JUDGMENT : (Jobin Sebastian, J.) The accused Nos.1 to 5 in S.C.No.600 of 2016 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda has preferred this appeal assailing the finding of guilt, conviction, and sentence passed against them for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC and Section 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:- a) The 2nd accused humiliated the wife of PW1 through teasing and indecent conduct, prompting PW1 to reprimand him. Enraged by the rebuke, on 25.12.2015, near the rental house of PW1, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, with the common object of murdering PW1 and his friends, who had gathered at PW1's house to celebrate Christmas. b) In furtherance of the common object of the assembly, the 3rd accused approached PW1 and suggested settling the dispute between him and the 2nd accused, inviting PW1 and his friends for a compromise talk. Trusting the words of the 3rd accused, PW1, accompanied by his friends Sreejith (CW2), Prasanth (CW3), Melwin, and Viswajith, proceeded to Nandhikkara-Mapranam Road for the talk. While they were in conversation with the accused, the 1st accused abruptly drew a sword and struck CW2. When CW1 intervened upon seeing this, the 1st accused hacked him with the sword. The 2nd and 3rd accused then brutally assaulted Melwin and Viswajith using iron pipes, while the 4th and 5th accused incessantly beat them with wooden sticks. The 1st accused proceeded to hack Melwin and Viswajith with the sword, and the 5th accused assaulted CW3 with his bare hands. Accused Nos. 6 to 12 assisted accused Nos. 1 to 5 by preventing the injured from escaping the crime scene. PW1’s friends, Melwin and Viswajith, succumbed to their injuries at the spot. c) The accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. 3. After completion of the investigation, final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. c) The accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. 3. After completion of the investigation, final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. Being satisfied that the case is one triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate, after complying all the necessary formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thrissur, under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. After taking cognizance, the learned Sessions Judge made over the case for trial and disposal to Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda. After trial, the accused Nos.1 to 5 were found guilty for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and convicted. The remaining accused were found not guilty and acquitted. 4. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were sentenced to two life imprisonments; one for the murder of Melwin and another for the murder of Viswajith. Additionally, they were ordered to pay separate fines with default clauses for each of the murders. Separate sentences were also imposed on accused Nos. 1 to 5 for every other offence for which they were found guilty and convicted. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. This judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged by way of this appeal. 5. The prosecution in its bid to prove the charge levelled against the accused has altogether examined 27 witnesses, as PW1 to PW27, and exhibited and marked as Exts.P1 to P51. MO1 series to MO21 series were marked and identified. The contradictions brought out by the defence in the statement of prosecution witnesses were marked as Exts.D1 to D4. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and they denied all the incriminating materials brought out against them in evidence. From the side of the accused, DW1 and DW2 were examined and marked Exts.D1 to D11 including the contradictions brought out in the statements of prosecution witnesses. 6. The law was set in motion in this case on the strength of Ext.P1 FIS given by PW1 to PW20, the SHO of Puthukad Police Station. Ext.P15 is the FIR registered. From the side of the accused, DW1 and DW2 were examined and marked Exts.D1 to D11 including the contradictions brought out in the statements of prosecution witnesses. 6. The law was set in motion in this case on the strength of Ext.P1 FIS given by PW1 to PW20, the SHO of Puthukad Police Station. Ext.P15 is the FIR registered. The Circle Inspector of Police, Puthukad Police Station, thereafter took over the investigation and conducted the major chunk of investigation. The investigating officer when examined as PW27 testified as follows: He took over the investigation in this case on 26.12.2015 and on the same day, visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Ext.P39 scene mahazar. Two wooden sticks, two iron pipes, two pair of chappals, one cigarette lighter, and some broken glass pieces, found in the scene of occurrence, were seized as described in Ext.P39 scene mahazar. He effected the arrest of the accused after complying with the necessary formalities. Based on the disclosure statement of the 1st accused during questioning, a sword was recovered from the place where he was led by the accused. PW27 identified MO3 sword. Ext.P20 is the recovery mahazar. The relevant portion in the confession statement of the 1st accused which led to the recovery of the sword is marked as Ext.P28. The iron pipes (MO4 and MO5) and wooden sticks (MO6 and MO7) were also identified by PW27. The chemical analysis report received after the examination of seized articles was marked through PW27 as Ext.P15. He stated that his successor in office has submitted the final report in this case. 7. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy examination on the bodies of the deceased, Melwin and Viswajith, was examined as PW23. Exts.P18 and P19 are the postmortem certificates issued after the autopsy examination. PW23 deposed that on 26.12.2015, he conducted the postmortem examination on the body of a male, named Melwin, aged 35 years, involved in Crime No.2028 of 2015 of Pudukad Police Station. Referring to Ext.P18 postmortem report, PW23 deposed that in the autopsy examination of the body of Melwin, he had noticed 39 ante-mortem injuries. Referring to Ext.P18 postmortem certificate PW23 opined that the death was due to the injuries sustained to the head. 8. PW23 further deposed that on the same day, he conducted postmortem examination on the body of a male named Viswajith, aged 36 years, and prepared Ext.P19 postmortem certificate. Referring to Ext.P18 postmortem certificate PW23 opined that the death was due to the injuries sustained to the head. 8. PW23 further deposed that on the same day, he conducted postmortem examination on the body of a male named Viswajith, aged 36 years, and prepared Ext.P19 postmortem certificate. According to him, in the autopsy examination of the body of Viswajith, 30 ante-mortem injuries were noted. Referring to Ext.P19 postmortem certificate, PW23 opined that the death of Viswajith was due to the injuries sustained to the head and chest. When MO3 sword was shown to PW23 Doctor, he deposed that injury No. 12 noted in Ext.P19 could be caused using a weapon like MO3. PW23 further opined that out of the remaining injuries noted in Ext.P19, injury Nos. 18, 25 and 39 can be caused by using a weapon like MO4, MO5 and MO6, injury Nos. 5 and 7 can be caused by MO6 and MO7, injury No.10 can be caused by using weapons like MO5, MO6 and MO7, injury Nos.6 and 7, can be caused by using MO3 and injury Nos. 14, 15 and 16 can be caused by using weapons like MO4 and MO5. He further testified that during the investigation, the investigating officer showed him the weapons of offence and recorded his statement. The ante-mortem injuries noted in the postmortem examination coupled with the expert opinion of the Doctor conclusively establish that the deaths of both the victims were homicides. 9. When the informant in this case was examined as PW1, he provided a vivid account of the events that transpired. According to PW1, on the day prior to the incident, while his wife, Darsana, was returning home from College, the 2nd accused, Saravanan @ Sarath, teased and misbehaved with her. When PW1 questioned the 2nd accused about the same, Saravanan, along with one Krishnakumar, came to his house and assaulted him. A week later, on Christmas eve, while PW1, along with his friends and relatives, were about to sit down for lunch, accused Nos. 1, 2, and 5 entered his house. The 1st accused was armed with a sword. The accused then assaulted him and pushed his brother-in-law down. The 1st accused created a terrifying situation by brandishing the sword. When the inmates of the house raised an alarm, the accused fled the premises. 1, 2, and 5 entered his house. The 1st accused was armed with a sword. The accused then assaulted him and pushed his brother-in-law down. The 1st accused created a terrifying situation by brandishing the sword. When the inmates of the house raised an alarm, the accused fled the premises. At around 4:30 p.m., Anto, the individual who had arranged the rental house for PW1, arrived and warned him that the 2nd accused was a troublemaker in the area. Anto also instructed PW1 to vacate the house and hand over the keys. Subsequently, the parents of his friend Melwin accompanied by his father-in-law left the house. Meanwhile, PW1 and his friends waited in the sit-out area, preparing to vacate the premises. At about 5:00 p.m., the 3rd accused came to PW1’s house and invited him for a compromise talk with the 2nd accused, requesting him to come out to the main road. PW1, along with his friends, accompanied the 3rd accused and found accused Nos. 1 to 5 waiting there. Nearby, four other individuals were seen holding beer bottles. While PW1 was speaking with the 2nd accused, the 1st accused drew a sword from the back of his shirt and hacked his friend, Sreejith. When PW1 intervened to rescue Sreejith, the 1st accused inflicted cut injuries on both his knees and hands. Meanwhile, the 3rd accused assaulted his friend Prasanth (PW2). Accused Nos.4 and 5 beat his friends Viswajith and Melwin with wooden logs, while the 2nd and 3rd accused struck their heads and bodies with iron pipes. Thereafter, the 1st accused hacked Melwin on the neck and struck beneath the left ear of Viswajith. The other accused restrained PW1 and his friends from escaping by encircling them while holding beer bottles. Melwin and Viswajith fell onto the road after being struck by the sword. PW1, along with Prasanth and Sreejith, fled the scene through a nearby property. At that time, his friends Melwin and Viswajith were lying motionless at the scene. Later, one Manikandan and Prasanth transported them to the Government Hospital, Pudukkad. PW1 identified accused Nos. 1 to 5 before the Court. Ext. P1 is the First Information Statement (FIS) given by him. PW1 also identified the weapons used by the assailants which were marked MO3 to MO7. 