JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Accused Nos.1 to 5 in Sessions Case No.394 of 2007 are the appellants herein. A1 was tried for the offences punishable under Sections, 148, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short ‘I.P.C’], while A2 to A5 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. 2. Vide judgment dated 30.11.2015, the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam convicted A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 I.P.C and A2 to A5 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. Accordingly, A1 to A5 were sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 148 of I.P.C.; A1 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C; A1 was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C; A2 to A5 were also sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C; A2 to A5 were further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. The substantial sentences imposed against A1 and A2 to A5 were directed to run concurrently. 3. It appears from the record that on the date of judgment, i.e., on 30.11.2015, A4 remained absent and sentence of imprisonment, as referred to earlier, came to be passed on 05.02.2016. 4. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 23.02.2006 at 8.30 P.M. at Nizampeta, Machilipatnam, accused 1 to 5, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and caused the death of one Rajulapati Rajani. 4. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 23.02.2006 at 8.30 P.M. at Nizampeta, Machilipatnam, accused 1 to 5, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and caused the death of one Rajulapati Rajani. In the course of same transaction, caused injuries to Rajulapati Vamsi and Rajulapati Pushpavathi (P.Ws.1 and 2). 5. The facts in issue are as under: (i) P.W.1 is the son of P.W.2, while the deceased was the junior maternal aunt of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the co-sister of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the daughter of the deceased. P.W.4 is the mother-inlaw of the deceased. P.W.18 is the son of the deceased. All other witnesses are neighbours and official witnesses. On the night of 22.02.2006, some unknown offenders committed theft of copper boiler, brass bucket and brass pots from the house of P.W.2. The same was noticed on the next day morning i.e., on 23.02.2006 and as such, P.W.2, deceased and neighbours went to the police station and lodged a report, suspecting A1 in commission of theft. The police informed them that they would enquire into the same and will intimate later. On the same day, at about 7.00 P.M., A1 went to the house of P.W.2, picked up a quarrel with her, deceased and others, questioning as to why a report was given against him, and also threatened them with dire consequences. (ii) On the very same day at 8.30 P.M, while P.W.2 was watching T.V in her house by sitting in the varandah, along with P.Ws.1, 3 and others, while the deceased was in the kitchen room, some persons kicked the main gate of the house. On hearing the same, P.Ws.1 and 2 came out from the varandah and saw five persons entering the house. A1 is said to have hacked the deceased on her chin portion with a knife, while the remaining persons hacked her with knives on her body and face. When the deceased raised her left hand to-ward off the knife blows, her fingers were cut. On seeing the incident, P.W.2 interfered, then A1 gave a blow on the left side of the head, left side buttock and also on her back. When P.W.2 raised her left hand, A1 gave a blow with a knife on her left hand, resulting in an injury to left ring finger. On seeing the incident, P.W.2 interfered, then A1 gave a blow on the left side of the head, left side buttock and also on her back. When P.W.2 raised her left hand, A1 gave a blow with a knife on her left hand, resulting in an injury to left ring finger. At that point of time, the son of P.W.2 i.e., P.W.1 interfered, A1 hacked him on his head with a knife. On account of the blows received, the deceased fell down and lost consciousness. P.W.1 took the deceased and P.W.2 (injured) in an auto to the Government General Hospital, MTM. (iii) P.W.11, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, MTM examined P.W.1 and issued wound certificate, which is placed on record as Ex.P17. He also examined P.W.2 and issued Ex.P18 wound certificate. According to the doctor, the injuries found on P.Ws.1 and 2 are possible with sharp edged weapons like M.Os.1 to 5. (iv) On 23.02.2006 at about 9.30 P.M., P.W.14 Sub- Inspector of Police rushed to the scene of offence and found P.Ws.1 and 2 with injuries and also the body of the deceased. He sent the injured to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam and posted a guard at the scene of offence to guard the scene. Thereafter, he rushed to Government General Hospital, in view of the intimation received about the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P1. Basing on the same, he registered a case in Crime No.19 of 2006 and issued Ex.P26 First Information Report. (v) P.W.15-Inspector of Police, Bandar Town circle, Machilipatanm, who took investigation from P.W.14, on receipt of a copy of F.I.R on 23.02.2006 at 11.15 