrence though not named in the F.I.R. in his statement before 1.00 A.M. on 28.1.1997 made a categorical statement that the occurrence took place on 24/25.01.1997 at midnight in front of garden of Byasadev Pradhan in front of office of Janata Dal whereas in his deposition in trial in the st paragraph itself submitted that the occurrence took place on 24.1.1997 in the midnight in front of the firm house of Byasadev Pradhan the deceased. In paragraph 4 of his cross examination, this witnesses also submitted that he had intimated the Police regarding the incident and that he was an eye witnesses but it was about 12.30 to 1.00 P.M, he intimated the fact to the Police. P.W.12 Duryodhan Pradhan and an eye witnesses whose name even appear in the F.I.R., in his deposition in 1st para submitted that the occurrence took place on 24.1.1997 at about 11.00 to 12.00 in front of the firm house of the deceased. P.W. 13 Debaraj Pradhan whose name was also appearing in the F.I.R in para 1 of his deposition submitted that the occurance took place on 25.01.1997 in front of the firm house of the deceased and in the midnight. Similarly, P.W.16 an witnesses to the occurrence, one Debendra Kumar Pradhan in his deposition submitted that the occurrence took place on 24.01.1997 in the midnight on the next day it was 25th January, 1997. This witness stated that he was present in his own house in that night and he could notice the incident after he came out of his house upon hearing noise of about 15 to 16 persons and in para 2 has a specific statement that accused persons were assaulting the injured and the deceased on the main road itself which situates in front of his own firm house. This Court observes that this witness has a complete different statement before the I.O. with regard to time of occurrence and also the place of occurrence where he had categorically submitted that the occurrence took place in front of the garden of Byasadev Pradhan which is in front of the Office of Janata Dal. This witness was examined by the I.O. at Burla on 28.01.1997 during dead body challan where he had a statement not to have seen the occurrence and whatever he stated all these are only after hearing the same from Manoj Kumar Mishra P.W.20. On scan of the evidence of P.W.17 it is noticed that this witnesses in para-1 has a categorical statement that the occurrence took place on 24/25.1.1997 in the midnight. Going for scan of evidence of P.W. 18 Sadan Kumar Tiwari a person also named in the F.I.R. has a categorical statement that the occurrence took place on 24/25.1.1997 in the midnight. There is no specific averment either on the timing or on the place of occurrence even though this witness was very much present at the time of occurrence. Now coming to scan the evidence of most vital witness the injured informant P.W.20, this witness in para 2 gave out that the incident involved took place at about 10 P.M. to 10.30 P.M. on 24.1.1997 for which they have also filed an F.I.R. During the incident he was accompanied with Sri Prasanna Kumar Padhy, deceased Byasadev Pradhan, Mahakud Singh Majhi and others. This witness has a categoric statement in para 2 of his deposition that at about 11.00 P.M. they went to put diesel in their vehicle at Block Chhack and while going to put diesel they also took Tentwala Debaraj Pradhan (P.W. 13) with them. In para 2 of his statement he had made it specific that when they along with the Tentwala were returning after putting diesel they were assaulted by the accused person meaning thereby the P.W. 13 Debaraj Pradhan was very much present at the spot. But if statement of the P.W. 13 is read at this stage, P.W. 13 an eye witness in para 1 has the categoric statement that when the Jeep halted in front of the firm house of the deceased he went to his tent house to bring articles and came out side of his house only after hearing hullah outside. But if statement of the P.W. 13 is read at this stage, P.W. 13 an eye witness in para 1 has the categoric statement that when the Jeep halted in front of the firm house of the deceased he went to his tent house to bring articles and came out side of his house only after hearing hullah outside. In his X-Examination at the start of para 2 this witness again deposed that his tent house situates at a distance of 20 to 25 feets from the spot, he saw the occurrence from the tent house itself. From all the above, this Court observes that there is a serious discrepancy in the statements not only with regard to timing but also with regard to the spot of occurrence through all the eye witnesses. P.W. 20 in his further chief made a categoric statement that at about 3.00 to 4.00 A.M. on 24th/25th January, 1997 he regained his sense in Komna Hospital itself. On his request P.W. 19 scribed the F.I.R. Ext.12 In his X-Examination in Para-7 this witness has also a clear statement that in the year 1995 when he was the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti a no confidence notice was brought against him by the accused persons and the accused persons became successful for his ouster from the Chairman post. One of the accused Pandulal Dharua has initiated a false case against him Under Section 366 of