10. PW2 and PW4 are the other occurrence witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution. PW1 identified accused Nos. 1 to 5 before the Court. Ext. P1 is the First Information Statement (FIS) given by him. PW1 also identified the weapons used by the assailants which were marked MO3 to MO7. 10. PW2 and PW4 are the other occurrence witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution. Both of them testified in harmony with PW1's account regarding the incident. The evidence of PW2 and PW4 reveals that they also sustained injuries in the same incident where their two friends, Melwin and Viswajith lost their lives. PW2 and PW4 deposed that they were also present with PW1 in his house for celebrating Christmas and also when accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 caused chaos after trespassing into the said house while Christmas celebration was going on. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 reveals that after the incident, they went to Pudukkad Government Hospital, and PW1 and PW4 sought medical aid from there. 11. The Doctor, who medically examined PW1 and PW4 immediately after the incident, was examined as PW21. According to PW21, on 25.12.2015, at 7.40 p.m., while she was working at Government Hospital, Pudukkad, she had examined one Sreejith (PW4) and one Midhun (PW1) and issued Exts.P16 and P17 wound certificates. According to PW1, she had noticed the following injuries in the medical examination of PW4:- 1) Incised wound over left side of back 5x3x1 cm 2) Incised wound 2x1x.5 cm over right arm 3) Linear abrasion over right arm 4) Linear abrasion over right side of back 5) Incised wound over right side of back 6) Contusion Right arm, suspected fracture bone. 12. Referring to Ext.P17 wound certificate PW21 deposed of having noticed the following injuries in the medical examination of PW1:- 1) Contused abrasion over middle part forearm. 2) Suspected fracture both bone of forearm. 3) Lacerated wound over elbow with contusion. 4) Suspected fracture at elbow. 13. According to PW21, both the injured came with an alleged history of assault by one Makku, Renju, and Saravanan and other 2 to 9 persons at Parappukkara around 5.00 p.m. Referring to the wound certificate, the Doctor opined that the injuries noticed by her could be caused as alleged. She further testified that after examination and giving necessary first aid, both the injured were referred to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur for better management. She further testified that after examination and giving necessary first aid, both the injured were referred to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur for better management. In response to a question put by the learned defence counsel in cross-examination, PW21 asserted that the injuries noticed by her could not be caused by a fall on a rough surface as there are incised wounds and multiple injuries which cannot be caused by a fall on a rough surface. 14. It is obvious that the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 regarding the alleged occurrence is well corroborated by the above-discussed medical evidence. Certainly, the prosecution had succeeded in showing that immediately after the incident PW1, PW2 and PW4 sought medical aid from the Government Hospital, Pudukkad and from there, they were referred to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur for better treatment. The evidence of the Doctor, who attended PW1 and PW4 at Government Hospital, Pudukkad, would show that she prepared wound certificates on being convinced that, it is a medico-legal case. It is of crucial importance that the injuries noted in the wound certificates correspond to the overt acts attributed to the accused. Being injured witnesses, the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 deserves significant weight and special consideration. In Brahma Swaroop v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 280 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence. The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.” 15. In Balu Sundam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 SC 4691, the Apex Court held that when the evidence of an injured witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the court are required to be kept in mind. In Balu Sundam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 SC 4691, the Apex Court held that when the evidence of an injured witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the court are required to be kept in mind. a) The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. b) Unless it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless a compelling reason exists their statements are not to be discarded lightly. d) The evidence of the injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. e) If there is any exaggeration on immaterial embellishment in the evidence of injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded. 16. Upon scrutinizing the testimonies of the injured witnesses in this case, it is apparent that their evidence is consistent and devoid of material contradictions and substantial