JUDGMENT : SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, J. 1. All these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment as they arise from the judgment dated 28.09.2015 in S.C. No. 332/2010 on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak. The Trial Court held accused No. 1 to 5, 7 to 14 and 16 to 22 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 114, 120, 143, 148, 302, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 25 (1)(B) and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act and sentenced them, the major punishment being life imprisonment for the of fence of Section 302 IPC. Accused 6 and 15 died during pendency of the trial. 2. Criminal Appeal 100202/2015 is filed by accused No. 7, 9, 14, 17 and 21. Criminal Appeal 100232/2015 is filed by accused No. 1, 2, 5, and 8. Criminal Appeal No. 100247/15 is filed by accused no. 16. Criminal Appeal No. 100233/15 is filed by accused No. 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20 and 22. The first informant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 100225/15 under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of sentence, according to him the accused should have been sentenced to death. 3. Ex.P.1 is the first information made by Umesh Sidlingappa Kumbar. He reported to the pol ice about the incident that took place on 25.6.2010 at about 9.00 p.m. According to Ex.P.1, one Basappa Channappa Koujalagi, Ravi Sidlingappa Kumbar, Mallappa Balappa Hattiholi, Shrishail Bhimappa Wali, who were the elderly people of Lingayath community, were sitting in front of the shop of one Mahesha. About 18 persons (whose names are mentioned in Ex.P.1) came to that place and attacked them. They first sprinkled chilli powder at them and when those four persons tried to escape from that place, they were all chased and assaulted severely with eligepatti, sickle, clubs and jambe. This incident resulted in death of three persons viz. Ravi Sidlingappa Kumbar, Mallappa Balappa Hattiholi and Basappa Channappa Koujalagi. 4. According to the prosecution, the motive behind the incident was, on 19.5.2010, husband of Sarojini Annappa Mirji went to attend the meeting of the Directors of Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society of which accused no. 1 Siddappa Adivappa Kamate was the President. Accused no. Ravi Sidlingappa Kumbar, Mallappa Balappa Hattiholi and Basappa Channappa Koujalagi. 4. According to the prosecution, the motive behind the incident was, on 19.5.2010, husband of Sarojini Annappa Mirji went to attend the meeting of the Directors of Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society of which accused no. 1 Siddappa Adivappa Kamate was the President. Accused no. 1 did not al low the husband of Sarojini Annappa Mirji to attend the meeting and told him that the member alone should attend the meeting. Therefore the husband returned to his house and took his wife, Sarojini Annappa Mirji, who was the member of the Society to attend the meeting. She was not allowed to participate in the meeting as she did not go to the meeting place on time. After the meeting was over, she wanted to sign in the register; she was not allowed, but she saw some members who came later than her being allowed to sign in the register and therefore she took objection. It is alleged that accused no. 1 and some others insulted her by beating with a chappal and pulling her saree. She reported this incident to aforesaid elderly persons of Lingayath Community and they asked her to lodge a complaint with the police. Accordingly she made a complaint against accused no. 1 and some others who belonged to Kuruba caste. Because of this complaint, accused no. 1 and some others of his community became angry and this led to enemity between two groups. One more FIR came to be registered against accused no. 1 and some others because they were all found holding a meeting at about 7.30 p.m. on 24.6.2010 to hatch a conspiracy for eliminating the elderly persons of Lingayath Community. Pursuant to it, as projected by the prosecution, on 25.06.2010 the incident as narrated above took place. 5. The trial court framed the charges and held the trial. The prosecution examined 64 witness, PW-1 to 64 and produced 260 documents, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.260. The defence got marked Ex.D.1 to D12, All being portions of statements of witnesses during cross examination. The prosecution produced 88 material objects as per M.O.1 to M.O.88. The trial court ultimately held that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and found accused guilty of the offences with which they had been charged. The defence got marked Ex.D.1 to D12, All being portions of statements of witnesses during cross examination. The prosecution produced 88 material objects as per M.O.1 to M.O.88. The trial court ultimately held that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and found accused guilty of the offences with which they had been charged. To arrive at this conclusion, the trial court has recorded the following findings: 6. The testimonies of the eye witnesses are believable. The medical evidence