P.M., proceeded to Government General Hospital, Machilipatnam, examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2. He posted a guard at the body of the deceased. On the next day morning at about 6.30 a.m., he proceeded to the scene of offence and in the presence of P.W.6, drafted a panchanama of the scene of offence under Ex.P2. At the scene, he collected blood stains from pool of blood and controlled earth, black hair, two pairs of chappals and one left leg chappal etc. He also got prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is marked as Ex.P27. At the scene, he collected blood stains from pool of blood and controlled earth, black hair, two pairs of chappals and one left leg chappal etc. He also got prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is marked as Ex.P27. From the scene of offence, he proceeded to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Machilipatnam and in the presence of P.W.6, conducted inquest over the body of the deceased. At the time of inquest, he examined P.Ws.3 and 4 and others. Ex.P5 is the Inquest Report. After completing the inquest proceedings, he sent the dead body to Government General Hospital for conducting autopsy. (vi) P.W.9-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Head Quarters Hospital, MTM conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased on 24.02.2006 at 1.10 P.M. and issued Ex.P14 Post Mortem Certificate. He noticed 10 incised injuries on the body of the deceased. According to him, the cause of death was ‘due to asphyxia and cutting of trachea’. (vii) P.W.15, who continued with the investigation, surprised the house of the accused, but they were absconding. On 25.02.2006, he forwarded the material objects and the clothes of the deceased which were seized by the Medical Officer, to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, vijayawada. (viii) On 02.03.2006, on receipt of reliable information, he secured P.W.6 and another, proceeded to Machavaram and found A1 to A4 behind a Brawn mill at Machavaram. On seeing the police, they tried to run away, but were apprehended. On interrogation, they confessed about the commission of offence. Their confession lead to discovery of weapons, M.Os.1 to 4 used in the commission of offence and they were seized under different panchanamas. (ix) It is said that on 05.03.2006, A5 surrendered before the Court and accordingly, he was sent to judicial custody. On 17.03.2006, P.W.15 made an application before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam and with the orders of the Court, he took A5 into police custody. On interrogation, he is said to have confessed about the commission of offence, pursuant to which, M.O.5 was seized under Ex.P8. (x) It is also to be noted that a requisition was made before Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bantumilli for holding Test Identification Parade of A1 to A5. Ex.P29 is the requisition. On interrogation, he is said to have confessed about the commission of offence, pursuant to which, M.O.5 was seized under Ex.P8. (x) It is also to be noted that a requisition was made before Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bantumilli for holding Test Identification Parade of A1 to A5. Ex.P29 is the requisition. Learned Magistrate, who was examined as P.W.13, conducted the Test Identification Parade of the accused and recorded the statements of A1 to A5 after the said proceedings. Ex.P23 is the Test Identification Parade proceedings. All the accused objected to the said proceedings stating that they were shown to the witnesses by the police prior to Test Identification Parade. The proceedings show that P.W.2 identified A1 to A4, P.W.4 identified A1 to A4 and P.W.3 identified A1 to A5. After collecting all the necessary documents, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.22 of 2006 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam. 6. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to them. As the offence is triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of the Special Sessions Judge-cum-X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 7. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 22 and got marked Exs.P1 to P35 besides M.Os.1 to 14. Out of 22 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.16, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. 9. After closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which, they denied. However, they did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf. 10. 9. After closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which, they denied. However, they did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf. 10. Believing the evidence of injured eye witnesses and the inmates of the house, whose presence at the time of incident, cannot be disputed, the learned Sessions Judge convicted all the accused as stated supra. 11. Smt. A.Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, mainly submits that there is absolutely no legal evidence available on record to convict all the accused in the crime. According to her, in the First Information Report given, there is no reference to A2 to A5 and only the name of A1 was mentioned. Further, no descriptive particulars of A2 to A5 were mentioned in the First Information Report and also prior to holding Test Identification Parade. Such being the position, question of they being identified the accused in Test Identification parade cannot be believed. She further submits that there is any amount of variation with regard to the version of P.W.1 and P.W.14 as to how and when a report was lodged. She further submits that identification of all the accused in the Court by P.W.1 also cannot be believed for the reason that he was not subjected to Test Identification Parade Proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that in the absence of any material to show that there was a light at the scene, identifying the accused in the night by the witnesses cannot be believed. In view of all the above circumstances, learned counsel would contend that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court warrants interference. 12. On the other hand, Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the same contending that when there are two injured and two uninjured eye witnesses have seen the incident and their version being consistent in all material aspects, the trial Court was right in convicting the accused. He took us through the evidence of all the witnesses and also the evidence of Investigating Office to show that the findings of the trial Court warrant no interference. In support of his plea, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC Online SC 347. 13. He took us through the evidence of all the witnesses and also the evidence of Investigating Office to show that the findings of the trial Court warrant no interference. In support of his plea, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC Online SC 347. 13. The point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 14. As seen from the record, P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 18 were examined as eye witnesses to the incident. Out of these five witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 were injured witnesses. The fact of P.Ws.1 and 2 sustaining injuries stands established through the evidence of doctors-P.Ws.10 and 11. 15. The evidence of P.W.11 would show that on the date of incident i.e., on 23.02.2006 at about 9.30 P.M., he examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and issued Exs.P17 and P18 wound certificates, while the evidence of P.W.10 would show that on the next day i.e., on 24.04.2006 and also on 07.03.2006, he took X-rays of skull, left scapula, left hand and right forearm, which are placed on record as Exs.P15 and 16. From the evidence of these two doctors, it stands established beyond reasonable doubt that these two witnesses received injuries on 23.02.2006 at about 8.30 or 9.00 P.M. Though these witnesses were cross examined at length, nothing useful came to be elicited except a suggestion that injuries could not have been caused with a sharp edge of a weapon. 12. Coming to the incident proper, as stated by us earlier, P.Ws.1 to 4 and 18 were examined as eye witnesses to the incident. P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that the house of A1 is situated opposite to their house and that he knows A1. On 22.02.2006 night, some unknown offenders committed theft of utensils and other brass household articles. A report came to be lodged on the next day by P.W.2, deceased and others, suspecting A1 as the person responsible for the theft. On coming to know about the said report, A1 is said to have gone to the house of P.W.1 on 23.02.2006 at 7.00 P.M., and threatened the deceased and P.W.2 with dire consequences for lodging a report against him. On coming to know about the said report, A1 is said to have gone to the house of P.W.1 on 23.02.2006 at 7.00 P.M., and threatened the deceased and P.W.2 with dire consequences for lodging a report against him. On the very same day, at 8.30 P.M., while P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.W.18 were watching Television in the front room, and deceased sitting in the varandah by the side of the kitchen, which is located abutting to the main door, five persons armed with knives, kicked the main gate and entered the house. His evidence shows that A1 hacked the deceased with knife resulting injury on the right side of her chin. As soon as those five persons including A1 entered the house, P.W.1 came out of the house along with P.W.2. Then, himself and P.W.2 intervened to save the deceased, but however all the five persons armed with knives indiscriminately hacked P.W.1, the deceased and P.W.2. P.W.1 is said to have received a hacked bleeding injury on his head from A1 with a knife. A1 also hacked P.W.2 with a knife on her left side of head and near left shoulder and left buttock, while the remaining four persons hacked the deceased and P.W.2. After the incident, P.W.1 took the injured (P.W.2 and deceased) to the hospital, where the doctor declared the deceased as brought dead. P.W.1 identified all the accused, who were present in the Court hall, as persons who committed the offence and caused injuries to P.Ws.1 and 2. 