omissions. Even after searching cross-examination, their evidence remains unshattered. More notably, even the accused did not have a case that any of the witnesses, in this case, had any animosity or grudge of such a nature towards the accused that would motivate them to falsely implicate in a grave murder case like this. Therefore, we find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of injured witnesses in this case. 17. The motive for the offence alleged is that a few days prior to the incident, the 2nd accused harassed PW1's wife prompting PW1 to confront with 2nd accused, and subsequently enraged by the same, the 2nd accused along with his companions committed the crime. In order to prove the motive, the prosecution has examined the wife of PW1 as PW5. The evidence of PW5 accurately brings out the events that led to this crime. In order to prove the motive, the prosecution has examined the wife of PW1 as PW5. The evidence of PW5 accurately brings out the events that led to this crime. When asked why a complaint was not lodged with respect to the indecent behaviour on the part of the 2nd accused, she replied that they were scared of 2nd accused knowing that he is a goonda. We have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has fully succeeded in proving the motive for the commission of the crime. As it is a case in which there is direct ocular evidence, proof of motive is relatively less crucial. Nevertheless, proving the motive will significantly bolster the prosecution. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously contested the reliability of the identification of the accused made by the prosecution witnesses before the court. The counsel urged that as no identification parade was conducted during the investigation stage, the identification made by the prosecution witnesses first time before the Court cannot be acted upon. It is an admitted fact that no test identification parade was conducted in this case as part of the investigation. However, during the trial, PW1 to PW5 duly identified the accused as the assailants in this case. The overt acts assigned to each and every accused are also meticulously deposed by the witnesses. 19. When assessing the reliability of witness identification, it is pertinent to note that there is no legal requirement mandating corroboration of in-court identification by a prior test identification parade. It is also well settled that failure to hold a test identification parade, which should be held with reasonable dispatch, does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible, rather the same is very much admissible in law. The question is, what is its probative value? Ordinarily, identification of an accused for the first time in court by a witness should not be relied upon, the same being from its very nature, inherently of a weak character, unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. The question is, what is its probative value? Ordinarily, identification of an accused for the first time in court by a witness should not be relied upon, the same being from its very nature, inherently of a weak character, unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. The purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapitulate what a witness has seen earlier, strength or trustworthiness of the evidence of identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in court. If a witness identifies the accused in court for the first time, the probative value of such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal, so much so, that it becomes as a rule of prudence and not law, unsafe to rely on such a piece of evidence. We are fortified in our view by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Admn, AIR 1958 SC 350 , Vaikuntam Chandrappa, AIR 1960 SC 1340 , Budhsen and Another v. State of U.P., (1970) 2 SCC 128 , Kanan v. State of Kerala, (1979) 3 SCC 319 , Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State Of Maharashtra, (1982) 1 SCC 700 , State of H.P v. Lekh Raj, (2000) 1 SCC 247 and Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 1 SCC 358 . 20. Apart from the ordinary rule laid down in the aforesaid decisions, certain exceptions to the same have been carved out where identification of an accused for the first time in court without there being any corroboration whatsoever can form the sole basis for his conviction. In the case of Budhsen (supra), it was observed: “There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness, on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration.” 