and the seizure panchanamas further strengthen the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Merely for the reason that PW-1 to 6 are relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. The lengthy cross examination of these witnesses has not yielded any result, none of them has been discredited. They have also spoken about the motive. Merely for the reason that PW-8 and 9 have not supported the prosecution, the testimonies of the eye-witnesses cannot be discarded; rather PW-8 and 9 have also stated that three persons viz. Ravi, Basappa and Mallappa were murdered. The deceased belonged to Lingayat caste and that the accused belonged to Kuruba (Shepherd Community), the entire incident took place in the background of caste rivalry. If the eye-witnesses did not rush to the rescue of the deceased, it cannot be a factor to be given importance as when large number of persons gather, quite naturally there would be frightening atmosphere and it cannot be expected that the witnesses should have rescued the deceased when they were being assaulted. The investigation cannot be doubted. There may be some minor discrepancies in the evidence of the investigating officer, but the evidence of the investigating Officer and other police officers cannot be discarded. If the witnesses failed to attribute the individual role of the accused, it is not a matter to be given importance because the common object of the unlawful assembly is evident. The totality of the facts and circumstances should be taken into consideration and therefore the prosecution case has stood proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7. The motive for the occurrence of the incident is already stated, the caste rivalry appears to be the main reason. To prove the motive, the prosecution has examined two witnesses, PW-16 and PW-17. PW-17 has turned hostile. 7. The motive for the occurrence of the incident is already stated, the caste rivalry appears to be the main reason. To prove the motive, the prosecution has examined two witnesses, PW-16 and PW-17. PW-17 has turned hostile. If evidence of PW-16, Sarojini Mirji is perused, she has fully testified the same and she has not been discredited in the cross-examination. PW-1 to 6 and 12 have also given evidence with regard to PW-16 being insulted in the Bank meeting; they were not eye-witnesses and what they deposed in this regard is nothing but hearsay evidence. But the evidence of PW-16 has remained un-assailed. 8. As regards the incident dated 25.06.2010, the main witnesses are PW-1 to 12. PW-1 is the first informant and brother of Ravi Sidlingappa Kumbar, one of the three deceased. He has stated that on 25.06.2010 in between 8.00 and 9.00 a.m. he came inside the village as he wanted to go to a saloon. When he was standing aside the saloon, he saw his elder brother, Ravi Sidlingappa Kumbar, Basappa Channappa Koujalagi, Mallappa Balappa Hattiholi, Shrishail Bhimmappa Wali sitting on a platform (Katte) in front the shop of one Mahesh. Accused no. 19 Subash Kamate came to Agasi (Entrance of the village), saw here and there and went back. Very soon all the accused came to that place raising shouts and they were seen having with them instruments such as eligepatti, kodli (axe) and kudugol (sickle). The first accused was holding eligepatti, the sixth accused, a sickle and eight accused, an axe. The ninth accused was seen holding a jambe. Accused No. 10 fired in air with country made pistol. Accused No. 5 was having chilli powder and a club. The others were having clubs and stones. All the accused pounced upon his brother and others who were sitting in front of the shop of Mahesha. The fifth accused threw chilli powder at them. When they were rubbing their eyes, the first accused inflicted a cut injury on the neck of his brother with eligepatti, the sixth accused assaulted on his fingers with a sickle and the nineteenth accused assaulted on the head of his brother with a club. His brother fell down. The ninth accused assaulted Basappa Koujalgi with an axe on his left leg, as he fell down the first accused assaulted him with eligepatti on his neck. His brother fell down. The ninth accused assaulted Basappa Koujalgi with an axe on his left leg, as he fell down the first accused assaulted him with eligepatti on his neck. The sixth accused assaulted Basappa Koujalagi with sickle on his hands and other parts of the body. The eighth accused gave a blow with a jambe on Basappa Koujalagi’s cheek and other parts of the body. When Mallappa Hattiholi started running, the ninth accused struck on his neck with an axe. The sixth accused inflicted a cut injury to Mallappa Hattiholi with a sickle and then the first accused also assaulted with eligepatti. He too fell down. The other accused were seen assaulting them with sticks and stones. PW-1 has stated that having seen these accused inflicting injuries to his brother and two others, he and others made an attempt to go to that place for rescuing them, but they were All threatened. After this incident all the accused went inside the village. He went near the injured and saw his brother Basappa Koujalagi being dead. Mallappa Hottiholi was striving hard to breath and by that time his son Jagadish Hattiholi came and shifted him to hospital at Belagvai, but he succumbed to injuries. 