JUDGMENT : This Crl. Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.04.2009 of the Court of Sessions, Thalassery (for short 'the court below') in S.C.No.469/2003. Altogether, nine accused were involved in the case. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were found guilty for the commission of all the offences charged against them and convicted and sentenced by the court below. Each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The first accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act') and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 5 of the Act. The fine amount on realisation was also directed by the court below to be paid to PW2, the injured in the case, as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, accused Nos.1 to 3 have approached this Court in the captioned appeal. 3. A summarised version of the prosecution case is stated as follows:- On 03.12.2000 at 16.00 hours, 9 named persons and 5 identifiable persons, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, armed with deadly weapons, committed riot and murdered CW1 Santhosh. The motive alleged was political. The first accused hurled bomb at CW1, which got exploded and inflicted serious injuries on his body. The second and third accused cut CW1 on his right leg and right side of waist with sword and stick. Other accused beat CW1 with stick and inflicted grievous injuries. 4. Based on the First Information Statement of CW1, recorded by CW13, the Head Constable attached to Kuthuparamba Police station from Medical College hospital, wherein he was undergoing treatment, Crime.No.483/2000 was registered by CW12 for the commission of the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Act. 4. Based on the First Information Statement of CW1, recorded by CW13, the Head Constable attached to Kuthuparamba Police station from Medical College hospital, wherein he was undergoing treatment, Crime.No.483/2000 was registered by CW12 for the commission of the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Act. The initial investigation in the case was conducted by CW16, the Circle Inspector of Police, Kuthuparamba and continued by CW17 and CW18, the officers superior to CW16. The accused were arrested on various days succeeding thereto. The final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba by CW19, who was the then Circle Inspector of Police, Kuthuparamba. 5. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba, who received the final report on file vide proceedings initiated as C.P.No.228/2001, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thalassery. 6. On summons being served from the Court of Sessions, Thalassery, the accused entered appearance. After hearing the accused and the prosecution, charge was framed against all accused persons for the same offences for which they have been chargesheeted by the Police. When the charge so framed was read over to each of the 9 accused, all of them pleaded not guilty and faced trial. 7. On the side of the prosecution, witnesses were examined as PWs. 1 to 14. Documents and material objects were marked respectively as Exts.P1 to P14 and MOs.1 to 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, each of the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. based on the incriminating evidence brought against them by the prosecution during trial. Each of them made outright denial of the incriminating circumstances so put to them. Each of them had also taken specific pleas of total innocence and false implication. Grounds having not been found, to enter into an order of acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C., each of the accused was asked to enter upon their defence, which opportunity, they did not accede to and evidence of any nature was not let in. 8. Each of them had also taken specific pleas of total innocence and false implication. Grounds having not been found, to enter into an order of acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C., each of the accused was asked to enter upon their defence, which opportunity, they did not accede to and evidence of any nature was not let in. 8. On an evaluation of the evidence let in by the prosecution, and upon hearing the rival arguments put forth by the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel representing each of the accused before the trial court, the court below arrived at a finding of guilt against accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The first accused was also found guilty for the offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act. The rest of the accused except the 4th accused, (who did not face trial) were acquitted. 9. As I have already mentioned, accused Nos.1 to 3 are the appellants before this Court. Sri. K.S. Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel and Sri. Suresh Babu, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution advanced arguments respectively on behalf of the accused and the State. 10. Sri. K.S. Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel submitted that the judgment under challenge suffers from illegality, impropriety and incorrectness for diverse reasons. The counsel contended that the court below on appreciation of evidence in a wrong perspective, overlooked several circumstances, which would have the impact of rendering the prosecution case, inconsistent and incredible. It is submitted by the learned counsel with specific reference to the versions of PWs.2 and 3 that lot of discrepancies and embellishments have been crept in their versions, to render them noncredit worthy, but the court below did not advert to those and found the accusation against each of the accused as proved and thereby, imposed punishment upon them by the judgment under challenge. 11. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to the oral evidence tendered by PW2 to show that the incident originated while he was standing in front of Indira Gandhi Vayanasala at Vattipram along with one Rajesh and Koprankandy Prajeesh, who are CW2 and CW3 in the chargesheet. As per the version of PW2, he had seen the 9 named accused persons and others numbered about 5-6, rushing towards them exhorting “xxx”. As per the version of PW2, he had seen the 9 named accused persons and others numbered about 5-6, rushing towards them exhorting “xxx”. According to him, all of them were holding weapons like vadival, axe, bomb and stick and on watching them, proceeding towards, they rushed to a toddy shop situated nearby. The assailants chased them, but in their hurry to escape, they got into the toddy shop nearby and rushed therefrom to the compound of the house of one C.K. Chandran. CWs. 2 and 3 took to their heels ahead of CW1. On hearing the exhortation from the accused “xxx”, CW1 looked back and found a bomb, hurled by the first accused moving towards him. The bomb hit against his right elbow, exploded and he fell in front of Bhagavathithara with injuries. The second and third accused, who arrived there then, chopped his right calf muscle and right side of waist with 'vadivals' held by them. The other accused, who reached the spot then, beat him all over his body with sticks in their hands. He screamed aloud and on hearing the hue, the public started gathering there from all corners. On watching them, the accused took to their heels from the place. One E.K. Shaji (CW4), Surendran (CW6) and Sathyan transported him to Government Hospital, Kuthuparamba in a lorry. From there, he was rushed to Indira Gandhi Hospital, Thalassery in an ambulance. As advised by the doctor, who examined him, there, he was taken therefrom to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and was treated there till 25th January as an inpatient. In the course of trial, all accused present in the court have been identified by him and stated specifically that Kanath Rajesh, who was identified by him as one among the assailants in action at the spot, was not present in the court at the relevant time. 12. Political enmity was stated by PW2 as the motive behind the commission of the offences. Admittedly of him, the injured and the accused are activists respectively of BJP and CPM, having rival interests. It was the statement tendered by PW2 that formed the basis for the registration of the crime. When confronted with the cause of incident as recorded in the medical document that 'somebody hurled a bomb at him', he pleaded ignorance and stated that the cause of the incident was not spoken by him to the doctor. It was the statement tendered by PW2 that formed the basis for the registration of the crime. When confronted with the cause of incident as recorded in the medical document that 'somebody hurled a bomb at him', he pleaded ignorance and stated that the cause of the incident was not spoken by him to the doctor. Admittedly, he was a worker in the quarry belonging to one Surendran (CW6). It was CW6 accompanied by one Sathyan and Shaji, transported him to the hospital in a lorry owned by him. Admittedly of him, the quarry of Surendran is situated at Vattipram, where explosions are frequently resorted to for blasting rocks and granites, using explosives. CW2 (PW3) and Prajeesh, though admittedly present at the spot along with PW2, did not accompany the latter to the hospital. According to him, he had given a statement to the investigating officer that accused, except accused Nos.1 to 3, 5, 7 and 9, beat him all over his body with sticks. But, when confronted during cross-examination with the relevant portion in his 161 statement that accused Nos.5, 7 and 9 had beaten him with stick, he categorically denied to have stated so to the Police. 13. The counsel has also drawn my attention to the version of PW3, who is none other than the person claiming to be present at the spot of incident with PW2 and the one and the only ocular witness cited by the prosecution. Admittedly of him, PW2 is his close friend and was in his company at the spot at the relevant time of incident. According to PW3, the incident took place on 03.12.2000 at about 4 pm at Vattipram near Bhagavathithara situated at the southern side of the house of one Mr. C.K. Chandran. According to him, while himself, PW2 and one Mr. Prajeesh were standing in front of Indira Gandhi Vayanasala at Vattipram, 15 CPM workers rushed towards them from Vattipram school side, carrying weapons like vadival, stick, bomb etc. They exhorted “xxx” and then all of them rushed towards the toddy shop situated nearby and therefrom, entered into a paramba belonging to one Mr. C.K. Chandran. On hurrying so to escape, he looked back and found PW2 proceeding at a short distance behind, followed by the assailants. Himself and Prajeesh rushed to the Smrithimandiram to hide there. They exhorted “xxx” and then all of them rushed towards the toddy shop situated nearby and therefrom, entered into a paramba belonging to one Mr. C.K. Chandran. On hurrying so to escape, he looked back and found PW2 proceeding at a short distance behind, followed by the assailants. Himself and