13. P.W.1 was cross examined at length. But all the suggestions given to P.W.1 viz., that they were not watching Television at that point of time; and that they did not come out from the room when these accused entered into the house; that P.W.1 was not present in the house at that time, as he left the house at 8.00 A.M and returned home at 7.00 P.M after college hours, were denied. A very lengthy cross examination running into six pages was done, but in our view, nothing useful came to be elicited to discard the testimony of P.W.1. A very lengthy cross examination running into six pages was done, but in our view, nothing useful came to be elicited to discard the testimony of P.W.1. In fact learned counsel for the appellants tried to elicit information that there was no light in front of house and as such, he could not have witnessed the incident, but while denying the same, the witness deposed that the focus of the street light also fall on the house and that there are residential houses surrounding his house on all sides. Therefore, the answers elicited in his cross examination itself would show that there was a street light and the focus of the street light falls on the house. That being so, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the witness could not have seen the faces of the accused in darkness, cannot be accepted. This version of P.W.1, who is an injured eye witness, having received injuries from A1 and others, get corroboration in all aspects from the evidence of P.W.2, who is none other than the mother of P.W.1. Her evidence entirely toes in line with the evidence of P.W.1. 14. P.W.2 while identifying A1 to A5 deposed about A1 hacking the deceased on her chin portion, while the remaining four persons hacking the deceased with knives on her body and face and when the deceased raised her left hand to ward knife blows, received an injury on left hand fingers. She also speaks about A1 giving a blow on left side of her head, left side buttock and backside and when she raised his left hand, A1 gave a blow with a knife on her left hand resulting an injury to left ring finger. In her evidence in chief, she also speaks about the same and also street light near their house. P.W.2 was also cross examined at length, but all the suggestions given with regard to the incriminating material, were denied by her. The suggestions were mainly on the serial that was coming on T.V at that relevant point of time. 15. But however, it was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.2 that she joined as inpatient in the hospital before 12 midnight on the date of incident. The thrust of the cross examination was with regard to the statement made by her before the Magistrate and contents thereof. 15. But however, it was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.2 that she joined as inpatient in the hospital before 12 midnight on the date of incident. The thrust of the cross examination was with regard to the statement made by her before the Magistrate and contents thereof. Further the main thrust of the argument also appears to be that on seeing the accused, the witnesses went inside and bolted the house and that someone else entered the house through backside by breaking the door and as such, they could not have witnessed the hacking of the deceased or the faces of the accused due to darkness. The same is tested with the suggestion given in the cross examination, but all of them were denied. 16. P.W.3, who is also an inmate of the house and sister of P.W.1, was also examined as eye witness to the incident. She also speaks about the incident that occurred at 7.00 P.M. and latter one at 8.30 or 9.00 P.M. According to her, on seeing the incident, P.Ws.1 and 2 interfered and A1 hacked P.W.1 and P.W.2. When they raised cries, the accused ran away. She also claims to have identified the accused in the Test Identification Parade held by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bantumilli and also about the statement recorded by the said Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She was also cross examined at length, but all the suggestions given with regard to the manner in which the incident took place was denied by her. However, she admits that she cannot give the descriptive particulars of weapons and that she does not know the name of the weapon used by A1 in the commission of offence. 17. P.W.4, who is the mother-in-law of deceased, was examined as another eye witness to the incident. She identified all the accused in the Court hall. 18. P.W.18 is the other person who was examined as eye witness to the incident. He was aged about 13 years at the time of giving evidence and as such, before recording the evidence the Court put some preliminary questions to him and after being satisfied with regard to his capacity to understand, the Court proceeded to record his statement. 