9. PW-2 to 6, in their examination in chief, have given a clear account of the incident, but what is noticeable is that while attributing the overt act of the accused, there are some variations in their statements. For instance, if PW-2 has specifically taken the name of accused no. 1 without saying anything about the other accused, PW-3 takes the names of accused no. 1, 5, 6, 12 and 19 for the assault on Ravi Sidlingappa Kumbar; the names of accused no. 1, 3, 8 and 11 for the assault on Basappa Koujalagi and accused no. 1 and 2 with regard to assault on Mallappa Hattiholi. PW-4 has made a omnibus statement. PW-5 and 6 have taken the names of some of the accused and not stated anything about some others. 10. PW-7 has stated that accused no. 1 and others caused death of Ravi Kumbar, Basappa Kougalji and Mallappa Hattiholi and in particular has stated that accused no. 1 assaulted Ravi Kumbar, Bassappa Koujalgi and Mallappa Hattiholi with eligepatti. PW-8 has stated that Ravi Kumbar, Basappa Koujalagi, Mallappa Hattiholi are not alive and that they were killed in a galata. 10. PW-7 has stated that accused no. 1 and others caused death of Ravi Kumbar, Basappa Kougalji and Mallappa Hattiholi and in particular has stated that accused no. 1 assaulted Ravi Kumbar, Bassappa Koujalgi and Mallappa Hattiholi with eligepatti. PW-8 has stated that Ravi Kumbar, Basappa Koujalagi, Mallappa Hattiholi are not alive and that they were killed in a galata. He doesn’t take the name of any of the accused. His statement is that by the time he came to the place of the incident, the entire galata was over and he did not come to know as to who assaulted whom. He was treated hostile and cross examined by the public prosecutor. He refuted every suggestion given to him with regard to the incident. PW-9 has totally turned hostile. PW-10 states that at about 8.30 a.m. he was sitting inside a hotel and saw Ravi Kumbar, Basappa Koujalagi, Mallappa Hattiholi and Shrishail Wali sitting in front of the shop of Mahesh. He heard a firing sound. He came out of the hotel and saw a big crowd hurling stones and therefore he went inside and closed the door. Some time later he came out and saw Ravi Kumbar and others being chopped, but he has not stated as to who assaulted all the deceased. He too was treated hostile by Public Prosecutor. 11. PW-11 has stated that on 25.6.2010 he came to Sunadholi village and when he was standing in the entrance at about 8.30 a.m. he saw all the three deceased and Shrishail Vali sitting in front of the shop of Mahesha. All the accused came there and then started assaulting them with axe, sickles, clubs. He stated that Ravi Kumbar, Basappa Koujalagi were first assaulted. Shrishail Wali ran away from that place. Mallappa Hattiholi started running towards Lakshmi Temple, but he was chased and assaulted. He was treated hostile partly because he did not testify some facts as regards firing in the air and sprinkling the chilli powder. When the Public Prosecutor cross examined him, he just stated that he cannot say whether accused no. 10 opened fire in the air and accused no. 5 sprinkled chilli powder. 12. PW-12 was drinking tea in a hotel on 25.6.2020. He heard a sound and therefore came out of the hotel. When the Public Prosecutor cross examined him, he just stated that he cannot say whether accused no. 10 opened fire in the air and accused no. 5 sprinkled chilli powder. 12. PW-12 was drinking tea in a hotel on 25.6.2020. He heard a sound and therefore came out of the hotel. He saw 22 accused persons coming inside the village shoutingly and going towards the place where all the three deceased and Shrishail Wali were sitting. He has stated that they threw the chilli powder at them and started the commotion. When he and others attempted to interfere, they were threatened and thereafter they started assaulting the deceased. It is his clear answer that he cannot say as to who assaulted whom because there was a large crowd consisting of 22 persons. He has stated that all of them had weapons in their hands and that Ravi Kumbar and Basappa Koujalagi died at the spot. Mallappa Hattiholi was taken to the hospital. 13. The evidence thus referred to above clearly indicates that all the witnesses have testified the incident having taken place on 25.6.2010. The lengthy cross-examination of these witnesses has not yielded any result, in fact some suggestions have been given in such a way as admitting the case of the prosecution. 14. PW-15 is the wife of Ravi Sidlingappa Kumbar. She is not an eye-witness. Her evidence shows that she came to know about the incident and went to that place. She saw her husband and Basappa Koujalagi being dead. PW-14 is also not an eye-witness. He is the nephew of Ravi Sidlingappa Kumbar. He also went to the place of incident after coming to know about it. 15. PW-18 is examined to establish a circumstance that on 25.6.2010 at about 8.00 a.m. he saw all the accused having gathered in the house of accused no. 1 and five minutes later they all went inside the village carrying with them eligepatti, sickles, chilli powder, clubs, stones etc. But he has not supported the prosecution. 