21. In State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, (1992) 3 SCC 700 , it was laid down that if a witness had any particular reason to remember the identity of an accused, in that event, the case can be brought under the exception and upon solitary evidence of identification of an accused in court for the first time, conviction can be based. In Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaries and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 3 SCC 625 it has been laid down that where the witness had a chance to interact with the accused or that in a case where the witness had an opportunity to notice the distinctive features of the accused which lends assurance to his testimony in court, the evidence of identification in court for the first time by such a witness cannot be thrown away merely because no test identification parade was held. In that case, the accused concerned had a talk with the identifying witnesses for about 7/8 minutes. In these circumstances, the conviction of the accused, on the basis of the sworn testimony of witnesses identifying for the first time in court without the same being corroborated either by previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence, was upheld by this Court. In Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 8 SCC 428 , it was laid down that the absence of test identification parade may not be fatal if the accused is sufficiently described leaving no doubt in the mind of the court regarding his involvement or is arrested on the spot immediately after the occurrence and in either eventuality, the evidence of witnesses identifying the accused for the first time in court can form the basis for conviction without the same being corroborated by any other evidence and, accordingly, conviction of the accused was upheld by this Court. 22. In State of H.P v. Lekh Raj (supra), it was observed as under: “test identification is considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them. There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely without such or other corroboration”. 23. Keeping in mind the above said principle, an examination of evidence in this case reveals that the offence was committed in broad daylight. Contrary to cases involving fleeting encounters, such as hit-and-run incidents, the witnesses in this case got sufficient time to see and identify the assailants from the place of occurrence itself. 23. Keeping in mind the above said principle, an examination of evidence in this case reveals that the offence was committed in broad daylight. Contrary to cases involving fleeting encounters, such as hit-and-run incidents, the witnesses in this case got sufficient time to see and identify the assailants from the place of occurrence itself. The sheer number of injuries inflicted by the accused speaks volumes, indicating that the assailants spent a substantial amount of time committing the offence. Consequently, the faces of the assailants would have been indelibly imprinted in the witnesses' memories during the gruesome attack enabling them to recollect and identify the perpetrators at trial. 24. Furthermore, this is not a case where the assailants were complete strangers to the witnesses, before the incident. The case of PW1 itself is that a few days prior to the incident, the 2nd accused harassed and humiliated his wife and when he questioned about the same, the 2nd accused trespassed into his house and beat on his face. Similarly, PW1, PW2, and PW4 testified about an incident where accused Nos.1, 2, and 5 trespassed into PW1's residence causing chaos while PW1 and his family and friends were celebrating Christmas. The said incident happened a few hours prior to the incident that led to the registration of the present case. Therefore, it is decipherable that PW1, PW2, and PW4 had prior acquaintance with accused Nos. 1, 2, and 5 before seeing them at the crime scene in this case. Moreover, it is the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that prior to the incident, the 3rd accused, who is a local leader of BJP, came to the rented house of PW1 and invited PW1 to the road for a compromise talk with 2nd accused and all the witnesses accompanied 3rd accused to the main road. Similarly, PW3, a local resident who arranged PW1's rented accommodation testified that he saw PW1 and his friends accompanying the 3rd accused to the main road immediately prior to the incident in this case. 25. Therefore, it is evident that the witnesses had an opportunity to see accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 before they were seen at the scene of the incident. Moreover, the 4th accused was unerringly identified by all injured witnesses before the Court, as one of the participants in the criminal act. 25. Therefore, it is evident that the witnesses had an opportunity to see accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 before they were seen at the scene of the incident. Moreover, the 4th accused was unerringly identified by all injured witnesses before the Court, as one of the participants in the criminal act. Therefore, we find no ground to question the credibility of the witnesses' identification of the accused made for the first time in Court. As the said identification is convincing and reliable and the same requires no corroboration by an earlier test identification parade. 