Prajeesh rushed to the Smrithimandiram to hide there. A bomb was exploded then and in its impact, PW2 fell down near the Smrithimandiram. He did not see the person who hurled the bomb, but has particularly identified him as accused No.4, who actually was not facing trial then. According to him, all the accused were carrying weapons like vadival, axe, stick and bomb. According to PW3, following the blasting of the bomb, accused Nos.2 and 3 chopped PW2 on right side of his waist and right leg with a vadival and inflicted injuries. He had also spoken about the attack on PW2 by the assailants, especially Santhosh (A9), Vasu (A5) and Dineshan (A6) with sticks held by them. When the people from neighbourhood rushed to the spot on hearing the hue and cry of PW2, a bomb was hurled by accused No.8 towards them, which was exploded after hitting against a tree. One C.K. Shaji, Prabhakaran and Sathyan reached there then and took PW2 to the hospital in a lorry. According to him, accused No.4, Biju and Rajeesh were not present in the court. He had also identified the persons present in the court as accused Nos.3, 5 and 9. 14. It is the specific case of PW3 that after the incident, PW2 was found by him lying on the ground in a profusely bleeding state. Remnants of exploded bomb and pieces of cloths of PW2 were also found scattered at the spot of incident. According to him, political enmity was the reason behind the incident. Admittedly of PW3, himself and PW2 are activists of BJP and the accused are members of CPM. In cross-examination, he has also gone to the extent of stating that the accused have criminal antecedents. 15. PW1 claimed close association with PW2, but, despite finding him deeply injured and profusely bleeding, he did not join the person, who had taken the initiative to transport the latter to the hospital. In cross-examination, he has also gone to the extent of stating that the accused have criminal antecedents. 15. PW1 claimed close association with PW2, but, despite finding him deeply injured and profusely bleeding, he did not join the person, who had taken the initiative to transport the latter to the hospital. When confronted during cross-examination, he had explained by stating that he was hiding behind the Smrithimandiram to evade the attack by the assailants and by the time he came out after the assailants left the place, the injured was already transported to the hospital by the people gathered there. He has spoken that 15 persons were available in the group of assailants, who attacked PW2 and out of them, at least ten were carrying weapons. According to him, accused No.8 was carrying a bag in one hand and bomb in the other and Bijukumar, the first accused was carrying bombs in his both hands. His specific version was that the assailants were seen from a distance of 50 meters, but the strange thing noted was that the accused with the weapons and bombs held by each of them had been identified by him. He had also spoken about hurling of a stone by accused No.8, which when confronted with the statement recorded from him by the prosecution turned out as an embellishment. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused was that discrepancies material in nature looms large in the versions of PWs.2 and 3 who are examined as ocular witnesses and therefore, those ought not to have been relied on by the court below. On a scrutiny of the depositions of PWs. 2 and 3, the contention is found to have merits. PW2 is the injured. It is his case that on watching the assailants numbering about 14, proceeding to the spot, he hurried therefrom to hide. While fleeing so, an exhortation “xxx” was heard and he turned back to see it's source. According to him, that occasioned to see and helped him to identify them both from the spot and the court during the course of trial. 17. The question relevant for consideration in the context is whether a prudent man, on hurrying to save himself from the attack of assailants numbering about 14 would pause for a while and turn back to identify the source wherefrom the exhortations had been originated. 17. The question relevant for consideration in the context is whether a prudent man, on hurrying to save himself from the attack of assailants numbering about 14 would pause for a while and turn back to identify the source wherefrom the exhortations had been originated. In the case on hand, PW1's specific case was that on looking back after pausing for a while itself, the identity of each of the assailants was perceived by him and that too with the weapons held by each of them. In normal circumstances, a man who was chased by a group of persons with weapons, in his hurry to hide or escape would not stop, even for a moment. Therefore, the version of PW2 that he had turned back and on a glance, which lasted for a spur of moment, identified each of the 14 assailants, with the weapons in their hands does not seem to be a sound one and his act, not conducive to that of a prudent man. For that reason itself, his version is liable to be viewed with a tinge of salt in it. It is worth noticing that during the course of examination, PW2 has identified all the 9 accused including the 4th accused, who actually was not facing trial then, but the very next moment, he clarified stating that the accused present in the deck are accused Nos.1 to 8, and does not include the fourth accused. I am constrained to take a view in the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel as aforesaid that, the identification