16. PW-13 speaks about conspiracy, he has stated that at 10 O’clock in the night, when he was going to his agricultural fields, he saw a meeting going on in the garden land of 19th accused Subash Kamate. There he saw 1st accused, Siddapa Kamate and 7 or 8 persons talking that they should not leave them (meaning thereby the leaders of Lingayath community). There he saw 1st accused, Siddapa Kamate and 7 or 8 persons talking that they should not leave them (meaning thereby the leaders of Lingayath community). After hearing this, he went to his land and returned to his house on the next day morning and slept. He has stated that at about 10.00 a.m. the incident took place and Ravi Kumbar, Basappa Koujalagi were killed and Mallappa Hottiholi succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. In the cross-examination he asserts that the accused who had gathered in the meeting were telling that they must finish them (Lingayath leaders). It has been elicited from him that Subash Kamate is living in a farm house outside the village, that his is a joint family consisting of four to five brothers, that he was the member of Taluk Panchayat and therefore always people would be found going to and coming from his house. An effort is made to establish that there was enmity between him and Subash Kamate because a quarrel had taken place between them when he sold the cement to the latter for a higher price and for another reason that a complaint had been registered against him when he caused an accident while driving his jeep. These suggestions have been denied by PW-13. To a pertinent question as to why he did not inform to others the plan hatched by the accused for killing the deceased when he heard the same at 10.00 p.m. on the previous day night, his answer is that he thought of disclosing the same on the next day morning in the village and that he slept after returning to the house in the morning. 17. The learned counsel for the appellants in all the appeals argued in unison that the prime witnesses, PW-1 to 6 belong to the same caste and they are relatives of the deceased. They are all interested witnesses. Their evidence is not consistent, there is no cogency in their evidence with regard to attribution of individual overt act and therefore it is not safe to rely upon their evidence. PW-8, 9 and 10 have turned hostile, they being independent witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case and therefore the testimonies of PW-1 to 6 should not be believed. Sri. Sharad V. Magadum, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl. PW-8, 9 and 10 have turned hostile, they being independent witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case and therefore the testimonies of PW-1 to 6 should not be believed. Sri. Sharad V. Magadum, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 100232/2015 has placed reliance on three judgments of the Supreme Court in support of his argument. They are, Bhajan Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421 , Mahavir Singh vs. State of M.P. (2016) 10 SCC 220 and Darya Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328 . 18. On the other hand, the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor argued that PW-8, 9 and 10 have not turned hostile totally, they speak about the incident that took place on 25.6.2010 and about the death of three persons. They may have failed in testifying as to individual overt act of the accused, but their evidence cannot be totally discarded. PW-1 to 6 may belong to same caste, it is not possible to say that their evidence is tainted with interestedness. The defence has totally failed to discredit these witnesses and therefore the trial court has rightly placed reliance on their testimonies. 19. In Bhajan Singh what is held is that evidence of a related witness can be relied upon if he is found to be trustworthy. Evidence needs careful scrutiny for reaching to a conclusion to convict the accused. In Darya Singh also it is held that in a murder case, if the evidence is given by near relatives of the victim and the murder is alleged to have been committed by the enemy of the family, the criminal courts must examine the evidence of the interested witnesses very carefully. It is quite clear that the learned counsel has relied upon these rulings for discarding the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-6 as they all happen to be close relatives of the deceased. 