18. P.W.18 is the other person who was examined as eye witness to the incident. He was aged about 13 years at the time of giving evidence and as such, before recording the evidence the Court put some preliminary questions to him and after being satisfied with regard to his capacity to understand, the Court proceeded to record his statement. According to him, on 23.02.2006 at about 8.30 P.M., himself along with other family members while watching Television in the house, at that point of time, the incident in question took place. He identified the culprits. In the cross examination, he admits that he did not state the name of other accused except A1. He further admits that he knows A1 earlier to the offence and that he does not know where the other accused reside. It was also elicited that he has seen the accused hacking his mother on her neck and chin. 19. The evidence of the eye witnesses establish the involvement of all five accused in commission of offence. But learned counsel for the appellants would submit that participation of A2 to A5 is doubtful, since the First Information Report does not contain the names of A2 to A5. It is true that the First Information Report given by P.W.1 contains the name of A1 only. But at the same time, P.W.1 states that along with A1, some unknown persons also committed the offence. The reason for mentioning the same is that none of the witnesses are aware as to who A2 and A5 are. It is nobody’s case that A2 to A5 are also known persons. Definitely things should have been different, had A2 to A5 were known persons. As seen from the evidence of all the witnesses, none of them claimed to know A2 to A5. For that reason only, the Test Identification Parade came to be conducted. Though P.W.1 was not subjected to Test Identification Parade Proceedings, but P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 were asked to identify the accused in the Test Identification Proceedings, which was conducted on 27.03.2006. 20. For that reason only, the Test Identification Parade came to be conducted. Though P.W.1 was not subjected to Test Identification Parade Proceedings, but P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 were asked to identify the accused in the Test Identification Proceedings, which was conducted on 27.03.2006. 20. Though learned counsel for the appellants tried to contend that the Test Identification Parade proceedings cannot be believed in the absence of any special identification marks being given by these witnesses, but we are not inclined to accept the same for the reason that these accused were arrested only on 02.03.2006 and 05.03.2006 and immediately within 20 days thereafter, the Test Identification Parade was conducted, wherein these witnesses identified the accused. Furthermore, the incident occurred inside the house and all these accused had an ample opportunity of seeing these accused with the help of light in the house and also with the help of street light, as spoken to by P.W.2. Therefore, identification of the accused after a month of the incident, in the facts and circumstances, cannot be said to be difficult or unnatural. 21. It is also to be noted here that the oral evidence of the witnesses gets ample corroboration from the medical evidence. P.W.9, who conducted Post Mortem examination of the deceased, noticed 10 incised injuries on various portions of the body including face, neck, arms and fingers. All these injuries corroborate the version of all eye witnesses with regard to attack on the deceased; as the version of the eye witnesses is to the effect that initially it was A1, who attacked the deceased and thereafter, four persons hacked the deceased with knives on her body and face. Further as observed by us earlier, the evidence of P.W.10 and P.W.11 corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the injuries sustained by them in the hands of the accused. 22. It is not the case of the accused that these witnesses have spoken about injuries after obtaining the Post Mortem Certificate. Even in the First Information Report given by P.W.1, he discloses the injuries sustained by P.W.1, P.W.2 and deceased. The said version was also reflected in the inquest proceedings. Therefore, the argument that the prosecution witnesses have improved their case from stage to stage, cannot be accepted. 23. Even in the First Information Report given by P.W.1, he discloses the injuries sustained by P.W.1, P.W.2 and deceased. The said version was also reflected in the inquest proceedings. Therefore, the argument that the prosecution witnesses have improved their case from stage to stage, cannot be accepted. 23. Further, the weapons alleged to have been used in the commission of offence came to be recovered pursuant to the confession made by the accused in the presence of P.W.6. Though P.W.6 was subjected to lengthy cross examination, nothing, in our view, came to be elicited to discard his testimony. Though the blood stains on the weapons used could not be traced to that of the injured witnesses, but the medical evidence clearly indicates that those injuries on the body of P.Ws.1 and 2 and deceased could have been caused with M.Os.1 to 5. 24. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellants/A1 to A5 beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant/accused. Hence, the findings of the trial Court in convicting the accused and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life, warrants no interference. 25. In the result the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants/A1 to A5 in the judgment, dated 30.11.2015 in Sessions Case No.394 of 2007 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge-cum-X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.