I.P.C. when two other accused persons namely Jadumani Panigrahi and Amaresh Pattanaik were witnesses. This also establishes that there existed previous rivalry. In his further X-Examination P.W. 20 further submitted that the assault caused by the accused persons on them took place from 12 to 12.30 P.M. on 24.1.1997/25.1.1997 On further cross this witness again submitted that the assault has never taken place after 1.00 A.M. on the night of 24/25.1.1997 but it might have taken place 5 to 10 minutes prior to 12.00 P.M. In para 32 line 21 the P.W. 20 was confronted to the F.I.R. that he did not mention the spot of assault. The evidence of P.W. 20 if read with P.W.21 the Doctor examined the injured P.W. 20 in para-1 towards last the treating Doctor has a clear statement that the duration of the injuries are within two hours from the time of examination. The evidence of P.W. 20 if read with P.W.21 the Doctor examined the injured P.W. 20 in para-1 towards last the treating Doctor has a clear statement that the duration of the injuries are within two hours from the time of examination. The date and time of examination is 25.01.1997 at 12.45 A.M. which statement fully corroborates Ext.14 to the extent that the incident had taken place somewhere around 10.45 and thus fully falsify the categoric statement of the P.W. 20 the informant that the incident had taken place 12.00 to 12.30 A.M. or even sometime before 1.00 A.M. of 25.1.1997. Further from the above it is also established that for the reason of Doctor Certificate on timing of occurrence and injury it is none else than the prosecution made an attempt to change the timing of occurrence in the F.I.R. originally mentioned as 2.00 A.M. to 12.00 A.M. Use of ink in writing the English numbers in mentioning the timing and incidents also appears to be use of multiple inks and there arises a definite doubt in so far as timing of the occurrence. The allegation of the defence that either the original F.I.R. is suppressed or there is tampering of the F.I.R gets full support. Accepting for the sake the argument of the learned AGA here that the Doctor cannot be in a position to test on the timing so accurately, this Court here observes that there is even no attempt by the prosecution to confront the Doctor on the issue of timing of occurrence/injury by the prosecution, nor any evidence has been brought to justify such allegation. This observation of the Court also gets strengthen from reading of the evidence of P.W. 26 the S.I. of Police Goura Ch. This observation of the Court also gets strengthen from reading of the evidence of P.W. 26 the S.I. of Police Goura Ch. Naik who in his cross examination in para No.4 has a categoric admission that in his requisition vide Ext.14/2 though a mention has been made in second line of sentence that at about 12.30 A.M. after the word about but he had written it as 2.00 A.M. and it has been 12.30 A.M. by over writing further again he says it is not a fact that originally I had written in the second line of Ext.14/2 12.30 A.M. but subsequently he had manipulated the same by writing it to 2.00 A.M. This Court also observes another serious discrepancy in the cross-examination of P.W. 26 who in para-14 said he saw the deceased Byasadev Pradhan unconscious at his residence at 4.45 on 25.1.1997 which goes absolutely contrary to the statement of all other witnesses even against the medical evidence. 18. From the above, it is manifestly clear that not only the F.I.R. is manipulated and or the original F.I.R. is suppressed but suspicion/doubt gets consolidated not only for the materials available on record but also because of manipulation of the F.I.R. particularly when the F.I.R. remain in custody of the prosecution. Further from the admitted position of the fact that there is no denial to the facts that there occurred two incidents in the same night between both the parties resulting two F.I.Rs also. There is even no consistency in the evidence of eye witnesses as regards to the timing and place of occurrence. This court finds force in the submission of the Appellants in the said regard. Many of the eye witnesses have gone hostile. There is no proper handling of the case even by the prosecution in the trial as there appears serious lapse at the instance of the prosecution at several occasions. 19. P.W.7 though declared as hostile but towards last submitted that the accused persons remain innocent and have been made accused at the instance of Advocate Prasanna Padhi P.W.19 the scribe of the F.I.R. 20. Trial Court heavily relied on the particular statement of P.Ws.12, 13, 16, 17 & 18 who have all named particular persons assaulting the deceased and injured but have failed to take note of the contradictions therein. Trial Court heavily relied on the particular statement of P.Ws.12, 13, 16, 17 & 18 who have all named particular persons assaulting the deceased and injured but have failed to take note of the contradictions therein. Further in view of the specific statement of some of the eye witnesses since all of them have shifted heavily from their version recorded before I.O. and remain fully unsupportive to the prosecution, such evidence cannot be accepted. Besides