20. It has been well established principle now that the evidence given by the close relatives of the victim of an incident cannot be discarded just because they are interested; what is required is strict scrutiny of the oral evidence of the witnesses. Their evidence can be discarded if it is possible to make out that they have intentionally given false evidence in order to inculpate the accused. Their evidence can be discarded if it is possible to make out that they have intentionally given false evidence in order to inculpate the accused. Or in other words, if the oral evidence of the close relatives of the victim finds corroboration from other evidence, such an evidence can be safely relied upon. It should also be borne in mind that if an incident such as in the instant case takes place, none other than the close relatives of the victim will come forward to give evidence, even if independent witnesses are available, seldom they support the prosecution case fully. These two possibilities cannot be ruled out. For this reason, whether the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-6 is tainted with interestedness, is to be examined now. 21. Firstly, it is to be stated that the independent witnesses, PW-8 and 10 have not totally turned hostile, they do speak about occurrence of the incident in the morning hours and assert that three deaths took place. The oral evidence of these witnesses as referred to above clearly indicates the reason for they being not able to narrate the incident in the manner the prosecution wanted to elucidate from them. If PW-8 has stated that by the time he came to the spot, the entire galata was over and therefore he had no information as to who assaulted whom; the evidence of PW-10 shows that he was inside the hotel when the commotion started. He saw a group of people coming by raising shouts and hurling the stones. He was afraid of seeing this commotion and therefore went inside the hotel and closed the door. He came out only after the incident was over and saw three persons being dead. When he was subjected to cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor he admitted certain suggestions that one of the Lingayat community leaders, namely, Shreeshail Wali running away from that place as the chilly powder did not fall on his eyes. The answer this witness has given appears to be quite natural and it may be stated that he has not totally turned hostile. PW-11 and PW-12 have also supported the prosecution. PW-11 has spoken about the incident, he was treated hostile for the reason that he did not speak about conspiracy. Therefore, there is corroboration to the testimonies of PW-1 to 6 at least to this extent by the independent witnesses. 22. PW-11 and PW-12 have also supported the prosecution. PW-11 has spoken about the incident, he was treated hostile for the reason that he did not speak about conspiracy. Therefore, there is corroboration to the testimonies of PW-1 to 6 at least to this extent by the independent witnesses. 22. The other corroborative evidence is recovery of incriminating materials at the instance of some of the accused in accordance with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer has drawn a number of seizure mahazars marked Exs.P.64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128. The witnesses for the seizure mahazars are, PW-s32, 34, 35, 40, 41, 42, and 43 and of them, PW-41 and 43 have not supported. Notwithstanding their hostility, the seizures may be believed as the evidence of the Police Officers who seized these incriminating articles can be believed. The incriminating materials include the blood stained clothes of the accused and also the weapons used for committing the offence. The evidence as regards seizure strengthens the testimonies of PW-1 to 6. 23. Ex.P.260 is the FSL report. 66 material objects, including the weapons and the blood stained clothes were subjected to forensic examination to detect the presence of blood. Except in items 2, 4 and 6, the control mud collected at the spot, in all other items, presence of human blood was detected. Detection of three different blood groups is mentioned in the report. This corresponds to three deaths. Thus, corroboration is available to the testimonies of PW-1 to 6 and they cannot be cal led interested witnesses or chance witnesses. 24. It is true that there are some variations in the testimonies of PW-1 to 6 as argued by the counsel for the appellants. It is quite natural. While giving narration of the incident that took place some time back, the witnesses may stumble. When a group of people resort to rioting, it may not be possible to perceive the events happening in their front. Every individual behaves differently. Especially when deaths take place, some people may run away from the place in fear, some people may faint and some people may go to shock and some may become speechless. When a group of people resort to rioting, it may not be possible to perceive the events happening in their front. Every individual behaves differently. Especially when deaths take place, some people may run away from the place in fear, some people may faint and some people may go to shock and some may become speechless. If those who witness an incident of this type are summoned to court to speak about the incident, each one may give the account in a different manner. But, if they speak about the presence of the persons who resorted committing the crime, and if there is no material contradictions affecting the prosecution case substantially, their evidence can be safely relied upon. In this context, we find it useful to refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Venkatesha @ Poori and Others vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 2015 Kar. 5675. In paragraph No. 15 it has been observed thus: 15. The contention of the defence that the conduct of PW-1 on the scene of offence is artificial, also cannot be accepted. Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing, some start shouting for help. Others run away to save themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of witnesses on the ground that he/she did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. 25. In the testimonies of PW-1 to 6, we are unable to see any material contradictions as argued by the counsel for the appellants. 26. Sri. Sharad Magadum has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Singh, (supra). What is held in this judgment is that a contradicted testimony of an interested witness cannot be usually treated as conclusive. 26. Sri. Sharad Magadum has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Singh, (supra). What is held in this judgment is that a contradicted testimony of an interested witness cannot be usually treated as conclusive. In the said case, a witness namely Madhav Singh PW-9 gave an admission that he was a witness also for the prosecution in another case against the very same accused and therefore the Supreme Court, in the given set of circumstances treated him as a pocket witness for the family although he was an independent witness. Probably the learned counsel has relied upon this judgment to assai l the testimonies of the independent witnesses. We do not find any such circumstance as to treat the independent witnesses being pocket witnesses for the family of the deceased, in fact, they have not fully supported the prosecution case as observed above. This judgment is of little help to the appellants. So what we find is that the testimonies of PW-1 to 6 is not tainted with interestedness, not only that their testimonies are trustworthy, but there is supporting evidence for what they have stated. 27. Given a look at the medical evidence, there are three postmortem reports as per Ex.P.158, P161 and P185. PW-59 conducted the autopsy over the dead bodies of Ravi Sidlingappa Kumbar and Basappa Koujaligi. On the person of Ravi Sidlingappa Kumbar, PW-59 noticed the presence of 12 ante mortem external injuries of which the prominent injuries were 1 to 5. They are: 1. Incised wound measuring 6 cm x 4 cm bone deep present over center of the scalp. 2. Incised wound measuring 7 cm x 4 cm bone deep present over the left parietal region. 3. Incised wound measuring 9 cm x 5 cm x 6 cm deep present over the right cheek extending to back of neck exposing muscles, arteries, veins, right ear cut. 4. Incised wound measuring 12 cm x 3 cm x 4 cm deep present extending from the left ear to back of neck. Exposing muscles, arteries, veins, left ear cut. 5. Incised wound measuring 3 cm x 3 cm x 5 cm deep present over the lower part of the sternum. 28. 4. Incised wound measuring 12 cm x 3 cm x 4 cm deep present extending from the left ear to back of neck. Exposing muscles, arteries, veins, left ear cut. 5. Incised wound measuring 3 cm x 3 cm x 5 cm deep present over the lower part of the sternum. 28. When she conducted autopsy over the dead body of Basappa Koujaligi, she noticed 9 ante mortem external injuries and of these, injuries 1 and 3 as given below were major: 1. Incised wound measuring 17 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm deep present extending from forehead to mid of scalp. 3. Incised wound measuring 24 cm x 7 cm x 10 cm deep extending from front of neck to back of neck (left side). 29. PW-60 conducted autopsy over the dead body of Mallappa Hottiholi and at that time he noticed the presence of 7 ante mortem external injuries and injuries 1, 2, 4 and 5 appear to be major. Those injuries are: 1. Acut laceration of 4 x 1 cms bone deep with ragged margins over left temporal aspect of head 3 cms. Below left parietal eminence present. 2. A bone deep chop wound of 10 cms. In obl ige length extending from left cheek 5.5 cms below the outer angle of left eye, obligly backwards upto left mastoid processed thereby raising a flap of skin downwards along with a part of external ear being avulsed from its attachment. The direction being from above downwards. 4. A chop wound of 10 x 2 cms. Over the left side of the neck about 4 Cms. below the left ear lobe exposing the reptured visceras of the neck-muscles, vessels and left sub mandioular gland - extending upto lower border of mandible. 5. Cut lacerated wounds of 5 x 1 cms. and 6 x 2 cms. Over the mid frontal area of the head, bone deep with ragged margins. 