of the accused by the witnesses was not a true and proper one. 18. As pointedly argued by the learned counsel, discrepancy looms large in the versions of PWs.2 and 3 regarding the nature and description of the weapons held by accused Nos.1 and 8. It is exposed from the version of PW2 that one bomb each was held by Bijukumar (A1) and Babu (A8) whereas from the version of PW3, it is exposed that Bijukumar was carrying one bomb in each of his hands and Babu, the 8th accused was carrying a bag in his one hand and a bomb in his other hand. According to PW3, the bombs were coloured steel and brown. He has categorically stated that a brown coloured bomb was hurled by the 8th accused and that hit against a tree and exploded. According to PW3, the bombs were coloured steel and brown. He has categorically stated that a brown coloured bomb was hurled by the 8th accused and that hit against a tree and exploded. Therefore, the versions of the witnesses undoubtedly are discrepant in material particulars as to the number of bombs carried by the assailants and it's nature. The case of the prosecution was that a single bomb held by the first accused was hurled and PW1 sustained injuries on its explosion. But, the ocular witnesses when examined during trial have spoken about more than one bomb as held by more than one accused and this is nothing, but a clear deviation from the case of the prosecution. 19. As per the prosecution case, the incident was originated at the place in front of Indira Gandhi Vayanasala at Vattipram where he was standing along with PW3 and one Prajeesh. PW3 has also spoken in similar terms. PWs.2 and 3 claimed to have acquaintance with each other. They also claimed to be activists of BJP. Their versions also compliment each other when they state the incident as the outcome of rivalry that exists among BJP and CPM, the respective political parties to which they belong. 20. The conduct of PW2 is also strange in that he did not join the team of persons who took the initiative to transport PW2 to the hospital even after finding him lying in a profusely bleeding state. For that, the explanation of PW3 was that he was waiting for the assailants to vacate the spot and by the time they left, PW2 was already removed to the hospital by the people gathered there. The conduct of PW2 undoubtedly is not conducive to that of a prudent man and it only tends to create a suspicion as to his availability at the spot to witness the incident as stated by the prosecution. The dictum of the Apex Court in Din Dayal v. Raj Kumar [1999 KHC 1593] is relevant in the context. It reads:- “3. What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court should not have discarded the evidence of these 4 witnesses particularly when the Trial Court after carefully scrutinising it held that it was reliable and trustworthy. We find that the High Court has given good reasons for taking a different view. It reads:- “3. What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court should not have discarded the evidence of these 4 witnesses particularly when the Trial Court after carefully scrutinising it held that it was reliable and trustworthy. We find that the High Court has given good reasons for taking a different view. It has pointed the improbability of the version given by them. The witnesses had not accompanied the deceased to the hospital nor had taken any trouble of going and informing the police about what had happened. After seeing the incidence they quietly went back to their home. It cannot be said that the view taken by the High Court that the conduct of the witnesses was not natural is unreasonable. They were not merely eye witnesses. They were closely connected with the deceased. The High Court was, therefore, justified in not placing any reliance upon their evidence.” 21. Evidence discloses that one Shaji, Surendran and Sathyan arrived at the spot immediately after the incident responding to the hue and cry by PW2 from the spot. The prosecution has no case that any of them had reached the spot on hearing the sound of bomb explosion. Among the three persons, who according to the prosecution had taken the initiative to hospitalise PW2, Shaji alone was examined by them as PW5. The categoric version of PW5 was that he rushed to the spot on hearing the hue and cry of PW2. He has no case that the sound of bomb explosion was heard by him and therefore, proceeded to the spot. Though claimed as residing at a distance of only about 150 metres from the place of occurrence, he has no claim that the sound of explosion of bomb was heard by him. As evidenced by Ext.P3 scene mahazar, several houses and shops are situated around the place of occurrence. But it is pertinent to notice from the witness list of the prosecution that, neither any of the inhabitants of the houses or the shop keepers of the shops situated nearby has been incorporated therein to prove the explosion of the bomb and that in my view is yet another circumstance to view the prosecution case with suspicion. 22. But it is pertinent to notice from the witness list of the prosecution that, neither any of the inhabitants of the houses or the shop keepers of the shops situated nearby has been incorporated therein to prove the explosion of the bomb and that in my view is yet another circumstance to view the prosecution case with suspicion. 