when the trial court in its findings has categorically observed in paragraph 7 of the judgment that in view of serious discrepancies in the evidence of I.O. and the scribe of the F.I.R P.W. 19 the conviction appears to be on sole testimony of P.Ws.21 & 22 the Doctors which is not a correct approach in Law. It is the evidence relating to participation of the accused and not on evidence on injuries the deceased or the injured suffered lead to conviction not the vice versa. There is no dispute that the F.I.R. story put to trial was made with the involvement of a renowned Advocate having political affiliation in the locality. There also clearly appears that both the party belongs to two rival important political parties. In a similar situation the Hon’ble Apex Court in deciding a case of Acquittal particularly dealing with a F.I.R. being drafted taking legal advice and a case involving persons from Congress Party in one side and Telugu Desam Party at the other side came to hold that the trial Court lost the sight of extent of involvement of an Advocate in the matter as reported in (2010) 45 OCR (SC) 1007. This Court further observes that all total 29 numbers of accused were tried and on the same set of fact and evidence, 20 got acquitted and 9 accused persons convicted. In a similar situation Hon’ble Apex Court in the case in between Basaveni Ravi & another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2013) 54 OCR (SC) 519 in para 9 came to observe that “So far as the reason that having acquitted all the other accused persons on the same piece of evidence available on record could not have convicted the rest. This is also the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a reported case in between Noushad @ Naushad Pasha and others Vs. State of Karnataka as reported in (2015) 60 O.C.R. (SC) 515. This is also the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a reported case in between Noushad @ Naushad Pasha and others Vs. State of Karnataka as reported in (2015) 60 O.C.R. (SC) 515. 21. Apart from the above, this Court also observes that there is also serious inconsistency between the medical and ocular evidence so far it relates to timing of occurrence. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kapil Mandal Vs. State of Bihar as reported in AIR 2008 SC 533 categorically observed that in case of inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence medical evidence assumes greater importance. This is also the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court since long and as reported in the case of Purusottam and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as reported in AIR 1980 SC 1873 and Mohan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab as reported in AIR 1981 SC 1578 . In the case at hand all the so called eye witnesses including the injured have stated that the accused number 9 have mercilessly inflicted 10 to 15 blows each on the deceased but to the contrary P.W. 23 the Doctor conducted Post mortem found only three injuries. Decisions referred to hereinabove also apply in the present circumstances. In the case of Chetram and others Vs. State of U.P. as reported in A.I.R. 1989 SC 1543 another case in between Joginath Sahoo and another Vs. State of Orissa (2003) 25 OCR 47 the courts have observed that when the case involved two rival fraction the evidence in such matter needs to be weighed with greater care and causion. For the admitted position in the case at hand that there is involvement of two rival major political parties the trial Court should have measured the evidence carefully, this Court finds the trial court has not taken that much care in a serious matter like this in absence of which the judgment and order of conviction cannot be maintained. Besides entire evidence does not also reflect any personal attribution against any of the accused convicted. 22. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the reasons assigned hereinabove, this Court observes that the prosecution has miserably failed in completing the chain establishing its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Besides entire evidence does not also reflect any personal attribution against any of the accused convicted. 22. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the reasons assigned hereinabove, this Court observes that the prosecution has miserably failed in completing the chain establishing its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Further for the inconsistency in the evidence of eye witnesses with regard to time and place of occurrence, for reason of F.I.R. being found to be tampered, prosecution failing to adopt appropriate evidence from its own witness, its failure in getting over the contradictions, findings of the trial Court cannot be sustained and consequently the appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentences imposed on the Appellants involved in all the appeals are set-aside. The appellants involved in all the appeals be set at liberty forthwith unless their detention is otherwise required in any other case. Bail bonds involving any of the appellants’ stands discharged. 23. The Appeals are allowed as above.