30. PW-59 and 60 have given an opinion that the deaths might have occurred due to haemorragic shock as a result of major injuries on the head, neck and other parts of the body. The Investigating Officer showed them the weapons used for committing crime for ascertaining the possibility of occurrence of injuries that they noticed, if the deceased had been assaulted with those weapons. The Investigating Officer showed them the weapons used for committing crime for ascertaining the possibility of occurrence of injuries that they noticed, if the deceased had been assaulted with those weapons. The two doctors have opined possibilities of occurrence of injuries if such weapons had been employed at the time of committing the crime. The Doctors were subjected to lengthy cross examination, what is found in their cross examination is more of elucidating some of the aspects of medical jurisprudence rather than making an effort to discredit them. One important aspect highlighted by Sri. Sharad Magadum was that the undigested food particles were found in the stomach portion of All the deceased, therefore the incident could not have taken place in the morning hours as projected by the prosecution. According to him, all the three might have been killed on the previous day night. Whether the deceased had taken food in the morning or not does not assume significance because of the presence of the direct witnesses to the incident. It is their testimonies that decide the prosecution case. Where there are no direct witnesses and if the prosecution case is dependent on circumstantial evidence, the presence of food particles in the stomach may help fix the approximate time of death. Therefore, this line of argument cannot be accepted. 31. Sri. Sharad Magadum has referred to a judgment in the case of Ramnarayan Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727 . What is held in this judgment is that if the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistic expert, it is a fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless it is suitably explained, the entire case can be discarded. According to the learned counsel, the medical evidence is inconsistent with the testimonies of PW-1 to 6, but we do not accept this argument because of the discussion made above. Therefore, Ramnarayan Singh is not helpful to the appellants. With the help of medical evidence, a clear inference may be drawn that case of the prosecution may be brought within the ambit of Thirdly of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, the case does not fall within any of the exceptions of Section 300 IPC. 32. The prosecution has invoked Section 149 IPC because of participation of about 22 accused. 32. The prosecution has invoked Section 149 IPC because of participation of about 22 accused. It was vehement argument of all the counsel for the appellants that PW-1 to 6 do not speak about the role of every accused, formation of unlawful assembly is not established and therefore recording conviction against all the accused for the of fence under Section 302 IPC was unwarranted. In this context, Sri. Sharad Magadum has placed reliance on the judgment of Kuldeep Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 324 . It is held in this judgment that before convicting the accused with the aid of Section 149 IPC, the Court must give clear finding regarding nature of common object and that the object was unlawful. In the absence of such a finding, mere fact that they were armed would not be sufficient to prove common object. 33. We have to therefore examine whether the evidence discloses common object. We have already discussed the evidence of PW-13 who was examined by the prosecution to establish conspiracy. From his un-impeached testimony, it is not impossible to draw an inference that the conversation that took place on the previous day night discloses their common object to take revenge against the leaders of the Lingayat community. Pertinently reference may be made to evidence given by PW-58 who was working as Head Constable. What he has stated is that on 25.06.2010 at about 8.15 A.M. accused No. 6 and 19 came to Police Station to enquire him as to who had lodged complaint against whom and how many persons. At that time, as PW-58 has stated, accused No. 6 and 19 said that even the Police were supporting the Lingayat community people and giving trouble to Kuruba community and that they would deal with them. Therefore, from the evidence of PW-58, an inference may be drawn with regard to accused possessing common object to eliminate Lingayat community leaders. 34. The trial Court has found all the accused guilty of the offences charged against them. But, accused 6 and 15 died during trial and the case stood abated against them. The other accused were convicted. Therefore, from the evidence of PW-58, an inference may be drawn with regard to accused possessing common object to eliminate Lingayat community leaders. 34. The trial Court has found all the accused guilty of the offences charged against them. But, accused 6 and 15 died during trial and the case stood abated against them. The other accused were convicted. On a close scrutiny of the evidence, though the testimonies of the witnesses as discussed above, clearly establish the taking place of the incident on 25.06.2010 resulting in the death of three persons, but what we notice is that there is no evidence against accused Nos. 4, 13 and 15 to 18. PW-1 has established the overt acts of accused Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 19. PW-2 has spoken about the role played by accused No. 1 in assaulting Ravi Sidlingappa Kumbar. PW-3 has given evidence as regards the role of accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 19. PW-4 has given omnibus statement. PW-5 has established the role of accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 20, 21 and 22. PW-6 has established the role of accused Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 14, 19 and 20. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial Court can be upheld insofar as convicting accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22. But, accused No. 1 and 5 died during pendency of these appeals. 35. Lastly, one point of argument touching the investigation must be referred to. All the counsel for the appellants argued that the FIR was registered at 1.00 p.m. PW-46 was the ASI who registered FIR on the basis of report made by PW-1. But, before registration of FIR, the Police Officers came to village and the investigation commenced. Without registration of FIR, the investigation could not have been taken up and the whole investigation was vitiated. We are not inclined to accept this argument. If after the incident, the Police officers rushed to the village, it does not mean that they took over investigation. It was mainly for the purpose of maintaining law and order in the village. When a ghastly incident takes place, the Police Officers are expected to come over to the spot for controlling the situation. If after the incident, the Police officers rushed to the village, it does not mean that they took over investigation. It was mainly for the purpose of maintaining law and order in the village. When a ghastly incident takes place, the Police Officers are expected to come over to the spot for controlling the situation. The evidence given by PW-46 discloses that he telephoned to the higher officers to bring to their knowledge that nobody had come to Police Station to lodge complaint and at that time, he was told that one Umesh Kumbar, i.e. PW-1, would be coming to Police Station for lodging the complaint. If PW-1 did not go to Police Station soon after the incident took place, his conduct could not be looked with askance. He is the brother of Ravi Sidlingappa Kumbar, one of the deceased. The Police Station is at a distance of 8 kms from the village Sunadholi where the incident took place. In relation to an incident where three deaths took place, if there was some delay in lodging the complaint, the same cannot be given too much of importance. If the evidence given by PW-63 is seen, he took over investigation at 1.30 P.M. from PW-46. The inquest mahazars as per Ex.P.57 and 58 were drawn in the village in between 14.30 and 15.30 hours and 15.35 and 16.35 hours respectively. The inquest in relation to dead body of Mallappa Hottiholi was conducted in the hospital in between 20.20 and 21.30 hours. The number of injuries noted in the inquest tally with the number mentioned in the P.M. reports. The spot panchanama as per Ex.P.59 was drawn in between 16.35 and 17.35 hours. Therefore, there is no force in the argument that the investigation had commenced before registration of FIR. 36. The first informant, namely Umesh Kumbar has filed the appeal u/s 372 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of sentence, he has pleaded for awarding death sentence to the convicted accused. The counsel for the appellant did not appear and argue. Even otherwise, from the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that this is not the rarest of the rare case for awarding death sentence. 37. Therefore, from the above discussion we pass the following order. ORDER: Crl. Appeal No. 100232/2015 is dismissed. Crl. Appeal No. 100247/2015 is allowed. Crl. Appeal No. 100202/2015 and 100233/2015 are partly allowed. Even otherwise, from the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that this is not the rarest of the rare case for awarding death sentence. 37. Therefore, from the above discussion we pass the following order. ORDER: Crl. Appeal No. 100232/2015 is dismissed. Crl. Appeal No. 100247/2015 is allowed. Crl. Appeal No. 100202/2015 and 100233/2015 are partly allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against accused Nos. 4, 13, 16, 17 and 18 is hereby set aside. They are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. Since accused No. 17 was released on bail on 15.12.2015, accused Nos. 4, 13 and 18 were released on bail on 17.12.2015, and accused No. 16 was released on bail on 06.01.2016, at the time when sentence of imprisonment was suspended, their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, deposited by them shall be refunded to them. Appeal against Nos. 1 and 5 stands abated as they died during the pendency of the appeal. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against accused Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 is hereby confirmed. Accused Nos. 3, 7, 11, 12, 14, 20, 21 and 22 are on bail. Hence, their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. The trial Court is hereby directed to secure their presence by issuing warrant and commit them to jail for serving sentence. Crl. Appeal No. 100225/2015 filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence is hereby dismissed. Send back the trial Court records.