22. The description about the remnants of the exploded bombs recovered from the place of occurrence in Ext.P3 scene mahazar is also relevant in the context. The pieces of bombs seized from the spot were marked in evidence during trial as MOs.2,3 and 6. As evidenced from Ext.P3, those material objects have been recovered from the place of occurrence. It is also described in Ext.P3 that pieces of cloth, steels and a rusted nail were found scattered at the place of occurrence and some of the cloth pieces, steel pieces and the one and only rusted nail have been recovered therefrom. PW2 has also spoken about the quarry situated near to the Post Office as belonged to CW6. Admittedly, PW2 was a worker in the quarry at the relevant time of the incident. As per the prosecution case, Pws.2 and 3 and CW3 were present in front of the vayanasala when the accused arrived there and all of them hurried therefrom to escape from their attack. 23. As per the prosecution, the motive behind the commission of the crime is political rivalry and that is sought to be established through Pws.2 and 3. As the prosecution case is built on direct evidence, it is true, motive is not required to be established by the prosecution. Admittedly of PWs 2 and 3, they belong to BJP and the accused are activists of CPM. PW3 has spoken categorically that he took to his heels on watching the assailants chasing with weapons in their hands. One Prajeesh was also there in his company. According to PW3, PW2 was running at a short distance behind him. PW3 has also spoken that himself and Prajeesh in their hurry to escape from the assailants entered into the Smrithimandiram to hide there. Therefore, it is clear that they took shelter inside the Smrithimandiram situated ahead and therefore, was also visible to the assailants, who were chasing them. According to PW3, PW2 was running at a short distance behind him. PW3 has also spoken that himself and Prajeesh in their hurry to escape from the assailants entered into the Smrithimandiram to hide there. Therefore, it is clear that they took shelter inside the Smrithimandiram situated ahead and therefore, was also visible to the assailants, who were chasing them. It is clear from the versions of PWs 2 and 3, that the assailants attacked PW2 with the weapons, but spared PW3, who had entered into the Smrithimandiram in front of them to hide there. If the motive was political rivalry that exists among sympathizers of BJP and activists of CPM as alleged by the prosecution, then the question relevant and worthy to be answered by the prosecution is why PW3 was spared from attack by the assailants. Even assuming that the political rivalry was actually existing among the rival political parties as alleged by the prosecution, the prosecution has also got a duty to say what was the immediate cause that led to the incident in question. Admittedly of PWs.2 and 3, while hurrying from the spot, only a short distance was maintained among them. The motive alleged by the prosecution is nothing, but political rivalry. If that be so, it is doubtful, why PW2 alone was targeted. The specific case of PW3 was that he had taken shelter behind the smrithimandiram on the way. The assailants were 14 in numbers and if the motive was political rivalry, they could have very well spotted PW3 also and attacked him for the very reason of his availability there as spoken by him. The version of PW3 was that he was fleeing ahead of PW2 and the assailants were chasing them. Evidence do not disclose that something was there to inhibit the assailants' view of PW3. If that be so, the motive alleged being political rivalry and PW3, like PW2, being a member to the political party rival to that of the assailants, there is scope for a doubt to arise why PW3 was avoided by the assailants from being attacked. This is yet another circumstance to view the prosecution case with a suspicious eye. 24. The version of the accused in defence assumes relevance in the context. The case put forth by the defence was that PW2 was a worker in the quarry belonging to one Mr. This is yet another circumstance to view the prosecution case with a suspicious eye. 24. The version of the accused in defence assumes relevance in the context. The case put forth by the defence was that PW2 was a worker in the quarry belonging to one Mr. Surendran (CW6) and sustained injuries from the blasting operations held therein on the day. PW2 has also admitted his status as a worker in the quarry owned by Surendran. It is also established from the evidence of the prosecution that the quarry of Surendran is situated very near to the spot of incident. It is further established from the evidence that the said Surendran took the initiative to transport PW2 to the hospital in a lorry owned by him. 25. There cannot be any dispute on the medical evidence available, which clearly indicates that PW2 had sustained injuries on the fateful day. Admittedly of the prosecution, PW2 was a worker in the quarry run by CW6 situated very near to the place of occurrence. The case put forth by the accused was that PW2 had sustained injuries in the explosion undertaken in the quarry to blast rocks. The specific case of the prosecution was that PW3 was not attacked by the assailants and he had not sustained any injury in the incident as alleged by them. As already stated, the motive alleged by the prosecution is political rivalry. As per the prosecution, the very same motive, the assailants were entertaining at the relevant time, not only against PW2 but also against PW3 and CW3, for themselves also being members of BJP, which is rival political party to CPM, to which the assailants belong. If that