26. The evidence of PW27, the investigating officer, reveals that the weapons allegedly used by the accused in this case except the sword (MO3) were seized by him from the place of occurrence itself by describing those items in Ext.P20 scene mahazar. PW1 identified the weapons seized from the crime scene, marked as MO4 to MO7. According to PW27, MO3 sword was recovered as per Ext.P20 recovery mahazar on the basis of the disclosure statement given by A1. The relevant portion in the confession statement given by the 1st accused is marked as Ext.P20(a). The FSL report received after the examination of the articles seized in this case is marked as Ext.P50 through PW27, the Investigating Officer. A perusal of Ext.P50 FSL report shows that the sword (MO3) sent for examination to FSL is shown as item No.1 and the wooden sticks (MO6 and MO7) were shown as item No. 2 and 3 and iron pipes (MO4 and MO5) were shown as item Nos. 4 and 5 in the said report. In the result, portion of the FSL report, it is mentioned that item Nos. 1 to 5 contained human blood. Therefore, the scientific evidence adduced in this case also will lend some assurance to the prosecution case. 27. Referring to the evidence of DW1 and Exts.D10 and D11 medical records, the learned counsel for the appellants urged that though the 1st accused had sustained some injuries in the incident, no explanation has been offered from the side of the prosecution for the said injuries. According to the counsel, the absence of an explanation in that regard itself will demonstrate that the actual incident was either suppressed or not as narrated by the prosecution witnesses. According to the counsel, the absence of an explanation in that regard itself will demonstrate that the actual incident was either suppressed or not as narrated by the prosecution witnesses. We do agree that when DW1 was examined, he deposed that on 29.12.2015, while he was working as a Medical Officer at the Taluk Hospital, Pudukkad, he had examined one M.V. Rajeesh, the 1st accused in this case, and issued Ext.D10 wound certificate. The OP ticket issued from the said hospital was marked as Ext.P11. Referring to Ext.D10, DW2 testified that he had noticed a sutured wound on the knee of the 1st accused. He opined that the said injury was minor in nature and could be caused by an accidental cut. DW2 further deposed that the patient did not narrate the cause of the injury to him. 28. It is true that no explanation, whatsoever, is seen offered from the side of the prosecution for the said injury sustained to the 1st accused. However, it cannot go unnoticed that the 1st accused sought medical aid for the above-said injury after 4 days of the incident. Therefore, nobody could be blamed if it is found that the said injury might have occurred in another incident or accident especially when the 1st accused did not disclose the cause of the injury to the Doctor when he was medically examined. Even though it is believed that the injury was sustained at the time of occurrence in question, we are of the view that it was not imperative on the prosecution to offer an explanation for the said injury as the same was minor in nature. There is no rigid or inflexible rule that all the injuries sustained by the accused must be explained by the prosecution invariably in all cases. Furthermore, minor and superficial injuries do not necessitate an explanation from the prosecution. The failure to explain injuries does not automatically lead to the rejection of the prosecution case. The evidence must be evaluated in its entirety considering the credibility and consistency of the witnesses. Furthermore, minor and superficial injuries do not necessitate an explanation from the prosecution. The failure to explain injuries does not automatically lead to the rejection of the prosecution case. The evidence must be evaluated in its entirety considering the credibility and consistency of the witnesses. Similarly, in Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 145 , the Apex Court held that, “It cannot be held as a matter of law or invariably a rule that whenever the accused sustained an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so the prosecution case should be disbelieved”. In the said decision, the Apex Court reiterated that “where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries on the side of the accused persons are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and consequently the whole of the prosecution case”. We have already found that the injury allegedly sustained by the accused is minor in nature. Even the accused is not having a case that the incident, in this case, occurred while he was exercising his right of private defence. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-explanation of injury allegedly sustained to the 1st accused is not at all fatal and the same is not a reason to doubt the credibility of the prosecution case which stands proved by the convincing and unimpeachable evidence of the witnesses. 29. Though the learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out some lapses in the investigation like the failure to lift the fingerprint from the weapons of offence, non-recovery of dress materials worn by the injured at the time of the incident etc., the said lapses are only trivial in nature and the same need not influence the mind of a court so as to throw away the convincing eye witness's account regarding the incident. By a series of judicial pronouncements, it is well settled that glitches in the investigation or fault in the investigation alone are not a reason to acquit an accused. If the prosecution case is fully established from the testimony of the eyewitness, the illegality or irregularity in the investigation will certainly pale into insignificance. By a series of judicial pronouncements, it is well settled that glitches in the investigation or fault in the investigation alone are not a reason to acquit an accused. If the prosecution case is fully established from the testimony of the eyewitness, the illegality or irregularity in the investigation will certainly pale into insignificance. In