be so, PW3, who was very well in the company of PW2 and available at the spot at the relevant time must also have been attacked by the assailants as if, they attacked PW2. But according to the prosecution, PW3 escaped their attack by fleeing from the spot and hiding behind the Smrithimandiram, which is very much near to the place of occurrence. The assailants being 14 in numbers, there is no reason why PW3 and CW3 against whom also the very same motive was alleged by the prosecution as existing and who were also proceeding at a very short distance ahead of PW2 and hide in a very nearby place, have been spared from attack. The assailants being 14 in numbers, there is no reason why PW3 and CW3 against whom also the very same motive was alleged by the prosecution as existing and who were also proceeding at a very short distance ahead of PW2 and hide in a very nearby place, have been spared from attack. The absence of injuries on PW3 is liable to create a doubt in the mind of a prudent man regarding his availability at the spot and witnessing the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. When viewed in that angle, this Court is also doubtful about the availability of PW3 at the spot at the relevant time. In the said circumstances, the case projected by the accused in defence that PW2 had sustained injuries in the blasting operations at the quarry belonging to his employer, who is none other than CW6, and the case as put forth by the prosecution is only a fabricated one, is a probable one. 26. The further contention of the learned counsel for the accused was that PW2, the injured has specifically stated about his acquaintance with the accused. It is also the case of PW2 that on hearing the exhortation, he turned back and in that very glance, identified all the accused with weapons in their hand. In the context, the alleged cause of incident, noted in the wound certificates prepared at two different hospitals is relevant. The alleged cause of injury as is extracted from Ext.P7, the wound certificate prepared at Indira Gandhi Hospital immediately after the incident is “history of bomb explosion, petitioner was lying on the road vattipram 4pm 03.12.2000 and some people brought the patient”. Ext.P7 was prepared by PW12. It is disclosed from Ext.P7 that PW2 was brought to the hospital by one Sathyan, son of Ambu, Vattipram and others. It is not clear from Ext.P7 that the alleged cause of incident was spoken to the doctor by PW2. Sathyan, who was mentioned as the person who brought PW2 to the hospital was also not cited as a witness by the prosecution. Ext.P4 is the Accident Register-cum-Wound Certificate prepared by PW6 while examining PW2 on 03.12.2000. The history and alleged cause of injury as noted therein is extracted as “xxx”. There was no reference in Ext.P4 about the person who brought PW2 to the hospital. PW6 was examined before the court. Ext.P4 is the Accident Register-cum-Wound Certificate prepared by PW6 while examining PW2 on 03.12.2000. The history and alleged cause of injury as noted therein is extracted as “xxx”. There was no reference in Ext.P4 about the person who brought PW2 to the hospital. PW6 was examined before the court. When he was cross examined on the point, he has stated that the history was given by the patient himself. It is pertinent to note from the version of PW2 that he had denied the same. But Ext.P4 was recorded by PW6, who is a witness of the prosecution and he has stated categorically that the version regarding the history of the incident was spoken by the patient himself to him. This aspect assumes importance upon perusal of Ext.P4, wherein the injured was not stated as unconscious at the relevant time when he was brought to the hospital. In the context, it is relevant to have a look at the first information statement lodged by PW2 from Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode on 04.12.2000, the succeeding date of the incident. While going by the First Information Statement (Ext.P2), PW2 has specifically stated the names of the accused persons among the miscreants, who attacked him. Then the question relevant was that he has not named the persons, who attacked him to PW6, the medical practitioner before whom he was brought immediately after the incident. As I have already stated his version before PW6 was that “xxx”. Then the question arises, how the names of the assailants were spoken by PW2 when the first information statement was lodged before the police on 04.12.2000. There was only a day's gap between the preparation of Exts.P4 and P2. Then the possible conclusion was that the assailants might have been implicated specifically on 04.12.2000 on an afterthought or in other words, the names of the assailants have been spoken while lodging the FIS, a day after the incident, following deliberations. 27. The specific case of the prosecution was that ten named persons and 5 others identifiable by PW2, attacked him and inflicted injuries on him. It is also the case of the prosecution that all the accused were carrying weapons. It is also the allegation of the prosecution that weapons like bomb, axe and sword stick were carried by the assailants and they attacked PW2 with all weapons. It is also the case of the prosecution that all the accused were carrying weapons. It is also the allegation of the prosecution that weapons like bomb, axe and sword stick were carried by the assailants and they attacked PW2 with all weapons. The allegation of the prosecution that PW2 was attacked by all the accused with all the weapons seems to be an exaggerated version, when viewed in the light of the injuries found on the body of PW2 and reported in Ext.P4. Moreover, the weapons in use at the time of attack were not seized. PW14 is the officer who conducted the investigation in the case. He failed to state anything about the non recovery of the weapons in the case. The version of PW3 that accused No.8 pelted stones at the people gathered there is totally a new version, outside the purview of the case of the prosecution. Explanation of any nature was not seen given by PW14 regarding the non seizure of the weapons either through the accused or from the place of occurrence. As I have already stated, independent witnesses from the nearby residences and shops have not been cited and examined by the prosecution to establish its case. The flaws as aforesaid in the investigation process conducted by PW14 are also relevant in the context and can be stated to have serious impact on the case of the prosecution, liable to take a conclusion that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 28. The diverse circumstances, which are liable to cast doubt about the prosecution case, are already discussed with. The ocular witnesses, by their conduct or by the words spoken had proved themselves to be incredible. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the fact that the prosecution has thoroughly failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 29. This Court's attention was also drawn by the learned counsel for the accused to lack of proper consent for the prosecution to try the accused as per the mandate of Section 7 of the Act. In the case on hand the prosecution had relied upon Ext.P6 to establish that consent for trial as mandated by Section 7 of the Act has been obtained. In the case on hand the prosecution had relied upon Ext.P6 to establish that consent for trial as mandated by Section 7 of the Act has been obtained. The learned counsel for the accused has invited my attention to Section 7 of the Act to submit that the authority competent to grant consent for prosecution in a case involving an offence under the Act is the District Magistrate. He has also taken me to the proceedings, produced and marked in evidence by the prosecution as Ext.P6, to establish that consent as contemplated by Section 7 of the Act has not been obtained. A perusal of Ext.P6 shows that the consent was granted by the Additional District Magistrate, Kannur, in the month of July 2002. Section 7 of the Act specifically provides that a court shall not proceed with the trial of a person chargesheeted for the commission of any of the offences under the Act, without the consent of the District Magistrate being obtained. The words “no court shall proceed to the trial of any person” is relevant in the context. It shows that the consent has to come from the authority prior to the commencement of the trial of the person charged with any offence under the Act. The materials available in evidence would disclose that the trial in the case was started with the framing of charge in the case on 11.09.2008. It is pertinent to note from Ext.P6 that the consent was granted in the year 2002, much prior to the commencement of the trial. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute with regard to its issuance prior to the commencement of the trial. 30. Going by Section 7 of the Act, it is seen that 'District Magistrate' has been substituted in the place of 'Central Government', by Amendment Act 54 of 2001 w.e.f. 01.02.2002. As already stated, the trial in the case was commenced on 11.09.2008. Therefore, as on date of commencement of trial in the case on hand, the appropriate authority to accord sanction for trial of the accused charged for an offence under the Act is none other than the District Magistrate. 31. But it is revealed from Ext.P6 that it was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Kannur. Therefore, the sanction for trial of the accused in the case on hand was granted by the Additional District Magistrate, Kannur. 31. But it is revealed from Ext.P6 that it was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Kannur. Therefore, the sanction for trial of the accused in the case on hand was granted by the Additional District Magistrate, Kannur. The question relevant to be considered in the context is whether the power to grant consent could be delegated by the District Magistrate to some other authorities. Or in other words, consent granted in the case on hand by the Additional District Magistrate as per Ext.P6 would tantamount to the 'consent for trial' as contemplated by Section 7 of the Act. Whether the consent granted in the case on hand by the Additional District Magistrate would be a valid consent and whether that would satisfy the requirements of Section 7 of the Act, require consideration. There is absolute want of evidence to subscribe that the District Magistrate has delegated the power to accord sanction to the Additional District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, being the authority competent to accord sanction, whether the power could be delegated to the Additional District Magistrate, also requires deliberation. The learned counsel for the accused had invited my attention to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhupendra Singh, AIR 2000 SC 679 to substantiate his contention that delegation of power by a statutorily empowered officer to some other officials would not satisfy the requirements of Section 7. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the decision supra being relevant in the context, are extracted hereinbelow. “5. It is difficult to accept the submission. The power of granting consent under Section 7 of the said Act rests with the Central Government. The Central Government has delegated it to the District Magistrate. It is, in our view, not competent for the State Government to further delegate to the Additional District Magistrate a power of the Central Government which the Central Government has delegated to the District Magistrate. 6. The decision of this Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal v. Batala Engineering Co. Ltd., AIR 1969 SC 483 : 1969 CrLJ 803 is also of some relevance. 6. The decision of this Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal v. Batala Engineering Co. Ltd., AIR 1969 SC 483 : 1969 CrLJ 803 is also of some relevance. This Court said that where, by virtue of a notification under Section 20 of the Defence of India Act, the Central Government had delegated its powers under Section 29 to a District Magistrate, an Additional District Magistrate was not competent to requisition property under Section 29 simply because he had been invested with all powers of a District Magistrate under Section 10(2).” 32. The decision cited supra was rendered by the Apex Court in the year 2000. As per the law in prevalence then, the Central Government was the authority empowered to accord sanction for trial of an accused charged for an offence under the Act. In the year 2002, Section 7 of the Act was amended and 'District Magistrate' was substituted in the place of 'Central Government', as the authority empowered to grant sanction for trial. The decision cited supra undoubtedly was rendered at a time when the Central Government was the authority to issue sanction for trial under Section 7 of the Act. The Central Government, being a legal instrumentality, for facilitating the exercise of the power that the authority has been delegated to the District Magistrate, in the case cited supra. The exercise of an authority vested in the Central Government can only be through its Officers on the executive side and therefore, that the said delegation was held competent by the Apex Court. The factual situation in the case cited supra, reveals that the power which was directed by the Central Government to be exercised by the District Magistrate on its behalf was further delegated by the State Government to the Assistant District Magistrate and in that context, the Apex Court interfered with and held that the State Government is not competent to delegate so. 33. The trial, in the case on hand, was commenced in the year 2008, i.e., after the amendment to Section 7 of the Act has become effective. Therefore, the authority to exercise the power to accord sanction for trial of the accused in the case on hand is the District Magistrate. It seems from Ext.P6 that it was issued by the Additional District Magistrate. Therefore, the authority to exercise the power to accord sanction for trial of the accused in the case on hand is the District Magistrate. It seems from Ext.P6 that it was issued by the Additional District Magistrate. When an authority to exercise a power is conferred by the statute on a particular official, it has to be exercised by himself and none else. It cannot be assigned or delegated to any other officials. The legislature in its wisdom has conferred the exercise of the authority to accord sanction for trial of an accused under the Act on the District Magistrate and none else. Therefore, the District Magistrate has not been vested with power to delegate the statutorily conferred authority on him to any other officers, that not being the intention of the statute. The power when conferred by the statute on a particular authority, the said authority itself has to exercise the same. If the authority permits any other officer, equal in rank to him or subordinate to him to exercise the power, even on the strength of a valid document, delegating the power, it would be nothing but illegality. The dictum has application in the case on hand, in that, as per Ext.P6, sanction for trial of the accused has been accorded by the Additional District Magistrate, who is totally incompetent to grant sanction as per Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, without any hesitation, I am to hold that the trial in the case on hand is also vitiated for want of legal and proper consent. 34. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the prosecution has thoroughly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As rightly urged by the learned counsel for the accused, the court below has erred to scrutinize the evidence tendered by the witnesses of the prosecution, especially PW2 and PW3 in its proper perspective and that impacted the impugned judgment of conviction to be passed against the accused. The lack of valid sanction is also a factor liable to vitiate the prosecution. Therefore, there is every reason for the judgment under challenge to be reversed. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The lack of valid sanction is also a factor liable to vitiate the prosecution. Therefore, there is every reason for the judgment under challenge to be reversed. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. Accused Nos.1 to 3, the appellants herein are acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, after cancellation of their bail bonds.