State of Karnataka v. Yarappa Reddy, 1993 KLT 496 SC, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: “Conclusion of the court in a case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It can be a guiding principle that, as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well settled that, even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious, the rest of evidence must be scrutinised independently of the impact of it. Otherwise criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have predominance and per-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made the casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in a case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit in investigating officers suspicious role in the case”. In light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the minor lapses in the investigation, as highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellants, hold no material consequence. 30. However, we are not in a position to accept the finding of the trial court that an offence punishable under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 is proved against the accused. Section 27(1) of the Arms Act provides punishment for the contravention of the provision contained under Section 5(1)(a) of the Arms Act. As per Section 5(1)(a) of the Arms Act, “No person shall use any firearms of any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of Arms Act and Rules made thereunder”. Section 27(1) provides punishment for the contravention of the above-mentioned provision contained u/s. 5 of the Arms Act. Section 27(1) provides punishment for the contravention of the above-mentioned provision contained u/s. 5 of the Arms Act. 31. Keeping in mind the above, while coming to the fact in this case, it could be seen that, the weapons allegedly used in this case will definitely come under the purview of “Arms” provided under item No. V in schedule 1 framed under Rule 3 of Arms Rules, 2016. In view of Section 4 of the Arms Act, in a notified area, without licence, a person cannot acquire, possess or carry arms of such class or description, as may be specified in that notification. Virtually, a licence is required to acquire, possess or carry arms only in a notified area. Therefore, as long as the area wherein the arm used is not a notified area, an offence u/s. 27 of the Arms Act will not lie. In this regard, we are fortified by the decision in Jinu v. State of Kerala, 2017(5) KHC 565 , the Hon'ble High Court held that, “As long as the area wherein the sword is used is not a notified area, the offence u/s. 27 will not lie.” 32. The said position was reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court in Stephen v. State of Kerala, 2018(3) KLT 920 . In the case at hand, absolutely there are no materials to show that the arms were used by the accused in a notified area. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the offence alleged under the Arms Act is not made out in this case. 33. The evidence, in this case, reveals that the offences alleged in this case were committed in the prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly in which accused Nos. 1 to 5 were having a membership. Specific overt acts are seen assigned to accused Nos. 1 to 5. The evidence of the Doctor who conducted the autopsy examination on the body of the deceased reveals that the antemortem injuries noted in the postmortem examination correspond to the overt acts attributed to the accused. The evidence in this case reveals that both the deceased were dealt with in a beastly manner by the accused. We have already found that the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW4, being injured witnesses, deserve special consideration and weight. The evidence in this case reveals that both the deceased were dealt with in a beastly manner by the accused. We have already found that the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW4, being injured witnesses, deserve special consideration and weight. Their evidence is convincing and reliable and is well corroborated by the medical evidence adduced in this case. Generally, injured eyewitnesses would not lie as rather than falsely implicating random persons they would like to see their actual assailants behind the bar. The prompt lodging of Ext.P1 FIR also rules out any chance of exaggerations, embellishments, and consultations. The medical as well as the scientific evidence will lend sufficient corroboration to ocular evidence, reinforcing its credibility. A scrutiny of the evidence reveals that none of the five exemptions enumerated in Section 300 of the IPC are applicable in this case. On the other hand, the evidence collected clearly points to the fact that it is a pre-planned and meticulously executed murder. Hence, we concur with the Trial court's finding that the accused are guilty of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC. The sentences imposed in this case are also fitting and commensurate with the gravity of offence committed. However, the accused are not found guilty of offences punishable under Section 27(1) of Arms Act and the conviction and sentence for the said offence stand set aside. Resultantly, we confirm the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 600/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and dismiss the appeal.